Can someone tell me... (Moody Blues/Procol Harum)

   both belongs to the right spots , the same category of music , as prog rock music , but different elements and inclination to pop . and as defined by PA  , regarding proto & crossover , imo , the'y are both in the right places , by taking into consideration all their works . 

Maybe I've just been a moodies fan(snob) since I was like 12 years old.  Gonna give my Court and other crimson albums some spins these next couple of days. 

Is the first PH album titled "A whiter side of pale" or just plain PH? 

Thanks

Elliot Miller wrote: ITCOTCK is considered the first fully formed example of prog because of several features. I'm sure others could help me out on this but here's a starter list: (1) length of the tracks; (2) virtuosic instrumentation with each member of the band allowed opportunities to display his skills; (3) absolute lack of anything that could be used as a Top 40 single, at least because of length but also often because of free-flowing artistic exploration that goes far beyond the boundaries of commercial pop; (4) highly imaginative and "far out" concept album including song themes, album title, and cover; (5) long foray into instrumental experimentation and dissonance (second half of "Moon Child"); and (6) indulgence of musicians’ creative whims at the expense of what could reasonably be expected to fall within many listeners’ comfort zones (second half of "Moon Child"). With the mellotron, flute, and some of the melodies the album was definitely reminiscent of the Moody Blues and this fact was noted in the music press at the time, but the album was also widely recognized as a bold and exciting departure from anything that had been done before (i.e., they were taking what the Moodies and other bands did far beyond the limits of what had been considered commercially acceptable), and the Moodies (according to their producer Tony Clarke) felt threatened by their instrumental virtuosity. They needn’t have felt threatened because their strengths were in other areas (five gifted songwriters, four capable lead singers, outstanding harmonies, the wonderfully inimitable Justin Hayward, etc.).   As for PH, you are in for a treat. Their first three albums are probably their best and are important examples of proto-prog. Start with their first album, Procol Harum (1967), then move on to the second, Shine on Brightly (1968), then on to their third, A Salty Dog (1969). These were groundbreaking albums that played a major role in laying the foundation for prog. Especially note Keith Reed’s lyrics, Matthew Fisher’s Hammond organ, Gary Brooker’s vocals and piano, and both Brooker and Fisher’s sometimes classically tinged musical scores.

ITCOTCK is considered the first fully formed example of prog because of several features. I'm sure others could help me out on this but here's a starter list: (1) length of the tracks; (2) virtuosic instrumentation with each member of the band allowed opportunities to display his skills; (3) absolute lack of anything that could be used as a Top 40 single, at least because of length but also often because of free-flowing artistic exploration that goes far beyond the boundaries of commercial pop; (4) highly imaginative and "far out" concept album including song themes, album title, and cover; (5) long foray into instrumental experimentation and dissonance (second half of "Moon Child"); and (6) indulgence of musicians’ creative whims at the expense of what could reasonably be expected to fall within many listeners’ comfort zones (second half of "Moon Child"). With the mellotron, flute, and some of the melodies the album was definitely reminiscent of the Moody Blues and this fact was noted in the music press at the time, but the album was also widely recognized as a bold and exciting departure from anything that had been done before (i.e., they were taking what the Moodies and other bands did far beyond the limits of what had been considered commercially acceptable), and the Moodies (according to their producer Tony Clarke) felt threatened by their instrumental virtuosity. They needn’t have felt threatened because their strengths were in other areas (five gifted songwriters, four capable lead singers, outstanding harmonies, the wonderfully inimitable Justin Hayward, etc.).

 

As for PH, you are in for a treat. Their first three albums are probably their best and are important examples of proto-prog. Start with their first album, Procol Harum (1967), then move on to the second, Shine on Brightly (1968), then on to their third, A Salty Dog (1969). These were groundbreaking albums that played a major role in laying the foundation for prog. Especially note Keith Reed’s lyrics, Matthew Fisher’s Hammond organ, Gary Brooker’s vocals and piano, and both Brooker and Fisher’s sometimes classically tinged musical scores.

I have said it before. Why doesn´t PA do like allmusic, label bands according to many genres, as many bands touch many genres. One band can be at the same time, proto prog, eclectic, art.... etc

I find there are many "Crossover prog" artists that ought to be in prog-related or proto-prog, and vice versa. Steely Dan was added to crossover, and I'd hardly call any albums theirs other than the Aja anything more than prog-related (in fact I was originally going to suggest that before they were ever put in this site, but others beat me to it! ). I guess your point supports that argument. There should be official voting sessions on what artist should be added to what sub-genre or something. That goes for a lot of prog metal bands too.

Wasnt rush doing something along those lines then?  Dont forget the great Return to Forever, of coarse, they're latin jazz.  But if we're going to talk prog, in my opinion, the words progressive rock shouldnt be mentioned without recognizing Chick Corea and the crew.  Afterall, where would all of us be without those song like "Spain" or "Senior Mouse".

O.K. Whistler, you have 2 long and serious posts that claims MB to be proto prog by 2 old fellows (Eliot Miller is a bit older than me). I think you got some very good answers to the question why MB are proto prog band.

I have been visiting this Web site for several years but this is only my second post. I couldn't resist jumping in because the topics are near and dear to my heart. I'm 57 years old (gulp), started listening to rock and roll when I was nine, got turned on to Dylan in '65 and saw him live that year with The Band backing, followed the development of folk rock from its inception, and then followed the development of psychedelic-progressive rock from its inception. After some initial stirrings in ’65 (e.g., The Yardbirds) and some deep rumblings in ’66 (e.g., Revolver) in ‘67 the creative lid was blown off of the music scene. So much was happening that you no longer had a frame of reference and anything seemed possible. Creative experimentation was going on everywhere you looked and not just in what would later be called prog. Just a few examples: The Doors, The Beach Boys (Smile could have been the beginning of prog if Brian Wilson hadn't been sabotaged by both Mike Love and his own unstable mind, and even the 2004 version of Smile still sounds far ahead of its time), Van Dyke Parks (Song Cycle), The Beatles (Sgt. Pepper, of course), Love (Forever Changes), The Mothers of Invention, The Velvet Underground, The Who (the mini-opera "A Quick One While Hel's Away”), and I could go on and on. At the time, Procol Harum, the Moody Blues, The Nice, Pink Floyd, and Traffic were not "proto-prog," they were PROG. I even coined the term "progressive rock" to describe what I was hearing (not to suggest that I started the use of the term, but great minds think alike!). I totally agree, however, that In the Court of the Crimson King was the beginning of progressive rock in the fully developed sense of the term that came to define the genre in the '70s. So looking back on it all, I would say yes, you people by and large are very astute in your choice of terms for these genres and subgenres. The Moody Blues and Procol Harum were very progressive for their time, and without them and the other bands the prog that we know and love would never have developed (e.g., it seems that PH's “In Held Twas in I" paved the way for the theatrical prog that Genesis explored so effectively), but they are rightly classified as "proto-prog" because they do not include all the features of the classic prog of the ‘70s, and its interesting that they never felt compelled to emulate what the other bands were doing at that time. They remained true to their own muses and continued to be originals, even though they were overshadowed by the weightier music that was then being created. However, I would make one additional and final point. "Proto" doe not necessarily mean "inferior." For me there is a magic to The Moody Blues music (especially heard in the Classic 7 albums) that all of the progressive rock that would follow could never quite touch, no matter how superior the musicianship and more complex the music would be, although Genesis and The Strawbs came very close.

Oh Whistler, how could we ever doubted you ?

The Whistler wrote: Wow Rico, it actually DID turn into a big ole debate. Fancy that. I'm still not entirely sure where to come down on all this; the various arguments seem pretty sound. I mean, to a certain extent, I think that they should be "equals." But Maybe Procol was getting less classically proggy after '69. Although, then and therefore, what should they be considered? Did they take up the Doors' mantle and become Gothic art blues or something?   Therefore, were a move to be suggested, I'd say Eclectic above Crossover; the Procol Harum that I know (and am currently listening to ("Simple Sister," Broken Barricades)), is less an art-pop fusion, and more an art-blues fusion.

yes... did  a listen to their stuff last night... my first choice would be eclectic...