Yes, it has to be TNK as it's on the same album as "And Your Bird Can Sing".

 

To quote from their wiki page:

"In mid-October 1965, the Beatles entered the recording studio; for the first time in making an album, they had an extended period without other major commitments.Released in December, Rubber Soul has been hailed by critics as a major step forward in the maturity and complexity of the band's music.Their thematic reach was beginning to expand as they embraced deeper aspects of romance and philosophy.Biographers Peter Brown and Steven Gaines attribute the new musical direction to "the Beatles' now habitual use of marijuana", an assertion confirmed by the band—Lennon referred to it as "the pot album", and Starr said, "Grass was really influential in a lot of our changes, especially with the writers. And because they were writing different material, we were playing differently."  After Help!'s foray into the world of classical music with flutes and strings, Harrison's introduction of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitar" rel="nofollow - sitar on " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Wood_%28This_Bird_Has_Flown%29" rel="nofollow - Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) " marked a further progression outside the traditional boundaries of popular music. As their lyrics grew more artful, fans began to study them for deeper meaning. "

 

"We Can Work It Out" (also recorded in October 1965) keeps changing tempo and has a waltz in the middle.

 

So in October '65 they were heading in progesque direction (increased complexity, artful lyrics, expanding themes, sitar, and pot)

"Tomorrow Never Knows" wasn't recorded until six months later.

As Knobby explained to us earlier in this sub-forum, Proto Prog was a term used by British vinyls dealers in their ancient catalogues for the specific sound of late 60s - early 70s rock bands who were created that Hammond organ driven sound; Mellotron was also gratefulness but Hammond organ sound was a general rule. If a music is to containing synths, it's not proto prog. Early Deep Purple is maybe the best example of proto prog sound 

Of course, because that term does not mean anything by itself. However, the term was used by dealers for reasons to mark that sound on their lists. As you know, in that ancient time, you're receiving a mail with a dealer's list and then you choose LP, and orderrng. In these lists were only the names of the bands & albums, style, a record company name & price.

19th Century France.  I just moved it over to music.  It can be used, and is used

academically, to define any early instance of a trend in all the arts.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=94100" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=94100

 

I  never really thought of the Beatles as doing any 'proto prog', since it did refer to a specific type of style and sound as many have already mentioned,  but they certainly used psychedelic rock with many new approaches to recording and sound effects as in orchestration , etc. But then Tomorrow never Knows, Strawberry Fields , and I Am The Walrus could certainly fit into one's definition of proto prog.

 

Perfectly said for me, Sonia.

icons.  It's interesting to contrast the solo careers of Lennon and McCartney.  Dream #9 by Lennon seems to be

his most prog song.   I'm not saying it's his most "avant garde" song.  

It's not just the sitar on Norwegian Wood that singles it out as being proto-prog, its tune is in a pentatonic mode that obeys the rules of Indian raga. 

Listen for proto-prog elements in Eleanor Rigby (Oct. 1966), a complete departure from standard rock in that there are absolutely none of the elements one might find in a rock song of the period (no guitar, bass, drum or keys). Instead, Paul McCartney and George Martin (who scored Paul's song) used a classical ensemble, in this case an octet made up of  4 violins, 2 violas and 2 cellos. The score was definitely influenced by Bernard Herrmannn and to a lesser extent Vivaldi. 

This is not what rock and roll fans were used to or expecting in 1966 (not to mention the utter despair and desolation of the lyrics):

 

Perhaps.....perhaps not , but for me those Beatles tracks aren't what I consider proto prog but as always it's a matter of opinion on what is and isn't prog.

Being the PA expert , what is your opinion on what was meant by proto prog when the term was first used?

I tend to agree. The terms "prog" and "proto-prog" were used as terms after-the-fact , and not by some enlightened wholesaler sorting album bins: ex post facto rather than ipso facto.

As Mr Elf has pointed out, proto-prog is an after-the-event term and, along with all other popular music terms, has no formal definition. 

My argument against Mr Wally "Knobby" Wallace Bunbury is simple - if "proto" anything is a genre style then that style would have been identifiable as a distinct genre-style at the time, not thirty or forty years later, and it would have been given a musicological genre/style name at the time and not thirty or forty years later. But no such genre-style existed in the mid-sixties. We only identify certain "sounds" from that era as being "proto" anything because we retrospectively go looking for it based upon what we understand the sound of emergent style to be. The argument, "Oh, Prog Rock has organ, therefore all Proto-Prog must have organ" is a thin argument. Also, Wally's definition is a very modern creation invented by traders at vinyl record fairs - it's much easier to unload an unwanted pile of obscure organ-based psych rock albums if you can slap a Proto-Prog sticker on them¹. None of those albums are Proto-Prog by PA's usage of the term, they're just Psych Rock albums.

