Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Symphonic or Progressive: What came first?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedSymphonic or Progressive: What came first?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Message
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 01 2010 at 15:33
Originally posted by fuxi fuxi wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by fuxi fuxi wrote:

All in all, it seems the terms "progressive music" and "progressive rock" were in more general use in most (perhaps even all) western countries a few years before the term (and probably the actual genre) of "symphonic rock" appeared. 


Well I can assure you that in Spain it was the opposite.
But right, in fact Spain was not yet a western country back then LOL 


It certainly wasn't very "progressive", if you'll allow me to say so!
Sure enough ! I guess we did not know what progressive rock was because dictator Franco had censured the term "progressive" for all purposes  Cry
Back to Top
Progosopher View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2009
Location: Coolwood
Status: Offline
Points: 6472
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 01 2010 at 15:40
In my little corner of the world, we used the term 'progressive rock' and it described more a style for us, rather than any true innovation.  This term was applied mainly to Yes, Genesis, ELP, King Crimson, but often not to Jethro Tull.  I also remember the term 'art rock' but did not ever use it myself.
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 17839
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 01 2010 at 16:16
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Hi,
 
I would say "symphonic", specially when one notices the connection to a lot of classically trained musicians, that gave up that life to do something else.
 
Who exactly?
 
Easy ... Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman. Gee ... and their enjoyment for classical music was evident too.
 
To say that The Moody Blues are not symphonic ... is scary ... they are for the most part and the mellotron was used basically to sound like a bunch of string instruments. YES, it was a lot of pop music, but if it help bring about the awareness and the dedication to help make music better, it did not matter that it was pop music or not.
 
Ivan ... the fact that Nights in White Satin, or Tueday n the Afternoon ... were released as singles and had no portion with the symphonic elements in it, is more about the record company ... and a lot less about the members of the group and the work they were doing ... and you know that ... this was the viciousness that the Beatles, Rolling Stones and Kinks were fighting off hard ... and basically you are punishing a group because the times within radio and music stunk something fierce. You should really check out that one list on the Internet of the worst business deals ever made and the first 4 of 5 are in music! You are dealing with rich, fat assed people smoling cigars that didn't think that idiot kids playing some pop music would amount to anything!
 
Maybe you would like to see and find the band'ed versions of Close To The Edge. Or Tales From Topographic Oceans. Or Relayer. Or Thick as a Brick. Yeah ... I'm not kidding you! And that should tell you what a lot of musicians were fighting and trying hard to force record companies to allow them their art! And the majority of these people became known in time as "progressive" ... And now, people here are punishing some of those people for the hard fight they had to endure ... and of course, since they did not own the music ... these musicians are sh*t! Sorry Ivan ... that's not nice. And that's not right. It's almost like ignoring that Dr. Martin Luther King meant anything to anyone ... and he could not be symphonic because he's a different color ... and that is not right! Rap is not symphonic! And the structure is the same! Or maybe check out a DVD about Tom Dowd so you can see some of the history and how original and very progressive music was killed in the 50's ... yeah! By movie studios!
 
Almost all progressive music that we listen to has symphonic elements in it that were derived from classical music and some of its forms. It's possible to say that some of these are harder to find in Frank Zappa or a couple of others, like King Crimson, whose influences were more eccentric, and it appears that Robert Fripp was experimenting with other avenues for finding creativity that included some things that are a bit more towards the mystic side of things than anything else. But KC's first three albums are actually quite symphonic in the structure of the songs for the most part, even if some of them might have a little this and that or jazz or what not in them! By being different it creates problems with any definition.
 
There are very few, VERY FEW, bands that do not prescribe a lot of the classical elements in music and went out of their way to create something different and not defined by those musical structures. The majority of these bands are listed under krautrock, since the rest of them could not even get past one song! There were/are some other bands that tried to do things off kilter and off center ... and one can easily point to oddities like Third Ear Band ... which came off like graduate music students trying to show us the new music ... and it was mostly improvised with a few composed segments in between. Even that is structured somewhat.
 
Western music, with the exception of a hand full of folks, is way too tied up to scales and notes to learn how to experiment and take the music further. Even jazz is now defined as centered around some chords ... how stupid is that?  And these things can not imprve as long as we do not allow them too and call some of these musicians idiots because the times were bad then ... It's really sad ... so you have all these things trying to get you to understand and appreciate ... and we're becoming a group that wants to close it all down?
 
Wow!


Edited by moshkito - June 01 2010 at 16:59
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 01 2010 at 17:18
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Hi,
 
I would say "symphonic", specially when one notices the connection to a lot of classically trained musicians, that gave up that life to do something else.
 
Who exactly?
 
Easy ... Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman. Gee ... and their enjoyment for classical music was evident too.
 
Well, that's two - not "a lot" Tongue
 
However:
 
Wakeman dropped out of the Royal Academy of Music after 1 year - if I had left my University Engineering degree after 1 year I would not be an engineer, or even be able to pass myself off as an engineer - I may have been able to wing it as a technician for a few years, but not for long. Wakeman may have an interest in classical music, but he was at best 1/3 classically trained.
 
Emerson is even harder to prove - there is no documented evidence that he was ever classically trained - if he was, and as such a high-profile musician, there would be evidence. The best anyone has come up with is that he had piano lessons. The highest level you can achieve in that is Grade 8, which is considered entry level to a music college. Grade 8 Piano includes music theory, notation, construction of scales and composition, however, it is not classical training even by a long stretch of the imagination.
 
Enjoying classical music, and being able to play it, does not equate to classical training.
 
(I would have given you Tony Kaye, Tony Levin, Pierre Moerlen, Holger Czukay, RJ Godfrey, Karl jenkins...Wink)
 
 
 
 
(and yes, we have had this conversation before Wink)
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 01 2010 at 20:21
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Hi,
 
I would say "symphonic", specially when one notices the connection to a lot of classically trained musicians, that gave up that life to do something else.
 
Who exactly?
 
Easy ... Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman. Gee ... and their enjoyment for classical music was evident too.
 
Well, that's two - not "a lot" Tongue
 
However:
 
Wakeman dropped out of the Royal Academy of Music after 1 year - if I had left my University Engineering degree after 1 year I would not be an engineer, or even be able to pass myself off as an engineer - I may have been able to wing it as a technician for a few years, but not for long. Wakeman may have an interest in classical music, but he was at best 1/3 classically trained.
 
Emerson is even harder to prove - there is no documented evidence that he was ever classically trained - if he was, and as such a high-profile musician, there would be evidence. The best anyone has come up with is that he had piano lessons. The highest level you can achieve in that is Grade 8, which is considered entry level to a music college. Grade 8 Piano includes music theory, notation, construction of scales and composition, however, it is not classical training even by a long stretch of the imagination.
 
Enjoying classical music, and being able to play it, does not equate to classical training.
 
(I would have given you Tony Kaye, Tony Levin, Pierre Moerlen, Holger Czukay, RJ Godfrey, Karl jenkins...Wink)
 
 
 
 
(and yes, we have had this conversation before Wink)
Let me try some names:
 
  1. Jean Luc Ponty
  2. Patrick Moraz
  3. Jurgen Fritz
  4. Vittorio Nocenzi
  5. Par Lindh

Just to mention 5, two of them graduated with  Premiere Prix before being 16 years, all of them with complete Clasical training.

Iván
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 02:01
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Hi,
 
I would say "symphonic", specially when one notices the connection to a lot of classically trained musicians, that gave up that life to do something else.
 
Who exactly?
 
Easy ... Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman. Gee ... and their enjoyment for classical music was evident too.
 
Well, that's two - not "a lot" Tongue
 
However:
 
Wakeman dropped out of the Royal Academy of Music after 1 year - if I had left my University Engineering degree after 1 year I would not be an engineer, or even be able to pass myself off as an engineer - I may have been able to wing it as a technician for a few years, but not for long. Wakeman may have an interest in classical music, but he was at best 1/3 classically trained.
 
Emerson is even harder to prove - there is no documented evidence that he was ever classically trained - if he was, and as such a high-profile musician, there would be evidence. The best anyone has come up with is that he had piano lessons. The highest level you can achieve in that is Grade 8, which is considered entry level to a music college. Grade 8 Piano includes music theory, notation, construction of scales and composition, however, it is not classical training even by a long stretch of the imagination.
 
Enjoying classical music, and being able to play it, does not equate to classical training.
 
(I would have given you Tony Kaye, Tony Levin, Pierre Moerlen, Holger Czukay, RJ Godfrey, Karl jenkins...Wink)
 
 
 
 
(and yes, we have had this conversation before Wink)
Let me try some names:
 
  1. Jean Luc Ponty
  2. Patrick Moraz
  3. Jurgen Fritz
  4. Vittorio Nocenzi
  5. Par Lindh

Just to mention 5, two of them graduated with  Premiere Prix before being 16 years, all of them with complete Clasical training.

Iván
Now we're getting somewhere Approve
 
11 classically trained prog musicians - Given the total number of Prog musicians, I'm still not seeing that as being *a lot* - since we cannot audit every musician in every band, I'm going to be generous and say that this figure could extrapolate to 3-figures, but it would be a low 3 digit number - less than 200, but I'm in a generous mood let's say 500 ... out of ~15,000 musicians - 3% ... still not *a lot* - I think you'll find a higher correlation to Jazz and lower correlation to Pop (unless we count crossover-classical, then all bets are off and Vanessa Mae meets Myleene Klass in the final).
 
From this list we have 1 drummer, 1 violinist, 2 bass players and 7 keyboardists... no guitarists.
 
6 of these 11 were in Symphonic Prog bands (if we accept that RPI is symphonic). Since Kaye and Moraz were in the same band, that's 5 Symphonic bands to be precise ... (so whether Yes were Symphonic while Kaye was in the band is immaterial, but I'm still in a generous mood since the three bands Kaye was in post-Yes were decidedly not Symphonic).
 
Going back to the original proposition (What came first?):  "symphonic", specially when one notices the connection to a lot of classically trained musicians - the correlation between classical training and Prog is small, the correlation between classical training and Symphonic is even weaker. No matter how generous I'm being I cannot make this proposition ring true. But even if I could, it still would not prove that "Symphonic" came first.
What?
Back to Top
seventhsojourn View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 05:53
Ok, my earlier post about Days of Future Passed was lighthearted. However I'd like to pose a serious question related to that album. Deram had originally wanted The Moody Blues to record a rock version of Dvorak's New World Symphony... would such a recording have been the first Prog and Symphonic album? Completely hypothetical of course! Interesting to note that The Nice incorporated parts of this symphony into their version of Bernstein's America the following year.
 
The music I enjoy is the music I enjoy, regardless of who contributed to it. However the idea of a record company executive inspiring prog, rather than the artists, somehow doesn't seem right to me. Just my opinion though Tongue 
Back to Top
Dick Heath View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Jazz-Rock Specialist

Joined: April 19 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 12816
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:32
At first there was underground music, and then we had the clever and longer parts of underground music with several changes (other than verse and chorus), usually played by the more accomplished musicians,which got  known as PROGRESSIVE MUSIC. But check out the 1969 sampler Wowie Zowie The World Of Progressive Music's track listing and discover blues rock and straighter new jazz were equally acceptable as progressive music to progressive fans: all this was new all was a literal  progression beyond pop music.  For 18 months to 2 years recordings seems to be really progressing, pushing the boundaries,wit fusing rock with allsort sof other musics, and in many different ways - but this Bitches Brew turned out to be finite. An obvious reference point,  Nice borrowed from the classical  and serious music repertoire, Bach to Bernstein, taking an odd  movement of a symphony or a concerto and both rocking and jazzing it up. But their music didn't lead to an immediate coining of the term "symphonic rock" - their's was underground going progressive music. Symphonic rock  was coined later once the clever arses, the so-called rock music critics/pundits  who like to over-pigeonhole, started to realise that the longer pieces of progressive music parallelled the typical pattern of movements heard elsewhere in symphonies. So I propose (but open to fine tuning): - Big band jazz dance, also  croning:  30's. Gitterbug/jive: 1944-6.  Pre-rock'n'roll croning: 1948.  Rock'n'roll :  1955/6. Post rock'n'roll pop: 1960. Rock: 1964. Underground music 1965/6. Psychedelic music 1965 onwards. Progressive music:  1967/8.  Progressive rock 1972/3.  Heavy rock, metal rock: 1968. Symphonic rock 74-ish. Neoprog: 1978.
 
There is a distinct difference between progressive music and progressive rock, the latter being a significant narrowing down of the former.


Edited by Dick Heath - June 02 2010 at 11:09
The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS.
CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php
Host by PA's Dick Heath.

Back to Top
Dick Heath View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Jazz-Rock Specialist

Joined: April 19 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 12816
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:58
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

Ok, my earlier post about Days of Future Passed was lighthearted. However I'd like to pose a serious question related to that album. Deram had originally wanted The Moody Blues to record a rock version of Dvorak's New World Symphony... would such a recording have been the first Prog and Symphonic album? Completely hypothetical of course! Interesting to note that The Nice incorporated parts of this symphony into their version of Bernstein's America the following year.
 
The music I enjoy is the music I enjoy, regardless of who contributed to it. However the idea of a record company executive inspiring prog, rather than the artists, somehow doesn't seem right to me. Just my opinion though Tongue 
I was moonlighting selling records at the time, and so have a slightly different view point. The Moody Blues had  reached a low point in their career, being some time after their hit Go Now. They were contracted to Decca (the parent record company of Deram*) were pushing the new fangled stereo LPs to the British middle class who could afford the equipment in the mid 60's. This was definitely something rich parents with an interest in recorded music might buy as a luxury, as opposed to their or poorer kids. We kids had  had to put up with MW radio's rare broadcast of pop (like Saturday Club, or the crackling Radio Luxembourg), 45rpm 7" singles or eps. The occasional 30 bob LP was a luxury and had to be saved up for and was almost always monoaural (stereo had to be ordered in specially - if pressed up in stereo at all). So the wheeze/experiment at Decca was to put a has-been (but still under contract) pop group with a studio orchestra (wasn't this Decca's house Phase 4 Orchestra?), and to hit both the middle class/middle age market with pop and/or the late teens and twenties market with stereo, by selling this hybrid. Now whether they intended recording a popped-up Dvorak's 9th or something else from the classical pops - or the new line-up of the Moody Blues originally came with some else to the table or offered something at a later date, is clouded. However, Days Of Future Passed emerged, having some commitment by Decca to promote it. Apart from the Nights In White Satin single, the album didn't not have the expected impact on the UK marketplace initially. I do believe the MBs decamped and spend some time touring/promoting the album in the USA, while a few singles were successfully released from the album over there? With the momentum of US success they came back to the UK and broke into the big time over here. Something lost in the mists of time, was the first UK issue of Days Of Future Passed on Decca or their Phase 4 label (*which begs the question when did Deram appear?) - I do remember the stereo version being pushed in shop but punters asking for/ordering the mono versions?


Edited by Dick Heath - June 02 2010 at 11:15
The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS.
CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php
Host by PA's Dick Heath.

Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:31
Originally posted by Dick Heath Dick Heath wrote:

So I propose (but open to fine tuning): - Big band jazz dance, also  croning:  30's. Gitterbug/jive: 1944-6.  Pre-rock'n'roll croning: 1948.  Rock'n'roll :  1955/6. Post rock'n'roll pop: 1960. Rock: 1964. Underground music 1965/6. Psychedelic music 1965 onwards. Progressive music:  1967/8.  Progressive rock 1972/3.  Heavy rock, metal rock: 1968. Symphonic rock 74-ish. Neoprog: 1978.
 
There is a distinct difference between progressive music and progressive rock, the latter being a significant narrowing down of the former.
I would push the date for Progressive Rock back a year or two to 1970/71. I left school in '73 and were had been using the term Progressive Rock for a couple of years at least (I admit this could be a geographical thing, but I'm sure we picked it up from reading music rags like NME and Melody Maker). This flyer from Friars club is the best evidence for use of the term as early as 1969 ... which doesn't mean that it was universally accepted or used, but certainly it was in use within the home-counties gig circuit at the time.
What?
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 17839
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:57
Hi,
 
We're missing the folks from CAN in that list. Considering that 2 of them were direct students of Stockhausen ...
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
SergiUriah View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 03 2009
Location: I don´t know
Status: Offline
Points: 453
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:20

Symphonic or Progressive: What came first?



BLUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 17839
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:25
Hi,
 
Being based in Santa Barbara at that time, near LA and a thumb away from San Francisco, was not quite the same.
 
Because I was into the European scene I bought a lot of Melody Makers and NME to find out what was going on in the music scene. I knew that the term progressive had been used in conjunction with a lot of bands and advertisements, but it had not exactly been defined in styles and basically what the word meant then, to me, was that the music was not commercially minded and had a very individual and often eccentric side to it. In other words it was not popular music per se, although some of the bands did well, mostly in an underground sort of way.
 
But there is a nice list of groups in that flyer, Dean ... and I'm partial to the Edgar Broughton Band and even Principal Edwards, that so few have heard.  I never thought of these as "progressive" other than the fact that  they were a bit more eccentric and fit the Harvest label perfectly ... this was the new underground, and that was (I thought) the original term for it.
 
I think the time allowed for people to express themselves a lot more. Today there is such a high emphasyz on the commercial side of things, and even here, discussing oddities is something that most people can not do because they have not given it a good listen. In the end, because of their eccentricity, like Peter Hammill and VdGG, this became known as progressive. And I still think that it was more about the music  and the individual expression for most of these people than it was about the "progressive" thing ... even a look at the list of bands shows the incredible variety and the fact that they do not have a whole lot in common at all! ... which was a statement that "progressive" was a lot more about  the music and the art itself, than it was about it being "progressive"  ... but it helped pool together odd ball bands and find them an audience, and in that sense I will not criticize.
 
Btw ... "symphonic" has been around for hundreds of years. "Progressive" is in its infancy still comparatively speaking. I suppose that as time goes by that description will get better and perhaps more efficient and descriptive of each band's music, but it bothers me that some bands are being called something simply because they use an effect or two on the guitar or keyboards or what not. At that point it's not about the music anymore I don't think, but the technology behind it. And while there is some merit and I would not want to place these bands in the scales of justice in music, I do think that they are not as progressive as some of the things that we listen to and like, and in fact when you look at the drumming and the song format in it ... there is nothing "progressive" here, except the use of the effects!
 
I don't think that the majority of the bands that we consider progressive were so much about the technology as much as they were about the music. The technology helped add a personality, but in the end, they also had the music to satisfy!  And that is the main difference.


Edited by moshkito - June 02 2010 at 12:43
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:41
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Hi,
 
We're missing the folks from CAN in that list. Considering that 2 of them were direct students of Stockhausen ...
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
(I would have given you Tony Kaye, Tony Levin, Pierre Moerlen, Holger Czukay, RJ Godfrey, Karl jenkins...Wink)
 
okay add Irmin Schmidt Geek
 
But you're missing the whole point, the bigger picture, the full Monty, the complete angler ... sure we can find *a few* classically trained Prog musicians but it doesn't mean anything - these few are proving to be a bit of an exception when we actually try and metaphorically pull this classically trained rabbit out of the Symphonic/Prog hat - it's a nice idea, one we'd all desperately love to be true to exalt our beloved genre into the lofty heights of "serious music", but it doesn't hold up, it doesn't hold water and it doesn't hold together - none of those classically musician's listed played any part in the formation of Symphonic Prog, or even its lesser cousin of Symphonic Rock, or its long lost uncle Baroque Pop, even if they were around at the beginning. (Okay I'm less generous this afternoon - Kaye doesn't count as a Symphonic Prog keyboardist in my universe since Yes were not wholly symphonic when he was a member of the band).
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 13:07
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Hi,
 
Being based in Santa Barbara at that time, near LA and a thumb away from San Francisco, was not quite the same.
 
Because I was into the European scene I bought a lot of Melody Makers and NME to find out what was going on in the music scene. I knew that the term progressive had been used in conjunction with a lot of bands and advertisements, but it had not exactly been defined in styles and basically what the word meant then, to me, was that the music was not commercially minded and had a very individual and often eccentric side to it. In other words it was not popular music per se, although some of the bands did well, mostly in an underground sort of way.
The "underground" wasn't quite as underground as we'd like to think it was - all those underground bands were signed to either pretty major labels, or labels allied to major distributors, all were available in record stores in every major town - this wasn't word-of-mouth promotion, it was paid ads in all the trade mags.
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

 
But there is a nice list of groups in that flyer, Dean ... and I'm partial to the Edgar Broughton Band and even Principal Edwards, that so few have heard.  I never thought of these as "progressive" other than the fact that  they were a bit more eccentric and fit the Harvest label perfectly ... this was the new underground, and that was (I thought) the original term for it.
Of course few of those bands are today thought of as Progressive Rock - that flyer was printed in August 1969 - it took a further 5 years for the genre to stabalise and for the groups to develop or move on. Notice that it mentions King Crimson and Fat Matress as future attractions - no one in 1969 would have predicted the future of those bands to have turned out as it did.
 
The flyer was one of many showing a 2 month period in the whole 15 year existance of the Friar's club (a small club that brought bands out of London into the provinces) - it was never a completely Prog club (no where was - just as no record label was either) and catered for all types of progressive music.
 
The history of the club, with complete gig lists and more flyers can be read here: http://www.aylesburyfriars.co.uk/
 
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

 
 
I think the time allowed for people to express themselves a lot more. Today there is such a high emphasyz on the commercial side of things, and even here, discussing oddities is something that most people can not do because they have not given it a good listen. In the end, because of their eccentricity, like Peter Hammill and VdGG, this became known as progressive. And I still think that it was more about the music  and the individual expression for most of these people than it was about the "progressive" thing ... even a look at the list of bands shows the incredible variety and the fact that they do not have a whole lot in common at all! ... which was a statement that "progressive" was a lot more about  the music and the art itself, than it was about it being "progressive"  ... but it helped pool together odd ball bands and find them an audience, and in that sense I will not criticize.
One of the first things that struck me when I first scanned the pages of PA was the number of bands that were now considered to be Progressive Rock, and the number that were not - it certainly didn't fit with my personal memories of those days, but it was pretty close. Again - geographical differences account for a lot.
 
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

 
Btw ... "symphonic" has been around for hundreds of years. "Progressive" is in its infancy still comparatively speaking. I suppose that as time goes by that description will get better and perhaps more efficient and descriptive of each band's music, but it bothers me that some bands are being called something simply because they use an effect or two on the guitar or keyboards or what not. At that point it's not about the music anymore I don't think, but the technology behind it. And while there is some merit and I would not want to place these bands in the scales of justice in music, I do think that they are not as progressive as some of the things that we listen to and like, and in fact when you look at the drumming and the song format in it ... there is nothing "progressive" here, except the use of the effects!
The term "symphonic" when applied to Symphonic Prog and Symphonic Rock (and Symphonic Metal) is a misnomer. If we apply the strict concert hall (ie "Classical") definition of the word then no piece of Progressive music qualifies, since none of them follow the strict structure of a symphony (though some perhaps get close).
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

 
I don't think that the majority of the bands that we consider progressive were so much about the technology as much as they were about the music. The technology helped add a personality, but in the end, they also had the music to satisfy!  And that is the main difference.
I don't think anyone would argue with that.
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 15:30
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Hi,
 
I would say "symphonic", specially when one notices the connection to a lot of classically trained musicians, that gave up that life to do something else.
 
Who exactly?
 
Easy ... Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman. Gee ... and their enjoyment for classical music was evident too.
 
Well, that's two - not "a lot" Tongue
 
However:
 
Wakeman dropped out of the Royal Academy of Music after 1 year - if I had left my University Engineering degree after 1 year I would not be an engineer, or even be able to pass myself off as an engineer - I may have been able to wing it as a technician for a few years, but not for long. Wakeman may have an interest in classical music, but he was at best 1/3 classically trained.
 
Emerson is even harder to prove - there is no documented evidence that he was ever classically trained - if he was, and as such a high-profile musician, there would be evidence. The best anyone has come up with is that he had piano lessons. The highest level you can achieve in that is Grade 8, which is considered entry level to a music college. Grade 8 Piano includes music theory, notation, construction of scales and composition, however, it is not classical training even by a long stretch of the imagination.
 
Enjoying classical music, and being able to play it, does not equate to classical training.
 
(I would have given you Tony Kaye, Tony Levin, Pierre Moerlen, Holger Czukay, RJ Godfrey, Karl jenkins...Wink)
 
 
 
 
(and yes, we have had this conversation before Wink)
 
I don't know Dean, Mosghkito says classically trained, not graduated from any institution.
 
For example, Hackett has no Conservatory, as a fact I believe he's self taught, but he self trained himself to the point that he released Classical albums as Tony Banks.
 
Wakeman, may not have a degree, but he received INCOMPLETE CLASSICAL TRAINING, but Classical training nevertheless.
 
Keith Emerson received Classical trainning by a local teacher, and if I'm not wrong he passed a British National Test that was the equivalent to a graduate of a Conservatory.
 
You may study music with a private teacher and pass that test in any part of the world.
 
I written at least 300 band bios, and found that hundreds, even thousands of musicians, had clasical training.
 
Lets remember that you as an Engineer and I as a Lawyer, require a degree to work, but a musician doesn't require it.
 
To start, the vast majority of Italian Prog Rockers have classical trainning, becaudse in their countries they receive this formation almost for free if I'm not wrong, also Swedish musicians.
 
So I believe that even if you don't have a degree, you can be classically trained if you studied Classical music, maybe not graduated, but trained for sure.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17909
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 15:47
I think B should come before A .......... Why is A the first letter of the alphabet?
 
And I agree...the Blues came first.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 17:16
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
I don't know Dean, Mosghkito says classically trained, not graduated from any institution.
 
For example, Hackett has no Conservatory, as a fact I believe he's self taught, but he self trained himself to the point that he released Classical albums as Tony Banks.
 
Wakeman, may not have a degree, but he received INCOMPLETE CLASSICAL TRAINING, but Classical training nevertheless.
 
Keith Emerson received Classical trainning by a local teacher, and if I'm not wrong he passed a British National Test that was the equivalent to a graduate of a Conservatory.
 
You may study music with a private teacher and pass that test in any part of the world.
 
I written at least 300 band bios, and found that hundreds, even thousands of musicians, had clasical training.
 
Lets remember that you as an Engineer and I as a Lawyer, require a degree to work, but a musician doesn't require it.
 
To start, the vast majority of Italian Prog Rockers have classical trainning, becaudse in their countries they receive this formation almost for free if I'm not wrong, also Swedish musicians.
 
So I believe that even if you don't have a degree, you can be classically trained if you studied Classical music, maybe not graduated, but trained for sure.
 
Iván
Let's put the bar at some level at least - Every musician can claim classical training by that definition. Please let's keep this a little bit sensible - when people use the worlds Classically Trained they mean at conservatories or a college of music - they mean that the musician was eligible to join a Philharmonic or Symphonic orchestra - they do not mean, or imply, had a few lessons or read few books on music theory.
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 17:39
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Let's put the bar at some level at least - Every musician can claim classical training by that definition. Please let's keep this a little bit sensible - when people use the worlds Classically Trained they mean at conservatories or a college of music - they mean that the musician was eligible to join a Philharmonic or Symphonic orchestra - they do not mean, or imply, had a few lessons or read few books on music theory.
 
Of course we are not talking about a couple lessons, but I know personally musicians who took lessons and were accepted in an advanced stage in a Conservarory, for example my mother, she graduated as Pianist only after a year in the Conservatory after taking private lessons for years..
 
Without going too far, Ponty joined the Conservatory atthe age of 14 afte taking years of lessons wuth his father, he graduated after a year and a haf with the Premier Prix with srudents twice his age.
 
So years of lessons can equate a Conservatory in some degree.
 
BTW: Wakeman reached he Royal Collede of Musc if I'm not wrong, that alone is an achievement.
 
Iváb
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2010 at 18:29
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Let's put the bar at some level at least - Every musician can claim classical training by that definition. Please let's keep this a little bit sensible - when people use the worlds Classically Trained they mean at conservatories or a college of music - they mean that the musician was eligible to join a Philharmonic or Symphonic orchestra - they do not mean, or imply, had a few lessons or read few books on music theory.
 
Of course we are not talking about a couple lessons, but I know personally musicians who took lessons and were accepted in an advanced stage in a Conservarory, for example my mother, she graduated as Pianist only after a year in the Conservatory after taking private lessons for years..
 
Without going too far, Ponty joined the Conservatory atthe age of 14 afte taking years of lessons wuth his father, he graduated after a year and a haf with the Premier Prix with srudents twice his age.
 
So years of lessons can equate a Conservatory in some degree.
 
BTW: Wakeman reached he Royal Collede of Musc if I'm not wrong, that alone is an achievement.
 
Iváb
To be able to play any instrument to a reasonable level of proficiency requires a great deal of work and practice, whether that is through lessons or by being self taught. All musicians in every Prog band have that level of proficiency, whether they can sight read music or not, whether they can play classical pieces or not. All I am saying is that to be called "Classically Trained" we have to have some measure where we differentiate those musicians who could cut it in the world of the professional classical musician and those that can bang out a few bars of Ode To Joy from memory.
 
When people around here say that a certain musician is classically trained I believe that they are implying the former not the latter because they are saying it in such a way as to elevate that prog musician above all those self-taught musicians who where not "classically trained" as if it were a badge of honour, that makes that musician "special" and something to be venerated and spoken in awe. To that end I believe we should at least be honest when saying that musican "X" is classically trained when in reality all we mean is that he has Grade 8 Piano. I think the lawyer analogy holds true - someone who took Law in high-school is not trained in the art of law, he's had "a few lessons". If we do not have this measure then the term is meaningless and anyone can be called "classically trained" - you may not need a degree qualification to play music, but if you want a job in an orchestra you do.
 
Yes, being accepted into the Royal College of Music is an achievement - graduating from it is a greater one. Stern Smile
 


Edited by Dean - June 02 2010 at 18:36
What?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.