Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 477

Thread: Proto prog thread

  1. #101
    Progga mogrooves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Past
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Man View Post
    I never thought of Genesis as proto prog; not even "Trespass."
    They weren't. Full-on, but early, Prog.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dark Elf View Post
    ...any reason The Nice or The Moody Blues were not included?
    I asked the same question when we were putting the list together but don't recall why they were omitted, unless it was because others considered them "full-on" Prog (which I don't).
    Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes

  2. #102
    Moderator Poisoned Youth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Nothern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,022
    Quote Originally Posted by mogrooves View Post
    I asked the same question when we were putting the list together but don't recall why they were omitted, unless it was because others considered them "full-on" Prog (which I don't).
    From what I recall, it ultimately came down to the same issues that emerge between "P" and "p". Once "proto-prog" is interpreted literally, then it begins to include artists that were not intended and dilutes the original intent - which had more to do with a sound-style-aesthetic (and somewhat trapped in a specific period of time) as far back as I have ever seen it discussed.
    WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.

  3. #103
    Member Digital_Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Philly burbs PA
    Posts
    5,395
    Quote Originally Posted by mogrooves View Post
    They weren't. Full-on, but early, Prog.



    I asked the same question when we were putting the list together but don't recall why they were omitted, unless it was because others considered them "full-on" Prog (which I don't).
    The Nice were full on prog imo. I really don't see what makes them proto. The Moodies on the other hand I can see people thinking were proto though. Then again I don't really consider early Pink Floyd to be proto either but rather an early example of space prog or maybe psych prog. I kind of agree with Cozy here. It's more about a certain sound than just bands right before a certain cut off date. That's why many of the albums(if not most) are actually from post 1969. I suppose before that the emphasis would have been more on psych.

  4. #104
    Member nosebone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Stamford, Ct.
    Posts
    1,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisoned Youth View Post
    From what I recall, it ultimately came down to the same issues that emerge between "P" and "p". Once "proto-prog" is interpreted literally, then it begins to include artists that were not intended and dilutes the original intent - which had more to do with a sound-style-aesthetic (and somewhat trapped in a specific period of time) as far back as I have ever seen it discussed.

    Summed up nicely sir Coze!
    no tunes, no dynamics, no nosebone

  5. #105
    Progga mogrooves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Past
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Man View Post
    The Nice were full on prog imo. I really don't see what makes them proto.
    I submit that you've answered your own question, to wit:

    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Man View Post
    ...the emphasis would have been more on psych.
    Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes

  6. #106
    Member Digital_Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Philly burbs PA
    Posts
    5,395
    Quote Originally Posted by mogrooves View Post
    I submit that you've answered your own question, to wit:
    I will refrain from commenting further until I hear more of their music.

  7. #107
    Proto-prog is a very confusing term and it doesn't mean same thing for different people. As far as I remember, we referred to the list that Chris posted on the first page as "early-prog", NOT proto-prog. Early- didn't mean early 1970s, it meant "raw, not fully developed". We were going after lesser known bands with specific vibe, the bands that 12-13 years ago didn't get too much "airtime" on PE. Not sure why some of the albums made it to the list (Procol Harum, Colosseum, Traffic). If it was up to me, they wouldn't be included.
    Proto-prog aka protagonist of progressive rock were the bands that predated the progressive rock era (before 1969): The Beatles, Procol Harum, Moody Blues, the Nice, the bands that started blending rock with classical music, use strings in the arrangements for the first time, first use of mellotron etc. We were not after these bands, that's why you don't see on the list the Nice or Moody Blues.
    I agree that some of the albums included on the list are full-blown progressive rock albums (for example: Gnidrolog "Lady Lake" or Egg "Polite Force"), but.. they still have this raw and unique vibe that we were going after.

  8. #108
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    6,091
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dark Elf View Post
    I didn't bother to delve through 4 pages of commentary, but any reason The Nice or The Moody Blues were not included?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dark Elf View Post
    It's odd really, because I would not consider Traffic or Procol Harum obscure at all. And the Moodies and Nice were certainly on the same peer level as Procol and Traffic. I would also probably add Pretty Thing's S.F. Sorrow from 1968 as a quintessential proto-prog album -- mellotron, sitars and all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisoned Youth View Post
    From what I recall, it ultimately came down to the same issues that emerge between "P" and "p". Once "proto-prog" is interpreted literally, then it begins to include artists that were not intended and dilutes the original intent - which had more to do with a sound-style-aesthetic (and somewhat trapped in a specific period of time) as far back as I have ever seen it discussed.
    Huge and difficult behind-the-scenes dicussions (and disputes) when defining and including proto-prog in PA

    Some collabs thought it should circle in all of those early (and relatively) unsuccessful albums that were reissued in the 90's (in parts by Repertoire), while others thought proto-prog should pertain to bands that had released prog albums before Crim's ITCOTCK... The latter argued that this was prototype prog. The former thought Spring and Fantasy were the ideal bands to examplify p/p, while the latter thought Nice/Procol/Moodies/Purple Mk1/Vanilla Fudge/Spirit/Airplane/Lovecraft were the best examples of P/P


    Remember PA's way the DB is built upon... We cannot have more than one "sub-genre" tagged to an artiste

    It turns out the latter ones won the debate and the timeline more or less won over the UK early 70's raw sound.... However, the proto-prog thing started to get dismantled once Hendrix, Beatles and The Who were added (for whatever good timeline reasons), but Nice, Procol & Moodies were later changed to other genres, partly because some thought that proto-prog wasn't a full-blown prog subgenre
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    Prog fans have failed to define prog, yet alone proto prog. Sounds like anything with a folky vibe with echo effects and maybe a Hammond or Mellotron get included?
    I do not associate proto-prog with music vibe necessary.

    My simplistic view is that....proto prog = garage (band) prog

    IMHO a real difference between proto-prog and what people call a prog is a level of music sophistication; arrangements, virtuosity, musical instruments used...

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by yoyiceu View Post
    Don't know if you've seen this, but there are two fairly long videos of Gracious! playing at the Isle of Wight on YouTube...



    Okay....... this is just really strange...Lol! Thank you for posting this. So odd to see this band perform.

  11. #111
    Progga mogrooves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Past
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by enigmatic View Post
    As far as I remember, we referred to the list that Chris posted on the first page as "early-prog", NOT proto-prog.
    Not so; it was very definitely a "proto-" designation. I introduced--to no avail--the notion of "early Prog" to distinguish seminal exemplars of full-on Prog from the proto stuff.
    Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by mogrooves View Post
    Not so; it was very definitely a "proto-" designation. I introduced--to no avail--the notion of "early Prog" to distinguish seminal exemplars of full-on Prog from the proto stuff.
    The source of our disagreement is very simple - our definitions of proto-prog are different. Your definition: "I imagine "proto-Prog" as a kind of ur-Prog, a music still in a state of becoming rather than being. At the "proto" stage the music is not quite walking upright yet; that development occurs with the arrival of the fully erect ItCotKC".
    It matches my definition of "early-prog" - raw, not fully developed progressive rock. Different terms, same meaning.

    My definition of proto-prog is closer to PA's definition of this term: "The denomination Proto Prog comes from the combination of two words, Proto from the Greek The earliest,. and Prog which as we know is a short term for Progressive Rock, so as it's name clearly indicates, refers to the earliest form of Progressive Rock or Progressive Rock in embryo-nary state. These bands normally were formed and released albums before Progressive Rock had completely developed.
    And here is the list of the bands considered as proto-prog:
    http://progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=37

    You won't find on this list: Cressida, Marsupilami, Gracious, Fantasy, Czar etc.

  13. #113
    Member Digital_Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Philly burbs PA
    Posts
    5,395
    Progarchives doesn't view The Nice, The Moody Blues, Procol Harum, Pink Floyd(who obviously recorded albums before ITCOTCK) or Family as proto prog either.

  14. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Man View Post
    Progarchives doesn't view The Nice, The Moody Blues, Procol Harum, Pink Floyd(who obviously recorded albums before ITCOTCK) or Family as proto prog either.
    Then....what are they? Did they spring fully prog from their first recordings?
    "And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision."

