Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
Posted: April 21 2010 at 04:20
Wouldent sell ANY records if it was realeased today either.
That is why this hole genre debate, is prog better than other music, is pretty absurd, people sometimes belive that Punk killed Prog, but that is rubbish, music evolve, change, pick a bite here and there, and new music appear, difrent but including idears from the past. Without the development in Rock music trough the last 40-50 years, it would be very boring indeed.
What im saying here is, you are right, Prog. did just appear, and prog. has no starting point, prog is just a label, a box, you can put some records into, retrospectivly.
Edited by tamijo - April 21 2010 at 04:25
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
Joined: April 21 2010
Location: PDX, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 74
Posted: April 21 2010 at 06:50
I'm trying to remember when was the first time I heard the term progressive rock? I'm sure it was the early 70s and not the late 60s but that doesn't mean it wasn't being used before I heard it.
The point is, no one stood up one day and created this label called progressive rock and proclaimed that all music under this definition created after this date shall be called progressive rock. Progressive rock was a label created to define something that was already in existence.
A consensus cannot be achieved on the first prog record or the beginning of prog until a definition has been accepted and I am seeing more and more bands claiming to be progressive now that it is becoming more and more commercially viable. Bands that avoided the prog label when it was commercial suicide are now claiming to be progressive. I am glad that progessive music is becoming more popular but I am seeing a little revisionist history now or maybe the bands are coming out of the closet?
I have also heard for years that KC's Court of the Crimson King is the first truly prog album but I have never heard where this appelation originated. Who was the first to claim this? I agree that this has been repeated and relayed to the point of acceptance but does this need to be challenged? Looking back with hindsight, I see several bands and albums that I would consider prog that came out before King Crimson's debut.
Also, in the same vein as an earlier comment of prog having origins in the 30s, punk could be considered prog in a very broad definition for the simple reason, it progresses from the earlier basic roots of rock. Point being, almost anything can be considered progressive if it is original in concept but is influenced by earlier work of other and older influences. Even Mozart would fit that definition.
However, I do not consider either to be prog. The definition for prog is still very fuzzy and dependent on each of us' personal opinion. Like I said, bands I did not consider prog in the 70s are considered prog today. The definition is broadening. Where do we draw the line?
As to the origins of prog, I have always felt it to be linked to the rising popularity of albums over singles in the mid 60s. Bands were given more time to fill and create. Instead of writing pop songs (short stories), bands were able to write longer and more intricate pieces (novels). Some bands just wrote a song or two that may be considered prog but never an album. I have always felt that Suite: Judy Blue Eyes is very prog though CSN is not considered a prog band -- even by themselves. So it may be argued that a band is not prog unless their whole focus (album) is prog? It's kind of a purist argument.
To sum up my own conclusions, Sgt. Pepper may be the first commercially successful prog album since it joins more than one musical influence and the uniqueness of Day in the Life. Pet Sounds did come out before that and there are several songs I love off that album but I am not sure that it is prog. When I think of the Beach Boys and prog, I think of Good Vibrations more. Either way, both had their influences that may be considered earlier prog efforts.
Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169
Posted: April 21 2010 at 11:05
The point for me is that folk stars like Gutrie or Dylan (IMO) used a kind of style that was very simple and also very repetitive, because then the music is easy and they could focus on the lyrics, they wanted the public to focus on the lyrics, that was the important thing otherwise a guy with a voice like Dylan,s could never achieve the star status in the scene.
Then Dylan turned rock-pop but thats it!! Is not prog. Maybeit helped trhe contraculture get a intelectual figure to relay due to its existencialism and also because in its transformation helped go i little further than the red folk propagandistic-dry intelectelectualism (like seeger and the like). He get out of cheap politicism in a sarcastical way.
But the music is just inderectly connected with prog, is difficult to see a clear thread between them.
Maybe Buffy SaintMarie would pass the prog test
The point is in simple words that folk escene was not connected aestheticaly with improvisation. Blues was, Jazz was, they could be very repetitive to some listener but it was more musical oriented.
Thats way blues could be the root of psychedelic experimentation and progssive music.
Actualy "roger the enginer" from the Yardbirds is quite progressive, prog-blues by all means.
