Roger Daltrey: Rock is dead but rap lives on

[Jerjo]

I think back in the 70s we weren't that obsessed by putting bands into categories. My friends and I would listen to Who, Pink Floyd, Sabbath, King Crimson, Led Zep etc and think of them more in terms of the individual bands rather than particular sub categories of rock music.

Exactly. I think that The Who and Led Zeppelin are part of their rare level that transcends genre. Both were progressive in spirit and I've seen both (along with Steely Dan, Black Sabbath, and Little Feat) get posted on the main board instead of OT. But they joined the Beatles and the others listed above as the kind of acts that can't be pigeonholed, their various styles and experiments were too broad, they were (not that it always worked) constantly evolving and changing.

[klothos]

I'm just repeating but we used the term "progressive rock" in the 1970s regularly.

yup...as i said, DJs were constantly throwing out names and us consumers even had terms like Acid Rock, Hard Rock, Progressive Rock, etc. to make distinguishes in communication amonst ourselves.....but none of that were set in stone: there were no actual boxes with boundaries and a criteria checklist as the industry (at large) is so quick to do nowadays

[Sturgeon's Lawyer]

Of course not, because The Who were the band that were one of English mod movement bands who invented Rock (rock with big *r*, as a genre as well) and have remained in that genre; it is normal for the band as such to evolve and therefore to record some more complex songs, but without having to leave their own genre and to jump into the market of younger, 'progressive' artists.

Piffle. In 1977 my friends and I (who were listening to Genesis, Crimson, Gentle Giant, Pink Floyd, ELP -- the more visible progressive rock artists) definitely referred to the Who as "progressive." And anyone who can claim that WGFA, Quadrophenia, and Who Are You are not "progressive" is a tool with ears wide shut.

[klothos]

Piffle. In 1977 my friends and I (who were listening to Genesis, Crimson, Gentle Giant, Pink Floyd, ELP -- the more visible progressive rock artists) definitely referred to the Who as "progressive." And anyone who can claim that WGFA, Quadrophenia, and Who Are You are not "progressive" is a tool with ears wide shut.

The question of whether or not a song/band is "Progressive Rock" or progressive Rock is an on-going ambiguous argument of misnomers around this forum since Ive been here

[musicislife]

Piffle. In 1977 my friends and I (who were listening to Genesis, Crimson, Gentle Giant, Pink Floyd, ELP -- the more visible progressive rock artists) definitely referred to the Who as "progressive." And anyone who can claim that WGFA, Quadrophenia, and Who Are You are not "progressive" is a tool with ears wide shut.

You're showing your true fanboy. Music is, and always has been, a matter of subjective taste. Calling people whose tastes don't align with yours "tools" is kinda trumpy. Personally, I find jazz more progressive than rock could ever be, but I get that many can't be bothered with it, for whatever reason.

[mogrooves]

The question of whether or not a song/band is "Progressive Rock" or progressive Rock is an on-going ambiguous argument of misnomers around this forum since Ive been here

The first LP in my experience to be described as progressive rock was Butterfield's East-West in '66, but I doubt anyone here would regard it as "Progressive Rock" (what we now call "Prog"), and to my knowledge it's never been a "featured album."

[Scrotum Scissor]

The first LP in my experience to be described as progressive rock was Butterfield's East-West in '66, but I doubt anyone here would regard it as "Progressive Rock" (what we now call "Prog"), and to my knowledge it's never been a "featured album."

I remember reading that many times before, though. And it's a quite good early psych stab at blues-rock. I always preferred The Blues Project myself, but the PBBB were important in their day and influenced countless contemporaries, some of which indeed went into rather adventurous terrain (like Kaleidoscope with Lindley/Feldthouse).

[klothos]

The first LP in my experience to be described as progressive rock was Butterfield's East-West in '66, but I doubt anyone here would regard it as "Progressive Rock" (what we now call "Prog"), and to my knowledge it's never been a "featured album."

Thank you for understanding what I was saying about the difference between the two

[Sturgeon's Lawyer]

And also for clarifying what I meant by describing certain Who albums as "progressive." I did not say "prog."

[mogrooves]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/op...-old.html?_r=0

[Svetonio]

I think back in the 70s we weren't that obsessed by putting bands into categories. (...)

So, each band was in a category of their own. (...)

The greatest bands were almost like the sub-genres per se. However, I always say that the internet sites actually entered confusion about something which has never before been a confusion. For example, progarchives.com - database is great, but their categorization is a disaster, since there is not *progressive rock* as a genre at progarchives.com; as per progarchives.com, *progressive rock* is a kind of "umbrella", a "zeitgeist", and (or) meta-genre (instead of progressive music what would have been a correct term for that).
That nonsense has led to confusion for newbies - young prog fans who weren't there in the 70s and reading about the history of the genre on very influential but revisionist pages like progarchives.com.
Just imagine how huge confusion for young prog fans could be due to the fact that, for example, the bands like King Crimson and Family aren't listed there as *progressive rock* - both bands are in an artificial "genre" called "eclectic prog" - what could fits for contemporary bands who mixed genres to the extreme, since progarchives.com simply wasn't designed for multiplied tags, but the 70s progressive rock legends ought to be listed where they've always belonged. Also, they had, but later kicked out Art Rock and Ambient sections - those artists were deployed by artificial "genres". So, every newbie will learn the wrong things like e.g. 10cc was "prog-related" band, not Art Rock where they belong, as they were one of the most famous representatives of British Art Rock scene in the 70s, along with e.g. Supertramp who were regarded as a top of the notch British Art Rock band when they were a current act, not as "crossover prog" as progarchives.com categorized them; Brian Eno became "progressive electronic" act at influential progarchives.com; thus, consenquently, those supposed young prog fans who will read all that stupid revisionism at progarchives.com, they will get a wrong picture about the golden decade of progressive music and its genres.

Again, about The Who never been spoken of as a Progressive rock nor Art Rock band, but only as a Rock band. 'Rock' with big *r* and without *roll*, as a genre of the bands like The Who, The Kinks, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Rolling Stones and such, not rock music in general. When progarchives' "management" put The Who in "proto-prog" section - as far as I know it was happened about ten years ago - then began that nonsense debate whether or not The Who were "prog" - not before.

[zravkapt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/op...-old.html?_r=0

Nice article. Rock is indeed the new folk or jazz.

[Sturgeon's Lawyer]

When progarchives' "management" put The Who in "proto-prog" section - as far as I know it was happened about ten years ago - then began that nonsense debate whether or not The Who were "prog" - not before.

Wow, so my experience in 1977-8 was only ten years ago? Amazing.

[Trane]

Svet,

your (justifiable) eviction from PA and your ensuing hatred towards it are getting the better of your (generally distorted) judgment.

I'm glad that you set us straight with your 70's stance from such an international and worldly prog centre.
How would you know what high schoolkids were discussing amongst themselves in central Canada or deep Flemish provinces?

From mags like Best and Rock'n Folk (usually very intellectual mags, especially in the 70's) did parallels between all kinds of groups, especially if developing double concept albums like Lamb, Tales, Tommy, or Quadrophenia

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/op...-old.html?_r=0

dad rock...

http://eud.u-bourgogne.fr/musicologi...364411692.html

[Scrotum Scissor]

How would you know what high schoolkids were discussing amongst themselves in central Canada or deep Flemish provinces?

At Søreide and Steinsvik, where I grew up, there were always people gathering covertly to discuss how The Who simply epitomized folky avant-prog-metal. Always.

[Trane]

At Søreide and Steinsvik, where I grew up, there were always people gathering covertly to discuss how The Who simply epitomized folky avant-prog-metal. Always.

Yup, smoking fjord-grown grass and chewing on rotten & buried fish always cleared the minds for cosmic shortcuts

[Scrotum Scissor]

^ Look. That's cheese from goats fed in magic mushroom fields to you, Hugues.