A brief history of prog

Edited by Yukorin - September 14 2006 at 06:01

pirkka wrote: As I read the original post by you, YouthfulTheTid, I suggest that you reconsider... there are already good books about the subject and with the errors, you wont find   a) publisher b) buyers   So take an older mans advise: Keep it in your head and listen to music.

hahah especially if you put these words to print... 'ELP.. nothing remotely progressive about them'.  He'd be laughed out of the office....

YouthfulTheTid wrote: "Oh no!", you are thinking, "not another history of prog, and by a newbie who should know better..." Actually, this newbie intends to write his own history of prog (one day), and much of it is already alive and living inside his head. Sites like this one (which looks great to my eyes) will help in my research, as it is not possible to know about EVERY band and EVERY trend and EVERY pioneering musician, and I'm sure I will find some answers here. I just wanted to give a short history of "prog". Yes, I mean the word itself, not the music which I've always loved. A few facts: >>> "Prog" was a sneering contemptuous term coined by punk-era journalists who were looking for enemies wherever they could find them. The word never existed before 1976. "Ah, he's wrong", I hear some of you older people muttering, "I remember progressive in 1969". Yes, quite right. Progressive was a word used (briefly - 1969 to 1970) to describe... what? Actually, mostly heavy blues bands like Led Zeppelin, Free, Deep Purple, though also Pink Floyd and King Crimson too of course. Is this actually true? Were Pink Floyd considered a Progressive band at the time? Where did you get this info? Hope you don't mind the questions, but I simply haven't come across any references that validate this. The rest is correct - the term "Progressive" was first applied to Blues in the world of rock, and jazz before it - and although Floyd had a blues background, they got lumped into "Popular" music at first, then psychedlia rather than "Progressive". >>> What we call 'prog' now was effectively finished by 1973, long before punk rock came along (another myth - that punk killed off prog). Is this actually true? Prog was still going in 1973 and then some - although in the UK, interest did appear to be dwindling. It wasn't exactly finished, but the rot was beginning to set in. Punk put in the final boot - but Prog remained alive (if only just) in the underground. In 1983, of course, it got revitalised - so it never died. In the intervening 3 years we were turning to disco, reggae, and wondering where Bowie was going next. Of course, prog didn't die forever, and we have the wonders of Radiohead, Mercury Rev, Goldfrapp, and the Flaming Lips to enjoy nowadays, not to mention the frontiers of hip hop / Celtic fusions. None of which is traditional Prog rock - and hip hop is not prog. Apart from Radiohead, the bands you mention are also borderline at best - particularly the overrated Goldfrapp. So what finished the 'classic era' of "prog" up to 1973? Ah, well that is a radical new theory I have. I'm very sorry, but you will have to wait for the book to read it! (The said book, by the way, will cover what I call the Golden Decade, from 1963 with the emergence of The Beatles, to 1973 with the release of Dark Side Of The Moon.) There was no Prog Rock in 1963. The root year is around 1965, but not before. >>> There are some startling omissions from the prog pantheon. There were few musicians more progressive or revolutionary than Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart - yet they are never classified as prog. Nor are the Grateful Dead, nor Brian Wilson, nor Stevie Wonder in Margouleff/Cecil-mode, nor Sly Stone, nor The Temptations from 1969, nor - except occasionally - The Beatles themselves. Grateful Dead - borderline really. You are talking about a band that specialised in jam sessions, which is not really what Prog is about. While Brian Wilson had some good ideas on "Pet Sounds", he never wrote a piece of Prog in his life. Sly Stone is a tricky one - most proggers would probably completely disagree, but I can see the relation between what he did and Prog - but it's still not really Prog. I'll have to refrain from commenting on the other bands, as I don't know their entire back catalogues. Yet curiously, a group like ELP, about whom there was nothing even remotely progressive, are always included. Just one word: HUH??? I've never worked that one out. It seems the sneering journalists who first invented the genre of 'prog', also decreed who would be included and who would not (which is fair enough, I suppose, as the whole thing was their invention in the first place). No - it's because ELP played Prog Rock. Prog is as Prog does - and no two Proggers have the same definition - I'd be interested to read yours. Well that's my toe into these prog waters. I guess I will soon learn if I have inadvertently trodden on any toes when I read the replies (if indeed there are any.)

    No toes trodden on - but I hope you've got some good reasoning behind the assertions I've commented on - as I don't see how you came to the conclusions you did.