Prog began with the Big Bang if you want to trace it all the way back...or to God depending on your personal preferences.
This conversation can obviously take place at a number of levels. Perhaps we need separate threads so that those knowledgable about music in general can discuss the more distant precursors to prog and those of us more myopically focused on prog and don't look much further back than 1967 can discuss in that context.
Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14072
Posted: April 21 2010 at 16:27
This is not the point, I think. Ok, let's forget the origins and the predecessors. What's the definition of "Classic" prog ? If Classic prog means tracks over 15 minutes in length with contaminations form other genres and not repetitive, let's say "The Nice 1968 - Ars Longa Vita Brevis". It has all the characteristics mentioned above and is not prior 1967.
Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169
Posted: April 22 2010 at 08:22
I dont find Sargent Pepers to be repetitive and is fully contaminated by other music ( musi-hall, raggas) and make something especial and unique out of it IMO.
Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14072
Posted: April 22 2010 at 08:47
@shockedjazz: I never mentioned Sgt Pepper. It's not repetitive, it has contaminations but it's not 15 minutes or more in length . The most prog work of Beatles IMO is Abbey Road. It's the only Beatles' album that I would rate 5 stars on PA and the live cover played by Transatlantic is one of the best things that I've listened to in the recent years, mainly because is very close to the original.
Sealchan is right about the many levels that this discussion can have: let's try to choose just one.
Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169
Posted: April 23 2010 at 08:29
The whole album is like a giant song!!! And you have "a day in a life" wich a lot of people dismiss due to its fame, but i find that these one and "Being for the benefit of mister keith" (dont now if im spelling it good, anyway..) to be the very start of prog. Abbey road is cool but i cant see it as a real concept album while Sargent was.
Anyway, i agree to choose one level of discusion.
If we are talking about elongated songs i think psychedelic bands were the first to do something like it,
for example Quicksilver Messengers Service, s "The foo" ( wich i absolutely adore).
Joined: November 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 67
Posted: April 23 2010 at 09:41
javier0889 wrote:
We could say that The Beatles went "prog" because of Bob Dylan!
Dylan gave them the inspiration (and the drugs, of course xD) to start playing more complex music, and not just those cheap love songs of the Beatlemania days.
Also I'd like to mention The 13th Floor Elevators. Their first record, "Psychedelic Sounds Of..." was released with a certain tracklist, but the "real order" was different. With the "official" order, you just hear a bunch of psychedelic rock songs. But in the "alternative" order, you are supposed to experience a journey through the human spirit (or something like that xD). Then you had a big eye on the album cover, and a lot of hidden meanings around the idea of that eye, you know, because of the Illuminati.
Does it sound familiar? ;)
You have to remember it was Dylan who said the Beatles were heading the direction of popular music and the Byrds have gone on record many times that the Beatles were their main inspiration for going electric and forming a rock band. The Beatles were very important to folk rock, and as David Crosby once said, they were doing folk-influenced chords and harmonies from the start. Even the Beatlemania stuff is very folky in its chord structure and vocal arrangements. You can hear it very clearly as early as "Love Me Do", which is musically folky, and in the mellow bridge section of "I Want To Hold Your Hand", and most definitely in the jangly guitars of "A Hard Day's Night".
Yes Dylan influenced the Beatles lyricially but musically the Beatles were already expanding the parameters of WHAT COULD BE ROCK MUSIC. They incorporated classic and world music elements to their songs (which helped the development of prog-rock and baroque pop and art rock. They experimented in the use of rare metric patterns and song structures (which helped the development of prog-rock. Songs like "Norwegian Wood" would include modes like Mixolydiaon and Dorian Modes in one song. "Love You To" clearly has full-blown raga sounds on a rock album.
Joined: April 21 2010
Location: PDX, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 74
Posted: April 23 2010 at 14:53
The inspiration for prog music may go backwards ad infinitum with no real beginning. I agree with an earlier post that this could be argued back to the creation or big bang. But, we are looking for the origins of what is represented by the phrase "progessive rock" While we could argue the evolution of humanity to before the dinosaurs, humanity has a somewhat clearer (though still fuzzy) beginning to way after the end of the dinosaurs.
