Bah. You tried to relativize their then-revolutionary, *progressive* sound with such miserable non-arguments.Originally Posted by Baribrotzer
No synths? Not enough "virtuosity"?
Well, I suggest to you, and your like-minded people, to proclaim Close to the Edge for "the first full-blown prog album", lol
Last edited by Svetonio; 01-03-2017 at 03:05 AM.
You didn't bother to read my full post, did you? I said some people could say that. I also said that I disagreed with it. And you're right, those are poor arguments - but I've seen very similar ones made by some here.
Oh, sorry.
But anyway - for those people "who could say that", I suggest to proclaim CttE as "the first full-blown prog album", because if The Nice was "proto", than the 60s King Crimson was also "proto" due to their debut album with a lack of virtuosity a la CttE.
p.s. Those early prog albums are also "full-blown prog" - especially in the merits of the 60s.
Well to the old list's defence, in the 90's the " proto-prog genre" did sometimes mean those obscure UK bands that had only one or two albums (generally on the following labels: Dawn, Neon, Vertigo , Harvest, etc...) but I'd tend to say that was through catalogue mail vendors that this happened.
And you're right, the "error" keeps popping up here, bur I won't cast stones at them, because I did it for years as well.
indeed...
[B
To me, much of psychedelic rock is proto-prog
Bands like SRC made three very good albums, though none having long songs and digressing from the standard song format, but it's close enough to an early prog format.
it does happen!!!
Well, yes, Thoughts is definitely prog in retrospect.... but it was first psych
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
UGH, I hate this place sometimes.
Can we for ONE TIME please focus on the music being presented instead of arguing about genre terms? Chris (nosebone) presented a list of albums to get a discussion going about the music on the list, not to get caught up in a no-win-geek-fest about "what is" and "what is not". Does the context of a discussion mean nothing here?
In the end, all of these discussions about genres are by no means going to ever be perfect or correct. There will ALWAYS be flaws. But let's remember, most of these genre names and tags were invented by music fans as (an imperfect) way to identify the music they were hearing - NOT by record labels, the artists, or leading journalists.
WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.
Although I take it that my category 'premature Prog with a big P' then will be discarded?
Listening to this one now after a long while. It was actually this original list that piqued my interest again in Krokodil. Before that time, I actually had their first album but it never quite grabbed me. An Invisible World is a nice trip, mixing heavy rock and psych with sometimes eclectic instrumentation (sitar, harmonica, flute, etc.).
WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.
I know. I was mostly kidding, but you can't fault a guy for trying.
There I was age 14 or 15 in the early 70's trying to entertain a room full of hippies with my little Rare Bird albums. Hippies who were well into their early ,20's. Their reaction was ignorant..... "Hey kid, this sounds like ELP that's all". . They were snobby music connoisseurs of a society . Not unlike the gathering at Isle of Wight in '70. So it was difficult . Termed Proto Prog , it was a style of the underground that I feverishly collected for years.
The problem is, many people look to PE as an authority on Progressive Rock. When revisionist pap is put out on here, the risk is run that it will take root and become widely accepted, especially by noobs. It's all Academic, so if you don't care about things like Musicology or Music History, then you won't be bothered by any of that. However, I can point to Progarchives. It would take an army of musicologists a month to undo the damage they've done. It would be nice if we could aim higher, but perhaps that's just a pipe dream.
Well, to be the one disgusting fanboy here, I see no way in which The Beatles aren't the ultimate proto-prog band. And I'd say it starts with Revolver but carries over into Sgt. Pepper and MMT. I'd include George's B-side "It's All Too Much" and "It's Only a Northern Song".
For that which is not,
there is no coming into being
and for that which is,
there is no ceasing to be;
yea of both of these the lookers into truth have seen an end.
Bhagavad Gita
Alright, so what do you want to call the stuff on the list?
Early second tier prog?
Last edited by nosebone; 01-03-2017 at 01:25 PM.
no tunes, no dynamics, no nosebone
I've been watching this thread with interest and some amusement regarding the categorization of the music in the original list. I was fortunate to have lived through this era in my early 20's and I recall very well the euphoric sense of anything being possible during this 'progressive music' era. Make no mistake, the music in the list was considered 'progressive music' at the time; the more dismissive term 'prog rock' seemed to come later via the unsympathetic musical press and was applied to what they considered to be the 'worst offenders' - ELP, Yes, Genesis etc. It may be 'proto-prog' now, but whatever it's called, the music in the list represents some of the very best of what was available then, much of which has not been surpassed to this day.
I would like to add the following suggestions to the list:
Ange - 1st 4 albums
Andromeda - S/T
Argent - S/T and 'Ring Of Hands'
Barclay James Harvest - S/T and 'Once Again'
CMU - 'Space Cabaret'
Curved Air - 'Air Conditioning' and S/T
East Of Eden - 'Snafu'
Keef Hartley Band - 'Halfbreed'
Home - S/T and 'The Alchemist'
If - S/T
Macdonald and Giles - S/T
Mogul Thrash - S/T
Morgan - 'Nova Solis'
Pretty Things - 'Parachute'
Spirogyra - all 3 albums
Stone The Crows - S/T and 'Ode To John Law'
Supersister - all
Supertramp - S/T (unlike anything else they've done)
Trees - 'Garden Of Jane Delawney' and 'On The Shore'
For some reason the band Audience didn't make the original list either.
Yes, but not "Progressive" [referring to what is now called "Prog," for short].
The term you cite was deployed to describe a host of stylistically differentiated rock groups that shared the intention to break out of the constraints of then-current pop modalities, a shared ideological perspective that privileged "moving the music forward/past" the formal and aesthetic constraints of Top-40 radio formats and pop music conventions. Accordingly, the term "progressive" described multiple, differentiated stylistic approaches to music-making rather than designating/naming a singular style/genre, that we recognize and now call "Prog."
Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes
Yes - I agree with you entirely. I have never considered 'progressive music' (rock/folk/whatever) to be a style, but an approach incorporating all of the elements that you mention. Which is why it was such an enlightened and inspiring period.
I just get dismayed when all of 'progressive music' gets tarred with the 'prog' brush, which happens (mostly outside of this forum).
I think he means something else, though: That the late-Sixties designation "progressive" comprised popular music that went beyond the Top-40 format current at the time. That was the definition. Some of it was what we'd call "prog" or "proto-prog". The bulk of it wasn't. Folk-rock, roots-rock, jazz-rock, San Francisco psych, country-rock, blues bands, jam bands, certain soul artists - some of each got called "progressive" because, at heart, it consisted of popular music done as art, not commercial product. So "progressive" would include Cream, the Dead, Isaac Hayes, Dylan's "Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands", Velvet Underground, The Band, and all sorts of stuff that WAS "progressive" by the definition back then, but we wouldn't include at all.
Nope, it wasn't.
No, the vast majority of these bands did not even issue singles, let alone get them in the Top 40. In most cases, their LPs didn't sell well either - most of these bands operated well under the radar.
I think what you're referring to is the fact that the Top 40 and album charts were becoming more varied and eclectic during this period, and a number of less mainstream artists were having unexpected successes. But ultimately these did not last.
This is an extremely important article regarding the birth of progressive rock:
"Revolution starts with a solitary idea that only builds into purpose when shared with others. In early 1967 three Scotsmen started a revolution when they played a legendary residency at the Marquee club in London. The trio was Ian Ellis (bass and lead vocals), Harry Hughes (drums) and a maverick keyboard player Billy Ritchie. Together they were called 1-2-3.
As a band 1-2-3 had a short lifespan—lasting around two years from 1965-1967. Yet, their impact—their musical idea—was remarkable as it spawned a whole new musical genre called Prog Rock. At the heart of their success was the unique talents of keyboard wizard Ritchie who invented this strange new soundscape that influenced the likes of Keith Emerson, Greg Lake, the Moody Blues, Jon Anderson, and Robert Fripp. Among their fans was Jimi Hendrix and a young David Bowie who wrote a letter highlighting this new sound to the music press.
1-2-3 were loved by musicians but loathed by some of their “hippie” audience. Their impact was immediate. They were signed by Beatles manager Brian Epstein to his talent group NEMS—but his untimely death in August 1967 left 1-2-3 open to the fickle fate of the music business. While other musicians quickly adopted and adapted 1-2-3’s musical style, Ritchie and co. were left to languish by new management who did not know what to do with them.