Edited by Yukorin - September 14 2006 at 06:01

ELP was one of the seminal prog groups, & the Nice one of the very first...Keith's close work with Bob Moog lead to some of the most important developments in the synthesizer, to which all synth players owed and owe him a great debt of thanks. Such assertions come off as rather eccentric opinionizing, and cast doubt on perhaps otherwise good contributions to the subject.

mystic fred wrote: YouthfultheTid.... good luck writing your book...you don't state your age but i would think carefully about such an undertaking as a brief history of prog, a term which actually was not coined by sneering journalists but by endearing fans! I have been into Prog for 40 years and would be wary of writing such a Tome on such a vast subject...when i arrived on this site i thought i knew most of what there was to know, but  i soon realised i know hardly anything at all. I expected to find a pond here and i am now swimming in a sea, there is so much i don't know and haven't heard and I am amazed at the depth of many members'  knowledge on Prog.  If you wish to study the subject of Prog you should listen to experienced fans and musicians and leave all those preconceptions in the bin. Personally I would rather write a simple subject such as a brief history of the world rather than the complex subject of Prog!!.

hahahhaha and a hell of a lot less contentious as well

I don't know what Youthfulthetid means by prog being dead in 1973, if he/she means but not being innovative or breaking new groung I think he is quite incorrect the following albums took prog into new directions:after 1973, look at King Crimson with Starless & Bible Black and Red, also Genesis the Lamb was pushing it into new territorys, Kraftwerk really pulled it off in the late 1970s breaking ground in electronic music, Brian Eno in the late 70s with ambient albums and his collaborations with David Bowie, Univers Zero and Art Zoyd although never big broke ground by making prog scary. New Zeuhl bands were popping up in France in the late 70s. Return Forever's groundbreakingMasterpiece Romantic Warrior was released after 1975

Edited by Cheesecakemouse - August 07 2006 at 05:50

There should be an age limit in this kind of discussions.

Edited by pirkka - August 07 2006 at 07:25

chopper wrote: YouthfulTheTid wrote: >>> There are some startling omissions from the prog pantheon. There were few musicians more progressive or revolutionary than Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart - yet they are never classified as prog. Nor are the Grateful Dead, nor Brian Wilson, nor Stevie Wonder in Margouleff/Cecil-mode, nor Sly Stone, nor The Temptations from 1969, nor - except occasionally - The Beatles themselves. Yet curiously, a group like ELP, about whom there was nothing even remotely progressive, are always included. I've never worked that one out. It seems the sneering journalists who first invented the genre of 'prog', also decreed who would be included and who would not (which is fair enough, I suppose, as the whole thing was their invention in the first place). Well that's my toe into these prog waters. I guess I will soon learn if I have inadvertently trodden on any toes when I read the replies (if indeed there are any.) I think perhaps you're confusing the genre known as prog rock with "progressive" music. No matter how "progressive" the music of Grateful Dead, Brian Wilson, Stevie Wonder, Sly Stone or The Temptations may have been, they are not "prog", whereas ELP, who you have dismissed. are without a doubt one of the giants of prog rock. You only have to listen to Tarkus and Karn Evil 9 to realise that.And I really don't see any connection between prog rock and Goldfrapp.

Well, actually you have stumbled on the very reason why I intend to write my book. You are quite right when you say there is a B-I-G difference between progressive and prog. The fact is, 'progressive' is everything that was new and different and boundary-pushing from The Beatles onwards (who were the main pioneers when you look at their output from Revolver to The White Album). Progressive is what we looked for and bought with eager anticipation in the early 70s.

Early 70s? There was no such thing as prog rock back then. As I say, the term was invented by punk journalists in around 1976, and has only emerged as a recognised 'genre' in the years since then. THAT is the REWRITING OF ROCK HISTORY that has occurred ever since. Now everyone, except the people who were there and remember, believes the myth. No-one bought prog rock in 1973 because there wasn't any prog rock. It was just rock, we didn't call it anything else.

Now as a ROCK band, I have no quarrel with ELP (I don't personally like them myself but that's just a subjective taste). But tell me exactly what qualifies them as progressive? No, they are (sadly to my ears) formulaic and little more then a vehicle for Keith Emerson's showmanship and ego. That's what many of us thought in 1973, but there were also a helluva lot of people buying their albums back then, so they must have been doing something right.

What you now think of as 'prog' is a back-filled, retrospectively defined genre, defined originally by journalists who hated it with a venom. And what is the huge irony in all this? Why, that true progressive music was inventive and pioneering, whereas 'prog' (as belatedly defined) was formulaic and totally unoriginal.

The most important thing is to separate progressive and prog, which you have done. But make no mistake, most of what you are discussing in this forum is PROGRESSIVE. It's great stuff, it will never die.

Don't be seduced by a myth. Otherwise every punk journalist will still be sniggering into their snotty sleeves.

[ Jim Garten - I read your comments too. Listen to Goldfrapp's FIRST album (not the later disco stuff) - it is definitely progressive. ]    

[ CSEjthe - hope this lengthy reply explains my signature ]

[ Cropper - I don't have much to say about art rock. Except to say that Bowie's Ziggy Stardust was most definitely art rock, but the music was the most basic rock music, i.e. not progressive (but still great). ]
    
    

Edited by YouthfulTheTid - August 07 2006 at 13:31

pirkka wrote: There should be an age limit in this kind of discussions.   It takes a lot of time to explore (listen and read) prog. Before you should speak loud about its status, it's form of existence or it's history you are bound to be an older person.

I won't give my age away, but I'm afraid the Youthful part of my name is only wishful thinking!!