Like I said earlier, I can't remember when I first heard the term progessive rock but I do remember the term art rock beng used quite early. I heard a radio program about forty years ago that celebrated the top five bands of art rock: Moody Blues; ELP; Genesis; Yes; and Pink Floyd. Looking back, the same bands described as art rock are now known as prog so maybe one term replaced the other. This was about the time of the peak of the golden age of prog since Dark Side of the Moon had been out less than a year. For me, the classic definition of classic prog is represented by the music of this time. In order to discover the origins, I have been wondering more specifically, where did these bands originate and out of what?
I can probably speak best of the Moody Blues. In 1966, Hayward and Lodge replaced Lane and Warwick and became the line up known for its Days of Future Passed and everything they did afterwards. The first influence was more a folk type of pop like "Fly Me High", :Cities" and a few others. Then when they went into the studio for their first album together, Decca was wanting them to record something based on the symphonies of Dvorak for their new stereo label: Deram. Of course, what the Moodies did was not what they were expecting. What they brought back was Days of Future Passed (Dec. 1967). Since the orchestration was not something they had been doing earlier, I've often wondered what influence Decca's traditionalism had on the coming prog movement?
I have seen a few opinions that the Moodies are not prog or at best proto-prog as a band who simply writes pop songs in a common theme. I disagree. They combined symphony and rock. Blended tracks so that one could almost meld into the next. Plus, their common theme to each album made it a story that progressed from one song to the next. While I don't think we will find one point in time or place that we can point to as the origins of prog, I do feel that the Moodies played their part.
I do know some about the other bands I mentioned above, but I would rather hear from someone else who knows the bands better. Would someone mind posting what they know about any of the other four bands or another band from that era?
Joined: November 05 2009
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 1438
Posted: April 23 2010 at 15:08
I know this sounds stupid, but when I was young, the Disreali Gears album cover turned my head. My eyes had to have another look, but what turned my ear was Herb Albert and The Tijuana Brass. Not prog, of course, but the tight Horns was new and exciting. Don't laugh
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14258
Posted: April 23 2010 at 21:45
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
December 17th, 1968:
It was another dreary morning in Old Blighty. Bobby "Chuckles" Fripp awoke from another insatiable all-night bender with his mates at the Cornish Gypsy pub right around the corner. Bedraggled and slightly scraggly, Bobby clambered out of bed in search for a drink of water. As he lugged his frame forward, visions of a hookah-laced dream crept up from the deep recesses of the mind. The soundtrack involved mellotrons, guitar notes, odd time signatures and that nice paperboy Greg. He was on the cusp of a revelation. Stumbling into the living room, he gleefully clasped Giles and McDonald on their respective shoulders.
"Boys," muttered Fripp, "I've got an idea."
Yeah, that there's the birth of prog, alright. And then Giles walked into the studio and started fiddling with glockenspiels and sticks while Lake worked out how to use a voice phaser. Fripp said, "I want to play a different tune to everyone else during the instrumental", but McDonald wanted to play his sax at the same time anyway. They all walked into the studio, after an hour of kanoodling, and Sinfield walked up to Lake, "Here's the lyrics, fellers". Lake read it, "cats foot, iron claw? What the heck?" Sinfield shrugged and said, "it's called art." McDonald was jazzing it up and someone pressed record.
The band began to play and music history was indelibly changed. The Prog egg was cracked open and out hatched a hungry little genre.
I think In the Court of the Crimson King might have been the first really popular prog album but there may have been earlier ones (I don't own any but I trust that some of the comments others have made have some validity.
But having a definition helps...except that the definition itself if controversial. Probably the definition posted on this site is best because it represents a broad consensus. My own inclination is to propose something more restrictive, a definition that gets at why the greatest prog bands tend to have created those epic songs that many of us who love prog find are prog's greatest works.
...although I am not familiar with some of the songs, many of them are album side-long epics. I'm not saying that epics make a prog rock band but they are the natural result of a serious progressive rock band.
When I listen to Beatles songs many of them are excellent but they are too short, they lack prolonged instrumental sections and never left the basic chorus structure of most pop-rock songs. But "A Day in the Life" took a strong step in the above direction. The Abbey Road medley was close to the form that would define (for me) a progressive rock song but it was really just a collection of song ideas moreso than a composed work.
