Dick Heath wrote:
|
NetsNJFan wrote:
I agree, some of their stuff is bad, but you have to put it into historical context. They were very much of the mid-'60s pop scene. The fact that they made "Days of Future Passed", which still stands as one of the landmarks of Prog is amazing, considering it was 1967, a full 2 years before the advent of King Crimson. That album was way ahead of its time and they should be credited for that.
But i agree, after that their albums are too poppy mixed in with the good prog. If they had continued in that highly pompous orhestrated vein I'd have been delighted.
|
I was there, trying to flog that record when it was first released in the UK - few people bought it. The
Moody Blues had been a washed-up 1 hit wonder pop with
Go Now (Denny Lane as the lead vocalist), still under contract to the mighty Decca Records label - the one that turned down the
Beatles. During that period in the Uk the record companies were making the push to promote stereophonic records over monoaural. However, stereophonic reproduction gear was expensive and sold predominantly to the middle aged who weren't in rock'n'roll or pop, while the kids could just about afford a cheap mono player. I was one of the first teens locally to a get a stereo player(probably a Dansette) and that was the first cheap one offered on the UK market. Another problem, while classical and popular music got released both on stereo and mono (i.e. to the wealthy middle aged), there were many occasions when you couldn't get a stereo version for months after the mono LP was released - e.g. there was over a year's gap between the mono and stereo version of
Mayall's 'Beano'
Bluesbreaker album with Clapton, 8 weeks between mono and stereo version of the
Stones Aftermath (both Decca releases). Hence
Days of Future was seen at the time as Decca trying to break their Phase Four stereo speciality label into the youth market but without frightening away the established middle aged market, by using one of their popular studio orchestras (didn't they double up playing film scores at Pinewood Studios???) to accompany the group.
The album did not initially sell in big numbers in the UK because it was first advertised to the typical Phase Four record buyer's market before the young music fans - but our store got it in on sale or return deal. Most of us pop fans dismissed the album as a bad compromise and having few stand up songs.
Nights In White Satin was the big hit but then as now clearly a tune with strong psychedelic overtones, and wasn't an edited version of
Tuesday Afternoon a big hit in the USA (but not in their home country) - again supplying the summer of love with another anthem. The UK lost the
Moodies for over a year, when they disappeared to the US to capitalise (successfully) on
Tuesday Afternoon being a hit. And note when
Yes were pressed by a producer to try strings and things on their second album
Time & A Word, that got some strong negative reactions as well. While orchestras seemed to work as accompaniment for folk singers (Simon and Garfunkel, David McWilliams, Al Stewart and so on), orchestras and pop/rock groups were not readily accepted -in that period. Exceptions were Nice and Deep Purple, but then specifically used for classical covers and the bands own concertos. I have problems thinking of any other (prog) bands from 1967 to 1975 that employed full orchestras - instead electronic keyboards were coming onto the marketplace enabling a few bands to sound like an orchestra (and of course the mellotron could provide the strings and flute effects, with increasingly unimaginative use of that instrument) but most bands would use electronic to sound very unlike an orchestra. And while the Moody Blues were away, they were temporarily forgotten (likewise that album) by most people and real ear-catching prog came in in the form of
Krimson and
Renaissance - both from a label respected by the youth record buying, public Island Records. As I've written before, ITCOTCK was sometimes said here in the UK during the late 60's to be the album the
Moody Blues should have made but they lacked something to do it.
So promoting of
Days Of Future Past as being the first prog rock album, is much more to do with hindsight than what was thought when the record was first released. Precursor probably, fully fashioned progressive rock, no chance.
[/QUOTE]
Very Interesting....
I'm only 17, so I really don't have much hisotrical context on the subjct compared to you, but Days of Future Past is really the the first album (1967) besides classical music is my vast collection (about 730 cds) that i listen to regularly. We still can't write off its extreme historical importance and ambitions, and that it is just a great album in general.