Eventually 1-2-3 signed a new record deal with Chrysalis Records in 1968. Chrysalis wanted the band to change its name and fit in more with their label. 1-2-3 became Clouds and their unique trademark sound was distilled to fit better with the label’s roster. Three albums and two world tours followed—but it was all too late—The Nice had pinched their act and King Crimson and Yes were already on the horizon.
In the 1990s, David Bowie once again enthused about seeing 1-2-3 play in 1967. It led to renewed interest in the band and their follow-on Clouds.
Not so long ago, I wrote on this site about Billy Ritchie and his creation of Prog Rock. This led to contact with Ritchie who agreed to an exclusive interview with Dangerous Minds. I wanted to know more about the man who had started a revolution and what that had led to.
I started off by asking Ritchie about his earliest memories, his childhood and first interest in music (...)"
read more here: http://dangerousminds.net/comments/t..._billy_ritchie
Last edited by Svetonio; 01-04-2017 at 02:46 AM.
The mailman brought me Bram Stoker - Heavy Rock Spectacular today. Not bad, not bad
If proto is the early stages then all prog from the great era of the 70's might be looked at as early prog that is morphing into electronica music. This blending of electronica has been going on for a long time, and electronica seems to not be losing ground ( I really wish it was, would go to bed and never wake up)
When I play classic prog to millenials, they don't get it at all because they are comparing it to their generation's electronica music. What music isn't spending a considerable amount of time being edited, messed with on a computer? It sounds sloppy to their ears... (humans actually keeping time and meter, what a concept). They need high value production values that don't move at all.. lifeless, no feel etc. The analog recording technique was a way of doing things... no so different than "The Difference" between hand knitting and something done on a factory machine. There is a quality there in a hand knitted garment (if done well) compared to the processed made in China stuff how most clothes are created nowadays.
The corner shoe repair shop is long gone. Instead of buying a new pair of shoes that will last you a lifetime just getting new soles every few years, now it's in the garbage and you buy another pair of shit shoes that then go in the garbage when the soles wear out. Music is just treated the same way. It's old, sounds old, doesn't fit with my furniture, but I have it somewhere on a hard drive in last years ipod.
So bands are supposed to progress, but I disagree that they need to follow the trend. There is no reason why any musical act shouldn't be making their best music well into their 50's or 60's (age)..... but we didn't see that with any of the classic prog bands other than maybe Mr Fripp. No one is going to make a very good argument (some knucklehead here will I'm sure) that the greatest YES album is UNION or The Ladder.... or the greatest Genesis album is "We Can't Dance" or "We don't do Prog anymore".
So the point being that soon all music will be electronica as music programs are shutting down in schools, and it's just easier for kids to digital sound collage then to REALLY learn an instrument and work with others in a real time setting in the same room or band space. They don't care about the old way because they don't even know what the old way is or was. No one to teach them, not even on a site like this.
All of this proto prog stuff, however underdeveloped, sounds like a dream to my ears compared to another processed digital release by a one man band with a laptop and a broad swath of samples to choose from.
well, I don't know about you guys but ole Rigor Mortis & The Postmortemers @ The Cadaver Drive In just doesn't sound like a whole lot of fuckin' fun to me. I'll take my chances with some Nykies bro. ain't got time to waste on frivolous moralities!
i.ain't.dead.irock
This is a really good post. I like it, I like it a lot, you just used wrong examples. Everyone should read this message twice and analyze it, maybe something will click in your heads. Cream - absolutely progressive, the rest probably not. Velvet Underground were experimental, not progressive. They were anti-progressive. They influenced punk bands, not progressive bands. Whoever said that they should be included in proto-prog category needs a head exam. They should be included in proto-punk category.
Cream, Hendrix, the Nice, Procol Harum, Moody Blues, Family, Traffic were considered "progressive" in 60s because they played the music beyond the Top 40 format. This doesn't mean they played progressive rock. They were NOT part of progressive rock scene. Their music was not adventurous and challenging enough to be considered as progressive rock.
First true progressive rock was created in October 1969 and progressive rock was born. PERIOD and of story.
moecurlythanu - so far your 2 recommendations: Gygafo, Graphite are the only 2 worth consideration.
Last edited by enigmatic; 01-05-2017 at 05:09 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks