Genesis of Classic Prog : When did it all begin ?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66592
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 04:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Genesis of Classic Prog : When did it all begin ?
Posted By: carlmarx38
Subject: Genesis of Classic Prog : When did it all begin ?
Date Posted: April 15 2010 at 12:43
|
( The idea for this blog is part of an ongoing project to create a new article for inclusion in the "Prog Rock Guides" section, which is in dire need of better articles and more complete information on the genesis and history of Progressive Rock. If you have ideas, or would like to contribute or collaborate on that project, let me know !) ____________________________________________________________________________________ I was recently reading reviews of "In The Court of the Crimson King" over in the King Crimson section, as I have recently been rediscovering the band (as a result of my new-found appreciation of the "Larks' Tongues" and "Red" albums).....As I waded through the dozens of reviews, I noticed a common theme which kept popping up in many of the reviews, usually saying something like "....Crimson King" was the First True Prog Album" (!) I know there are many who have stated this notion, including some noteable and well-known rock journalists. So I am not here to argue the point, nor to defend it. But for several days now the thought has been lurking in my mind, "Is That True ?" When was the true starting point for prog, as a true genre ? To research the idea, I have been compiling info on release dates and chart positions for the seminal prog releases from about the time of "Court of the Crimson King" up through about 1975. I know it is a matter of opinion what albums to include, so for the time being, I will consider this to be a work in progress. So far, I have been looking at all major releases by the bands which were big sellers, but also bands which have, in subsequent decades become well-known contributors to the genre. This includes bands like Caravan who weren't so well-known at the time of their classic releases, but also bands like PFM and Banco, who have recently become well-known as contributors to the early history of prog. |
Replies:
Posted By: carlmarx38
Date Posted: April 15 2010 at 13:18
|
Looking for a minute at the database for Prog Archives, it becomes clear that nothing much happened until 1967. There was "Freak Out" by Zappa in 1966, but in '67 there were several releases which seem to be essential to the development of "prog as we know it" (whatever that is) : DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED (Moody Blues) PROCOL HARUM (first album) PIPER AT THE GATES OF DAWN (Pink Floyd) ABSOLUTELY FREE
Then in 1968 there was the advent of the Canturbury Scene, with debut albums by Caravan and Soft Machine, in addition to new releases by Zappa ("We're Only In It For the Money"), Moody Blues ("In Search of the Lost Chord"), and Pink Floyd ("Saucerful of Secrets"). ......but do any of these really count as Prog ? Of all the above-mentioned titles, the Canturbury bands seem the closest to what later became known as classic prog, but they were both practically unknown at the time in the UK, and especially in the States (did CARAVAN or SOFT MACHINE even chart in the UK ?) In terms of visibility, I would have to give the nod to "Days of Future Passed" or "Piper at the Gates of Dawn". "Future Passed" was a sizeable hit, especially in the States, where it hit #3 (it peaked at only #27 in the UK). But from the perspective of Prog Archives, Moody Blues is still only a "crossover" band (a point I don't really argue with) while early Floyd is considered "Space Rock". |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: April 16 2010 at 12:03
|
Prog. contains a multitude of sub genres, only very remotely connected in their style, and the way they sound. Making a direct connection between "We are only in it"/"The Piper" and "The Crimson King" in an analyse of music development seems to me absurd. You would only have to listen to "The Crimson King"
1 time, and you will know, that this is the album. Setting the standarts for Classic prog.
Moody Blues and others , including The Beatles, did steps in that direction, but Crims went all the way.
Frank'y and Floyd are also pioners of Prog., but compleetly diffrent in styles.
If they sold many records or not, isnt that besides the point ?
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: carlmarx38
Date Posted: April 16 2010 at 13:03
|
If they sold many records or not, isnt that besides the point ?
Yes, although I'm trying with this blog (and the Time line Project on my other blog), to also convey the Historical perspective of what was actually happening if you were there at the time between 69-71.....If you were an average "Prog Fan" in 1970, you probably never heard of Magma, Soft Machine, or Gentle Giant, even though they all had debut albums out at that time. Maybe you bought Saucerful of Secrets, Freak Out, and Days of Future Passed, but you didn't think of yourself as a "prog fan", because the term didn't really exist yet. But you probably associated yourself with this "cool new music" and maybe loosely associated these bands on that basis (?) The big question is "When did the term Prog Rock first get used ?" |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: April 16 2010 at 13:38
|
That is the kind of question, where you will never be able to get a clear answer.
Where im from, it wasent even used by progheads while prog. was peaking, but i remember someone in here saying they used it in the US. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: FusionKing
Date Posted: April 16 2010 at 13:52
|
Well, it seems to me that, prog starts to really get going in '69. Check out an album by Web called 'I Spider' from that year, true prog, definately. But if you take all of the big prog bands far back enough, it appears that prog began around '67-'68. ------------- "Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself" - Sartre |
Posted By: carlmarx38
Date Posted: April 16 2010 at 16:55
|
That is the kind of question, where you will never be able to get a clear answer.
Where im from, it wasent even used by progheads while prog. was peaking, but i remember someone in here saying they used it in the US.
I think I remember reading in Chris Welch' bio of YES (Close To The Edge) that the term was first used around the time of "The Yes Album" and "Nursery Cryme", when comparing these albums similarity to "In The Court of the Crimson King"......something about the "mellotron sound" which was used to connect YES, ELP, Genesis, and King Crimson....(even though ELP didn't use mellotrons !)......and then someone in a review said it was the "New progressive sound of Rock" !! |
Posted By: unclemeat69
Date Posted: April 16 2010 at 17:47
Robert Fripp has said in interviews that that album encouraged him to go 'progressive'. I've said this before (I think), but to me it is no coincidence that after the release of ITCOTCK many of the bands that are now considered classic prog (Yes, Genesis, VDGG, GG etc) either got started (GG) or changed direction (the other bands mentioned). I'm not too familiar with Pink Floyd though, i wouldn't be surprised if such a change would be clearly audible there. ------------- Follow your bliss |
carlmarx38 wrote:Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: April 16 2010 at 18:12
|
A timeline would go something like this:
1966-1967: The Beatles show what is possible by featuring a symphonic sound on a few tracks
1967: The Moody Blues invent prog.
1968: Birth of Canterbury. Pink Floyd's prog explorations begin.
1969: Enter King Crimson, with a symphonic blueprint that will last three or four years.
1970-1971: Beginning of the Progressive Golden Age. Too many milestones to count for a while.
1978-1980: Prog "dies." Pick your year.
1983: Marillion resurrects prog.
I leave this for others to elaborate upon and finish, but here are the biggest events post-1983.
The birth of prog metal.
The start of the third wave.
The internet rehabillitating the genre.
The recognition of fusion and avant-garde as belonging to the genre. ------------- 
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: April 16 2010 at 18:20
|
December 17th, 1968: It was another dreary morning in Old Blighty. Bobby "Chuckles" Fripp awoke from another insatiable all-night bender with his mates at the Cornish Gypsy pub right around the corner. Bedraggled and slightly scraggly, Bobby clambered out of bed in search for a drink of water. As he lugged his frame forward, visions of a hookah-laced dream crept up from the deep recesses of the mind. The soundtrack involved mellotrons, guitar notes, odd time signatures and that nice paperboy Greg. He was on the cusp of a revelation. Stumbling into the living room, he gleefully clasped Giles and McDonald on their respective shoulders. "Boys," muttered Fripp, "I've got an idea." |
Posted By: carlmarx38
Date Posted: April 16 2010 at 20:07
|
1966-1967: The Beatles show what is possible by featuring a symphonic sound on a few tracks
1967: The Moody Blues invent prog.
1968: Birth of Canterbury. Pink Floyd's prog explorations begin.
1969: Enter King Crimson, with a symphonic blueprint that will last three or four years.
1970-1971: Beginning of the Progressive Golden Age. Too many milestones to count for a while.
1978-1980: Prog "dies." Pick your year.
UK gives us a brief hope for awhile.........then dies.
Desperate souls in the States hanging onto the "Illusion of prog" with bands like
STYX, KANSAS, and ELO....."FareWell To Kings" (RUSH) gives us the birth of Prog
Metal.
1983: Marillion resurrects prog.
.......and IQ !
I leave this for others to elaborate upon and finish, but here are the biggest events post-1983.
The birth of prog metal.
The start of the third wave.
The internet rehabillitating the genre.
The recognition of fusion and avant-garde as belonging to the genre.
(check out my other blog post of TIMELINE OF PROGRESSIVE ROCK, let me know
if you like it, I have a rough draft up through 1975, but currently only posted
through '72.)
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 16 2010 at 20:24
yeah, Ian's uncle has money and he'll pay for us to make a real album  seriously though, as to the OP's question, I think the general consensus is that Crimson's debut was perhaps the first prog album with all of its components in place (including thematic structure), though even that's debatable as this had already occurred in rock in other forms as mentioned in this thread. The Nice's first two from 1967 & '68 and Five Bridges I haven't seen mentioned, these were crucial LPs and exhibited most of the important Prog elements (the Beach Boy's Smiley Smile in '67 as well). Another interesting thing about KC's debut is that if you listen to Giles,Giles&Fripp, ItCotCK isn't far from the Brit-psyche/pop they'd been doing, and their truly progressive spark wouldn't get going till subsequent albums |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 16 2010 at 20:29
  ------------- 
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: April 17 2010 at 02:43
|
The Nice were very important in the birth of prog rock as we know it. Their first album 'The Thoughts Of Emerlist Davjack'( 1967) included some very strongly classically linked tracks 'War And Peace' and 'Rondo' where Keith Emerson started his experiments. This line up included the guitarist Davy O'List who found it very hard to live with Emersons lead role in the band plus his growing drugs abuse got himself thrown out the band. (Davy is a nice bloke btw.Met him several years ago and he bore no resentment to Emerson whatsoever). The signifance of this though was that Emerson was able to give even more free reign to his symphonic exploarations and a year later they released 'Ars Longa Vita Brevis'. The Nice were without doubt the most influential band on the British prog scene until King Crimson emerged in 1969 although even after that The Nice ploughed on with further important albums included the strangely under appreciated 'The Five Bridges Suite' 1970. KC had upped the ante and Emerson was to go onto bigger and better things. However in the period 1967-68 The Nice were as important as any in the development of prog.
|
Posted By: AllyAshantiBrown
Date Posted: April 17 2010 at 05:48
|
the history of the modern computer begins with two separate technologies— |
Posted By: Mr. Maestro
Date Posted: April 17 2010 at 10:13
|
I think the reason that the birth of prog is such a vague topic is that everyone has a different idea of just what defines "birth" in a musical sense. The first progressive music ever recorded could be practically anything: Beatles, Procol Harum, Zappa, etc. The first truly progressive album is a little less vague, but still subjective: In the Court of the Crimson King, Piper at the Gates of Dawn, maybe even Sgt. Pepper's. But the first progressive rock band? There's the real question. Crimson? Floyd? Again, it could be practically anything.
If I had to nail each of these catagories down myself, it'd go:
First Progressive Music Ever Recorded: The Beatles on Sgt. Pepper's, especially "A Day In the Life"
First Progressive Rock Album: Pink Floyd, Piper at the Gates of Dawn
First Progressive Rock Band: Either King Crimson or Floyd, if you consider early Floyd true prog
------------- "I am the one who crossed through space...or stayed where I was...or didn't exist in the first place...." |
Posted By: flaxton
Date Posted: April 17 2010 at 12:26
|
ian mcdonald had just as much input to itkotck as fripp. maybe he was the one who came upon the idea of progressive rock. ------------- flaxton |
Posted By: javier0889
Date Posted: April 17 2010 at 15:09
|
I think we should give The Who at least an honorable mention for things like A Quick One, While He's Away (song), and their concept albums like Sell Out, Tommy and Quadrophenia. |
Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: April 17 2010 at 20:49
|
Damn you javier, stole mine right out of my head A Quick One has strong elements of prog (a definite prog song in the title track, plus a complex instrumental), and that's 1966 Stronger for sure is Piper, I haven't really listened to Srg. Peppers. Piper has huge, glaring Prog features (Intersteller Overdrive, huge experimenting, complexity and oddness on all tracks). It isn't really a pop record. It is already Art Rock. The Floyd already had their single days behind them when they released that album. Their next single (Apples and Oranges) flopped, and they didn't get a charter again until Another Brick in 1980. I would also vouch for the Who's Tommy 1969, a definite prog album in quasi-pop format, but hardly less prog than something like Alan Parsons Project. In the Court goes without saying of course. Bob Dylan's material in 1965 is earlier than most of what has been discussed and features what I consider quasi-prog elements. Desolation Row, for instance, is an anti-pop song and I think early Prog is better labled as sort of improvised anti-pop. |
Posted By: Ronnie Pilgrim
Date Posted: April 17 2010 at 21:11
Agreed. I've always thought Prog Folk owed a lot to Dylan. ------------- "The pointy birds are pointy pointy Anoint my head anointy nointy" Steve Martin The Man With Two Brains |
Posted By: javier0889
Date Posted: April 17 2010 at 23:07
|
We could say that The Beatles went "prog" because of Bob Dylan! Dylan gave them the inspiration (and the drugs, of course xD) to start playing more complex music, and not just those cheap love songs of the Beatlemania days. Also I'd like to mention The 13th Floor Elevators. Their first record, "Psychedelic Sounds Of..." was released with a certain tracklist, but the "real order" was different. With the "official" order, you just hear a bunch of psychedelic rock songs. But in the "alternative" order, you are supposed to experience a journey through the human spirit (or something like that xD). Then you had a big eye on the album cover, and a lot of hidden meanings around the idea of that eye, you know, because of the Illuminati. Does it sound familiar? ;) |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 17 2010 at 23:20
| I like cake |
Posted By: friso
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 11:26
| As concluded before several times prog was is more then I musical genre a mindset that slowly came to be in the late sixties. Marking a beginning is therefore just a ceremonial activity, for it has no true meaning IMHO. There was so much innovation all of the sudden and the many prog sub-genres show how diverse it all got when the seventies started. |
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 11:53
-------------
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 11:58
Piper is a fine album, but it's psychedelic, not prog. I think most of us realize that Floyd developed their own brand of prog during their experimental period. -------------
|
Posted By: logoman
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 14:40
| Er, at the risk of sounding obvious, " From Genesis to Revelation" refined later by "Trespass". Nothing touches them for my own personal awakening to prog 69/70. |
Posted By: SilverEclipse
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 17:04
|
I think it probably started somewhere in the combined minds of Keith Emerson, Ian McDonald, and probably some of the guys in Soft Machine and Pink Floyd (although I do not look at Piper At The Gates Of Dawn as having ANYTHING to do with prog... that was straight psychedelia) The Beatles to me may have introduced a new way to look at rock music... but I really don't see anything I would call prog in their discography.
I'm inclined to go with The Thoughts Of Emerlist Davjack as the first time progressive rock was made available to the public. Rondo.... yea... that doesn't work on any level other than prog.
And Ian McDonald WAS the driving creative force behind In The Court Of The Crimson King. ------------- "and if the band your in starts playing different tunes, I'll see you on the dark side of the moon" |
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 20:29
|
As I've said before, I resist the notion of a specific starting point for something as broad and deep as progressive rock. There are, however, highlights in a sequence of many projects that contribute to the birth of Prog. Others have mentioned Dylan, The Who, The Beatles as significant, to which I would also add The Beach Boys great album Pet Sounds. This was the album that inspired the Beatles to do Sgt. Peppers. Even before that, we can see Buddy Holly experimenting with orchestrations on early Rock 'n' Roll. As innovative as In the Court of the Crimson King was to Rock, it reflects such a heavy influence of Jazz that we cannot say it emerged out of an empty void. All musicians, and thus all the music they create, stems from earlier influences. None of it is isolated. ------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: shockedjazz
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 09:55
|
I think people here mix psychedelia with prog, but while they share some ingredients (non-commercial developing of music, mainly) dont think its exactly the same movement, we could say prog is a cultured after effect of more intuitive psychedelia.
By the way.....Dylan proto-prog? in wich sense? Lyrical? maybe possibly, true. Musicaly? Non at all and "desolation row" is the perfect example always repeating the same verse chorus structure adnauseam.
I cant find these musically repetitive style of Dylan,s music ennancing at all by itself (without the lyrics), and thats whats prog for me is about, music thats ennancing by itself. That the musical aspect is so important you dont mind understanding the lenguaje or lyrics. Thats why we have italian music section in an english lenguage based page!. Prog is not protests folk music even if it have sound content in the theme and lyrics.
|
Posted By: shockedjazz
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 10:43
| IMO of course. |
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 12:58
|
And mine as well. Psychedelia and Prog are two different things. -------------
|
Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 14:22
|
Although my familiarity with prog is moderate at best (that is, I have a moderate sized collection of albums from the era when prog first emerged), I think that to determine when progressive rock began you have to come up with a solid definition (which itself will be debated, but at least an anchor for discussion) of what constitutes a progressive rock song and/or album and/or band.
I have come up with a working definition which I think gets at the heart of what progressive rock is. It eliminates any of the elements that I believe are secondary like what instruments are used, how tricky the time signatures are, album has a concept, etc...and this allows me to be very specific. It also intentionally eliminates the sub-genre confusion...at least as far as agreement on the definition is concerned.
Once you have a definition for marking progressive vs non-progressive music, you can track the prevalence of progressive rock songs and progressive rock albums over time. There will inevitably be a small trickle that turns into a flood at around the turn of the decade (60s to 70s) or a year or so later.
The birth of progressive rock can then be determined to be either the very first progressive song, or the very first progressive album or the very first album that was widely influential in the formation of additional progressive rock songs and albums.
Interestingly, I see Days of Future Passed as being out there a bit from the prog flowering that occurred in 1970. In the Court of the Crimson King seems to be closer to the start of the momentum for bands to convert to progressive rock than Days of Future Passed. 1967 might be a time when concept albums reached a critical mass of popularity (as opposed to progressive rock per se) and the influence of this and psychedelic music combined in 1969 and 1970 to give birth to what I would call a number of bands that either switched gears into what is now called progressive or newly formed into a band that was progressive from the getgo.
My definition of prog focuses on the composition of the song having a linear progression of musical ideas which tend to de-emphasize the vocal chorus in favor of the "instrumental chorus" and/or contain musical passages which have a variety of musical ideas analogous to telling a story (a linear series of events) rather than arguing a thesis (a number of different points which all focus on one main thesis as in an essay).
Pop music is all about the chorus where the vocalist sings and the catch is strong and the rest of the song is auxilliary and supportive of the main chorus. Progressive rock tends to turn the song's focus into a "journey" of some sort through the progression of multiple musical ideas in a more or less linear fashion.
|
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 15:41
|
Dylan demonstrated that a song can have a meaning and is not just words over 2 minutes of music. The blues first, but more the English blues revival with long improvised riffs helped people to appreciate long instrumental tracks, even if repetitive. Zappa, Beatles, Pink Floyd and psychedelia added new instruments and sounds. The willing to break with the past typical of the flower power in the USA and of the London's summer of love at the end of the 60s did the rest. I think this is where prog is from. |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 17:12
|
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 18:06
This is one of those important steps I alluded to, yet it is still only one step. I would never consider Dylan myself to be proto-prog but let's give credit where it is due. Look at how many Prog artists who were influenced by Dylan. Steve Howe, for example, did an entire album of Dylan covers, and even named one of his children after the guy. I have praised and defended Dylan in past threads, but I am not a big fan of his music. It does get repetitive, it's relatively simple in structure, and his voice can get really grating, yet at the same time he is one of the great songwriters of our time because of his lyrics. ------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 18:19
I was going to make a joke like that and you beat me to it. I saw a comment dismissing Piper At The Gates Of Dawn as not being prog. Not going to argue about that but it's prog to me. Same for Days Of Future Passed. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 19 2010 at 19:05
|
Hi,
It's sad that the only link that we can make to the beginning of what we call "prog" has its roots in pop music only. It's even weirder when so many of our "prog" biggies had a long arm of classic music behind them, and were above average musical minds already! Like we can not given them credit for being master/better musicians ... we have to call them "prog". But we often do not accept the inside of where it comes from and would prefer to create an idealistic concept and compare everyone else to it!
Pop music, for the most part has never been original and has, for the most part, not been the progenitor of anything except hits for the radio and money for some folks. It just so happened that in the mid 60's the world of pop music blew up the concept that the arts and music were the same thing and pop music was garbage. And it took a lot of people and brawn and heart to get it all across.
But to specify that one this and one that started it all, is kinda strange, like the world didn't exist until the day that you, or your friends learned that one song came alive? Don't you think that is a little weird? ... or are you going to sit there and call me a jerk because I said it? -- Check the difference first, please!
"Prog" for all intents and purposes, probably started in the early 1930's and might have its first go with the Melies of the cinema and the "waking up" that the "media" started at the beginning of the 20th century. And it took 30 years for things like the Surrealistic Manifesto to come alive and help usher a massive literary and film tradition, which was also augmented with music, though no one discusses it here.
And then there is one other piece of American history. The music that eventually we came to appreciate as Miles Davis and the like. Some call it "jazz" and what was that all about? ... long cuts ... and vibrant musicianship ... but sadly, the majority of them were black ... and when the movie studios figured out they could also make money off their stars singing, guess which music hit the toilet first ... the most creative of stuff and original, got buried by radio and movies, and you got Judy Garland, Bing Crosby and many others.
The real revolution started before the 60's when theater, Elia Kazan, Orson Welles and many that came from the Actors Studio were breaking out, with a new feeling. And soon enough it went to music. And it was a lot of this music that was around many of our parents that we often ignore and can not discuss. And this is not only in America, but also in Europe. Many a jazz player left America when the movie studios went for the "stars" and a whole lot of other players could not get anything recorded anymore.
You can get a really good feeling about all this by seeing Tom Dowd's DVD ... it will be the greatest single music lesson you ever got.
From the early 60's, the european music scene was already showing signs of breaking out. Even stalwarts like Gilbert Becaud and Edith Piaf were pushing the buttons. But then that's like saying that Bertold Brecht and Kurt Weill were not? ... when they were, in essence, the Sex Pistols of that time? ... the raw'ness of the whole thing was scary, and then politics got into it and kinda killed it, but Bertold Brecht is remembered, a lot better than Kurt Weill, which doesn't help our discussion any! But you ought to check out and maybe ask why someone like David Bowie would want to do some Kurt Weill!
The arts in Europe mix a lot. A heck of a lot more than the US, where the commercial attitudes towards things tend to kill more art than it helps. And sometimes, I think that boards like this hurt some. I really want to believe they do more for the music than they do not, but in the end, the only thing that can be said is "it's prog" or "it's not prog" ... and in the end, you still don't know a thing, because no one knows the difference, and the definition is not musically defined any better than it is ethnocentrically defined.
But that's almost like saying that one place had "prog" and the rest of the world didn't. And that is not true and never was. Music and all the arts are all around us ... how much of it do you want to look at?
Ask yourself that first! If we are to determine which of these was the most prog of them all? Or where it came from, no one can compare to the mind and work of Frank Zappa. From using Varese concepts to Chopin to free form to anything else you could think of no one could mix things any better and make them work ... and make fun of all the serious music minded people that never think anything is music except what they say is music ... and we're almost doing the same thing here! ... excuse me ... he's not from London and can't be prog! ... and his lyrics tell us to stuff it too! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 20 2010 at 04:42
|
I want to clarify: by mentioning Dylan, the blues revival and psychedelia as the roots of prog, I was looking at the end-users. A musical genre can't have birth without listeners and they are present only when the times are mature. In what we call prog there's of course jazz, classical (mainly symphonic), as well as medieval and folk. I don't think it could have been possible without the changes in the way people is used to approach to music. After the door was open, we have found a complete new universe on which each artist has found his own roots and influences, but they needed somebody to play for, first. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 20 2010 at 17:01
Specially today, with the Internet, many bands will never have to set a foot on the stage and they can sell music off their web site and keep on crinting and musicaling along.
I think that a part of us, wants the attention. I've been asked, when I write poetry and other stuff, who do I write for? And while I have to admit that getting a little bit of attention or simply somone patting yo in the back is kinda nice once in a while ... but I have to tell you that I do not write for anyone else but my own vision. My only secret is that I have to stick with what I see, as the rest confuses me horribly and I can not see that "inner movie". I think that many other artists, writers and musicians also have the same or similar possibilities. Not everyone does things, because they must have this and that.
Commercial think tank philosopy dictates that you have to gain from it in order to be successful, and I'm sorry to tell you that is one of the greatest falacies there is, and also one of the most malicious of events that any one can possibly work with. You can not satisfy the public and more than you can your family ... it's never good enough! You have to make an inner decision once you "know" your art and yourself, and if you do not separate yourself from that insane "star", "commercial" world, I am not sure that you will be there long enough to do something valuable. Have a hit one day and might as well go clean bathrooms in downtown LA's Greyhound bus depot!
Folk players, in many ways are perfect for being anti every thing and doing their own thing. It's also simpler since you can just walk down the street with your guitar and get some attention! AND it is that very thing that is what "makes them" who they are -- and as such, they have a lot more opportunities and chances to be effective and create much more than we're used to hear. But not everyone is so free form and experimental. Bob Dylan was in his early days. He is NOT, today!. If Bob Dylan, who was and IS, one of the most eccentric and separatist of all of them out there, did not understand that, I doubt a lot of his words would make sense. Others that also fit that area are Roy Harper (see if you can handle it), Peter Hammill, and only a handful of others, that live within themselves and will not sacrifice their vision for anyone or any money. There is what you see, and then there is what others see. Which do you want to be?
You live for yourself in the end. If it weren't for that no art in the history of all arts would be remembered or checked or seen or heard or read by you! That's a very important concept to bring home! Extremely important, and it will be even more visible in the 21st century with the Internet and will change music history forever -- the history that you and I can sense, but will never see! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 21 2010 at 04:09
| It's NOT always the case. It was in the early 60s. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that Close to the Edge would have sold a single copy if published in 1955. The people that I have mentioned, but I omitted a lot of them, helped breaking the previous schemas and gave the following authors the freedom to look for alternative ways of expressions. Can you imagine Interstellar Overdirve played in the 50s? |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: April 21 2010 at 04:20
|
Wouldent sell ANY records if it was realeased today either.
That is why this hole genre debate, is prog better than other music, is pretty absurd, people sometimes belive that Punk killed Prog, but that is rubbish, music evolve, change, pick a bite here and there, and new music appear, difrent but including idears from the past. Without the development in Rock music trough the last 40-50 years, it would be very boring indeed.
What im saying here is, you are right, Prog. did just appear, and prog. has no starting point, prog is just a label, a box, you can put some records into, retrospectivly.
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Devonsidhe
Date Posted: April 21 2010 at 06:50
|
I'm trying to remember when was the first time I heard the term progressive rock? I'm sure it was the early 70s and not the late 60s but that doesn't mean it wasn't being used before I heard it.
The point is, no one stood up one day and created this label called progressive rock and proclaimed that all music under this definition created after this date shall be called progressive rock. Progressive rock was a label created to define something that was already in existence.
A consensus cannot be achieved on the first prog record or the beginning of prog until a definition has been accepted and I am seeing more and more bands claiming to be progressive now that it is becoming more and more commercially viable. Bands that avoided the prog label when it was commercial suicide are now claiming to be progressive. I am glad that progessive music is becoming more popular but I am seeing a little revisionist history now or maybe the bands are coming out of the closet?
I have also heard for years that KC's Court of the Crimson King is the first truly prog album but I have never heard where this appelation originated. Who was the first to claim this? I agree that this has been repeated and relayed to the point of acceptance but does this need to be challenged? Looking back with hindsight, I see several bands and albums that I would consider prog that came out before King Crimson's debut.
Also, in the same vein as an earlier comment of prog having origins in the 30s, punk could be considered prog in a very broad definition for the simple reason, it progresses from the earlier basic roots of rock. Point being, almost anything can be considered progressive if it is original in concept but is influenced by earlier work of other and older influences. Even Mozart would fit that definition.
However, I do not consider either to be prog. The definition for prog is still very fuzzy and dependent on each of us' personal opinion. Like I said, bands I did not consider prog in the 70s are considered prog today. The definition is broadening. Where do we draw the line?
