Genesis of Classic Prog : When did it all begin ? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

javier0889 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 21 2010
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 170

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? ;)

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65245

Posted: April 17 2010 at 23:20

I like cake

friso

Prog Reviewer

Joined: October 24 2007
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 2506

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.

ghost_of_morphy View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755

Posted: April 18 2010 at 11:53

flaxton wrote:

ian mcdonald had just as much input to itkotck as fripp. maybe he was the one who came upon the idea of progressive rock.

Greg Lake came up with the 21st Century Schizoid Man riff. All hail Greg Lake, the true inventor of prog!

ghost_of_morphy View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755

Posted: April 18 2010 at 11:58

Mr. Maestro wrote:

I

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

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.

logoman

Forum Newbie

Joined: February 16 2010
Location: Cornwall
Status: Offline
Points: 24

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.

SilverEclipse View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 19 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 123

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"

Progosopher View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 12 2009
Location: Coolwood
Status: Offline
Points: 6467

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"

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

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.

shockedjazz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169

Posted: April 19 2010 at 10:43

IMO of course.

ghost_of_morphy View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755

Posted: April 19 2010 at 12:58

And mine as well. Psychedelia and Prog are two different things.

sealchan

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 179

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.

octopus-4

Special Collaborator

RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams

Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14071

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.

richardh

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 27956

Posted: April 19 2010 at 17:12

ghost_of_morphy wrote:

And mine as well. Psychedelia and Prog are two different things.

I agree. The Nice moved on from the former to the latter very quickly (between their first and second albums in fact).

However King Crimsons debut album has a completeness about it in prog terms that no one had matched at that time.It became the main inspiration for many bands going into the seventies.

Progosopher View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 12 2009
Location: Coolwood
Status: Offline
Points: 6467

Posted: April 19 2010 at 18:06

octopus-4 wrote:

Dylan demonstrated that a song can have a meaning and is not just words over 2 minutes of music.

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"

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: April 19 2010 at 18:19

logoman wrote:

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.

I was going to make a joke like that and you beat me to it. LOL

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.

Edited by Slartibartfast - April 19 2010 at 18:20

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497

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!

Edited by moshkito - April 20 2010 at 16:32

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

octopus-4

Special Collaborator

RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams

Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14071

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.

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497

Posted: April 20 2010 at 17:01

octopus-4 wrote:

Not sure this is always the case. There are a lot of individual folk artists, that tend to just mind their own thing and people just ... gather around to listen to them. And then there are folks that like the media and attention and the whole thing, and in the end they are not as good musicians and poets since you can not satisfy an audience. You have to satisfy yourself and hope that the audience lives it with you!

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!

Edited by moshkito - April 20 2010 at 17:09

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

octopus-4

Special Collaborator

RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams

Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14071

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?