    Occasional musical musings on https://darkelffile.blogspot.com/

  15. #115
    Member Digital_Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Philly burbs PA
    Posts
    5,395
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dark Elf View Post
    Then....what are they? Did they spring fully prog from their first recordings?
    No, but neither did Yes or Genesis. They evolved. That's what bands do.

  16. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Man View Post
    No, but neither did Yes or Genesis. They evolved. That's what bands do.
    Then...they presented music in the prog sense from an evolutionary standpoint prior to the generally accepted time frame that most everyone considers as the advent of "true prog" (the release of ItCotCK). I would not include Genesis or Yes (first albums released in 1969) in the same breath as The Moody Blues, Procol Harum and The Nice, as the albums from these three that are identifiable as containing prog elements and even fully prog movements were released in 1967 and 1968. Hence, they would be proto-prog. Or Ur-prog as a previous poster mentioned.

    "Proto" in any dictionary means “first,” “foremost,” "initial stage", “earliest form of." It cannot occur after the fact, otherwise you fundamentally alter the definition and it no longer applies. So, saying that The Moody Blues, Procol Harum or The Nice are not proto-prog indicates they are indeed prog, and thus the timeline moves back from 1969 to 68 or even 67. The rest is semantic gymnastics.
    "And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision."

    Occasional musical musings on https://darkelffile.blogspot.com/

  17. #117
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by enigmatic View Post
    The source of our disagreement is very simple - our definitions of proto-prog are different. Your definition: "I imagine "proto-Prog" as a kind of ur-Prog, a music still in a state of becoming rather than being. At the "proto" stage the music is not quite walking upright yet; that development occurs with the arrival of the fully erect ItCotKC".
    It matches my definition of "early-prog" - raw, not fully developed progressive rock. Different terms, same meaning.

    My definition of proto-prog is closer to PA's definition of this term: "The denomination Proto Prog comes from the combination of two words, Proto from the Greek The earliest,. and Prog which as we know is a short term for Progressive Rock, so as it's name clearly indicates, refers to the earliest form of Progressive Rock or Progressive Rock in embryo-nary state. These bands normally were formed and released albums before Progressive Rock had completely developed.
    I look at it as more settling into a specific definition. Which, while it can't written down clearly, has a quality of, "I know it when I hear it, or when I don't hear it." Very roughly speaking, the difference is a matter of polish.

    Proto-prog can be rough, is often experimental, and could be described as the sound of bands pushing their own ambitions and abilities, sometimes to the breaking point. It's full of strange, rackety attempts at things that even the bands themselves might not have entirely known just what they were trying to accomplish. Second Hand's odd take on R&B, for example. In some ways, proto is the British equivalent of San Francisco psych - although it sounds quite different because the musicians had quite different backgrounds.

    Full-on prog, in contrast, is rarely rough (though there are exceptions, like Peter Hamill's contribution to VDGG). Both the playing and writing tend to be at a higher level, but less experimental, and the musicians tend to be both more clear about their intentions, and better able to accomplish what they set out to do. For a couple of obvious examples: Genesis may have extended the form of their songs far beyond any kind of usual AABA, but they knew exactly what they were doing. Yes might not have known quite as much about composition, but they did know when something sounded right, and kept on trying until it was.

    Or, at least, that's my opinion.

  18. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeuhlmate View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recommended_Records 1978

    Due to the low pound I bought most of my prog as mailorder in England during the mid seventies and forth, it wasnt ReR (before later) cant remember the name of the place, but they sent out a large catalogue.
    Ah, Chris Cutler...

  19. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by enigmatic View Post
    The source of our disagreement is very simple - our definitions of proto-prog are different. Your definition: "I imagine "proto-Prog" as a kind of ur-Prog, a music still in a state of becoming rather than being. At the "proto" stage the music is not quite walking upright yet; that development occurs with the arrival of the fully erect ItCotKC".
    It matches my definition of "early-prog" - raw, not fully developed progressive rock. Different terms, same meaning.