As to the origins of prog, I have always felt it to be linked to the rising popularity of albums over singles in the mid 60s. Bands were given more time to fill and create. Instead of writing pop songs (short stories), bands were able to write longer and more intricate pieces (novels). Some bands just wrote a song or two that may be considered prog but never an album. I have always felt that Suite: Judy Blue Eyes is very prog though CSN is not considered a prog band -- even by themselves. So it may be argued that a band is not prog unless their whole focus (album) is prog? It's kind of a purist argument.
To sum up my own conclusions, Sgt. Pepper may be the first commercially successful prog album since it joins more than one musical influence and the uniqueness of Day in the Life. Pet Sounds did come out before that and there are several songs I love off that album but I am not sure that it is prog. When I think of the Beach Boys and prog, I think of Good Vibrations more. Either way, both had their influences that may be considered earlier prog efforts.
|
Posted By: shockedjazz
Date Posted: April 21 2010 at 11:05
|
The point for me is that folk stars like Gutrie or Dylan (IMO) used a kind of style that was very simple and also very repetitive, because then the music is easy and they could focus on the lyrics, they wanted the public to focus on the lyrics, that was the important thing otherwise a guy with a voice like Dylan,s could never achieve the star status in the scene.
Then Dylan turned rock-pop but thats it!! Is not prog. Maybeit helped trhe contraculture get a intelectual figure to relay due to its existencialism and also because in its transformation helped go i little further than the red folk propagandistic-dry intelectelectualism (like seeger and the like). He get out of cheap politicism in a sarcastical way.
But the music is just inderectly connected with prog, is difficult to see a clear thread between them.
Maybe Buffy SaintMarie would pass the prog test
   The point is in simple words that folk escene was not connected aestheticaly with improvisation. Blues was, Jazz was, they could be very repetitive to some listener but it was more musical oriented.
Thats way blues could be the root of psychedelic experimentation and progssive music.
Actualy "roger the enginer" from the Yardbirds is quite progressive, prog-blues by all means.
|
Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: April 21 2010 at 11:40
|
Prog began with the Big Bang if you want to trace it all the way back...or to God depending on your personal preferences.
This conversation can obviously take place at a number of levels. Perhaps we need separate threads so that those knowledgable about music in general can discuss the more distant precursors to prog and those of us more myopically focused on prog and don't look much further back than 1967 can discuss in that context.
|
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 21 2010 at 16:27
|
This is not the point, I think. Ok, let's forget the origins and the predecessors. What's the definition of "Classic" prog ? If Classic prog means tracks over 15 minutes in length with contaminations form other genres and not repetitive, let's say "The Nice 1968 - Ars Longa Vita Brevis". It has all the characteristics mentioned above and is not prior 1967. |
Posted By: shockedjazz
Date Posted: April 22 2010 at 08:22
| I dont find Sargent Pepers to be repetitive and is fully contaminated by other music ( musi-hall, raggas) and make something especial and unique out of it IMO. |
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 22 2010 at 08:47
@shockedjazz: I never mentioned Sgt Pepper. It's not repetitive, it has contaminations but it's not 15 minutes or more in length  . The most prog work of Beatles IMO is Abbey Road. It's the only Beatles' album that I would rate 5 stars on PA and the live cover played by Transatlantic is one of the best things that I've listened to in the recent years, mainly because is very close to the original.
Sealchan is right about the many levels that this discussion can have: let's try to choose just one.
|
Posted By: shockedjazz
Date Posted: April 23 2010 at 08:29
|
The whole album is like a giant song!!! And you have "a day in a life" wich a lot of people dismiss due to its fame, but i find that these one and "Being for the benefit of mister keith" (dont now if im spelling it good, anyway..) to be the very start of prog. Abbey road is cool but i cant see it as a real concept album while Sargent was.
Anyway, i agree to choose one level of discusion.
If we are talking about elongated songs i think psychedelic bands were the first to do something like it,
for example Quicksilver Messengers Service, s "The foo" ( wich i absolutely adore).
|
Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: April 23 2010 at 09:41
You have to remember it was Dylan who said the Beatles were heading the direction of popular music and the Byrds have gone on record many times that the Beatles were their main inspiration for going electric and forming a rock band. The Beatles were very important to folk rock, and as David Crosby once said, they were doing folk-influenced chords and harmonies from the start. Even the Beatlemania stuff is very folky in its chord structure and vocal arrangements. You can hear it very clearly as early as "Love Me Do", which is musically folky, and in the mellow bridge section of "I Want To Hold Your Hand", and most definitely in the jangly guitars of "A Hard Day's Night".
Yes Dylan influenced the Beatles lyricially but musically the Beatles were already expanding the parameters of WHAT COULD BE ROCK MUSIC. They incorporated classic and world music elements to their songs (which helped the development of prog-rock and baroque pop and art rock. They experimented in the use of rare metric patterns and song structures (which helped the development of prog-rock. Songs like "Norwegian Wood" would include modes like Mixolydiaon and Dorian Modes in one song. "Love You To" clearly has full-blown raga sounds on a rock album.
|
Posted By: Devonsidhe
Date Posted: April 23 2010 at 14:53
|
The inspiration for prog music may go backwards ad infinitum with no real beginning. I agree with an earlier post that this could be argued back to the creation or big bang. But, we are looking for the origins of what is represented by the phrase "progessive rock" While we could argue the evolution of humanity to before the dinosaurs, humanity has a somewhat clearer (though still fuzzy) beginning to way after the end of the dinosaurs.
Like I said earlier, I can't remember when I first heard the term progessive rock but I do remember the term art rock beng used quite early. I heard a radio program about forty years ago that celebrated the top five bands of art rock: Moody Blues; ELP; Genesis; Yes; and Pink Floyd. Looking back, the same bands described as art rock are now known as prog so maybe one term replaced the other. This was about the time of the peak of the golden age of prog since Dark Side of the Moon had been out less than a year. For me, the classic definition of classic prog is represented by the music of this time. In order to discover the origins, I have been wondering more specifically, where did these bands originate and out of what?
I can probably speak best of the Moody Blues. In 1966, Hayward and Lodge replaced Lane and Warwick and became the line up known for its Days of Future Passed and everything they did afterwards. The first influence was more a folk type of pop like "Fly Me High", :Cities" and a few others. Then when they went into the studio for their first album together, Decca was wanting them to record something based on the symphonies of Dvorak for their new stereo label: Deram. Of course, what the Moodies did was not what they were expecting. What they brought back was Days of Future Passed (Dec. 1967). Since the orchestration was not something they had been doing earlier, I've often wondered what influence Decca's traditionalism had on the coming prog movement?
I have seen a few opinions that the Moodies are not prog or at best proto-prog as a band who simply writes pop songs in a common theme. I disagree. They combined symphony and rock. Blended tracks so that one could almost meld into the next. Plus, their common theme to each album made it a story that progressed from one song to the next. While I don't think we will find one point in time or place that we can point to as the origins of prog, I do feel that the Moodies played their part.
