Days of Future Past is Prog, as far as I'm concerned.
Days of Future Past is Prog, as far as I'm concerned.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
A great book "English Progressive Rock And The Counterculture" is a great read on this Progressive Rock debate by Ed Macon.
As far as I'm concerned, the "experts" just like the KC mythos more. It makes a better story. They emerged fully-formed with a killer debut album.
OTOH, The Nice started as a backup band for a soul singer. Their story is "messy". It doesn't have the zing and pizzazz of the legend of King Crimson (TM).
And, then everyone just repeats this received wisdom.
Hardly. I consider it prog. Just like others would. Just like you wouldn't. Who's to say YOUR FUCKING OPINION has more merit than anyone else's?
You stated that MY OPINION wasn't true. Hello? It's my opinion, dummy. How can it not be true? Because you don't agree with it?
Then, why say it? You could have said, "The sun is a giant taffy apple, as far as I'm concerned" and it would have contributed just as much to this debate.
Boy, it seems like they're all out in full force tonight.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
Ron, here's my "take", in accordance with my experience.
Initially, the term "progressive" served as an adjective, that is, to describe; it was not coined as a noun intended to name a specific genre or style of rock music. It came into common usage circa '66/'67 in reference to many stylistically diverse bands that nonetheless shared an artistic perspective that emphasized "moving the music forward", beyond the formal and aesthetic constraints of both AM radio formats and the then-current pop/rock conventions. Hence, "progressive" described multiple approaches rather than naming a singular musical style.
The nominal term "Progressive" (later "Prog", for short) displaced "Art Rock" in the mid-ish '70s and named a musical genre that included a variety of similar-but-different bands sub-categorically swimming in the same stylistic waters, so to speak.
For example, ItCotKC was both adjectivally "progressive" and nominally "Progressive" rock. Ten or so years later the first Marillion LP was only nominally "Progressive". It was orthodox rather than "progressive;" Marillion essentially mined the already long-established "Progressive" (Prog) rock style (of the "symph" variety).
As I mentioned, I first heard the term “progressive” in ’66 to describe East-West. Yet, I would submit that virtually no one here would consider that album to be “Prog”, and to my knowledge it’s never been a “Featured Album.” It’s not a particularly obscure album, and at the time the title song was a staple of the new “underground”/”progressive” FM stations. In short, it was “progressive” but not “Progressive” rock (later, “Prog”).
Last edited by mogrooves; 11-07-2013 at 03:01 PM.
Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes
Only by vague association. Musically, most "Canterbury" traces were gone by the time of their second album (Unrest in 1974), and the music herein (such as "Ruins") moved far beyond *everything* else that was being advocated by other British "progressive" groups of the day - yes, including GG or KC. The band also continued to develop exponentially, meaning that by the time of their final release (Western Culture in 1978) they were arguably the most musically radical rock group at large. Henry Cow were thus also the most consistently progressing band to speak of, yet the modern "prog" concept generally withholds an ideal from way behind what this band accomplished.
I agree with everything mogrooves said. Actual progressive rock should by historical as well as semantic standards be progressive - in one fashion or another. I suppose the question remains - "in what fashion?".
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
I caught that bit, and I knew instantly that someone would start a thread about it.One of them refers to The Experience as something along the lines of "The world's hottest progressive rock band."
I've been saying the same thing for years. I don't remember when the term Art/Rock stopped being used or when Prog started being used in its place. I do remember that "symphonic/prog" (all the usuals: Yes, ELP, Genesis) was called ART-ROCK back then. "Progressive" was a term used for any kind of music, especially jazz, fusion, latin, classical, avant, whatever. Today "art rock" is a label like "prog" and it usually doesn't include Yes, ELP, and blah blah blah. Nobody called Chicago "art/rock" or "progressive/rock" in 1970, they were "jazz/rock" (as far as I remember). But they certainly were a progressive (adjective) band in 1969/70 (same with Led Zeppelin, Santana, and many other)."Progressive" (later "Prog", for short) displaced "Art Rock" in the mid-ish '70s
Hm. ...Passed. But yes, I agree - and it was a crucial influence on early KC. Parts of the debut Nice, PHarum and PFloyd are also progressive rock to-come. But then again, so was Absolutely Free and Pet Sounds and a couple of the tracks on Love's second album (January 1967).
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
Bookmarks