    My definition of proto-prog is closer to PA's definition of this term: "The denomination Proto Prog comes from the combination of two words, Proto from the Greek The earliest,. and Prog which as we know is a short term for Progressive Rock, so as it's name clearly indicates, refers to the earliest form of Progressive Rock or Progressive Rock in embryo-nary state. These bands normally were formed and released albums before Progressive Rock had completely developed.
    And here is the list of the bands considered as proto-prog:
    http://progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=37

    (..)
    I'm afraid that Progarchives.com considered "proto-prog" bands as non-prog bands, i.e. as per PA, "proto-prog" bands are non-prog bands that "made prog possible" as they had "significant influence" on some "full-blown" prog bands.
    Of course, PA's prog gods are there to decide which non-prog bands had influence on prog bands; the interviews with the artists, and other historical sources, don't play any role. Just for example, not so long ago, one of my countryman suggested The Velvet Underground to be added to their proto-prog section due to the interview where Holger Czukay explicitly said that The Velvet Underground's aesthetic has a decisive influence on the birth of krautrock. And you know what? The thread was immediately locked by the admin; the reason for that is PA's huge anglocentric attitude regarding additions of proto-prog bands ("proto" as per their definition, of course) from the U.S, so they don't respect their own definition, and they put in "proto" section only the bands they want. Thus, PA' "proto-prog" list is not valid even by their own merits.
    Last edited by Svetonio; 01-02-2017 at 02:23 AM.

  20. #120
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    6,091
    Quote Originally Posted by enigmatic View Post
    My definition of proto-prog is closer to PA's definition of this term: "The denomination Proto Prog comes from the combination of two words, Proto from the Greek The earliest,. and Prog which as we know is a short term for Progressive Rock, so as it's name clearly indicates, refers to the earliest form of Progressive Rock or Progressive Rock in embryo-nary state. These bands normally were formed and released albums before Progressive Rock had completely developed.
    And here is the list of the bands considered as proto-prog:
    http://progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=37

    You won't find on this list: Cressida, Marsupilami, Gracious, Fantasy, Czar etc.
    although I would not use PA as any kind of bibble regarding the genres and definitions as it is quite imperfect, and therefore the band luists are alsi imperfect

    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Man View Post
    Progarchives doesn't view The Nice, The Moody Blues, Procol Harum, Pink Floyd(who obviously recorded albums before ITCOTCK) or Family as proto prog either.
    I explained why they were changed, but all of these bands first started in proto-prog (or were moved at its creation), but moved out later

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dark Elf View Post
    Then...they presented music in the prog sense from an evolutionary standpoint prior to the generally accepted time frame that most everyone considers as the advent of "true prog" (the release of ItCotCK). I would not include Genesis or Yes (first albums released in 1969) in the same breath as The Moody Blues, Procol Harum and The Nice, as the albums from these three that are identifiable as containing prog elements and even fully prog movements were released in 1967 and 1968. Hence, they would be proto-prog. Or Ur-prog as a previous poster mentioned.

    "Proto" in any dictionary means “first,” “foremost,” "initial stage", “earliest form of." It cannot occur after the fact, otherwise you fundamentally alter the definition and it no longer applies. So, saying that The Moody Blues, Procol Harum or The Nice are not proto-prog indicates they are indeed prog, and thus the timeline moves back from 1969 to 68 or even 67. The rest is semantic gymnastics.
    Well, PA collabs have manifested to M@X (site owner) their dissatisfaction with the one genre only situation on which the site was thought out in '03, but it is impossible to change (according to M@ without risking the whole structure to crumble...

    We did ask himto try and see if he could add a genre-per-album system (like JMA and MMA are built upon in the 10's), and he said a few years ago he'd look into it...We're still waiting
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

  21. #121
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    6,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Svetonio View Post
    I'm afraid that Progarchives.com considered "proto-prog" bands as non-prog bands, i.e. as per PA, "proto-prog" bands are non-prog bands that "made prog possible" as they had "significant influence" on some "full-blown" prog bands.
    Of course, PA's prog gods are there to decide which non-prog bands had influence on prog bands; the interviews with the artists, and other historical sources, don't play any role. Just for example, not so long ago, one of my countryman suggested The Velvet Underground to be added to their proto-prog section due to the interview where Holger Czukay explicitly said that The Velvet Underground's aesthetic has a decisive influence on the birth of krautrock. And you know what? The thread was immediately locked by the admin; the reason for that is PA's huge anglocentric attitude regarding additions of proto-prog bands ("proto" as per their definition, of course) from the U.S, so they don't respect their own definition, and they put in "proto" section only the bands they want. Thus, PA' "proto-prog" list is not valid even by their own merits.
    TBH, behind the scenes discussions were heated (not because of whom the suggestions was from ), but one of the points was that VU's inclusion would open the door to many other bands being proposed to inclusion. Others suggested that VU was mostly about posture the Warhol heritage)more than musical merits.