Since here at the PA we have to put an introduction on each genre page by way of an informative description, that tends to be an informal definition of each subgenre, though they are not accurate formal musicological definitions. Here we do not regard Proto Prog as a genre style so do not give a description of the style of music in the Proto Prog category. With Proto Prog we were not looking for a style, not are we looking for the inventors or instigators of Progressive Rock, we are looking for the bands that were influential on the formative years of the genre's musical styling. So here we look to broader musical styles over a narrower time interval than those vinyl traders. Also, nor are we looking to list every rock band that played the same styles of music as those bands that were a formative influence on the emerging genre. So, if it is obscure or was only heard by twenty people in Hicksville, AZ, then it could not have been of influence and it is not Proto Prog by our usage of the term.

¹ vinyl junkies are like jazz album collectors - the more obscure the album the more they'll pay for it.

Since Progressive Rock emerged first in the UK then Lester Bangs would be very low on my list of people who may have first coined the term.

Hence I used the word "allegedly" in reference to Lester (who was particularly merciless with bands like ELP). The book I referred to, Progressive Rock Reconsidered (not a bad book, but not complete and more for acadamecians, perhaps) said the following:

I don't think one can take a word that has a common definition in the study of all the arts

and completely re-invent it for a genre. 

I agreed. Imo The Beatles never was proto-prog. Proto-prog were heavy, greasy and Hammond organ driven sound of early Deep Purple, Rare Bird, Iron Butterfly and so on. Imo The Beatles was Pop, Rock, Psychedelic Rock and  the first  Progressive Rock band ever, but regarding Strawberry Fileds / Penny Lane the single only. However, due to the fact that Strawberry Fields  / Penny Lane is just a single which was released in 1967 - it's a two years before ITCOCK the album - one could say that  Strawbery Fields Forever / Penny Lane is a proto prog single as same as one could say that Steve Miller Band's Children of the Future and (or) Spirit's debut is proto-prog for the same reason as well; both albums were released in 1968 and that's a year before ITCOCK the album which is widely accepted as the corner stone of Progressive Rock; that theory is also valid in its own way as more or less a common opinion at present day as well. History is always changing according to one's needs, and certainly those who write on the progressive rock genre - wanting to bring more substance created by themselves - did not match that simple and logical fact that the proto prog is a term coined by vinyl dealers just to mark that Hammond organ driven sound on their lists - not a genre, just a sound.

For instance, what theory are you referring to when you say " that theory is also valid in..."?

1) There's a main theory that the Progressive Rock was started with ITCOCK the album; ITCOCK the album as a corner stone for Progressive Rock.

2) The Beatles become prog with Strawberry Fields Forever along with Penny Lane at the same single; before that single, the Beatles were recorded psychedelic songs. As you can hear, the Beatles'  "proto-prog" (original 1967) version is more proggy than Gabriel's cover which was recorded ( i think ) in 1976 for a movie soundtrack. the Beatles were recorded some proggy songs later, but imo & although I love them, there's not their song which is proggier than Strawberry Fields Forever. 

The Beatles never were sounded proto prog.

This is proto prog sound

Before the prog album, prog on a song basis was developed starting with an ideation process that the Beatles among others contributed to. Strawberry Fields Forever is a great example of how this evolution took place first through segments of songs being prog (-ish). Hence, that song is (at most) proto-prog but not prog. (If it was prog, what genre then?)

But not proto-prog by your definition of the term: organ-driven rock. You can define it as you like, but it seems unlikely that bands like the Animals will be included in what PA 'defines' as proto prog. The term fits perfectly in PA terminology irrespective of how you and others reinvent the term. Record dealers' usage of the term - as claimed by you - is interesting although remains undocumented as far as I know (not that it will affect the number and quality of proto prog artists on our site). 

Notwithstanding this, '64's and '65's organ driven R&B sheds some important light on proto-prog (PA definition). 

Ummm...Svetonio, how can a band be "proto-prog", by any definition, if they were not formed until 1969 (the band did not function as a full group until August, 1969) and they did not release an album until the very end of 1969? If, as you stated, the theory is that King Crimson began the progressive rock genre with their debut release in October, 1969, wouldn't that make Rare Bird post-proto-prog?  

And your limited definition of proto-prog does not fit within any accepted general delineation of the term. The Moody Blues release of Days of Future Passed in December, 1967 is not only proto-prog, I daresay it is downright progressive in hindsight. So too is Procol Harum's debut release. Neither of them have a "heavy, greasy and Hammond organ driven sound" (which sounds more like something one gets indigestion from). The Hammond organ is not the single most important aspect of a proto-prog song. If that were the case, King Crimson's mellotron would be disqualified and they would be listed as a pop band.

Because 'proto-prog' was a term that was created by vinyls dealers to mark the sound, not a genre. Knobby, as a serious LPs collector as well, already explained to us what  'proto prog' really was.

Originally posted by Knobby (...)   What has happened here is what I call "cow bird" - the cow bird waits till another species builds it nest then  takes over that nest.   The true meaning of "proto-prog" was laid down maybe as much as two decades before Progarchives came up with vastly generalizing the term to mean basically anything that developed out of psych (not "psyche" guys - psyche is "the soul"), pop and ROCK and embryonically began to wiggle towards what was to be progressive rock.     Think - where you think the TERM first came out of: web forums? I can assure you it did not.  Books on prog? Of course not - it predated all that.   I lay odds it came out of those old (in some cases, yellow-brown  paper)  lp dealer catalogues  that came in the mail to (serious) collectors.   The true meaning of "proto-prog"  is it is simply a DISTINCTIVE SOUND that was pushed to make it easier for collectors to get what they were after.   It is NOT a genre (as progarchives would have it). It was mainly Hammond-organ-driven. (General rule, I would say - if its got synth in it, its not proto.). Mellotron can be there also. It was mainly a UK thing, but American proto CAN be identified. It was mainly  A VERY SLIM PERIOD in  music's history, usually '69 but you CAN have clearly identifiable proto in '70 and even further on, due to fact that some countries were  bit back in time - remember we are stressing THE SOUND here. The INITIAL  appearance of the SOUND on vinyl. So you have "backward" countries like Denmark  with (compared to the population number) a surprizing wealth of proto being put out as late as '71.     I repeat. Progarchives has taken the dealer-term , built their nest there, gave it their own spin ; made something other of it. Perfectly alright, I expect. But I wish they would call it something else other than PROTO prog. (Maybe Burgeoning Prog?)     For instance The Who would NEVER be considered proto - they never had the Vertigo,Dawn,Nepentha - etc record label sound. And for Progarchives in their "best proto lp " picture section to stress something like Deep Purple "Machinehead" and overlook the only one that is remotely proto, "Book of Talysein". (spelt wrong- yeah, who f**ks) is misleading in the least.       What you are speaking of in this thread is simply  pop ,bluesrock , psych and ROCK wot began to merge into the oncoming prog. Your speaking of something very broad, a parameter . Something that varies in different cases.     Whereas the origional, REAL meaning of protoprog is something extremely select and finite.         I dont want to go into it right now, (because it takes some digging on my part and I gots a lawn to mow), but if you seriously want to know what the proto sound is and why it is IMMEDIATELY recognizable on hearing  (although difficult to pin down in words) search old Progressive Ears posts for the list of 100 protoprog lps.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=94100" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=94100

p.s another great example of proto prog sound from 1970:

As I believe Dean already said, you can't believe everything Knobby said and, regardless of what it might or might not be, it is defined on PA as follows, and therefore this is the definition we should be using - 

"These bands normally were formed and released albums before Progressive Rock had completely developed (there are some rare Proto Prog bands from the early 70's, because the genre didn't expanded to all the Continents simultaneously"

For the very last time. It is not a genre, it is not a sound. It is just a non-denominational category.

  

As Robert has tried so very hard to explain, the prefix "Proto" is an academic term used to define any early instance of a trend in all the arts, it has a very specific meaning that you cannot change. In a specific musicological sense it is a prefix applied to a genre of music to identify its historical origins in terms of style and chronology, such as proto-baroque, proto-jazz, proto-metal, proto-punk etc. - none of them are "a sound" and none of them post-date the actual genre they are "proto" of. 

Ignoring Psych Rock and Psych Pop for a moment, Baroque Pop¹ is one of the stylistic progenitors of Progressive Rock (more so than Psych if the truth will ever out²) and The Beatles have an abundance of Baroque Pop moments that begin on Rubber Soul and progress through to The Beatles (aka the white album).

What, are you Knobby's doppelganger? Who in the hell was a troll like Knobby to ordain what a term is, particularly when the prefix "proto" is, academically speaking, a specified definor used musically to refer to "that which came before". Please provide detailed citations that bolster your point (or Knobby's, rather).

As far as this entire idea that Deep Purple is the end-all, be-all of the "proto-prog sound", don't you find that a bit laughable? Sure, they had their proggy moments, like Led Zeppelin did, but in the end none of the great prog bands emulated that sound; on the contrary, Yes, ELP, Genesis, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Floyd or whichever prog icon you wish to name ever sounded even remotely like Deep Purple, even when using a Hammond organ. 

And that leads me back to the topic, in that The Beatles certainly had heavy proto-prog credentials. Listen to the elements of "A Day in the Life" (1967), with its changing time signatures, the chiaroscuro of dark and light elements, the novel use of heavy orchestration that takes the place of standard electric guitars:

Or the Baroque pop of "For No One" (1966), and the use of French horn and clavichord:

"Tomorrow Never Knows", "Eleanor Rigby", "Norwegian Wood" -- these all had inherent elements that became part of the progressive rock lexicon. Certainly, they were forced to compress these elements into the record industry standard 2:30 minutes, but they even broke that hurdle when they had the audacity to release "Hey Jude", all 7:11 minutes of it, as a single, which naturally went to #1 in 1968. I think the song allowed for a greater variance, industry acceptance and marketability of longer rock songs ("In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida", released earlier the same year, was 17:05 minutes on the album but the 45 single was edited down to 2:53, not so with "Hey Jude").

Can you be more specific? We're NOT talking about full-blown Prog here.

One and a bit chords - there's a B♭ in there too.

Or the Bee Gees.

"Fra-jee-lay." Must be Italian.

And your reason for formulating such an opinion is based on...what?

Just find this in a bio of an obscure greek prog band who was released two LPs in late 70s, now re-issued as digital albums as well:

(...) With that exquisite basement feel encountered in the early ‘70s British proto-progressive bands, it is one of the essential Greek progressive albums of all times  (...)

 

I'm not Knobby's doppelganger. I believe him because his words sounded logical.

Two words stand out: obscure and Greek. And as far as the author of the piece, I still question how one can be "proto-progressive" after the fact. You cannot post-date a movement with pre-dated material. Progressive rock was a fact in the early 70s (it was, by all accounts, available in 1969 as you yourself noted), and your boys, Deep Purple, were not proto-prog in the early 70s. Fireball and Machine Head are virtually non-prog. Or perhaps they were post-prog with pre-prog intentions and coeval-prog every Tuesday and Wednesday.

As I already said:  I'm not Knobby's doppelganger. I believe him because his words sounded logical.

What I find laughable is that the reviewer refers to the Greek band as sounding like the "prog/psych sound of the mid-period PINK FLOYD and the mellotron school (FANTASY, CRESSIDA, KESTREL, early B.J.H.), resulting in a style heavily relying on mellow soundscapes" -- and this is what they refer to as proto-progressive. 

he actually suggested this band for Neo Prog:

 

So... to recap    Proto-Prog is greasy hammond sound, inveterate teller of tall-tales and consummate internet troll Wally "Knobby" Wallace Bunburys is believable because his words sounded logical, any album released in the late 70s is Neo Prog and BlandiKampf is now the indisputable fount of all knowledge...

Pete & Royce actually released their magnificent progressive rock albums in early 80s. That's the time frame for Neo as per definition of the sub-genre without a doubt (sorry for my mistake from above post). Is that Neo style or not, that other guy is decided, not you.

Although, I would to read that page again, maybe you already changed the definition of Neo Prog  - it would not be the first time to change the definition of a sub-genre.. -  just kidding, of course.

I know this bloke.

Sid Bonkers, who wrote, performed, and produced a glorious psych heavy metal proto blues orientated prog album via Bandcamp on a pay as little as you like basis in 2012. The £4.40 raised has guaranteed a follow up to be released next year.

I, for one, cannot wait.

If I were you I would be a very worried man.

You said it!

Using raga and musique concrete as mix ingredients is not an inherent element in the development of prog?! They may not be the dominant elements in prog but they paved the way for other genres to be mixed into what would eventually become prog.

I mentioned "Eleanor Rigby" as definitely being proto-prog as it was unlike any rock song of its time, but I really didn't mention other bands who used strings or classical arrangements because that was a rarity in 1966, particularly The Beatles choosing to go completely against convention by foregoing the use of guitars and drums and opting instead for a double string quartet. It was unheard of.

In addition, the changing of modes, shifting from Dorian to Aeolian gives the song its unique character. Not to mention the staccato string arrangements bearing the direct influence of Bernard Herrmann's Psycho score as well as Paul McCartney's newfound interest in Vivaldi. This isn't rock with string fills, it is something extraordinary and different. For 1966, it was progressive in the truest sense of the word (but not proto-prog because there was no greasy Hammond organ playing  ).

The influence on other musicians was immediate. There aren't many compositions that are covered by a jazz great like Wes Montgomery, a rock band like Vanilla Fudge, a folkie like Richie Havens, a crooner like Tony Bennett and an R&B band like Booker T and the MGs all within a year or two of its release. Breaking musical boundaries is an element of prog. This The Beatles did, while breaking societal boundaries at the same time. Ask your boy Robert Fripp how much he was influenced by The Beatles.

As far as Tomorrow Never Knows being proto-prog or possessing inherent proto-prog elements, I believe earlyprog summed it up quite nicely.