Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
"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/
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/
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bookmarks