I don't see The Moody Blues as a progressive rock band because they don't really pursue extensive instrumental passages in their songs. They do have great concept albums but I don't count a concept album as a sufficient quality of an album to say that its songs are progressive rock.
I also don't buy into thinking of progressive rock as meaning music that is progressive. To me that is not a genre but rather a term that helps to identify the historical significance of a song or album. From that angle progressive rock isn't a genre it is just a collection of innovative music from various genres.
Joined: May 12 2009
Location: Coolwood
Status: Offline
Points: 6467
Posted: April 25 2010 at 18:19
Devonsidhe wrote:
The inspiration for prog music may go backwards ad infinitum with no real beginning.
Indeed. Where there are minds that wish to explore and expand, there will always be some kind of progression.
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"
Joined: May 29 2005
Location: Bucks county PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1474
Posted: April 25 2010 at 18:48
Although "court" was not imo the very first prog album or progressive rock album I guess it's fair to say that it was very important nonetheless and could be considered the starting point for the classic prog rock sound that followed as it does seem to play an important role in the impetus for the prog of the seventies. There were definitely bands that had prog songs before them though if not whole prog albums. Some folks refer to them as the proto prog bands which often includes the Beatles among others. I'm not so sure I like the term proto prog but there it is. King Crimson's first I think may have been the first to make people sit up and say something like "wow, what is this. this is really different" where as the stuff before it just made people think they were hearing just other psychedelic stuff or something. Also the first KC was pretty popular at the time so I think that played a role in a lot people hearing it and thus being influenced by it even though other bands before them certainly hinted at prog even if they didn't start it.
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
Posted: April 25 2010 at 20:09
I don't know which month ITCOTCK came out, but there were certainly a lot of prog albums which came out in 1969, so it must have been something which was in the air. and the German scene had existed since 1967, only no-one ever dared to record an album before Amon Düül's horribly bad "Psychedelic Underground" came out which took away all the inferiority complexes German bands had; they certainly could not be worse than that. and suddenly there was a torrent of albums which came out in 1969 and 1970. so it was a close call all around; prog is by no means a British invention alone. I am pretty sure the French and Italian scenes were full of bands too at that time, but I am not that familiar with their origins as I am with the German scene (due to having read the excellent biography of Amon Düül by Ingeborg Schober). it was simply something which was in the air, and whoever published the first album can definitely not claim the whole thing got started by it. ITCOTCK was an important album, but not as important as it is often being said; prog would have started without it
Edited by BaldJean - April 26 2010 at 04:00
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Joined: October 05 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 167
Posted: April 26 2010 at 03:54
In the Court of the Crimson King isn't the first prog album - it's the first symphonic prog album (assuming that Days of Future Passed is symphonic rock rather than prog). And, while King Crimson mattered immensely to the development of prog, they never really managed to be first with anything specific, perhaps other than being King Crimson.
Is there a first prog album? I doubt so. Prog rock is by many means a movement rather than a genre, and it is hard to find whatever cataclysm that caused it. The way I see it, it's neither King Crimson or The Moody Blues. Nor is it Procol Harum. It's not any Canterbury Scene bands and it's frankly not Franky Zappa.
I dare say, it's Pink Floyd. Saucerful of Secrets is a four-part epic that led into the proggy madness of Ummagumma. First of all, the whole album is experimental. While King Crimson had long songs, they didn't really experiment with the album format other than, well, using long songs. Ummagumma, on the other hand had three multi-parted "suites", together with a longer prog folk song and a shorter avant-prog thing. Ummagumma led to what we nowadays consider space prog and helped invent avant-prog. And I do believe Pink Floyd did help inspire the future direction for the Canterbury Scene as well.
Judging by the impact, Ummagumma is way more of an cataclysm than In the Court. In the Court is just way more critically acclaimed and helped influence of critically acclaimed genres.
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
Posted: April 26 2010 at 04:09
I don't think one can call "In the Court of the Crimson King" "symphonic prog". maybe half of the album ("I Talk To the Wind", "Epitaph" and the title track may be called so, but "21st Century Schizoid Man" and "Moonchild" are definitely not symphonic prog, and they make up half of the album.
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.126 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.