I think that the album of these era, from Masterpieces to the incredible ugliness have one power and magic that the contemporary albums (or better bands) don't have.

 

So this thread is born for express all you have in your head in reference to the "Golden Prog Era"

 

Certainty the Mellotron (and Hammond organs) is the Prog instrument. But I think that record support is great in this sense. I listen Semirami's "Dedicato A Frazz" album in record support in Red Moon Records. I've bought the CD version but... Disappoint, disgust... The magic where is it? So I cursed to have wanted to save € 15,00!

 

But I think also that many "Golden Prog Era" are born with sincere and chance intentions. See "Rock Millenstones: Wishbone Ash: Argus". And you will understand that this epochal album is an infinite demo!  They wanted to they understand that solo of guitar was better...  One in right speaker and one in left speakers with only John Tout's Hammond Carpet... The creator of the cover enters and...  He says that the two soli were perfect so...  "Throw Down The Sword" is with these two twin soli in one in definitive version. And "Vas Dis" from "Pilgrimage"? Is the last test of this song... but the producer recorded this test and Since to him it appeared perfect...  Here the version of "Vas Dis" in "Pilgrimage".

 

Today it is all planned and they don't come more produced album in this manner.  So it is lost the magic that the Prog should have! 

 

In the US, things were exciting too - although not Prog as we know it, Country Joe and the Fish, Airplane et al were releasing exciting, experimental and progressive music - indeed, the "underground" scene put an emphasis on progressive music, and that's the sort of time the phrase "progressive rock" was used. I even found the first recorded use of the term on an album - albeit an album dated 1968 - although the term "progressive music" was much more common currency, as was "progressive blues".

 

- and then, of course, there were the leading lights - the Beatles' Sgt Pepper, Beach Boys' Pet Sounds, Dylan's Highway 61 and the evolution of the Byrds' sounds.

 

All of these exciting developments came together to form Prog - so whether you want to consider the "Golden Era" as starting at the point at which it got into full swing (1970-71), it's true "birth" (1969 - ITCOTCK) the gestation period (67-9) - or even it's inception (1965, when Dylan went electric at Newport - or possibly some earlier date, as many of the essential elements of Prog were put into place much earlier) - that's up to you.

 

In 1976-7, punk nearly killed Prog off, but for a few stalwarts (that was definitely the end of the "Golden Era") - but in 1980, it was revived, albeit in a comparatively minor way. Nevertheless, Marillion played their part, and it's largely thanks to them (and their frequent appearances at rock and metal festivals in the 1980s, not to mention their stubborn refusal to go away) that Prog and Prog Metal still exist as active forms of rock music and not just an entry in the history books.

 

You've put your finger on it - it's that whole composed/improvised combination that gives Prog the "magical ingredient" - it's what grew out of the late 1960s scenes and more or less disappeared in 1976.

 

 

Thanks, Certif1ed. Your words give back me much happy.

 

Uhm... Yes, the "Golden Prog Era" born in 1969 and died in 1976. But I think that this era it should be considered from "Procol Harum", "The Thoughts Of Emmerlist Davjack" and "Days Of Future Passed" to "Drama" and "Yesshows". And yes, the period 1970/ 1975 is sure the fundamental period for the "Golden Prog Era".

 

But there really was an explosion of creativity in the early 70s with Yes (The Yes Album, Fragile & Close to the Edge), Genesis (Nursery Cryme, Foxtrot, Selling England and The Lamb), ELP (ELP, Tarkus, Trilogy, Brain Salad), Floyd (Meddle, Dark Side, Wish You Were Here, Animals) and Tull (Benefit, Aqualung, Thick as a Brick).  They all were released in a 5 year span, as well as some others already cited.

 

Just prior to that, the Moodys had a string of spacy albums and King Crimson had probably the first truly identifiable prog album.  What an amazing era.

 

 

 

Instruments like the Mellotron and Hammond play a large role in this, but the main thing is that back then everything was recorded analog, onto audio tape. Now everything is recorded digitally. You can do a lot of cool things with digital recording, but making a nice, warm sounding album apparently isn't one of them. If I was in a band and was seeking out a recording studio, I would seek out a retro studio. Digital recording gives vastly different genres a sameness to them. Pro Tools is Pro Tools and it doesn't matter as much what the physical environment of the studio is when you use it.

 

BRING BACK ANALOG RECORDING!!!!

The problem with too many recordings at the height of prog, was analog recording. Two track, four track, 8, 16 and so forth, rcording equipment - and every time bands/producers want to lay down more layers of recording that multi-track machine would allow. So analog recording was overlaid onto analog recording - increasing residual tape hiss; solutioncut back on the treble, with loss of some hiss and warmth, but not the full audio expereince as original heard in the studio. Then deliberate clipping or compression to ensure a 45 minute plus analog, electro-mechanical readable recording could get placed onto two sides of vinyl - when the optimum without  clipping, (so avoiding top and bottom end loss), was to have 15 minutes maximum a side. So with loss of the treble end, hey it is a more warmer sound. And then compression so AM and then certain poorer quality  FM radio stations could cope with broadcasting a recording - hey yet more warmth with frequency loss at one end and boost towards the bottom end. If you want an illustration of how bad these problems could be, check out Deep Purple's In Rock, in the pre-remastered and the remastered forms, the former is so muddy both on vinyl and cd. With the quality of the remaster semi-digital recordings nowadays may renders the original release unlistenable to a 21st century listener.

 

Finally, also remember that stereo format for pop and rock records was only standard from about 1968, and even then few folks (especially younger people) had stereo equipment this side of the Atlantic. And boy we did have to put up with some sh*t; why:

 

1. It was new technology - teething problems relating to scale of market.

2. Audiophiles (i.e. the middle aged and middle class) had their tastes catered for - and the record industry had distain for the growing youth market - hence best quality and attention went into serious music recordings and those labels calling thermselves 'audiophile series' - Decca was at first with stereo dreadful for rock, with the exception of the Moody's Days Of - which was issued originally on Decca audiophile label!

3. Quality of pressings, as indicated, was below parr, but when rock records started to shift in millions of units, the record companies got greedy and deliberately kept sub-masters on their presses long after these had started to wear and deteriorate. Hence poor pressings.

Except not really...Oh wait, this isn't the right thread to argue with people who are stuck in the past.

 

Carry on. I'll agree that it was definately the best for traditional symphonic, but doesn't it sort of win that by default?

 

You make some valid points. I'm certainly not advocating a return to the equipment that Sgt Pepper was recorded on. However, the technology advanced in leaps and bounds between 1967 and the mid 70's. Heck, Sgt. Pepper would have sounded different if it had been recorded just a few years later as one can tell by the very different sound of the Abbey Road album. That said, I still think, oh, let's say Relayer, or Lamb Lies Down on Broadway or Dark Side of the Moon would not sound better if recorded on modern equipment.

 

And while Sgt. Pepper might sound better recorded on the same equipment as those 70's classics, it still might lose some of it's charm.

 

I really thinks that it's the creativity of the songwriting and history shows that that is a finite and ephemeral resource.

 

Likely also the fact that the album of the "Golden Prog Era" They were short it influences a lot of my love for this period. In fact in an utmost of 45 (or 60) minutes should give the better than same you.  Today than almost it isn't more heard this requirement...  There isn't those creative summits that characterized the 70's. 

 

So also this magical fact, to my warning, it is mattering. 

 

No - the "magic ingredient" is that improvisational/composition mixture that simply doesn't exist now.

 

I'm not talking about "Symphonic Prog", whatever that is, and I'm not talking about being stuck in any era - just a basic FACT about the music.

 

The fact is that this method of creating rock music can be heard from Canterbury to Kraut, all over Europe and back again - then suddenly stopped.

 

Now it's mainly song with extended bridges - which IS NOT PROG.