I do know some about the other bands I mentioned above, but I would rather hear from someone else who knows the bands better. Would someone mind posting what they know about any of the other four bands or another band from that era?
|
Posted By: halabalushindigus
Date Posted: April 23 2010 at 15:08
|
I know this sounds stupid, but when I was young, the Disreali Gears album cover turned my head. My eyes had to have another look, but what turned my ear was Herb Albert and The Tijuana Brass. Not prog, of course, but the tight Horns was new and exciting. Don't laugh ------------- assume the power 1586/14.3 |
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: April 23 2010 at 21:45
 Yeah, that there's the birth of prog, alright. And then Giles walked into the studio and started fiddling with glockenspiels and sticks while Lake worked out how to use a voice phaser. Fripp said, "I want to play a different tune to everyone else during the instrumental", but McDonald wanted to play his sax at the same time anyway. They all walked into the studio, after an hour of kanoodling, and Sinfield walked up to Lake, "Here's the lyrics, fellers". Lake read it, "cats foot, iron claw? What the heck?" Sinfield shrugged and said, "it's called art." McDonald was jazzing it up and someone pressed record.
The band began to play and music history was indelibly changed. The Prog egg was cracked open and out hatched a hungry little genre. ------------- 
|
Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: April 24 2010 at 01:39
|
I think In the Court of the Crimson King might have been the first really popular prog album but there may have been earlier ones (I don't own any but I trust that some of the comments others have made have some validity. But having a definition helps...except that the definition itself if controversial. Probably the definition posted on this site is best because it represents a broad consensus. My own inclination is to propose something more restrictive, a definition that gets at why the greatest prog bands tend to have created those epic songs that many of us who love prog find are prog's greatest works.Here's my definition (a work in progress)
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62806 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62806
Also consider the following poll...
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66766 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66766
...although I am not familiar with some of the songs, many of them are album side-long epics. I'm not saying that epics make a prog rock band but they are the natural result of a serious progressive rock band.
When I listen to Beatles songs many of them are excellent but they are too short, they lack prolonged instrumental sections and never left the basic chorus structure of most pop-rock songs. But "A Day in the Life" took a strong step in the above direction. The Abbey Road medley was close to the form that would define (for me) a progressive rock song but it was really just a collection of song ideas moreso than a composed work.
I don't see The Moody Blues as a progressive rock band because they don't really pursue extensive instrumental passages in their songs. They do have great concept albums but I don't count a concept album as a sufficient quality of an album to say that its songs are progressive rock.
I also don't buy into thinking of progressive rock as meaning music that is progressive. To me that is not a genre but rather a term that helps to identify the historical significance of a song or album. From that angle progressive rock isn't a genre it is just a collection of innovative music from various genres.
|
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: April 25 2010 at 18:19
------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: April 25 2010 at 18:48
| Although "court" was not imo the very first prog album or progressive rock album I guess it's fair to say that it was very important nonetheless and could be considered the starting point for the classic prog rock sound that followed as it does seem to play an important role in the impetus for the prog of the seventies. There were definitely bands that had prog songs before them though if not whole prog albums. Some folks refer to them as the proto prog bands which often includes the Beatles among others. I'm not so sure I like the term proto prog but there it is. King Crimson's first I think may have been the first to make people sit up and say something like "wow, what is this. this is really different" where as the stuff before it just made people think they were hearing just other psychedelic stuff or something. Also the first KC was pretty popular at the time so I think that played a role in a lot people hearing it and thus being influenced by it even though other bands before them certainly hinted at prog even if they didn't start it. |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: April 25 2010 at 20:09
|
I don't know which month ITCOTCK came out, but there were certainly a lot of prog albums which came out in 1969, so it must have been something which was in the air. and the German scene had existed since 1967, only no-one ever dared to record an album before Amon Düül's horribly bad "Psychedelic Underground" came out which took away all the inferiority complexes German bands had; they certainly could not be worse than that. and suddenly there was a torrent of albums which came out in 1969 and 1970. so it was a close call all around; prog is by no means a British invention alone. I am pretty sure the French and Italian scenes were full of bands too at that time, but I am not that familiar with their origins as I am with the German scene (due to having read the excellent biography of Amon Düül by Ingeborg Schober). it was simply something which was in the air, and whoever published the first album can definitely not claim the whole thing got started by it. ITCOTCK was an important album, but not as important as it is often being said; prog would have started without it -------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 25 2010 at 20:26
|
As some before me, I believe everything started before ItCotCK, IMO with The Nice,, the first 100% Prog band.
This guys in 1967 with "The Thoughts of the Emerlist Davjack" were doing almost exactly the same as EL&P three years later.
Iván
------------- 
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 25 2010 at 20:28
^ True, and let's not forget about this:
|
Posted By: Silverbeard McStarr
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 03:54
|
In the Court of the Crimson King isn't the first prog album - it's the first symphonic prog album (assuming that Days of Future Passed is symphonic rock rather than prog). And, while King Crimson mattered immensely to the development of prog, they never really managed to be first with anything specific, perhaps other than being King Crimson. Is there a first prog album? I doubt so. Prog rock is by many means a movement rather than a genre, and it is hard to find whatever cataclysm that caused it. The way I see it, it's neither King Crimson or The Moody Blues. Nor is it Procol Harum. It's not any Canterbury Scene bands and it's frankly not Franky Zappa. I dare say, it's Pink Floyd. Saucerful of Secrets is a four-part epic that led into the proggy madness of Ummagumma. First of all, the whole album is experimental. While King Crimson had long songs, they didn't really experiment with the album format other than, well, using long songs. Ummagumma, on the other hand had three multi-parted "suites", together with a longer prog folk song and a shorter avant-prog thing. Ummagumma led to what we nowadays consider space prog and helped invent avant-prog. And I do believe Pink Floyd did help inspire the future direction for the Canterbury Scene as well. Judging by the impact, Ummagumma is way more of an cataclysm than In the Court. In the Court is just way more critically acclaimed and helped influence of critically acclaimed genres. |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 04:09
|
I don't think one can call "In the Court of the Crimson King" "symphonic prog". maybe half of the album ("I Talk To the Wind", "Epitaph" and the title track may be called so, but "21st Century Schizoid Man" and "Moonchild" are definitely not symphonic prog, and they make up half of the album.
------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Silverbeard McStarr
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 04:37
|
Well, sure. King Crimson is an eclectic prog band, so obviously ITCOTCK has to be eclectic too. But it's not quite as varied and undefinable as, let's say Lark's Tongues in Aspic. More than half of the album can be called symphonic prog, so that is what I am going to call it. I also call Pink Floyd's Meddle space prog even though there are blues, jazz and folk in it.
Edit: Also, ITCOTCK helped influence symphonic prog more than any other prog genre.
|
Posted By: Devonsidhe
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 08:15
|
Since King Crimson is being credited with being the first prog album by influencing future bands of the same style, it would be interesting to hear what Fripp says influenced him in making ITCOTCK. Did he hear something similar and used it in his own vein or did he bring it from two or more sources to create a synthesis of his own? If he was influenced by something that could be considered prog, it would support the argument he wasn't the first. If he was influenced by something not considered prog, it would support the claim of ITCOTCK being the first or at least one of the first. Does anybody know what Fripp has said? ------------- Even a man who stumbles around in the dark will influence those he does not see. |
Posted By: shockedjazz
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 08:20
|
I consider that Moody Blues are not the first prog band...but i think what is interesting is realizing that prog is a crossroad in the middle of many things happenining at that time ( and none of this things separatedly):
We have psychedlia for one side, Jazz of course, and also what we may call just symphonic rock wich first group i consider to be Procol Harum ( and in this category will lie the Moodys).
Pink Floyd first is sonic experimentation of the first degree but its psychedelia after all.
ITCOCTCK is prog......no one that have heard "21 century..." could say that its not prog, all the ingredients are there musicianship, technical virtuosity, compositional care, rythim changes...and its rock!!!
|
Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 09:15
I don't think anything really sounds like King Crimson first album but if want to know who jump started what Robert Fripp wanted to do is the Beatles. It sort of the same effect the Beatles had on the Byrds going electric and jump starting folk rock
Listen to "Strawberry Fields Forever" it has signature progressive rock elements mellotron, mixed time signatures, definite use of studio as an instrument, and unusaul song structure. Now everything on Pepper is not proto-progressive or progressive rock but one of the early songs that King Crimson did cover was "Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds". It really doesn't matter if you think the Beatles were progressive rock or not they had a huge impact on these guys.
Robert Fripp on hearing the Beatles Sgt Pepper Robert Fripp- "When I was 20, I worked at a hotel in a dance orchestra, playing weddings, bar-mitzvahs, dancing, cabaret. I drove home and I was also at college at the time. Then I put on the radio (Radio Luxemburg) and I heard this music. It was terrifying. I had no idea what it was. Then it kept going. Then there was this enormous whine note of strings. Then there was this colossal piano chord. I discovered later that I'd come in half-way through Sgt. Pepper, played continuously. My life was never the same again" Bill Buford: The Beatles. They broke down every barrier that ever existed. Suddenly you could do anything after The Beatles. You could write your own music, make it ninety yards long, put it in 7/4, whatever you wanted. |
Posted By: Devonsidhe
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 15:00
Thanks Floydman. Inspiration has always fascinated me.
The fun thing (or difficult depending on your point of view) about this thread is exploring what could be described as a nebulous beginning and defining when that existence started. From this discussion, I've narrowed that beginning down to somewhere between the Big Bang (or Creation) and ITCOTCK.
One of the difficulties has been in what the definitions are that we are trying to find the beginning of. Definitions have ranged from progressing music to Progressive Rock. Then what constitutes a prog song let alone an album? Of all the myriad components of prog, how many of them does an album have to have? Are any of the components mandatory? The problem from this is that definition while explanatory, can also be limiting. We may be able to define the classic definition by saying it has to have a different time signature or no chorus or many other identifying ticks of prog. But, by definition, prog is having the freedom to leave a previous definition and explore something never done before. By defining prog, we will be readying the stage for the new prog to be something the old prog isn't.
It all boils down to the definition. One definition could be an academic one. Band A was the first to do an album containing components X, Y and Z therefore it is the first prog. But, what if only three people listened to the album and none of them created an album to further the movement? The first prog album would only be recognized by looking back in an archeological sense.
It could also be defined scientifically. For the fun of it, using quantum physics, prog didn't exist until someone was in the forest listening to it. Which may have some truth to it.
It could also be a populist definition. What do most of the people say? The big problem with this is prog has never been a populist movement. Kasey Kasem never did a top 40 for us. The Grammies don't have a category for us.
Prog's definition may be, if I can paraphrase the one from porn, we will know it when we hear it. Personally, I would rather have the definition come from the prog community rather than a quantum archeologist on am radio.
For whatever reason, the prog community, for the most part, has recognized ITCOTCK as the first prog album. Though there have been a few disagreements, none have been able to disprove it to the community. What came before it has been influential and what came after has been derivitive. King Crimson may not get support for being the originators of the components but they are getting credit for what they did with those components. Therefore it has all the definitions: one of the first to use all of the components; many people were listening to them when it came out; and the popular consensus of the prog community. Until someone can show another band answering these definitions prior to KC, KC will wear the crown.
Keep in mind one thing. All of us can point to our own origins to prog. Many of us listened to the classic prog from our dad's albums and discovered it in a retro fashion. Some of us bought the ITCOTCK when it first came out. And a few of us listened to Sgt. Pepper, The Nice, Moody Blues, Frank Zappa, etc and started to get it before it was even there. The true beginning will not be when it happened for us but when it happened for the community. Everything else is either inspirational or derivitive.
As with all things, there is no one explanation for anything. Especially when we consider prog which is all about freedom to make our own definitions. There are exceptions to this out there and that will only make the discussion more interesting. ------------- Even a man who stumbles around in the dark will influence those he does not see. |
Posted By: ProcolWho?
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 16:28
|
Nothing that came after Procols Shine on Brightly can be considered the first prog album. Absolutely absurd notion, not to be taken seriously. SOB came a year before ITCOTCK. If you want to hallucinate something that came before might have been #1, I will allow you that indulgence. |
Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 17:30
|
What about Deep Purple?....this is 100% symphonic prog in 1969:
And Donovan: ------------- Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com) 
|
Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 17:42
I think it is fair to say that there there are albums which are prog before ITCOTCK. In fact, I am willing to believe this is true just based on the fact that more than a handful of alternate candidates for first prog album have been put forward.
Also, I think any thing which arises out of a creative background probably does so through multiple roots and incrementally such that there is no clear moment of the creation of a genre. This is probably just as true in the evolution of species where no species magically started at one generation.
For my own part I enjoy the discussion and the debate.
In an effort to engage myself further with the music I know and love I will probably start examining song by song my music collection and use (and no doubt adjust) my own particular prog rock definition and see how that applies through the years of music since the late 60s. I can then compare that and share this with others hear and see if the definition appears valid. At the very least I will be learning something as I go and in a way that I will enjoy.
There may be a value in saying that the genre started a bit later than the first prog rock album...but then again for many there might not be a value in this. It should be fun finding out! |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 18:34
If you ever see that DVD about Tom Dowd you will change your mind about how you said this ... there were a lot of "interstellar overdrives" done, and "close to the edge"s done, but they were slightly different and may have been not as electrified as you expect. The transposition of elements in time causes confusion and bringing the "rock/electric" element to the 30's is like watching Michael J Fox do his guitar thing on that movie ... "I guess you're not ready for that yet!" ... It's out of time and place. BUT, you missed the important point. That there was music out there that was being done with similar inspirations and tastes in mind. And it might have been done within different contexts in music. How else would you explain the Stravinsky's and so many others from the turn of the century on?
Music is not that "exclusive" to the point where nothing else matters ... and while you do not have to look at it in a quotidian manner, it helps, and in the end gives you a rather nice perspective. But thinking that what you "want" today, and why it did not happen yesterday ... is not going to get you any answers! It doesn't reverse a lot of bad history! ... you do know that right?
You probably want to go through the 40's and 50's jazz stuff that ended up giving us Miles and such, people that did nothing but long cuts and played for a long time, which is where some of the "prog" and "rock" things that we love got their inspiration, including classical music. See the experiments in literature, film and thater in the 30's and 40's and what was being done ... a lot of music history might make a lot more sense to you. And please, look up that Tom Dowd DVD ... it is the history of 30 years of music like you have never heard it and it will surprise the living heck out of you! ... assuming you love music enough to even appreciate having your knockers knocked senseless all day long! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 23:06
|
It is nonsense to reduce the "start" to one band or one record; it was
simply in the air. King Crimson's first album may be the first prog
album which came out (by the way: what about "Sea Shanties" by High
Tide?), but a lot of things like that were going on at that time. Whoever published the first album can't claim that they invented it..
-------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: April 26 2010 at 23:17
An excellent post indeed. Even in 1973 a lot of different names were around for that "new cool music", as can be seen in a rock-lexicon of that time.. And people back then had no progblem to put Deep Purple or Led Zeppelin (which are only prog-related in the archives) into the same category as Genesis, Pink Floyd or Yes; it was just this new cool music. At least this was the way my brother and his friends used to look at it. They never used the term "prog" at all. And this is not the faulty memory of a kid which was born about the same time as prog was born; I checked back with my brother, who is ten years older than I am. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: shockedjazz
Date Posted: April 27 2010 at 08:47
There were some groups that have some ingredients of what would be latter called prog, one these ingredients is symphonism- wich groups like Procol mixed with rock...but it was 100 % prog. Omonimous album the one i was refering is symphonic pop-rock, no progrock.
"Shine on brightly" is a concept album, the music have contaminations but miss some ingredients like jazz, and hiper fantastic rock riffs, things like that.
I still bet for ITCOCK
|
Posted By: shockedjazz
Date Posted: April 27 2010 at 08:51
| And maybe clear that i was not saying that Procol made the first symphonic prog-rock album, no i was saying that they were the first to made symphonic rock. So calm down procolwho |
Posted By: shockedjazz
Date Posted: April 27 2010 at 08:56
Sorry i missed your point know i see. 
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: April 27 2010 at 09:01
|
I believe that "Sea Shanties" is every bit as progressive as ITCOTCK. but "Sea Shanties" also can be seen as the first prog-metal album - so it is in my opinion a better candidate for getting the honors. only "Sea Shanties" is not as well known as ITCOTCK
------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: April 27 2010 at 11:15
| It seems that heavy metal and prog may share some deep roots based on comments made about Procol Harem and Deep Purple. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 27 2010 at 16:41
Thank you Baldie ... sometimes I think we need to lock some of these people up with Miles in a room somewhere in 1954 and listen to these guys for 30 minutes ... not to just appreciate jzz, mind you, but to get people to realize ... the inspiration and the love for creating "music" ... has absolutely nothing to do with the wording and terminology that we talk about 50 years later!
Not sure some folks here want to hear that about "prog", though! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: April 27 2010 at 18:20
You hit right on the nail head. Almost everything back then that wasn't top 40 was called progressive rock. I never heard the term prog until this decade. The development of what we now call prog (which is what we meant by the British groups) evolved over several years. There are many albums that contained elements of prog many listed in this thread. So what was first or when did it happen are kind of relevant because there were elements in some of the music we wouldn't place here that eventually went into prog. 1969, 1966 what does it matter.? ------------- 
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: ProcolWho?
Date Posted: April 27 2010 at 20:40
I'm not sure if you understood what I was saying or if I understand what you're saying. So we must agree. |
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 28 2010 at 03:43
|
The good thing with this post is that we are debating about a question that can't be answered. For me prog is a way to feel music so highly individual. I think us olders are mentioning groups and artists that made us feel the "prog" sensation for the first time. Others look back to older artists looking for the beginning.
I guess that in 2015 this post will still be receiving comments.
About Procol Harum, symphonic ir not, they conquered me to prog with "A salty dog".
|
Posted By: shockedjazz
Date Posted: April 28 2010 at 11:24
|
Yes finaly i understood you so sorry for the mistake and the tone. Is just i consider Procol (incredible) Symphonic proto-prog, the same with the Moodys...well not the same....i love Procol much more...one of the greatest. |
Posted By: ferush
Date Posted: April 28 2010 at 13:20
| THE BEATLE ALBUM REVOLVER MUST BE DEFINITIVELY INCLUDED IN LIST |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 07:52
|
Related discussion at:
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66603&KW=time+line&PN=2 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66603&KW=time+line&PN=2
perhaps worth dipping into ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 10:02
Revolver and Sgt Pepper are not the most experimental albums ever it didn't have to be. "Strawberry Fields Forever" was a bizarre sounding pop hit full of avant ideas to create trippy sounds which you couldn't really say that about "Good Vibrations" though I love that song.
It's a fact those were experimental albums with great songs done by the world's greatest pop group showing that rock could be a serious genre. It was one thing for the Velvet Underground, Pink Floyd or Frank Zappa do their weird experimental stuff. Their ideas may have been more out there than the Beatles. The fact is that since they were not on the world stage of music at this point, they could be dismissed as an anomaly. The Beatles put out an album with the experimental trappings, without sacrificing all of their great melodies, the world had no choice but to take notice. Rock, pop, and all of it's cousins, was here to stay. So if you agree or not it was a huge influence.
|
Posted By: Devonsidhe
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 11:43
Agreed. The penultimate is never reached without the steps leading up to it. By keeping the pop/rock feel to their work, they were able to reach a bigger audience than those, say, of a Frank Zappa during that time period. By bringing in the public, it made it much easier for the following bands to gain studio support from the record labels or a chance to be heard on the radio and many other elements.
That is not to say the effects of a less commercial band like Frank Zappa and the MOI is less important. Oft times, it is the less heard records aiming for a smaller audience that has the freedom to go beyond the limitations of the public buying sector and aim for work that could be ahead of its time. That work can influence other artists instead of the public and still reach the suburban living rooms through those other artists albeit in a less direct manner.
With all of this cross fertilization, we do not have a single tree to branch out from which is why it is near impossible to look at beginnings. Each branch that comes from a single trunk usually has many roots. Each root usually leads to many branches. Add to that several different trunks of prog, when we try to map it, we have a multi-dimensional nightmare but infinitely enjoyable to explore.
------------- Even a man who stumbles around in the dark will influence those he does not see. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 15:06
Well, let me tell you this ... I was not a prog fan and have never been, because the word means nothing about music!
But in 69 I already had Pink Floyd and Soft Machine and Frank Zappa and had already phazed out of the popular music stuff for the most part. But I was also way more aware of other musics out there from Heinemann, Stockhausen, Terry Riley, Carl Orff, Benjamin Britten, Varese and many others ... so when you hear some Zappa having fun and the mix includes 2 sections of Verese, 1 section of rock music, 1 section of who cares, and 1 section of jazz and 1 section of kitchen sink ... you go immediately ... ohh my gawd ... this guy knows music and knows it well! ... sadly, what has become a definition for prog, is not about people experimenting with music ... but some London based fantasy about some dollies and drugs? Or some pseudo Grimm Brothers like story? Or some pseudo variation on a title to make it sound more interesting and people feeling like the cover was magical and mystical and the music was the same? Ohhh , the better one ... costumes! Like they have never been used on a stage!
Music was the important part, not the media events! ... yes, sometimes we have to stand up naked and do something stupid to get attention and get folks to find something in the art itself ... and while it might not be fun to do that all the time, more often than not it does get the attention. Doesn't make it prog, but it gets attention! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |