Print Page | Close Window

Is Sgt Pepper Prog?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=110978
Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 22:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Is Sgt Pepper Prog?
Posted By: Pinkyesgenesistull
Subject: Is Sgt Pepper Prog?
Date Posted: April 25 2017 at 21:06
Im not saying I think it is but it's just a thought.



Replies:
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 25 2017 at 22:57
It isn't, but the seeds are there.

-------------
What?


Posted By: Barbu
Date Posted: April 25 2017 at 23:00
I think so.

-------------



Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: April 25 2017 at 23:52
It's not. It's music for a Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Circus......

-------------


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 25 2017 at 23:57
Not sure.

Though I'm 100% sure about Abbey Road

-------------
            


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 00:43
Come on Ivan, the album has been out since 1967...more than enough time to pick a side.

-------------


Posted By: Kepler62
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 00:51
No. It's The Beatles on acid.


Posted By: Emerlist Davjack
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 01:15
The reason it sounds prog-y is because it influenced so much of the nascent proto-progressive scene. Is Sgt. Pepper prog proper? No, but the stylistic choices made on the record became standards in early prog production, like the use of the mellotron, the influence of world music, unusual song structures, etc.


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 01:58
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Come on Ivan, the album has been out since 1967...more than enough time to pick a side.


In the last 10 years I saw the definition of Prog change so much, that I don't know anymore.

10 years ago I would had said NO, but today.......

-------------
            


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 02:32
Originally posted by Emerlist Davjack Emerlist Davjack wrote:

The reason it sounds prog-y is because it influenced so much of the nascent proto-progressive scene. Is Sgt. Pepper prog proper? No, but the stylistic choices made on the record became standards in early prog production, like the use of the mellotron, the influence of world music, unusual song structures, etc.
Where is the Mellotron ??
I don't consider it Prog per-se, but it is experimental and boundary-pushing......
I have it, but I only spin it once in a blue moon....or even less (maybe coz my vinyl is far from mint.....).


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 03:59
No, it is psychedelic rock and would be the British blueprint for the that genre until psych rock fizzled out in 1969. As other's have said, it did plant the seeds for progressive rock along with other albums such as Days Of Future Passed by the Moody Blues released in the same year. PA lists the album as Proto Prog, what ever the hell that means.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 04:13
Baroque pop with a couple of psychedelic influences thrown into the mix. 
Prog? Nahh but it fertilised the ground for such a weed to flourish.


-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 05:06
Well The did come up with the idea for a surrogate band. But did the fans understand? It's psychedelic pop rock, it is a kind of concept album as well. The concept is loosely this bunch of colourful songs book ended by the Pepper themes. Until the grim and brilliant A Day In The Life turns up showing the world for what it is rather than what people would like it to be.

A vital link in the chain obviously. Music development is a process not a cut and dried start and finish and Pepper's is part of that in moving pop into rock.


Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 05:12
Originally posted by Tom Ozric Tom Ozric wrote:

Where is the Mellotron ??
On Strawberry Fields Forever, which was going to be on the album originally until it was stolen for a single.


Posted By: lostrom
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 05:57
 It is progressive but isn't the genre progressive rock.

-------------
lostrom


Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 09:08
Within You, Without You and A Day In The Life are just poppy tunes, but When I'm Sixty-Four is where they showed their bona fide prog credentials.

-------------
when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 11:15
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Come on Ivan, the album has been out since 1967...more than enough time to pick a side.


In the last 10 years I saw the definition of Prog change so much, that I don't know anymore.

10 years ago I would had said NO, but today.......

I agree with you and will finish your thought

"10 years ago I would had said NO, but today....." EVERYTHING IS CONSIDERED PROG!! Horrible......


-------------


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 11:38
Art rock or maybe proto prog but not prog in the usual sense. The first official prog album has a red face on the cover. :D


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 11:51
Originally posted by AFlowerKingCrimson AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:

Art rock or maybe proto prog but not prog in the usual sense. The first official prog album has a red face on the cover. :D

This one.......



-------------


Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 13:07
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Originally posted by AFlowerKingCrimson AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:

Art rock or maybe proto prog but not prog in the usual sense. The first official prog album has a red face on the cover. :D


This one.......



I thought it was this one, but that does make more sense.



I don't think that Sgt. Pepper is Prog, but it was influential to Prog. There's other music of that time that sounds more progressive rock to me.

-------------
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: April 26 2017 at 13:12
no.

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: Harmonicbliss
Date Posted: April 27 2017 at 10:11
The problem is - what your definition of progressive is. I think that sometimes gets lost in
peoples eyes.
 Sure by modern standards this doesn't define a prog rock album, but at the time- and it turned the world upside down and helped redefine what music and an album could be.
Any album that helps redefine the course of music or art and is against the prototypical stereotypes of the time  and inspires others to exceed its greatness as much as this has - should at least get a nod as being progressive.


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: April 27 2017 at 11:03
^ Michael Jackson and Madonna fit that bill too.........

-------------


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 27 2017 at 11:23
^And the Beatles! Big smile

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: noni
Date Posted: April 27 2017 at 13:02
Lots of Prog bands have been influenced by the Beatles!....Smile


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: April 27 2017 at 13:41
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^And the Beatles! Big smile

Boring response.....U would have got ClapClapClap had u said Lady Gaga


-------------


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: April 27 2017 at 13:43
I don't think anyone here is dismissing the legacy of Pepper nor it's progressive tendencies, but the question is whether not it's a prog album. I certainly don't think it is. A progressive release that spans baroque pop, psych, vaudeville and big lush orchestral sweeps? Sure.
The Beach Boys made an album the year before that you can attach the same characteristics to ( Pet Sounds which inspired ze Beatles to make Pepper according to Macca).

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Dopeydoc
Date Posted: April 27 2017 at 15:32
"A day in the life" is prog. "When I'm 64" not!


Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: April 27 2017 at 16:42
NO

-------------
Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV.

https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 27 2017 at 16:49
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Come on Ivan, the album has been out since 1967...more than enough time to pick a side.


In the last 10 years I saw the definition of Prog change so much, that I don't know anymore.

10 years ago I would had said NO, but today.......


Clap very true my friend.. very true.. it is called maturity. 10-15 years ago the internet heavyweights like you and me were dictating what was and was not. You here and me on that other site before you convinced me to join you over here.

Today...there is no answer .. only different interpretations of what it is..  thus there is no right or wrong answer.. thus the winning answer.

Is it Prog?

who gives a f**k...LOL


Posted By: maryes
Date Posted: April 27 2017 at 18:38
Originally posted by noni noni wrote:

Lots of Prog bands have been influenced by the Beatles!....Smile
 
 
Certainly


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: April 27 2017 at 23:37
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


Clap very true my friend.. very true.. it is called maturity. 10-15 years ago the internet heavyweights like you and me were dictating what was and was not. You here and me on that other site before you convinced me to join you over here.

Today...there is no answer .. only different interpretations of what it is..  thus there is no right or wrong answer.. thus the winning answer.

Is it Prog?

who gives a f**k...LOL

That's true.

That's why today I stick to say if something is Symphonic or not, if "KC and The Sunshine Band" or "Van Mc'Coy and the Soul City Symphony" are added to Avant Garde, I wouldn't say a word.

Wink


-------------
            


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 28 2017 at 00:31
LOL

-------------
What?


Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 28 2017 at 04:02
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

It isn't, but the seeds are there.
 
This.


Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: April 28 2017 at 04:30
Originally posted by noni noni wrote:

Lots of Prog bands have been influenced by the Beatles!....Smile


The Beatles are the most commercially successful and well-known pop group of all time, so what do you expect?  LOL


-------------
Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV.

https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 28 2017 at 04:32
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^And the Beatles! Big smile

Boring response.....U would have got ClapClapClap had u said Lady Gaga
Boring but true. The Beatles were the most influential rock band in history. They were the ones that first made long playing LPs filled with musical value and not just filler. They wrote their own songs instead of using the past practice of using outside songwriters and influenced every other major artist to do the same. They made the recording studio part of the composition of the music and changed forever the role of the recording studio in rock music. They evolved radically in a short time and forced every other major recording artist at the time to do the same.
These few examples are credentials that Lady Gaga, Madonna and Michael Jackson will never own. It's time to give the Beatles their due, Jose, as many of the prog and non pro artist that you enjoy today would not exist if the Beatles had not come first. Cold fact.


-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: 2dogs
Date Posted: April 28 2017 at 06:53
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

It isn't, but the seeds are there.

Yes, good point Dean Star.




-------------
"There is nothing new except what has been forgotten" - Marie Antoinette


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: April 28 2017 at 09:59
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^And the Beatles! Big smile

Boring response.....U would have got ClapClapClap had u said Lady Gaga
Boring but true. The Beatles were the most influential rock band in history. They were the ones that first made long playing LPs filled with musical value and not just filler. They wrote their own songs instead of using the past practice of using outside songwriters and influenced every other major artist to do the same. They made the recording studio part of the composition of the music and changed forever the role of the recording studio in rock music. They evolved radically in a short time and forced every other major recording artist at the time to do the same.
These few examples are credentials that Lady Gaga, Madonna and Michael Jackson will never own. It's time to give the Beatles their due, Jose, as many of the prog and non pro artist that you enjoy today would not exist if the Beatles had not come first. Cold fact.

The only cold fact is they gave up after 10 years...cold fact. Also have no real argument with most of what you state, clearly influential to the music world. But I give no credit to the statement "had they not existed your fav bands would not exist..." Well I have a ton of fav bands so you are saying I would have no musical experience in my life.......horse sh*t! 
Bands that came after still would have found their creative juice, what some of these bands did was to copy what the Beatles were doing, that's all. All new bands copy in some way an old band they like...

Almost all bands in that era lived in the studio when recording, not just the Beatles, all music at that time had that something extra special because music was recorded live as a group, not sampled and pieced together as it is now on a computer. 
I don't get the "wrote their own songs part", most bands I enjoy that were recording in the mid to late 60s wrote their own music. Remember these early British bands were influenced by the American R&B movement and also they enjoyed that 60's counterculture movement, they came on at the right time.

When I think about the music that was being created during that time, they were in a nice niche....but. Once '68 hit their music style was boring and too much teenage pop elements, too clean....It was not hard/metal enough like Zeppelin, Cream, The Who or Jimi nor psychedelic/experimental enough like the Floyd, KC, CAN or Tangerine Dream. To me this new music wave that was happening was leaving them behind or they were not progressive enough to evolve and adjust, although it seems to me they saw the writing on the wall.
I mean the people who like the music of Wings in the 70's, are just the grown up people who liked the Beatles music as teenagers in the 60's.

I will get red ink for my post, whatever Clap....It's my view and I love it!! I will go to my grave knowing full well that my musical life was not missing anything, by not including the Beatles in my collection.....Hell, they commanded the FM radio waves so why waste money and buy their albums, I heard their krapp for free! LOL


-------------


Posted By: Barbu
Date Posted: April 28 2017 at 11:07
Yup, boring to tears.



-------------



Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 28 2017 at 14:10
It's as proggy as some of the other albums listed on PA.....

Stern Smile


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: BarryGlibb
Date Posted: April 29 2017 at 07:08
Prog wasn't "invented" until 1969 was it? So....... no.

But I remember as a 8 year old that its was the most significant release in a lifetime up until that point....that is coming from an 8 year-old's consciousness mind you.


Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: April 29 2017 at 11:49
Baroque music can get confused sometimes for being prog, but I think it more acts as the progenitor rather than actually being prog itself. It definitely inspired music to be considered as such but itself I don't think so.

-------------
http://fryingpanmedia.com


Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: April 29 2017 at 11:51
Originally posted by BarryGlibb BarryGlibb wrote:

Prog wasn't "invented" until 1969 was it? So....... no.

Ehhh, debatable. Moody Blues released Days of Future Passed in '67, which is often considered to be prog. Self-conscious prog didn't come until 69-70 though, I guess. Just depends on your outlook really.


-------------
http://fryingpanmedia.com


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 29 2017 at 14:21
Originally posted by aglasshouse aglasshouse wrote:

Originally posted by BarryGlibb BarryGlibb wrote:

Prog wasn't "invented" until 1969 was it? So....... no.

Ehhh, debatable. Moody Blues released Days of Future Passed in '67, which is often considered to be prog. Self-conscious prog didn't come until 69-70 though, I guess. Just depends on your outlook really.


still surprises me this myth still persists...

no.. and no

while the Moodies in 67 might be debatable..personally I think it is and was...

this one from 68 isn't... hard core sympho prog man a year earlier than K.C supposed invented it.






Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: May 02 2017 at 13:38
Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

It's not. It's music for a Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Circus......
Oh, yeah. I see that!

-------------
"It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno


Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: May 03 2017 at 13:35
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by aglasshouse aglasshouse wrote:

Originally posted by BarryGlibb BarryGlibb wrote:

Prog wasn't "invented" until 1969 was it? So....... no.

Ehhh, debatable. Moody Blues released Days of Future Passed in '67, which is often considered to be prog. Self-conscious prog didn't come until 69-70 though, I guess. Just depends on your outlook really.


still surprises me this myth still persists...

no.. and no

while the Moodies in 67 might be debatable..personally I think it is and was...

this one from 68 isn't... hard core sympho prog man a year earlier than K.C supposed invented it.




I think Days is a more clear cut example of symph rock that Ars Longa was, as they quite literally had an orchestral accompaniment. The Nice were more symphonic in the realm of effects and keyboards, mainly due to Emerson, which is almost an equal amount of kudos given right there. I think Days also encapsulates that prog attitude, with it's silly romanticism, in one of it's earliest forms.


-------------
http://fryingpanmedia.com


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: May 03 2017 at 13:46
Crimson King is often cited as the first because Genesis and Yes and myriad other bands got their inspiration from it. But yeah there was certainly stuff before it like The Nice, Moody Blues, Procol Harum and even Pink Floyd. 


Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: May 03 2017 at 14:44
There was this Italian group before SPLHCB … . I think it was an instrumental album, but I just can't remember its name.

-------------
"It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 03 2017 at 17:43
To understand why Sgt Pepper is held in such high regard, and why In the Court of the Crimson King is considered to be the beginning of Progressive Rock, we have to take a step back and define exactly what we mean by "first". We often take it at its literal meaning when its use isn't quite that precise or accurate. English is like that, we seldom use words for their precise literal meaning - I'm not literally dying of thirst nor am I dying in any figurative way, but a cup of tea would be most welcome at this moment in time. When we stake a claim of something being the first of some-such we know that this doesn't have to be chronologically the first or even the only instance in at any given time. We are simply acknowledging that this is perhaps the first example of something that people remember, or it was the first occurrence that garnered a notable measure of attention at the time, or sometime later. Once that thing had been noticed by virtue of the whatever it is that brought it to the public eye it may be possible to use that as a yardstick to measure earlier, lesser known examples of the same thing, but they will never be regarded as "the first".

In the case of ItCotCK there are a number of albums released before it that can lay claim to being Progressive Rock, some in their totality and others just in part but this was the album that made people stop and take notice. That's not to belittle, ignore or overlook those other album because most of them (at least those mentioned thus far) have not been forgotten and their importance has not been disregarded, many of them were well-received and popular from their initial release but none of them were regarded as Prog Rock (or containing elements thereof) until after ItCotCK's release (some many, many years after). What ItCotCK contained was a recognisable paradigm-shift away from the norm in the underground music scene that had spored many great albums in the later half of the 1960s. What it represents is a convergence of ideas that had been brewing away in disparate corners of the scene and the result was something that couldn't be easily categorised at the time. ItCotCK was not the first, but it was the first that people recognised as being different to everything else. Earlier albums may have been just as ground-breaking but they were readily accepted as belonging to a collective trend in music that was evolving out of the post-hippy rock scene. ItCotCK and 21st Century Schizoid Man in particular came as a punch in the face of all that, arriving as it did at just the right moment in time when just such an album was needed to mop-up the "summer of love" aftermath and a return to the realities of real life. Other albums such as Ars Longa Vita Brevis may have preceded ItCotCK chronologically but they didn't have the same impact or effect and without ItCotCK they wouldn't be regarded as Prog Rock at all. (and let's get real here - The Nice made their mark with Five Bridges, not Ars Longa Vita Brevis.)

What we have with Sgt. Pepper and The Beatles is more or less the same. They were not the first band to write all their own material but they were the first to make it the accepted norm among pop groups [breaking away from the Tin Pan Alley approach]; they weren't the first to utilise every aspect of the studio as a creative tool but they were the first that the record buying public really noticed; they weren't the first band to record albums as being more than a vehicle for their chart singles but they were the first to popularise it. The Beatles grew up in a very short space of time from an early sixties "boy band" beat combo to serious (or semi-serious) pop-rock band that kept pace with their adolescence fan's growth into middle and late-teen maturity - that they don't appeal so much to people who where born in the sixties and later should therefore come as no great surprise. What was a first for the Beatles in that time was also a first for their audience, and since the Beatles were bigger than every other band around then so was their audience. Sgt Pepper in this respect is a coming of age album where The Beatles asserted themselves as grown-up versions of their earlier "four young lads from Liverpool" image, but more on that after this short digression...

There is a hell of a lot of tosh written about the Sixties, none of it particularly accurate and most of it exaggeration and hearsay. The adage "if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there" (or paraphrases thereof) being the biggest fib of all - if you were there and can't remember them then your testimony is questionable at best. The vast majority of the record buying youth were not hippies or freaks (those wastrels were hardly likely to be buying records anyway), they were normal folk who either went to school clutching copies of Record Mirror and The New Musical Express or had regular day jobs so they could earn money to spend in record shops and fashionable boutiques, and attend gigs in evenings and weekend. [There was a lot more to the gig scene back then than just the big-name venues and festivals that get remembered now]. Those are the youth who bought Sgt. Pepper, and they are the record-buying public that made those 'underground' albums popular. Can they remember the Sixties? Of course they bloody can. Did they recognise Sgt. Pepper as something special? Of course they bloody did. What we can say about them with a fair degree of accuracy is, like us die-hard prog fans today, they were incredibly knowledgeable of the music scene at the time. They read the weekly music papers and magazines from cover-to-cover because that was all there was, copies of each publication would get passed around common rooms, staff canteens and youth clubs. And they listened to the radio. While a lot of hot air and noise is made about FM stations in the US, most of that is inconsequential because it was too localised - tiny stations broadcasting line-of-sight transmissions to a limited audience. Here in the UK underground music was on national radio (albeit late at night but that's the only time this knowledgeable record-buying youth would listen to it anyway) with programmes such as The Perfumed Garden and Top Gear playing the kind of music that wouldn't get broadcast on daytime programming but was widely reported in all the weekly music papers. While a teenager growing up in the sticks would be unable to see their favourite underground band playing live in The Marquee or The Roundhouse in London, they could hear them on the radio and read about them in the music press and thus buy their albums in Woolworths and Our Price.

So... with Sgt Pepper we don't have (one of) the first Prog Rock albums, or (one of) the first concept album-that-isn't-quite-a-concept-but-it-is albums, we don't see any real ground-breaking developments in music that hadn't been seen before or the incorporation of any wacky out there left-field music genres that hadn't already been used previously in pop music. Yet it is universally accepted as being a ground-breaking album that changed the face of pop and rock music pretty much from the day of its release [as measured by Jimi Hendrix playing his version of the title track live on stage three days later as Harrison and McCartney watched from the wings]. What we have with Sgt Pepper is a culmination of lots of different unrelated elements converging onto a single moment in time (exactly like ItCotCK). All those components existed on other albums but they all converged on Sgt Pepper at the right moment when the audience was at their most receptive for change. 

At this point I should address the 'Tron issue thing: There is no 'tron in Sgt Pepper (although as Alan has noted there is some on Strawberry Fields Forever) and nor should there be because you have to remember what the 'Tron was invented for, which was to replace the costly studio orchestra that many bands couldn't afford to use in their recording sessions. While a couple of the Beat-less bought the new fangled instrument they didn't need to use them in the studio simply because if they wanted flute, trombones or strings playing on their tracks they'd employ someone to play the real acoustic instrument.  Ironically, because they'd then apply studio treatment to those acoustic recordings sometimes the end result sounds more like a 'tron than the real 'tron did. It would take later albums like ItCotCK to elevate the 'umble 'tron beyond its usage as an ersatz orchestra replacement to an bona fide instrument in its own right.

Love it or loathe it, and it has to be said, from my personal view there is a lot on Sgt Pepper not to like and very little that I do like, it is easy to be dismissive of large chunks of the album when each track is taken individually and with little regard to context. Contextually the theme of Sgt Pepper (and the double A-side single that accompanies it) isn't that far removed from the overall concept of it (which is hardly surprising) - it's grown-up album that takes small musical steps forward but thematically it's making longing looks backwards as it is an album of nostalgia for a time that never quite existed. In that respect it's as though the Beatles themselves were wishing for a present that harks back to their past, for even when they are being optimistic there remains a glint of cynical pessimism  ("It's getting better all the time .... it can't get no worse"). That the Lonely Hearts Club Band is a brass band reflects McCartney's childhood and the beginnings of his musical education, similarly the music for Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! recalls the music of fairgrounds and circuses from Lennon's youth although lyrically it's based on an English circus poster from 100 years earlier (sorry José more  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Fanque" rel="nofollow - Fanque  and Well's than Barnham and Bailey - although musically in England it would have been Smart and Chipperfield that inspired the Beatless, and of course the fairground in Sefton Park, Liverpool). The reason for all this nostalgia was not just the Beatles trying to escape the claustrophobia of fame, that alone would not have caught with the record-buying public, but that was a reflection of what was happening in London, the UK and Europe at the time. By the mid-sixties the post-war optimism was wearing thin, especially with the teenagers who had suffered the hardships of the post-war period without experiencing the grim reality of the war itself, they too wanted the childhood that had been denied them. In Germany this would give rise to the dourness of Krautrock (following a generous push from London psychedelia, including from Sgt Pepper itself), in Carnaby Street and on The Kings Road this saw a revival and reinvention of Edwardiana and Victoriana, and unlike its American counterpart the English Psychedelic scene revelled in this whimsical arty nostalgia as escapism and fanciful fantasy excursion, but always with an unnerving sinister undercurrent, the aftershock of something unpleasant, either past and impending. 

This was the melting pot from which Progressive Rock was cast. I (infamously perhaps) have argued strongly that Prog Rock would never have arisen in America, and this is why. Sure some American bands did things that are the similar to the point of being practically the same but they never came to anything because the catalysing environment wasn't there to propagate them - unlike in the UK, Germany, Holland, France, Italy and Sweden where the wind-blown seeds of Sgt Pepper, together with Ars Longa Vita Brevis, Shine On Brightly, Piper at the Gates, The Soft Machine and Days of Future Past, and of course In the Court of the Crimson King, would germinate into something else entirely. 



-------------
What?


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: May 03 2017 at 18:40
Originally posted by Rednight Rednight wrote:

There was this Italian group before SPLHCB … . I think it was an instrumental album, but I just can't remember its name.

Blue Phantom was after SP. 


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: May 03 2017 at 18:45
Or maybe you are referring to this one? http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3491


Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: May 03 2017 at 19:33
^Definitely not Blue Phantom as I remember the group's name being in Italian. Your second suggestion just might be it (I'm expecting a call back from a friend to verify it). Thanks for the assist, regardless.

-------------
"It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 04 2017 at 00:20
Originally posted by Rednight Rednight wrote:

^Definitely not Blue Phantom as I remember the group's name being in Italian. Your second suggestion just might be it (I'm expecting a call back from a friend to verify it). Thanks for the assist, regardless.
It really, really, doesn't matter. If you can't remember it and Mike hasn't guessed it then its value as the first of anything is precisely zero even if your mate does come back with a likely name. Being chronologically the first counts for nothing other than being a mildly interesting footnote in the annals of European pop music history.


-------------
What?


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: May 04 2017 at 04:03
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

To understand why Sgt Pepper is held in such high regard, and why In the Court of the Crimson King is considered to be the beginning of Progressive Rock, we have to take a step back and define exactly what we mean by "first". We often take it at its literal meaning when its use isn't quite that precise or accurate. English is like that, we seldom use words for their precise literal meaning - I'm not literally dying of thirst nor am I dying in any figurative way, but a cup of tea would be most welcome at this moment in time. When we stake a claim of something being the first of some-such we know that this doesn't have to be chronologically the first or even the only instance in at any given time. We are simply acknowledging that this is perhaps the first example of something that people remember, or it was the first occurrence that garnered a notable measure of attention at the time, or sometime later. Once that thing had been noticed by virtue of the whatever it is that brought it to the public eye it may be possible to use that as a yardstick to measure earlier, lesser known examples of the same thing, but they will never be regarded as "the first".

In the case of ItCotCK there are a number of albums released before it that can lay claim to being Progressive Rock, some in their totality and others just in part but this was the album that made people stop and take notice. That's not to belittle, ignore or overlook those other album because most of them (at least those mentioned thus far) have not been forgotten and their importance has not been disregarded, many of them were well-received and popular from their initial release but none of them were regarded as Prog Rock (or containing elements thereof) until after ItCotCK's release (some many, many years after). What ItCotCK contained was a recognisable paradigm-shift away from the norm in the underground music scene that had spored many great albums in the later half of the 1960s. What it represents is a convergence of ideas that had been brewing away in disparate corners of the scene and the result was something that couldn't be easily categorised at the time. ItCotCK was not the first, but it was the first that people recognised as being different to everything else. Earlier albums may have been just as ground-breaking but they were readily accepted as belonging to a collective trend in music that was evolving out of the post-hippy rock scene. ItCotCK and 21st Century Schizoid Man in particular came as a punch in the face of all that, arriving as it did at just the right moment in time when just such an album was needed to mop-up the "summer of love" aftermath and a return to the realities of real life. Other albums such as Ars Longa Vita Brevis may have preceded ItCotCK chronologically but they didn't have the same impact or effect and without ItCotCK they wouldn't be regarded as Prog Rock at all. (and let's get real here - The Nice made their mark with Five Bridges, not Ars Longa Vita Brevis.)

What we have with Sgt. Pepper and The Beatles is more or less the same. They were not the first band to write all their own material but they were the first to make it the accepted norm among pop groups [breaking away from the Tin Pan Alley approach]; they weren't the first to utilise every aspect of the studio as a creative tool but they were the first that the record buying public really noticed; they weren't the first band to record albums as being more than a vehicle for their chart singles but they were the first to popularise it. The Beatles grew up in a very short space of time from an early sixties "boy band" beat combo to serious (or semi-serious) pop-rock band that kept pace with their adolescence fan's growth into middle and late-teen maturity - that they don't appeal so much to people who where born in the sixties and later should therefore come as no great surprise. What was a first for the Beatles in that time was also a first for their audience, and since the Beatles were bigger than every other band around then so was their audience. Sgt Pepper in this respect is a coming of age album where The Beatles asserted themselves as grown-up versions of their earlier "four young lads from Liverpool" image, but more on that after this short digression...

There is a hell of a lot of tosh written about the Sixties, none of it particularly accurate and most of it exaggeration and hearsay. The adage "if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there" (or paraphrases thereof) being the biggest fib of all - if you were there and can't remember them then your testimony is questionable at best. The vast majority of the record buying youth were not hippies or freaks (those wastrels were hardly likely to be buying records anyway), they were normal folk who either went to school clutching copies of Record Mirror and The New Musical Express or had regular day jobs so they could earn money to spend in record shops and fashionable boutiques, and attend gigs in evenings and weekend. [There was a lot more to the gig scene back then than just the big-name venues and festivals that get remembered now]. Those are the youth who bought Sgt. Pepper, and they are the record-buying public that made those 'underground' albums popular. Can they remember the Sixties? Of course they bloody can. Did they recognise Sgt. Pepper as something special? Of course they bloody did. What we can say about them with a fair degree of accuracy is, like us die-hard prog fans today, they were incredibly knowledgeable of the music scene at the time. They read the weekly music papers and magazines from cover-to-cover because that was all there was, copies of each publication would get passed around common rooms, staff canteens and youth clubs. And they listened to the radio. While a lot of hot air and noise is made about FM stations in the US, most of that is inconsequential because it was too localised - tiny stations broadcasting line-of-sight transmissions to a limited audience. Here in the UK underground music was on national radio (albeit late at night but that's the only time this knowledgeable record-buying youth would listen to it anyway) with programmes such as The Perfumed Garden and Top Gear playing the kind of music that wouldn't get broadcast on daytime programming but was widely reported in all the weekly music papers. While a teenager growing up in the sticks would be unable to see their favourite underground band playing live in The Marquee or The Roundhouse in London, they could hear them on the radio and read about them in the music press and thus buy their albums in Woolworths and Our Price.

So... with Sgt Pepper we don't have (one of) the first Prog Rock albums, or (one of) the first concept album-that-isn't-quite-a-concept-but-it-is albums, we don't see any real ground-breaking developments in music that hadn't been seen before or the incorporation of any wacky out there left-field music genres that hadn't already been used previously in pop music. Yet it is universally accepted as being a ground-breaking album that changed the face of pop and rock music pretty much from the day of its release [as measured by Jimi Hendrix playing his version of the title track live on stage three days later as Harrison and McCartney watched from the wings]. What we have with Sgt Pepper is a culmination of lots of different unrelated elements converging onto a single moment in time (exactly like ItCotCK). All those components existed on other albums but they all converged on Sgt Pepper at the right moment when the audience was at their most receptive for change. 

At this point I should address the 'Tron issue thing: There is no 'tron in Sgt Pepper (although as Alan has noted there is some on Strawberry Fields Forever) and nor should there be because you have to remember what the 'Tron was invented for, which was to replace the costly studio orchestra that many bands couldn't afford to use in their recording sessions. While a couple of the Beat-less bought the new fangled instrument they didn't need to use them in the studio simply because if they wanted flute, trombones or strings playing on their tracks they'd employ someone to play the real acoustic instrument.  Ironically, because they'd then apply studio treatment to those acoustic recordings sometimes the end result sounds more like a 'tron than the real 'tron did. It would take later albums like ItCotCK to elevate the 'umble 'tron beyond its usage as an ersatz orchestra replacement to an bona fide instrument in its own right.

Love it or loathe it, and it has to be said, from my personal view there is a lot on Sgt Pepper not to like and very little that I do like, it is easy to be dismissive of large chunks of the album when each track is taken individually and with little regard to context. Contextually the theme of Sgt Pepper (and the double A-side single that accompanies it) isn't that far removed from the overall concept of it (which is hardly surprising) - it's grown-up album that takes small musical steps forward but thematically it's making longing looks backwards as it is an album of nostalgia for a time that never quite existed. In that respect it's as though the Beatles themselves were wishing for a present that harks back to their past, for even when they are being optimistic there remains a glint of cynical pessimism  ("It's getting better all the time .... it can't get no worse"). That the Lonely Hearts Club Band is a brass band reflects McCartney's childhood and the beginnings of his musical education, similarly the music for Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! recalls the music of fairgrounds and circuses from Lennon's youth although lyrically it's based on an English circus poster from 100 years earlier (sorry José more  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Fanque" rel="nofollow - Fanque  and Well's than Barnham and Bailey - although musically in England it would have been Smart and Chipperfield that inspired the Beatless, and of course the fairground in Sefton Park, Liverpool). The reason for all this nostalgia was not just the Beatles trying to escape the claustrophobia of fame, that alone would not have caught with the record-buying public, but that was a reflection of what was happening in London, the UK and Europe at the time. By the mid-sixties the post-war optimism was wearing thin, especially with the teenagers who had suffered the hardships of the post-war period without experiencing the grim reality of the war itself, they too wanted the childhood that had been denied them. In Germany this would give rise to the dourness of Krautrock (following a generous push from London psychedelia, including from Sgt Pepper itself), in Carnaby Street and on The Kings Road this saw a revival and reinvention of Edwardiana and Victoriana, and unlike its American counterpart the English Psychedelic scene revelled in this whimsical arty nostalgia as escapism and fanciful fantasy excursion, but always with an unnerving sinister undercurrent, the aftershock of something unpleasant, either past and impending. 

This was the melting pot from which Progressive Rock was cast. I (infamously perhaps) have argued strongly that Prog Rock would never have arisen in America, and this is why. Sure some American bands did things that are the similar to the point of being practically the same but they never came to anything because the catalysing environment wasn't there to propagate them - unlike in the UK, Germany, Holland, France, Italy and Sweden where the wind-blown seeds of Sgt Pepper, together with Ars Longa Vita Brevis, Shine On Brightly, Piper at the Gates, The Soft Machine and Days of Future Past, and of course In the Court of the Crimson King, would germinate into something else entirely. 

This is a great overview of Sgt. Pepper's and prog. Especially with the captcha police constantly on our heals. I have my own reasons for the lack of, or divergent, development of prog in the States. However, it would not add anything to your fine post.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: May 04 2017 at 04:07
Time for someone to make the "Is all music, prog rock?" thread now LOL

-------------
Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV.

https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: May 04 2017 at 04:10
Yes, we'd all like some form of non prog to be prog at times, but take it as a love of the genre.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 04 2017 at 09:12
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

To understand why Sgt Pepper is held in such high regard, and why In the Court of the Crimson King is considered to be the beginning of Progressive Rock, we have to take a step back and define exactly what we mean by "first". We often take it at its literal meaning when its use isn't quite that precise or accurate. English is like that, we seldom use words for their precise literal meaning - I'm not literally dying of thirst nor am I dying in any figurative way, but a cup of tea would be most welcome at this moment in time. When we stake a claim of something being the first of some-such we know that this doesn't have to be chronologically the first or even the only instance in at any given time. We are simply acknowledging that this is perhaps the first example of something that people remember, or it was the first occurrence that garnered a notable measure of attention at the time, or sometime later. Once that thing had been noticed by virtue of the whatever it is that brought it to the public eye it may be possible to use that as a yardstick to measure earlier, lesser known examples of the same thing, but they will never be regarded as "the first".

In the case of ItCotCK there are a number of albums released before it that can lay claim to being Progressive Rock, some in their totality and others just in part but this was the album that made people stop and take notice. That's not to belittle, ignore or overlook those other album because most of them (at least those mentioned thus far) have not been forgotten and their importance has not been disregarded, many of them were well-received and popular from their initial release but none of them were regarded as Prog Rock (or containing elements thereof) until after ItCotCK's release (some many, many years after). What ItCotCK contained was a recognisable paradigm-shift away from the norm in the underground music scene that had spored many great albums in the later half of the 1960s. What it represents is a convergence of ideas that had been brewing away in disparate corners of the scene and the result was something that couldn't be easily categorised at the time. ItCotCK was not the first, but it was the first that people recognised as being different to everything else. Earlier albums may have been just as ground-breaking but they were readily accepted as belonging to a collective trend in music that was evolving out of the post-hippy rock scene. ItCotCK and 21st Century Schizoid Man in particular came as a punch in the face of all that, arriving as it did at just the right moment in time when just such an album was needed to mop-up the "summer of love" aftermath and a return to the realities of real life. Other albums such as Ars Longa Vita Brevis may have preceded ItCotCK chronologically but they didn't have the same impact or effect and without ItCotCK they wouldn't be regarded as Prog Rock at all. (and let's get real here - The Nice made their mark with Five Bridges, not Ars Longa Vita Brevis.)

What we have with Sgt. Pepper and The Beatles is more or less the same. They were not the first band to write all their own material but they were the first to make it the accepted norm among pop groups [breaking away from the Tin Pan Alley approach]; they weren't the first to utilise every aspect of the studio as a creative tool but they were the first that the record buying public really noticed; they weren't the first band to record albums as being more than a vehicle for their chart singles but they were the first to popularise it. The Beatles grew up in a very short space of time from an early sixties "boy band" beat combo to serious (or semi-serious) pop-rock band that kept pace with their adolescence fan's growth into middle and late-teen maturity - that they don't appeal so much to people who where born in the sixties and later should therefore come as no great surprise. What was a first for the Beatles in that time was also a first for their audience, and since the Beatles were bigger than every other band around then so was their audience. Sgt Pepper in this respect is a coming of age album where The Beatles asserted themselves as grown-up versions of their earlier "four young lads from Liverpool" image, but more on that after this short digression...

There is a hell of a lot of tosh written about the Sixties, none of it particularly accurate and most of it exaggeration and hearsay. The adage "if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there" (or paraphrases thereof) being the biggest fib of all - if you were there and can't remember them then your testimony is questionable at best. The vast majority of the record buying youth were not hippies or freaks (those wastrels were hardly likely to be buying records anyway), they were normal folk who either went to school clutching copies of Record Mirror and The New Musical Express or had regular day jobs so they could earn money to spend in record shops and fashionable boutiques, and attend gigs in evenings and weekend. [There was a lot more to the gig scene back then than just the big-name venues and festivals that get remembered now]. Those are the youth who bought Sgt. Pepper, and they are the record-buying public that made those 'underground' albums popular. Can they remember the Sixties? Of course they bloody can. Did they recognise Sgt. Pepper as something special? Of course they bloody did. What we can say about them with a fair degree of accuracy is, like us die-hard prog fans today, they were incredibly knowledgeable of the music scene at the time. They read the weekly music papers and magazines from cover-to-cover because that was all there was, copies of each publication would get passed around common rooms, staff canteens and youth clubs. And they listened to the radio. While a lot of hot air and noise is made about FM stations in the US, most of that is inconsequential because it was too localised - tiny stations broadcasting line-of-sight transmissions to a limited audience. Here in the UK underground music was on national radio (albeit late at night but that's the only time this knowledgeable record-buying youth would listen to it anyway) with programmes such as The Perfumed Garden and Top Gear playing the kind of music that wouldn't get broadcast on daytime programming but was widely reported in all the weekly music papers. While a teenager growing up in the sticks would be unable to see their favourite underground band playing live in The Marquee or The Roundhouse in London, they could hear them on the radio and read about them in the music press and thus buy their albums in Woolworths and Our Price.

So... with Sgt Pepper we don't have (one of) the first Prog Rock albums, or (one of) the first concept album-that-isn't-quite-a-concept-but-it-is albums, we don't see any real ground-breaking developments in music that hadn't been seen before or the incorporation of any wacky out there left-field music genres that hadn't already been used previously in pop music. Yet it is universally accepted as being a ground-breaking album that changed the face of pop and rock music pretty much from the day of its release [as measured by Jimi Hendrix playing his version of the title track live on stage three days later as Harrison and McCartney watched from the wings]. What we have with Sgt Pepper is a culmination of lots of different unrelated elements converging onto a single moment in time (exactly like ItCotCK). All those components existed on other albums but they all converged on Sgt Pepper at the right moment when the audience was at their most receptive for change. 

At this point I should address the 'Tron issue thing: There is no 'tron in Sgt Pepper (although as Alan has noted there is some on Strawberry Fields Forever) and nor should there be because you have to remember what the 'Tron was invented for, which was to replace the costly studio orchestra that many bands couldn't afford to use in their recording sessions. While a couple of the Beat-less bought the new fangled instrument they didn't need to use them in the studio simply because if they wanted flute, trombones or strings playing on their tracks they'd employ someone to play the real acoustic instrument.  Ironically, because they'd then apply studio treatment to those acoustic recordings sometimes the end result sounds more like a 'tron than the real 'tron did. It would take later albums like ItCotCK to elevate the 'umble 'tron beyond its usage as an ersatz orchestra replacement to an bona fide instrument in its own right.

Love it or loathe it, and it has to be said, from my personal view there is a lot on Sgt Pepper not to like and very little that I do like, it is easy to be dismissive of large chunks of the album when each track is taken individually and with little regard to context. Contextually the theme of Sgt Pepper (and the double A-side single that accompanies it) isn't that far removed from the overall concept of it (which is hardly surprising) - it's grown-up album that takes small musical steps forward but thematically it's making longing looks backwards as it is an album of nostalgia for a time that never quite existed. In that respect it's as though the Beatles themselves were wishing for a present that harks back to their past, for even when they are being optimistic there remains a glint of cynical pessimism  ("It's getting better all the time .... it can't get no worse"). That the Lonely Hearts Club Band is a brass band reflects McCartney's childhood and the beginnings of his musical education, similarly the music for Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! recalls the music of fairgrounds and circuses from Lennon's youth although lyrically it's based on an English circus poster from 100 years earlier (sorry José more  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Fanque" rel="nofollow - Fanque  and Well's than Barnham and Bailey - although musically in England it would have been Smart and Chipperfield that inspired the Beatless, and of course the fairground in Sefton Park, Liverpool). The reason for all this nostalgia was not just the Beatles trying to escape the claustrophobia of fame, that alone would not have caught with the record-buying public, but that was a reflection of what was happening in London, the UK and Europe at the time. By the mid-sixties the post-war optimism was wearing thin, especially with the teenagers who had suffered the hardships of the post-war period without experiencing the grim reality of the war itself, they too wanted the childhood that had been denied them. In Germany this would give rise to the dourness of Krautrock (following a generous push from London psychedelia, including from Sgt Pepper itself), in Carnaby Street and on The Kings Road this saw a revival and reinvention of Edwardiana and Victoriana, and unlike its American counterpart the English Psychedelic scene revelled in this whimsical arty nostalgia as escapism and fanciful fantasy excursion, but always with an unnerving sinister undercurrent, the aftershock of something unpleasant, either past and impending. 

This was the melting pot from which Progressive Rock was cast. I (infamously perhaps) have argued strongly that Prog Rock would never have arisen in America, and this is why. Sure some American bands did things that are the similar to the point of being practically the same but they never came to anything because the catalysing environment wasn't there to propagate them - unlike in the UK, Germany, Holland, France, Italy and Sweden where the wind-blown seeds of Sgt Pepper, together with Ars Longa Vita Brevis, Shine On Brightly, Piper at the Gates, The Soft Machine and Days of Future Past, and of course In the Court of the Crimson King, would germinate into something else entirely. 



Have to agree with pretty much all of this, especially the futility and delusion of 'firsts by chronology' part. (Very perceptive insight) Not sure what you mean as the source of the 'dourness' of Krautrock though: Do the losers have post war optimism? Reading the journalism of Ulrike Meinhof at around this time made me think that German youth resentment stemmed from the belief that many of the lower ranking officials in the Nazi regime were still in power and not held accountable for their past


-------------


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: May 04 2017 at 09:17
Originally posted by Thatfabulousalien Thatfabulousalien wrote:

Time for someone to make the "Is all music, prog rock?" thread now LOL

It's called "prog related" ughhh Dead


-------------


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: May 04 2017 at 09:18
Thanks Dean......will have to remember Smart & Chipperfield and Fanque & Well's.

PS..I cannot imagine how many captcha events you went thru on that long a$$ post LOL


-------------


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: May 04 2017 at 09:43
For the record, Dean, hippie wastrels did actually buy records in a communal setting. Do you recall one fellow named Charlie Manson and his families' obsession with the Beatles' White Album? Yeah, hippies are misunderstood as well most of the sixties' stereotypes by those that were too young to be there.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 04 2017 at 09:48
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

To understand why Sgt Pepper is held in such high regard, and why In the Court of the Crimson King is considered to be the beginning of Progressive Rock, we have to take a step back and define exactly what we mean by "first". We often take it at its literal meaning when its use isn't quite that precise or accurate. English is like that, we seldom use words for their precise literal meaning - I'm not literally dying of thirst nor am I dying in any figurative way, but a cup of tea would be most welcome at this moment in time. When we stake a claim of something being the first of some-such we know that this doesn't have to be chronologically the first or even the only instance in at any given time. We are simply acknowledging that this is perhaps the first example of something that people remember, or it was the first occurrence that garnered a notable measure of attention at the time, or sometime later. Once that thing had been noticed by virtue of the whatever it is that brought it to the public eye it may be possible to use that as a yardstick to measure earlier, lesser known examples of the same thing, but they will never be regarded as "the first".

In the case of ItCotCK there are a number of albums released before it that can lay claim to being Progressive Rock, some in their totality and others just in part but this was the album that made people stop and take notice. That's not to belittle, ignore or overlook those other album because most of them (at least those mentioned thus far) have not been forgotten and their importance has not been disregarded, many of them were well-received and popular from their initial release but none of them were regarded as Prog Rock (or containing elements thereof) until after ItCotCK's release (some many, many years after). What ItCotCK contained was a recognisable paradigm-shift away from the norm in the underground music scene that had spored many great albums in the later half of the 1960s. What it represents is a convergence of ideas that had been brewing away in disparate corners of the scene and the result was something that couldn't be easily categorised at the time. ItCotCK was not the first, but it was the first that people recognised as being different to everything else. Earlier albums may have been just as ground-breaking but they were readily accepted as belonging to a collective trend in music that was evolving out of the post-hippy rock scene. ItCotCK and 21st Century Schizoid Man in particular came as a punch in the face of all that, arriving as it did at just the right moment in time when just such an album was needed to mop-up the "summer of love" aftermath and a return to the realities of real life. Other albums such as Ars Longa Vita Brevis may have preceded ItCotCK chronologically but they didn't have the same impact or effect and without ItCotCK they wouldn't be regarded as Prog Rock at all. (and let's get real here - The Nice made their mark with Five Bridges, not Ars Longa Vita Brevis.)

What we have with Sgt. Pepper and The Beatles is more or less the same. They were not the first band to write all their own material but they were the first to make it the accepted norm among pop groups [breaking away from the Tin Pan Alley approach]; they weren't the first to utilise every aspect of the studio as a creative tool but they were the first that the record buying public really noticed; they weren't the first band to record albums as being more than a vehicle for their chart singles but they were the first to popularise it. The Beatles grew up in a very short space of time from an early sixties "boy band" beat combo to serious (or semi-serious) pop-rock band that kept pace with their adolescence fan's growth into middle and late-teen maturity - that they don't appeal so much to people who where born in the sixties and later should therefore come as no great surprise. What was a first for the Beatles in that time was also a first for their audience, and since the Beatles were bigger than every other band around then so was their audience. Sgt Pepper in this respect is a coming of age album where The Beatles asserted themselves as grown-up versions of their earlier "four young lads from Liverpool" image, but more on that after this short digression...

There is a hell of a lot of tosh written about the Sixties, none of it particularly accurate and most of it exaggeration and hearsay. The adage "if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there" (or paraphrases thereof) being the biggest fib of all - if you were there and can't remember them then your testimony is questionable at best. The vast majority of the record buying youth were not hippies or freaks (those wastrels were hardly likely to be buying records anyway), they were normal folk who either went to school clutching copies of Record Mirror and The New Musical Express or had regular day jobs so they could earn money to spend in record shops and fashionable boutiques, and attend gigs in evenings and weekend. [There was a lot more to the gig scene back then than just the big-name venues and festivals that get remembered now]. Those are the youth who bought Sgt. Pepper, and they are the record-buying public that made those 'underground' albums popular. Can they remember the Sixties? Of course they bloody can. Did they recognise Sgt. Pepper as something special? Of course they bloody did. What we can say about them with a fair degree of accuracy is, like us die-hard prog fans today, they were incredibly knowledgeable of the music scene at the time. They read the weekly music papers and magazines from cover-to-cover because that was all there was, copies of each publication would get passed around common rooms, staff canteens and youth clubs. And they listened to the radio. While a lot of hot air and noise is made about FM stations in the US, most of that is inconsequential because it was too localised - tiny stations broadcasting line-of-sight transmissions to a limited audience. Here in the UK underground music was on national radio (albeit late at night but that's the only time this knowledgeable record-buying youth would listen to it anyway) with programmes such as The Perfumed Garden and Top Gear playing the kind of music that wouldn't get broadcast on daytime programming but was widely reported in all the weekly music papers. While a teenager growing up in the sticks would be unable to see their favourite underground band playing live in The Marquee or The Roundhouse in London, they could hear them on the radio and read about them in the music press and thus buy their albums in Woolworths and Our Price.

So... with Sgt Pepper we don't have (one of) the first Prog Rock albums, or (one of) the first concept album-that-isn't-quite-a-concept-but-it-is albums, we don't see any real ground-breaking developments in music that hadn't been seen before or the incorporation of any wacky out there left-field music genres that hadn't already been used previously in pop music. Yet it is universally accepted as being a ground-breaking album that changed the face of pop and rock music pretty much from the day of its release [as measured by Jimi Hendrix playing his version of the title track live on stage three days later as Harrison and McCartney watched from the wings]. What we have with Sgt Pepper is a culmination of lots of different unrelated elements converging onto a single moment in time (exactly like ItCotCK). All those components existed on other albums but they all converged on Sgt Pepper at the right moment when the audience was at their most receptive for change. 

At this point I should address the 'Tron issue thing: There is no 'tron in Sgt Pepper (although as Alan has noted there is some on Strawberry Fields Forever) and nor should there be because you have to remember what the 'Tron was invented for, which was to replace the costly studio orchestra that many bands couldn't afford to use in their recording sessions. While a couple of the Beat-less bought the new fangled instrument they didn't need to use them in the studio simply because if they wanted flute, trombones or strings playing on their tracks they'd employ someone to play the real acoustic instrument.  Ironically, because they'd then apply studio treatment to those acoustic recordings sometimes the end result sounds more like a 'tron than the real 'tron did. It would take later albums like ItCotCK to elevate the 'umble 'tron beyond its usage as an ersatz orchestra replacement to an bona fide instrument in its own right.

Love it or loathe it, and it has to be said, from my personal view there is a lot on Sgt Pepper not to like and very little that I do like, it is easy to be dismissive of large chunks of the album when each track is taken individually and with little regard to context. Contextually the theme of Sgt Pepper (and the double A-side single that accompanies it) isn't that far removed from the overall concept of it (which is hardly surprising) - it's grown-up album that takes small musical steps forward but thematically it's making longing looks backwards as it is an album of nostalgia for a time that never quite existed. In that respect it's as though the Beatles themselves were wishing for a present that harks back to their past, for even when they are being optimistic there remains a glint of cynical pessimism  ("It's getting better all the time .... it can't get no worse"). That the Lonely Hearts Club Band is a brass band reflects McCartney's childhood and the beginnings of his musical education, similarly the music for Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! recalls the music of fairgrounds and circuses from Lennon's youth although lyrically it's based on an English circus poster from 100 years earlier (sorry José more  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Fanque" rel="nofollow - Fanque  and Well's than Barnham and Bailey - although musically in England it would have been Smart and Chipperfield that inspired the Beatless, and of course the fairground in Sefton Park, Liverpool). The reason for all this nostalgia was not just the Beatles trying to escape the claustrophobia of fame, that alone would not have caught with the record-buying public, but that was a reflection of what was happening in London, the UK and Europe at the time. By the mid-sixties the post-war optimism was wearing thin, especially with the teenagers who had suffered the hardships of the post-war period without experiencing the grim reality of the war itself, they too wanted the childhood that had been denied them. In Germany this would give rise to the dourness of Krautrock (following a generous push from London psychedelia, including from Sgt Pepper itself), in Carnaby Street and on The Kings Road this saw a revival and reinvention of Edwardiana and Victoriana, and unlike its American counterpart the English Psychedelic scene revelled in this whimsical arty nostalgia as escapism and fanciful fantasy excursion, but always with an unnerving sinister undercurrent, the aftershock of something unpleasant, either past and impending. 

This was the melting pot from which Progressive Rock was cast. I (infamously perhaps) have argued strongly that Prog Rock would never have arisen in America, and this is why. Sure some American bands did things that are the similar to the point of being practically the same but they never came to anything because the catalysing environment wasn't there to propagate them - unlike in the UK, Germany, Holland, France, Italy and Sweden where the wind-blown seeds of Sgt Pepper, together with Ars Longa Vita Brevis, Shine On Brightly, Piper at the Gates, The Soft Machine and Days of Future Past, and of course In the Court of the Crimson King, would germinate into something else entirely. 



Have to agree with pretty much all of this, especially the futility and delusion of 'firsts by chronology' part. (Very perceptive insight) Not sure what you mean as the source of the 'dourness' of Krautrock though: Do the losers have post war optimism? Reading the journalism of Ulrike Meinhof at around this time made me think that German youth resentment stemmed from the belief that many of the lower ranking officials in the Nazi regime were still in power and not held accountable for their past

Ditto and great post Dean.
Regarding the last bt of your post Iain, I too have read quite a few interviews with folks from the Krautrock "scene" and most of them tell of the same thing. What little money the country had (post WW2 after having been bombed back to the stone age) did not go to new teachers. What up and coming musicians then faced at school were music teachers who believed the schlager to be god's private ear-lotion. 
Now if there is anything worth rebelling against in this strange world of ours it is surely the German take on muzak. Krautrock needed to happen imo - hell it could go a couple more rounds right about now. Schlager is huge in certain parts of Denmark (Jutland, where I'm situated, being one of the hotspotsDead)






-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 04 2017 at 10:20
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

 Not sure what you mean as the source of the 'dourness' of Krautrock though: Do the losers have post war optimism? Reading the journalism of Ulrike Meinhof at around this time made me think that German youth resentment stemmed from the belief that many of the lower ranking officials in the Nazi regime were still in power and not held accountable for their past
The two are related: there was a degree of post-war optimism in West Germany, known as the Wirtschaftswunder (ecomonic miracle), and that economic recovery/rebuilding of Germany was controlled by the same administrators and officials from the Nazi regime. In that respect the resentment wasn't so much that they were going unpunished but that they were prospering from it. Youth disaffection with one was a consequence of the other and Krautrock was one of the products of that; by the latter half of 1968 the previous year's Summer of Love had fizzled out in every major country of the Western world and youthful rebellion had turned into violent student riots. While the initial impetus that sparked this unrest was tenuously linked, the causes of it, the fuel for it and the degree of severity was different in each country. (ps: there is no irony in my use of dourness to describe Krautrock, it's pretty difficult to call any of it light and breezy, especially when you compare it against the pop music that immediately preceded it¹).


¹ ... the word I was grasping for there was indeed 'Schlager'.


-------------
What?


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: May 04 2017 at 14:24
I'm amazed that Sgt. Pepper's gets this much attention 50 years after it's birth. Ok, ok. I get it. I was 16 when this album stormed the world and it was cool to like the Beatles in 1967. For most Americans, I suppose. I was a native New Yorker born to left wing parents that couldn't get enough of Dylan, Pete Seeger and the NYC folk clubs that became all but extinct in 1966.

I personally never felt that Sgt. Pepper's was a great record. Revolver was a great album. However, Sgt. Pepper's was greatly recorded and that did not escape my attention. I would be lying if I denied that both albums fostered my love for the sound  of music, if not for the music itself.

With its 24 hour broadcasting on radio, however, Sgt. Pepper's was an event. A happening. An epoch. I wouldn't be surprised that those that love the album remember exactly where they were and what they were doing the first time they heard Sgt. Pepper's in 1967. It was culturally that hugh.

There was another factor that put Sgt. Pepper's on the weary list for me. My parents both liked the music on Sgt. Pepper's and were glad that the album featured uplifting songs like A little Help From My Friends and even Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, despite the drug references, as opposed to depressing songs like Eleanor Rigby, He Said He Said, and the trippy Tomorrow Never Knows. 

Now when your parents are grooving to "your music", its time to move on. Luckily, the Beatles decided to move on too with the White Album. Now all the left wing radicals in my family had music they could appreciate.
My parents liked the White Album, but not as much as Sgt. Pepper's and never once played it.

Now that's the type of music you can get into when you turn 17. 1968. What a time.

Oh, were we discussing prog? Sorry chaps. Carry on.


-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: miamiscot
Date Posted: May 04 2017 at 15:00
Of course it is. Silly question.


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: May 10 2017 at 20:15
No, Sgt. Peppers is not prog. Does anyone really think it is?


Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: May 11 2017 at 00:57
Idk, the Beatles for the most part feel like a band that you are mean't to take as a joke, as they where always rediculously cheesy (and very cringy in their early years) but then you end up credentialing without realizing that you don't really know why in the first place

-------------
Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV.

https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325


Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: May 11 2017 at 01:03
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by aglasshouse aglasshouse wrote:

Originally posted by BarryGlibb BarryGlibb wrote:

Prog wasn't "invented" until 1969 was it? So....... no.

Ehhh, debatable. Moody Blues released Days of Future Passed in '67, which is often considered to be prog. Self-conscious prog didn't come until 69-70 though, I guess. Just depends on your outlook really.


still surprises me this myth still persists...

no.. and no

while the Moodies in 67 might be debatable..personally I think it is and was...

this one from 68 isn't... hard core sympho prog man a year earlier than K.C supposed invented it.






Holy f**k, that album is more prog than Crimson where until Lizard! 
They definitely beat Crimson, no question. 


Hmmm, so Keith Emerson invented prog? 


-------------
Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV.

https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 11 2017 at 09:08
Originally posted by Thatfabulousalien Thatfabulousalien wrote:



Holy f**k, that album is more prog than Crimson where until Lizard! 
They definitely beat Crimson, no question. 


Hmmm, so Keith Emerson invented prog? 


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Rednight Rednight wrote:

^Definitely not Blue Phantom as I remember the group's name being in Italian. Your second suggestion just might be it (I'm expecting a call back from a friend to verify it). Thanks for the assist, regardless.
It really, really, doesn't matter. If you can't remember it and Mike hasn't guessed it then its value as the first of anything is precisely zero even if your mate does come back with a likely name. Being chronologically the first counts for nothing other than being a mildly interesting footnote in the annals of European pop music history.


Not sure if you have followed the thread since inception but as Dean has correctly pointed out, doing something first is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to 'chroniciling' popular culture



-------------


Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: May 13 2017 at 15:35
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Rednight Rednight wrote:

^Definitely not Blue Phantom as I remember the group's name being in Italian. Your second suggestion just might be it (I'm expecting a call back from a friend to verify it). Thanks for the assist, regardless.

It really, really, doesn't matter. If you can't remember it and Mike hasn't guessed it then its value as the first of anything is precisely zero even if your mate does come back with a likely name. Being chronologically the first counts for nothing other than being a mildly interesting footnote in the annals of European pop music history.
You nailed it, AFlowerKingCrimson. It was indeed le stelle di Mario schifano! Thanks for clearing that up and helping to set straight an important part of European prog music history.

-------------
"It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno


Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: May 14 2017 at 09:56
No. It's not. It's progressive pop. 

And therefore not progressive ROCK.

And it really, really doesn't matter.  

-------------



Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: May 14 2017 at 10:08
In regards to the album's significance to a site that archives Prog, I think that it really does matter. And for that matter, I'd say that your opinion matters too (at least people's opinions here on such matters matter to me, but I have a rather dull life). :)

-------------
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: May 15 2017 at 04:10
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Thatfabulousalien Thatfabulousalien wrote:



Holy f**k, that album is more prog than Crimson where until Lizard! 
They definitely beat Crimson, no question. 


Hmmm, so Keith Emerson invented prog? 


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Rednight Rednight wrote:

^Definitely not Blue Phantom as I remember the group's name being in Italian. Your second suggestion just might be it (I'm expecting a call back from a friend to verify it). Thanks for the assist, regardless.
It really, really, doesn't matter. If you can't remember it and Mike hasn't guessed it then its value as the first of anything is precisely zero even if your mate does come back with a likely name. Being chronologically the first counts for nothing other than being a mildly interesting footnote in the annals of European pop music history.


Not sure if you have followed the thread since inception but as Dean has correctly pointed out, doing something first is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to 'chroniciling' popular culture

Really? Has Dean’s opinion regarding the lack of importance in regards to priority become a incontestable fact? This type of the “throw the baby out with the bath water” reasoning has resulted in many inane PA threads or polls such as Pink Floyd v. Hawkwind. Pink Floyd came first and influenced later bands like Hawkwind and Tangerine Dream. Floyd are the inspiration of said groups. Just because there is no smoking gun as to when and where the term progressive rock originated, that is no reason to treat known milestones with the same attitude. Priority does matter as Syd Barret's version of Floyd was the inspiration for psychedelic space rockers to follow, from Hawkwind to Tangerine Dream. To deny his genius in both innovation and influence is a disservice to both his accomplishments and standing in prog. And this is coming from someone who does not worship at the alter of Syd as you and Dean seem to do.

Not important? My arse. Its time to kick this mentality to the curb where it belongs, instead of embracing it, let alone agreeing with it. Popular culture may difficult to chronicle at times, but that standard does not apply to popular art.



-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 15 2017 at 05:51
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Thatfabulousalien Thatfabulousalien wrote:



Holy f**k, that album is more prog than Crimson where until Lizard! 
They definitely beat Crimson, no question. 


Hmmm, so Keith Emerson invented prog? 


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Rednight Rednight wrote:

^Definitely not Blue Phantom as I remember the group's name being in Italian. Your second suggestion just might be it (I'm expecting a call back from a friend to verify it). Thanks for the assist, regardless.
It really, really, doesn't matter. If you can't remember it and Mike hasn't guessed it then its value as the first of anything is precisely zero even if your mate does come back with a likely name. Being chronologically the first counts for nothing other than being a mildly interesting footnote in the annals of European pop music history.


Not sure if you have followed the thread since inception but as Dean has correctly pointed out, doing something first is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to 'chroniciling' popular culture

Really? Has Dean’s opinion regarding the lack of importance in regards to priority become a incontestable fact? This type of the “throw the baby out with the bath water” reasoning has resulted in many inane PA threads or polls such as Pink Floyd v. Hawkwind. Pink Floyd came first and influenced later bands like Hawkwind and Tangerine Dream. Floyd are the inspiration of said groups. Just because there is no smoking gun as to when and where the term progressive rock originated, that is no reason to treat known milestones with the same attitude. Priority does matter as Syd Barret's version of Floyd was the inspiration for psychedelic space rockers to follow, from Hawkwind to Tangerine Dream. To deny his genius in both innovation and influence is a disservice to both his accomplishments and standing in prog. And this is coming from someone who does not worship at the alter of Syd as you and Dean seem to do.

Not important? My arse. Its time to kick this mentality to the curb where it belongs, instead of embracing it, let alone agreeing with it. Popular culture may difficult to chronicle at times, but that standard does not apply to popular art.

That's not what I said and Iain has interpreted my opinion correctly. An obscure Italian band that no one has heard of may have produced something that we later recognise as being earlier than Sgt Pepper but it's impact was negligible at the time - this makes it an interesting footnote in the time-line but not an important album in the chronology of popular culture or Progressive Rock. 

The reason why Barratt's Floyd is so important relates back to underground scene that I mentioned in my overlong treatise and specifically the scene that was centred around Ladbroke Grove, Portabello Road and Notting Hill Gate. That geographical location is not only associated with Hawkwind and other "Clearwater Productions" bands such as High Tide, but also with early Floyd, Quintessence and many of the Canterbury Scene bands, along with mainstream favourites such as Cream and Hendrix; it was also a regular hang-out for various Beatles while recording in Abbey Road (2 miles away). It was also the home of Island Records and SARM studios, and a cheap area for starving musicians to live in. So it was essentially the epicentre of the underground Psych scene in London and the spiritual birthplace of Prog Rock, therefore chronology of they bands that frequented the Notting Hill area is the chronology of Prog Rock (up to 1970 at least).


-------------
What?


Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 15 2017 at 08:25
There is a hell of a lot of tosh written about the Sixties, none of it particularly accurate and most of it exaggeration and hearsay. The adage "if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there" (or paraphrases thereof) being the biggest fib of all - if you were there and can't remember them then your testimony is questionable at best. The vast majority of the record buying youth were not hippies or freaks (those wastrels were hardly likely to be buying records anyway), they were normal folk who either went to school clutching copies of Record Mirror and The New Musical Express or had regular day jobs so they could earn money to spend in record shops and fashionable boutiques, and attend gigs in evenings and weekend. [There was a lot more to the gig scene back then than just the big-name venues and festivals that get remembered now]. Those are the youth who bought Sgt. Pepper, and they are the record-buying public that made those 'underground' albums popular. Can they remember the Sixties? Of course they bloody can. Did they recognise Sgt. Pepper as something special? Of course they bloody did. What we can say about them with a fair degree of accuracy is, like us die-hard prog fans today, they were incredibly knowledgeable of the music scene at the time. They read the weekly music papers and magazines from cover-to-cover because that was all there was, copies of each publication would get passed around common rooms, staff canteens and youth clubs. And they listened to the radio. While a lot of hot air and noise is made about FM stations in the US, most of that is inconsequential because it was too localised - tiny stations broadcasting line-of-sight transmissions to a limited audience. Here in the UK underground music was on national radio (albeit late at night but that's the only time this knowledgeable record-buying youth would listen to it anyway) with programmes such as The Perfumed Garden and Top Gear playing the kind of music that wouldn't get broadcast on daytime programming but was widely reported in all the weekly music papers. While a teenager growing up in the sticks would be unable to see their favourite underground band playing live in The Marquee or The Roundhouse in London, they could hear them on the radio and read about them in the music press and thus buy their albums in Woolworths and Our Price.

This is true. It was not the hippies living on the streets of the East Village and crashing in "crash pads" who were buying the record albums. Where would they have kept them. As the who so aptly put it they were "air conditioned gypsies". It was the rich kids from Long Island who had the bucks to buy and the bedrooms to keep albums. Concerts were another thing altogether. The "wastrel" hippies could always scrape together a couple of bucks to stand in line at the Fillmore East with the rich kids from Long Island and get in an see some top notch music. So the "wastrel" hippies did have quite a bit of influence on the music scene in America. I know because I was there and vaguely remember it.


Posted By: Mirror Image
Date Posted: May 15 2017 at 10:32
I don’t look at Sgt. Pepper as ‘prog’ per se. It does have many fascinating creative touches, but this doesn’t mean it’s ‘prog’. I’d wager that The Moody Blues’ pinnacle album Days of Future Passed was much more ahead of it’s time than Sgt. Pepper.

-------------
“Music is enough for a lifetime but a lifetime is not enough for music.” - Sergei Rachmaninov


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: May 15 2017 at 15:23
^ Short and to the point.....and I agree. It's not prog per se and Days is probably a better example of so-called early proggy material.
My comment earlier was kind of tongue in cheek in saying that it's as proggy as a lot of other stuff that's listed here.



-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 02:28
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Originally posted by dean dean wrote:

There is a hell of a lot of tosh written about the Sixties, none of it particularly accurate and most of it exaggeration and hearsay. The adage "if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there" (or paraphrases thereof) being the biggest fib of all - if you were there and can't remember them then your testimony is questionable at best. The vast majority of the record buying youth were not hippies or freaks (those wastrels were hardly likely to be buying records anyway), they were normal folk who either went to school clutching copies of Record Mirror and The New Musical Express or had regular day jobs so they could earn money to spend in record shops and fashionable boutiques, and attend gigs in evenings and weekend. [There was a lot more to the gig scene back then than just the big-name venues and festivals that get remembered now]. Those are the youth who bought Sgt. Pepper, and they are the record-buying public that made those 'underground' albums popular. Can they remember the Sixties? Of course they bloody can. Did they recognise Sgt. Pepper as something special? Of course they bloody did. What we can say about them with a fair degree of accuracy is, like us die-hard prog fans today, they were incredibly knowledgeable of the music scene at the time. They read the weekly music papers and magazines from cover-to-cover because that was all there was, copies of each publication would get passed around common rooms, staff canteens and youth clubs. And they listened to the radio. While a lot of hot air and noise is made about FM stations in the US, most of that is inconsequential because it was too localised - tiny stations broadcasting line-of-sight transmissions to a limited audience. Here in the UK underground music was on national radio (albeit late at night but that's the only time this knowledgeable record-buying youth would listen to it anyway) with programmes such as The Perfumed Garden and Top Gear playing the kind of music that wouldn't get broadcast on daytime programming but was widely reported in all the weekly music papers. While a teenager growing up in the sticks would be unable to see their favourite underground band playing live in The Marquee or The Roundhouse in London, they could hear them on the radio and read about them in the music press and thus buy their albums in Woolworths and Our Price.

This is true. It was not the hippies living on the streets of the East Village and crashing in "crash pads" who were buying the record albums. Where would they have kept them. As the who so aptly put it they were "air conditioned gypsies". It was the rich kids from Long Island who had the bucks to buy and the bedrooms to keep albums. Concerts were another thing altogether. The "wastrel" hippies could always scrape together a couple of bucks to stand in line at the Fillmore East with the rich kids from Long Island and get in an see some top notch music. So the "wastrel" hippies did have quite a bit of influence on the music scene in America. I know because I was there and vaguely remember it.
That's interesting additional information Steven, and of course that is true, especially at free festivals where the "wastrels" only had to worry about getting the cash for their next fix (joke! Wink). At all the ticketed open-air festivals I've ever attended the hippies (and latterly, travellers & crusties) who could not afford a ticket would create a sort of vicus community outside the fenced-off festival where they'd stage their own free version of the festival with bands like  http://www.starfarer.net/it221070.html" rel="nofollow - Hawkwind playing from a flatbed truck  - even the counterculture had a counterculture as observed in the linked article from the underground newspaper International Times, illustrated by the quote: "performing to a motley collection of drug-crazed idiot dancers, anarchists and Hells Angels " [sic]. 

However, how much influence those hippies had on the scene is peripheral in some degrees and germane in others because they defined the image and attitude of the acid-fuelled unwashed, psychedelic, peace and love, hippy scene but that was exploited and commercialised for a wholly different audience who only really experienced the hippy ideology vicariously through listening to the music and aping the tie-dyed fashions. The vast majority of music fans in the sixties were not stoned out of their gourds on psychedelic hallucinogens but that's not to say they weren't as pissed as newts on cheap alcohol. Those not-quite 'straights' but not really hippies would eschew acid and mescaline for beer and the occasional toke, bought all the psychedelic freak out albums we know so well and brought a level of success to the bands that endless touring never could. 

It is this sanitised, generally non-political, post-hippy audience, who morphed into the post-hippy Freak Scene of the (very) late sixties and early seventies [related to, but not to be confused with, the Freaks of the mid-sixties], that popularised psychedelic pop and rock. By then (post 1968) the hippy movement was dead and buried (or if not wholly dead then it certainly smelt that way Tongue) and hippy strongholds like Haight-Ashbury were sliding into decline while others such as New York's East Village and London's Ladbroke Grove continued to thrive as the counterculture underground scene adapted to the change. 

To carry on The Who-isms, and being (at a guess) 5 or so years younger than you and Steve (and probably Doug), I'm talking about my g-generation, because in music (specifically back then) a five year age-gap is a chasm with many bridges - Sgt Pepper was a cornerstone album that happened during your youth whereas for me it was the foundation stone laid at the start of it.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 03:29
IS HILDEGARD VON BINGEN PROG?




-------------
Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV.

https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 04:16
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Originally posted by dean dean wrote:

There is a hell of a lot of tosh written about the Sixties, none of it particularly accurate and most of it exaggeration and hearsay. The adage "if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there" (or paraphrases thereof) being the biggest fib of all - if you were there and can't remember them then your testimony is questionable at best. The vast majority of the record buying youth were not hippies or freaks (those wastrels were hardly likely to be buying records anyway), they were normal folk who either went to school clutching copies of Record Mirror and The New Musical Express or had regular day jobs so they could earn money to spend in record shops and fashionable boutiques, and attend gigs in evenings and weekend. [There was a lot more to the gig scene back then than just the big-name venues and festivals that get remembered now]. Those are the youth who bought Sgt. Pepper, and they are the record-buying public that made those 'underground' albums popular. Can they remember the Sixties? Of course they bloody can. Did they recognise Sgt. Pepper as something special? Of course they bloody did. What we can say about them with a fair degree of accuracy is, like us die-hard prog fans today, they were incredibly knowledgeable of the music scene at the time. They read the weekly music papers and magazines from cover-to-cover because that was all there was, copies of each publication would get passed around common rooms, staff canteens and youth clubs. And they listened to the radio. While a lot of hot air and noise is made about FM stations in the US, most of that is inconsequential because it was too localised - tiny stations broadcasting line-of-sight transmissions to a limited audience. Here in the UK underground music was on national radio (albeit late at night but that's the only time this knowledgeable record-buying youth would listen to it anyway) with programmes such as The Perfumed Garden and Top Gear playing the kind of music that wouldn't get broadcast on daytime programming but was widely reported in all the weekly music papers. While a teenager growing up in the sticks would be unable to see their favourite underground band playing live in The Marquee or The Roundhouse in London, they could hear them on the radio and read about them in the music press and thus buy their albums in Woolworths and Our Price.

This is true. It was not the hippies living on the streets of the East Village and crashing in "crash pads" who were buying the record albums. Where would they have kept them. As the who so aptly put it they were "air conditioned gypsies". It was the rich kids from Long Island who had the bucks to buy and the bedrooms to keep albums. Concerts were another thing altogether. The "wastrel" hippies could always scrape together a couple of bucks to stand in line at the Fillmore East with the rich kids from Long Island and get in an see some top notch music. So the "wastrel" hippies did have quite a bit of influence on the music scene in America. I know because I was there and vaguely remember it.
That's interesting additional information Steven, and of course that is true, especially at free festivals where the "wastrels" only had to worry about getting the cash for their next fix (joke! Wink). At all the ticketed open-air festivals I've ever attended the hippies (and latterly, travellers & crusties) who could not afford a ticket would create a sort of vicus community outside the fenced-off festival where they'd stage their own free version of the festival with bands like  http://www.starfarer.net/it221070.html" rel="nofollow - Hawkwind playing from a flatbed truck  - even the counterculture had a counterculture as observed in the linked article from the underground newspaper International Times, illustrated by the quote: "performing to a motley collection of drug-crazed idiot dancers, anarchists and Hells Angels " [sic]. 

However, how much influence those hippies had on the scene is peripheral in some degrees and germane in others because they defined the image and attitude of the acid-fuelled unwashed, psychedelic, peace and love, hippy scene but that was exploited and commercialised for a wholly different audience who only really experienced the hippy ideology vicariously through listening to the music and aping the tie-dyed fashions. The vast majority of music fans in the sixties were not stoned out of their gourds on psychedelic hallucinogens but that's not to say they weren't as pissed as newts on cheap alcohol. Those not-quite 'straights' but not really hippies would eschew acid and mescaline for beer and the occasional toke, bought all the psychedelic freak out albums we know so well and brought a level of success to the bands that endless touring never could. 

It is this sanitised, generally non-political, post-hippy audience, who morphed into the post-hippy Freak Scene of the (very) late sixties and early seventies [related to, but not to be confused with, the Freaks of the mid-sixties], that popularised psychedelic pop and rock. By then (post 1968) the hippy movement was dead and buried (or if not wholly dead then it certainly smelt that way Tongue) and hippy strongholds like Haight-Ashbury were sliding into decline while others such as New York's East Village and London's Ladbroke Grove continued to thrive as the counterculture underground scene adapted to the change. 

To carry on The Who-isms, and being (at a guess) 5 or so years younger than you and Steve (and probably Doug), I'm talking about my g-generation, because in music (specifically back then) a five year age-gap is a chasm with many bridges - Sgt Pepper was a cornerstone album that happened during your youth whereas for me it was the foundation stone laid at the start of it.
The whole myth and the accompanying warped bigoted stereotypes of the hippie culture is mostly that. A myth. Most Americans were either in college to avoid the draft or actually drafted for the war, while a very tiny group ran off to Canada. The tune in, turn on and drop out crowd was a small part of the population that was intimately aligned with the anti war/anti draft movement. You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. But why be concerned, even 45 years later. After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?

Edit: Btw, it was psychedelic rock that vanished in 1968, not hippies.


-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 04:55
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The whole myth and the accompanying warped bigoted stereotypes of the hippie culture is mostly that. A myth. Most Americans were either in college to avoid the draft or actually drafted for the war, while a very tiny group ran off to Canada. The tune in, turn on and drop out crowd was a small part of the population that was intimately aligned with the anti war/anti draft movement. You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. But why be concerned, even 45 years later. After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?

Edit: Btw, it was psychedelic rock that vanished in 1968, not hippies.
And the myth continues - the four people murdered in the Kent State shootings were students not hippies. The hippy movement brought the anti-war message to the fore but it didn't own the monopoly on it. The Student unrest that occurred in the late sixties and early seventies was not a part of the hippy movement but in some ways was a reaction to the indifference of society as a whole to the message it preached. Sure there is correlation, but we should be wary of drawing direct conclusions from that because what those students were protesting about in America wasn't the same as they were protesting about in Paris and Munich.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 05:17
Dean, I can't fathom the thought of your lengthy responses on a (barely Progressive) album by a band you don't even really like. I dare you to start your thoughts on Slayer ! They're more Prog than the Beatles could ever hope to be !!


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 06:35
Originally posted by Tom Ozric Tom Ozric wrote:

Dean, I can't fathom the thought of your lengthy responses on a (barely Progressive) album by a band you don't even really like. I dare you to start your thoughts on Slayer ! They're more Prog than the Beatles could ever hope to be !!
I'm interested in the history of Progressive Rock, its foundation and its development. This is because we never think about documenting history as it happens so have to reinvent and rediscover it through a haze of half-memories, myth and rose-tinted nostalgia long after. When a claim is made about a subject I want to test the robustness of that claim - seeing if it stands-up to close scrutiny and has any documented evidence to support it that can be checked and ratified. When so much of what we know is based upon hearsay, reported anecdotes and huge slice of received wisdom I respond to unsubstantiated claims by researching the story behind that looking for the vestiges of truth and reality. If the claim holds up then I'm more inclined to believe it, but if it doesn't then I become interested in the source of the claim than the claim itself because it is just possible that there is a vestige of truth behind each of these misremembered anecdotes. For example it was once claimed that many Prog musicians were classically trained when closer examination revealed this to be far from the truth: very few of them ever received any formal music training, let alone in Classical Music. Yet once that myth has been dispelled we can then look at where the origins of classical music influence in Prog Rock really came from. If no one challenges these claims, however credible they sound, then the stories will enter into the "history" as undeniable fact. When people say Sgt Pepper is important I want to know how and why it is important and that means researching into something that I don't have a great deal of personal affection for but was alleged to be of huge influence to music from that time and since that I do like.

The other reason is I'm an opinionated arsehole who has something to say on practically every subject under the sun.

As to Slayer... Reign in Blood and Seasons in the Abyss are undeniably two of the preeminent albums in Thrash Metal that had a measurable impact on Heavy Metal in general but (compared to Metalicacaca or Megadeaf) perhaps not so much on Prog Metal directly, which I believe is closer to Death Metal than Thrash Metal in its stylistic origins. I've seen Slayer twice now and was bored to tears both times so I'd much rather listen to Tori Amos's cover of Raining Blood than Slayer's original but then that's to be expected as I've always preferred other forms of extreme metal to thrash.



Now, are there any other rock and or metal music genres you'd like me to comment upon?


-------------
What?


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 07:35
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The whole myth and the accompanying warped bigoted stereotypes of the hippie culture is mostly that. A myth. Most Americans were either in college to avoid the draft or actually drafted for the war, while a very tiny group ran off to Canada. The tune in, turn on and drop out crowd was a small part of the population that was intimately aligned with the anti war/anti draft movement. You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. But why be concerned, even 45 years later. After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?

Edit: Btw, it was psychedelic rock that vanished in 1968, not hippies.
And the myth continues - the four people murdered in the Kent State shootings were students not hippies. The hippy movement brought the anti-war message to the fore but it didn't own the monopoly on it. The Student unrest that occurred in the late sixties and early seventies was not a part of the hippy movement but in some ways was a reaction to the indifference of society as a whole to the message it preached. Sure there is correlation, but we should be wary of drawing direct conclusions from that because what those students were protesting about in America wasn't the same as they were protesting about in Paris and Munich.
The myth continues, if you care to keep perpetuating it. To make myself clearer, strike out the line in my post " After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" and insert "These students were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" 

It's kind of silly to mimic one's self isn't it? But you are correct. I'm speaking of American student demonstrators only.


-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 08:40
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The whole myth and the accompanying warped bigoted stereotypes of the hippie culture is mostly that. A myth. Most Americans were either in college to avoid the draft or actually drafted for the war, while a very tiny group ran off to Canada. The tune in, turn on and drop out crowd was a small part of the population that was intimately aligned with the anti war/anti draft movement. You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. But why be concerned, even 45 years later. After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?

Edit: Btw, it was psychedelic rock that vanished in 1968, not hippies.
And the myth continues - the four people murdered in the Kent State shootings were students not hippies. The hippy movement brought the anti-war message to the fore but it didn't own the monopoly on it. The Student unrest that occurred in the late sixties and early seventies was not a part of the hippy movement but in some ways was a reaction to the indifference of society as a whole to the message it preached. Sure there is correlation, but we should be wary of drawing direct conclusions from that because what those students were protesting about in America wasn't the same as they were protesting about in Paris and Munich.
The myth continues, if you care to keep perpetuating it. To make myself clearer, strike out the line in my post " After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" and insert "These students were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" 

It's kind of silly to mimic one's self isn't it? But you are correct. I'm speaking of American student demonstrators only.
And the mythinformation continues. I took your original comment to be a flippant rejoinder due to the implied sarcastic tone of the language used, but since you have altered that I now dispute your claim all together as I don't see that they were mimicking anything of the sort nor had they adopted any hippy values. And while on the subject of perpetuating myths, nor were they shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. While such incidents of putting flowers in gun barrels did happen, it didn't at Kent State on May 4th 1970 and the most iconic of those occurred 300 miles away in 1967 (and no one got shot as a consequence of doing it) - also it is highly improbable that any students would have got close enough to the guardsmen to do it on that day without being bayoneted first, as had happened on the previous day.

However, none of this is particularly relevant to the topic other than as an illustration of how memory isn't quite as exact as we'd like it to be.


-------------
What?


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 09:22
Dean - always a good read   


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 10:21
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The whole myth and the accompanying warped bigoted stereotypes of the hippie culture is mostly that. A myth. Most Americans were either in college to avoid the draft or actually drafted for the war, while a very tiny group ran off to Canada. The tune in, turn on and drop out crowd was a small part of the population that was intimately aligned with the anti war/anti draft movement. You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. But why be concerned, even 45 years later. After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?

Edit: Btw, it was psychedelic rock that vanished in 1968, not hippies.
And the myth continues - the four people murdered in the Kent State shootings were students not hippies. The hippy movement brought the anti-war message to the fore but it didn't own the monopoly on it. The Student unrest that occurred in the late sixties and early seventies was not a part of the hippy movement but in some ways was a reaction to the indifference of society as a whole to the message it preached. Sure there is correlation, but we should be wary of drawing direct conclusions from that because what those students were protesting about in America wasn't the same as they were protesting about in Paris and Munich.
The myth continues, if you care to keep perpetuating it. To make myself clearer, strike out the line in my post " After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" and insert "These students were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" 

It's kind of silly to mimic one's self isn't it? But you are correct. I'm speaking of American student demonstrators only.
And the mythinformation continues. I took your original comment to be a flippant rejoinder due to the implied sarcastic tone of the language used, but since you have altered that I now dispute your claim all together as I don't see that they were mimicking anything of the sort nor had they adopted any hippy values. And while on the subject of perpetuating myths, nor were they shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. While such incidents of putting flowers in gun barrels did happen, it didn't at Kent State on May 4th 1970 and the most iconic of those occurred 300 miles away in 1967 (and no one got shot as a consequence of doing it) - also it is highly improbable that any students would have got close enough to the guardsmen to do it on that day without being bayoneted first, as had happened on the previous day.

However, none of this is particularly relevant to the topic other than as an illustration of how memory isn't quite as exact as we'd like it to be.
Dean, if the flowers in the gun barrels as metaphor flew over your head, then I'm afraid that you will not see the generalized wide spread peaceful behavior of the students as a whole. That whole being part of their culture. The counter culture of which the hippies and students actually shared. And that's no myth, as much as you wish it to be.


Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 10:27
Here is one I was in attendance for which was not so "peaceful"

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/violence-erupted-outside-the-northeastern-university-news-photo/132719392#violence-erupted-outside-the-northeastern-university-auditorium-where-picture-id132719392


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 11:08
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The whole myth and the accompanying warped bigoted stereotypes of the hippie culture is mostly that. A myth. Most Americans were either in college to avoid the draft or actually drafted for the war, while a very tiny group ran off to Canada. The tune in, turn on and drop out crowd was a small part of the population that was intimately aligned with the anti war/anti draft movement. You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. But why be concerned, even 45 years later. After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?

Edit: Btw, it was psychedelic rock that vanished in 1968, not hippies.
And the myth continues - the four people murdered in the Kent State shootings were students not hippies. The hippy movement brought the anti-war message to the fore but it didn't own the monopoly on it. The Student unrest that occurred in the late sixties and early seventies was not a part of the hippy movement but in some ways was a reaction to the indifference of society as a whole to the message it preached. Sure there is correlation, but we should be wary of drawing direct conclusions from that because what those students were protesting about in America wasn't the same as they were protesting about in Paris and Munich.
The myth continues, if you care to keep perpetuating it. To make myself clearer, strike out the line in my post " After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" and insert "These students were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" 

It's kind of silly to mimic one's self isn't it? But you are correct. I'm speaking of American student demonstrators only.
And the mythinformation continues. I took your original comment to be a flippant rejoinder due to the implied sarcastic tone of the language used, but since you have altered that I now dispute your claim all together as I don't see that they were mimicking anything of the sort nor had they adopted any hippy values. And while on the subject of perpetuating myths, nor were they shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. While such incidents of putting flowers in gun barrels did happen, it didn't at Kent State on May 4th 1970 and the most iconic of those occurred 300 miles away in 1967 (and no one got shot as a consequence of doing it) - also it is highly improbable that any students would have got close enough to the guardsmen to do it on that day without being bayoneted first, as had happened on the previous day.

However, none of this is particularly relevant to the topic other than as an illustration of how memory isn't quite as exact as we'd like it to be.
Dean, if the flowers in the gun barrels as metaphor flew over your head, then I'm afraid that you will not see the generalized wide spread peaceful behavior of the students as a whole. That whole being part of their culture. The counter culture of which the hippies and students actually shared. And that's no myth, as much as you wish it to be.
Bullsnot. Stern Smile 

You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. " - was a statement of presumed fact, not a bloody metaphor - if you meant it as a metaphor at the time you wrote it then that was not made clear until now - and frankly I simply cannot see it even after you've claimed that it was. Also, it was a protest against Nixon's announced invasion of Cambodia, not Vietnam, unless that was a sodding metaphor too.

If you do nothing else today, read the accounts of the Kent State massacre as I have this afternoon, and not just on Wikipedia either - read more than one article because even an event as well known as this is shrouded in inaccuracies and misreporting. 


-------------
What?


Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 11:21
Where did the hippies go? They left the cities and went to the woods of the Pacific Northwest. They bought cheap land and became gentleman farmers. In the lush river valleys of California, Oregon and Washington you will find them. Celebrating the legalization of mary jane. The rich hippies opted for Colorado where they rub shoulders with the fancy people around Aspen, Telluride and Steamboat Springs.


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 13:01
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The whole myth and the accompanying warped bigoted stereotypes of the hippie culture is mostly that. A myth. Most Americans were either in college to avoid the draft or actually drafted for the war, while a very tiny group ran off to Canada. The tune in, turn on and drop out crowd was a small part of the population that was intimately aligned with the anti war/anti draft movement. You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. But why be concerned, even 45 years later. After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?

Edit: Btw, it was psychedelic rock that vanished in 1968, not hippies.
And the myth continues - the four people murdered in the Kent State shootings were students not hippies. The hippy movement brought the anti-war message to the fore but it didn't own the monopoly on it. The Student unrest that occurred in the late sixties and early seventies was not a part of the hippy movement but in some ways was a reaction to the indifference of society as a whole to the message it preached. Sure there is correlation, but we should be wary of drawing direct conclusions from that because what those students were protesting about in America wasn't the same as they were protesting about in Paris and Munich.
The myth continues, if you care to keep perpetuating it. To make myself clearer, strike out the line in my post " After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" and insert "These students were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" 

It's kind of silly to mimic one's self isn't it? But you are correct. I'm speaking of American student demonstrators only.
And the mythinformation continues. I took your original comment to be a flippant rejoinder due to the implied sarcastic tone of the language used, but since you have altered that I now dispute your claim all together as I don't see that they were mimicking anything of the sort nor had they adopted any hippy values. And while on the subject of perpetuating myths, nor were they shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. While such incidents of putting flowers in gun barrels did happen, it didn't at Kent State on May 4th 1970 and the most iconic of those occurred 300 miles away in 1967 (and no one got shot as a consequence of doing it) - also it is highly improbable that any students would have got close enough to the guardsmen to do it on that day without being bayoneted first, as had happened on the previous day.

However, none of this is particularly relevant to the topic other than as an illustration of how memory isn't quite as exact as we'd like it to be.
Dean, if the flowers in the gun barrels as metaphor flew over your head, then I'm afraid that you will not see the generalized wide spread peaceful behavior of the students as a whole. That whole being part of their culture. The counter culture of which the hippies and students actually shared. And that's no myth, as much as you wish it to be.
Bullsnot. Stern Smile 

You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. " - was a statement of presumed fact, not a bloody metaphor - if you meant it as a metaphor at the time you wrote it then that was not made clear until now - and frankly I simply cannot see it even after you've claimed that it was. Also, it was a protest against Nixon's announced invasion of Cambodia, not Vietnam, unless that was a sodding metaphor too.

If you do nothing else today, read the accounts of the Kent State massacre as I have this afternoon, and not just on Wikipedia either - read more than one article because even an event as well known as this is shrouded in inaccuracies and misreporting. 
There's no BS regarding this as both a metaphor and a stereotype that you should have appreciated, based on your past hippie bashing and insinuations, and is right up your alley, along with your incessant view of hippies as dirty, based on the numerous times you posted photo after photo of after concert pictures from festivals like Woodstock and the like, that were declared disaster areas due to the unmanageable and unforeseen amount of attendees.

As for your advice regarding my further knowledge of the facts regarding the Kent State shootings, I'll call Neil Young,  whom I worked with for almost twenty years and I'll talk to him about it, as we talk almost monthly. He researched it a bit, even after his song Ohio became a hit, and he even knows a little more about it than Wikipedia. Imagine that.

Edit: I can't believe the amount of captchas I had to go through to post this. But it was worth it.



-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 13:15
Love it.....Metalicacaca

-------------


Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 13:25
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The whole myth and the accompanying warped bigoted stereotypes of the hippie culture is mostly that. A myth. Most Americans were either in college to avoid the draft or actually drafted for the war, while a very tiny group ran off to Canada. The tune in, turn on and drop out crowd was a small part of the population that was intimately aligned with the anti war/anti draft movement. You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. But why be concerned, even 45 years later. After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?

Edit: Btw, it was psychedelic rock that vanished in 1968, not hippies.
And the myth continues - the four people murdered in the Kent State shootings were students not hippies. The hippy movement brought the anti-war message to the fore but it didn't own the monopoly on it. The Student unrest that occurred in the late sixties and early seventies was not a part of the hippy movement but in some ways was a reaction to the indifference of society as a whole to the message it preached. Sure there is correlation, but we should be wary of drawing direct conclusions from that because what those students were protesting about in America wasn't the same as they were protesting about in Paris and Munich.
The myth continues, if you care to keep perpetuating it. To make myself clearer, strike out the line in my post " After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" and insert "These students were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" 

It's kind of silly to mimic one's self isn't it? But you are correct. I'm speaking of American student demonstrators only.
And the mythinformation continues. I took your original comment to be a flippant rejoinder due to the implied sarcastic tone of the language used, but since you have altered that I now dispute your claim all together as I don't see that they were mimicking anything of the sort nor had they adopted any hippy values. And while on the subject of perpetuating myths, nor were they shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. While such incidents of putting flowers in gun barrels did happen, it didn't at Kent State on May 4th 1970 and the most iconic of those occurred 300 miles away in 1967 (and no one got shot as a consequence of doing it) - also it is highly improbable that any students would have got close enough to the guardsmen to do it on that day without being bayoneted first, as had happened on the previous day.

However, none of this is particularly relevant to the topic other than as an illustration of how memory isn't quite as exact as we'd like it to be.
Dean, if the flowers in the gun barrels as metaphor flew over your head, then I'm afraid that you will not see the generalized wide spread peaceful behavior of the students as a whole. That whole being part of their culture. The counter culture of which the hippies and students actually shared. And that's no myth, as much as you wish it to be.
Bullsnot. Stern Smile 

You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. " - was a statement of presumed fact, not a bloody metaphor - if you meant it as a metaphor at the time you wrote it then that was not made clear until now - and frankly I simply cannot see it even after you've claimed that it was. Also, it was a protest against Nixon's announced invasion of Cambodia, not Vietnam, unless that was a sodding metaphor too.

If you do nothing else today, read the accounts of the Kent State massacre as I have this afternoon, and not just on Wikipedia either - read more than one article because even an event as well known as this is shrouded in inaccuracies and misreporting. 
There's no BS regarding this as both a metaphor and a stereotype that you should have appreciated, based on your past hippie bashing and insinuations, and is right up your alley, along with your incessant view of hippies as dirty, based on the numerous times you posted photo after photo of after concert pictures from festivals like Woodstock and the like, that were declared disaster areas due to the unmanageable and unforeseen amount of attendees.

As for your advice regarding my further knowledge of the facts regarding the Kent State shootings, I'll call Neil Young,  whom I worked with for almost twenty years and I'll talk to him about it, as we talk almost monthly. He researched it a bit, even after his song Ohio became a hit, and he even knows a little more about it than Wikipedia. Imagine that.

Edit: I can't believe the amount of captchas I had to go through to post this. But it was worth it.



"Forget it, he's rolling." - Boon

-------------
"It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 13:29
D-Day (Bruce McGill): War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter (Tim Matheson): [whispering] Germans?
Boon (Peter Riegert): Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [runs out, alone; then returns] What the f**k happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer -
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these b*****ds. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
Bluto: LET'S DO IT!!
[Chaos ensues--for most of the rest of the movie]

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 18:27
Another thread goes sideways, call in the robots


Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 18:46
Is Sgt Pepper music? 

-------------
Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV.

https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 18:49
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The whole myth and the accompanying warped bigoted stereotypes of the hippie culture is mostly that. A myth. Most Americans were either in college to avoid the draft or actually drafted for the war, while a very tiny group ran off to Canada. The tune in, turn on and drop out crowd was a small part of the population that was intimately aligned with the anti war/anti draft movement. You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. But why be concerned, even 45 years later. After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?

Edit: Btw, it was psychedelic rock that vanished in 1968, not hippies.
And the myth continues - the four people murdered in the Kent State shootings were students not hippies. The hippy movement brought the anti-war message to the fore but it didn't own the monopoly on it. The Student unrest that occurred in the late sixties and early seventies was not a part of the hippy movement but in some ways was a reaction to the indifference of society as a whole to the message it preached. Sure there is correlation, but we should be wary of drawing direct conclusions from that because what those students were protesting about in America wasn't the same as they were protesting about in Paris and Munich.
The myth continues, if you care to keep perpetuating it. To make myself clearer, strike out the line in my post " After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" and insert "These students were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?" 

It's kind of silly to mimic one's self isn't it? But you are correct. I'm speaking of American student demonstrators only.
And the mythinformation continues. I took your original comment to be a flippant rejoinder due to the implied sarcastic tone of the language used, but since you have altered that I now dispute your claim all together as I don't see that they were mimicking anything of the sort nor had they adopted any hippy values. And while on the subject of perpetuating myths, nor were they shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. While such incidents of putting flowers in gun barrels did happen, it didn't at Kent State on May 4th 1970 and the most iconic of those occurred 300 miles away in 1967 (and no one got shot as a consequence of doing it) - also it is highly improbable that any students would have got close enough to the guardsmen to do it on that day without being bayoneted first, as had happened on the previous day.

However, none of this is particularly relevant to the topic other than as an illustration of how memory isn't quite as exact as we'd like it to be.
Dean, if the flowers in the gun barrels as metaphor flew over your head, then I'm afraid that you will not see the generalized wide spread peaceful behavior of the students as a whole. That whole being part of their culture. The counter culture of which the hippies and students actually shared. And that's no myth, as much as you wish it to be.
Bullsnot. Stern Smile 

You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. " - was a statement of presumed fact, not a bloody metaphor - if you meant it as a metaphor at the time you wrote it then that was not made clear until now - and frankly I simply cannot see it even after you've claimed that it was. Also, it was a protest against Nixon's announced invasion of Cambodia, not Vietnam, unless that was a sodding metaphor too.

If you do nothing else today, read the accounts of the Kent State massacre as I have this afternoon, and not just on Wikipedia either - read more than one article because even an event as well known as this is shrouded in inaccuracies and misreporting. 
There's no BS regarding this as both a metaphor and a stereotype that you should have appreciated, based on your past hippie bashing and insinuations, and is right up your alley, along with your incessant view of hippies as dirty, based on the numerous times you posted photo after photo of after concert pictures from festivals like Woodstock and the like, that were declared disaster areas due to the unmanageable and unforeseen amount of attendees.

As for your advice regarding my further knowledge of the facts regarding the Kent State shootings, I'll call Neil Young,  whom I worked with for almost twenty years and I'll talk to him about it, as we talk almost monthly. He researched it a bit, even after his song Ohio became a hit, and he even knows a little more about it than Wikipedia. Imagine that.

Edit: I can't believe the amount of captchas I had to go through to post this. But it was worth it.

Eeeeuuw!...
 

Now here's a thing or five ... I appreciate what I deem worthy of being appreciated - an honest misremembered memory I can understand, saying it was a metaphor not so much, but hey - if you say it's a metaphor then who am I to question that? - hippies putting flowers in the barrels of guardsmen's rifles is a metaphor for students not putting flowers in the barrels of guardsmen's rifles... so I didn't get it but so what? that's my dumb stupidity and your dumb luck, no big deal there and no great surprises either. Unless you telegraph a metaphor ahead of time or use ones that are not quite so closely related to what you're trying to convey them perhaps (just perhaps mind), I'll not take them at their literal meaning. Never mind, everything I write is probably an unnecessary metaphor for something or other if only I knew what it was. I can do flippancy, glibness and irreverence but not metaphors it would seem. (yay)

I believe that once in some 37,000 posts I probably posted an ironic picture of the mess left behind after some festival or other possibly in response to some bullsnot claim that hippies cared for the planet or some such nonsense, but incessant and time after time? Nah, you dreamt that. What you may have half-remembered is the trite and tiresome joke I trot out with regular monotony that hippies never die, they only smell that way - which is based solely on the the reek of patchouli oil, a scent that to my olfactory senses has an earthy musk that is reminiscent of something that is dire need of a damn good bath. But hey, read into that what you will, and no doubt you will. But as for past hippy bashing, I suspect you are confusing me with someone else (Iain perhaps? As I recall he really doesn't like hippies but that is true of a few others around here too), I just don't buy into that mystical mind-expanding drug bollocks and have little time for anyone that does - my disregard of hippy culture is merely collateral damage as a consequence of my complete dismissal of drug culture wherever it's found. I regard hippies in much the same was as I do punks - the real thing only lasted for a very short while yet its effect lasted much longer - what followed looked like punk and behaved like punk but the true essence of what made it punk eluded them and most of the romanticised guff that's written about them is not worth the paper it's written on. While I never actually said that the hippy movement ended in 1968... ... ... [waiting for that to register] ... I said it was dead and buried by the time the Freak Scene replaced it in the late 60s/early 70s... a slight dramatic exaggeration perhaps, but post-1968 (which means some time after 1968) the hippy movement had gone into decline and apart from small enclaves that refused to give up it was for all intents and purposes over by the turn of the decade. Sure there are still a few tiedyehards around today, just as there are a few geriatric mods and middle-aged goths refusing to admit that it's all over bar the crying.

Neil Young eh? (hey, hey, my my). Well, I'm sure he'll remember it for you if reading an article or two is too much. I guess he'll get the flowers in rifle barrel metaphor so perhaps he will remember each of the four students being shot and killed after metaphorically placing flowers in the gun barrels of guardsman's rifles as a protest against the Vietnam war. (or perhaps you really did mean 'riffles' and that's why I missed the metaphorical meaning). Cool name-drop though *doffs cap* - I met that Paul McCartney chap once...

But (and it's a big butt) - 99% of all this crap is irrelevant when we are talking about Sgt Pepper and the foundation of Progressive Rock. What was happening (or had happened) in America was inconsequential and of little relevance to what was happening in London. I opined on how and why the underground music scene in and around Notting Hill Gate became so important during the time from Sgt Pepper through to In the Court of the Crimson King (while ItCotCK wasn't recorded in that area, Island Records was based there) and beyond. I'm sorry that America and the American hippy movement wasn't part of all that, and I'm really sorry that this is so London-centric but that's how it goes - Ladbroke Grove was central to the London counterculture but it just wasn't a hippy scene and that's all there is to it. 


-------------
What?


Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 19:07
Are you sure we don't need robots on this site.



Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 19:15
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Are you sure we don't need robots on this site.


Robot admins would shake things up a bit LOL


-------------
Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV.

https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325


Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 16 2017 at 19:15
It was not a hippie scene, really




Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 17 2017 at 00:10
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

It was not a hippie scene, really


That's a stock image (badly staged at that) and not from Ladbroke Grove, so what's your point? 


-------------
What?



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk