Bluejays and The Moody Blues

I have just noticed that Justin Hayward and John Lodge of The Moody Blues are defined in PA as 'Symphonic Prog' for their 1975 album Bluejays, yet the Moodies are themselves defined as 'Proto-Prog'.

I was wondering if this were not an anomaly? Surely, in musical terms, the only difference is that on Bluejays they used orchestra and orchestral type instruments that they were no longer using in the main group. Otherwise, I have always thought Bluejays sounds very much like the Moodies 9th. Same songwriters, same production team.

Anyone agree, or am I too close to this music to see the wood for the trees ......

I believe the MB's are wrongly classified, with too much emphasis being placed on the role of one album (DOFP). Overall, I reckon they shoudl be classified as Art rock or Symphonic prog. 

And by definition, proto-prog relates to pre-70's music so obviously Blue Jays falls out of this category. I don't know how proggy they were, perhaps close to prog-related or art rock (being lesser prog-related!).

Maybe this happen because Moody Blues is proto-prog because their are between art rock and symphonic prog, but as they are one of the first prog bands, it was better to put then in proto-prog (which had a bad effect as many people disregards proto-prog genre).

Joolz wrote: earlyprog wrote: In my terminology, Moody Blues is proto-prog because they provided some of the building blocks to what would become prog rock. But they never really played full blown prog. In comparison, Pink Floyd released their debut the year of DOFP but evolved to a full blown prog act. Hence, they made a transition from proto-prog to actual prog rock contrary to Moody Blues. Therefore PF is prog rock, MB is not but merely stayed proto-prog. Quite true. So, the question was - how can Bluejays be Prog if the Moodies aren't? To me, they are essentially the same.

MB's post-60's output is most probably prog-related, but not symphonic prog. But to categorize them overall as prog-related would be unfair as they made major contributions to the devlopment of prog: Prog rock provides input to Prog-related bands not the other way around. And that's exactly what MB did i.e. they gave input to early prog rock. On the album level, MB was proto-prog in the 60's and prog-related after that. On the band level (as this site favours), MB was proto-prog.

There's no rule saying that because you come from a non-prog band then you cannot form a prog band like in the case of Bluejays. But I don't know Bluejays so I cannot say whether they are more or less prog than MB.

Blacksword wrote: Easy Livin wrote: I believe the MB's are wrongly classified, with too much emphasis being placed on the role of one album (DOFP). Overall, I reckon they shoudl be classified as Art rock or Symphonic prog.  I couldn't agree more!

ditto! this is the first time I totally agree with Bob (easy)!
btw, all of you folks might remember the time when MB were classified as "Art-Rock", from which they moved onto the newly established "proto-prog" genre... (not to mention that they had already moved into art-rock from folk-prog!!!!!)

to quote most of the folks up there, I do like each and every MB album (provided that it was released before their initial hiatus in 1972...) much more than the BJ album... In fact, no matter how I tried to like the album, I still can't enjoy it after several listens... maybe it's because its poppy characteristic...

btw, Bob, as the reviews editor, don't you consider moving MB some place else ? (but not to symphonic prog, please! it is already loaded with a bunch of easy listening art-rock bands, and Kansas is still in art-rock!!!)

 

Thnaks Bilek. As reviews moderator, it's not my place to classify bands, we have expert teams for that purpose.