    As for your buddy's proposal thread, you can see that the second post lists a few other threads (one of them dating from the year the site was created) were VU was proposed well before hand...

    Do you think we waited until your (KS's) suggestion in 2015 to discuss VU's merits?

    BTW, at first, I was relatively against VU's addition (it was too soon to include them, because there were so many more to include at the time), but around 07 or 08, I was for it.
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

  22. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Trane View Post
    TBH, behind the scenes discussions were heated (not because of whom the suggestions was from ), but one of the points was that VU's inclusion would open the door to many other bands being proposed to inclusion. Others suggested that VU was mostly about posture the Warhol heritage)more than musical merits.

    As for your buddy's proposal thread, you can see that the second post lists a few other threads (one of them dating from the year the site was created) were VU was proposed well before hand...

    Do you think we waited until your (KS's) suggestion in 2015 to discuss VU's merits?

    BTW, at first, I was relatively against VU's addition (it was too soon to include them, because there were so many more to include at the time), but around 07 or 08, I was for it.
    I think that Czukay it's still much relevant persona than PA' "big shots" when he says which band was the most influential on Can.
    Also, many bands are added to the PA' "proto" category based on way less explicit statements, as well as inclusions based just on "opinions" of the prog gods from progarchives.com

    "(...) What were Can's main influences from the world of rock, as opposed to classical and avant-garde?

    Everybody a little bit different. But mainly I would say the influence, for me, of [the] Beatles and Velvet Underground was most important. The Velvet Underground especially. They had something achieved which others didn't achieve. Even Jimi Hendrix didn't achieve that. One could have the opinion that this group is not able to play really properly right. They didn't get the right rhythm, they couldn't make a real tight rhythm. But the music was incredibly convincing. And this feeling made us encouraged, actually, to go on with rock music in general, instead of, let's say, making avant-garde academic music. Academic music was somehow finished by the audiences. Not by the musical idea itself. But we liked to do something without notation. We didn't want to read music off papers. We really tried to make instant compositions from the very beginning. This Can tradition actually achieved [this] very much when we played live." (...)


    http://www.krautrock.com/articles/int_czukay.html
    Last edited by Svetonio; 01-02-2017 at 05:31 AM.

  23. #123
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    6,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Svetonio View Post
    I think that Czukay it's still much relevant persona than PA' "big shots" when he says which band was the most influential on Can.
    Also, many bands are added to the PA' "proto" category based on way less explicit statements, as well as inclusions based just on "opinions" of the prog gods from progarchives.com

    You're again letting your hatred of PA Admins (who banned you for many good and repeated reasons) get the better of you...

    If PA is going to include all influences of prog artistes, we'll have to enter Mozart, Beethoven, Stockhauzen, J Cage, Bartok, Ellington and Stravinsky, etc... "We" got to draw the line somewhere, and TBH, VU is just behind the line, even though I wouldn't mind their inclusion.


    ==========


    BTW, three of the four Can german members were significantly older (born before WW2) than most of the late 60's prog explorers.
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

  24. #124
    Member Zeuhlmate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    7,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Svetonio View Post
    Ah, Chris Cutler...
    ReR was Cutler, but before I discovered ReR there was a different company I bought my Yes, Soft Machine, Gong, Focus, a.o. from.
    Just cant remember the name.

  25. #125
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Trane View Post
    You're again letting your hatred of PA Admins (who banned you for many good and repeated reasons) get the better of you...
    (...)
    Please do not, in the absence of arguments, to say such lies. I've never shown hatred toward PA big shots; rather, it is the other way around.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •