Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - British Proto-Prog
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedBritish Proto-Prog
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Poll Question: Which of these do you prefer? (Beatles omitted)
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
2 [8.70%]
6 [26.09%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [4.35%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [4.35%]
1 [4.35%]
1 [4.35%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [13.04%]
0 [0.00%]
8 [34.78%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Kati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 09:30
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

 Oh and that song of which I posted the link as an example of proto-prog sound in my previous post is from the album released in 1975 by British "super-group" called Armageddon - already in PA as a heavy prog act LOL Hug
Which blows clean out of the water any notion of it being "Proto-Prog" just because of how it sounds to you. Such a suggestion does a disservice to the band, the memory of Keith Relf, and other heavy rock artists such as Steamhammer and Warhorse (none of whom would be listed here as Proto Prog).
You both made my perception of proto prog zero in what it possibly might be. Confused I'll ignore that term and think it's anything without orchestration plus warm tunes. Big smile
 
It's not a perception, but a calculated reassessment on what bands actually helped in the formation of prog rock (hence the term proto-prog, "proto" meaning "first" and "common ancestor"). "Greasy" Hammond-playing "heavy rock" did not in any way lead to progressive rock movement as we consider it (usually beginning with In the Court of the Crimson King as a specific demarcation point); therefore, bands like The Moody Blues, Procol Harum, The Nice, Giles, Giles & Fripp, and even The Beatles can be considered progenitors of prog -- BECAUSE THEY STARTED BEFORE THE ACTUAL PROG MOVEMENT WAS RECOGNIZED (that whole "proto" thing), and not like the 70s bands we formally recognize as prog like King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, Jethro Tull (post-Mick Abraham blues), ELP, Floyd (after their psychedelic excursions), etc.
 
So, one can't be "proto-prog" after "prog" came into existence, no matter what Svetty says.
 
Deep Purple can also be considered proto-prog, but not for the "greasy Hammond" sound Svetty is so enamored with. Rather, the baroque compositions, long instrumental passages and excerpts from classical composers (such as on The Book Of Taliesyn album) are what make Deep Purple "proto-prog" (not to mention Jon Lord's Concerto for Group and Orchestra recorded September 24, 1969). By the 70s Deep Purple retained some progginess but had pretty much slipped off into hard rock, particularly by the Machine Head album.
 
Svetty's definition is flawed because it does not take into account the music and the bands that actually led up to Prog. The earth is not flat, scientists have long ago reassessed the curvature of the earth and changed the science books to reflect that reassessment. The earth is still flat in Svetty's world.
Ha! Thus it's the earliest form of Prog? Before the term Prog was invented? Big smileHug 
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: March 25 2015 at 09:33
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

You both made my perception of proto prog zero in what it possibly might be. Confused I'll ignore that term and think it's anything without orchestration plus warm tunes. Big smile
You are being too literal and need to be more conceptual. 

I cannot give you a definitive description of what Proto-Prog sounds like any more than you can give me a definitive description of what Progressive Rock sounds like. It's like trying to define what "Art" is - it is one of those Pythonesque "I don't know what it is but I can recognise it" type things.

One important thing to think about that is going to melt your mind is this: there is no such thing as a Proto-Prog band or artist. All the bands that are called "Proto Prog" (by either definition) made music that could (and is) classified elsewhere under "real" musicological subgenres. No one in their right mind would call The Beatles, Deep Purple or The Doors Proto-Prog bands, and no band since that time was ever formed with the idea of being a "Proto Prog" band. It is a classification not a musical genre.



You define Prog by what you recognise to be Prog, and you do that by listing all those bands you consider to be Prog even when there are no musical similarity between them. I cannot define what makes a band Progressive Rock but I can point to Floyd, Yes, ELP, Tull, Crimson and hundreds of other unrelated bands and say "they are Prog", (even when *some* of the albums they released were not Prog).

The same "issue" exists with most of our subgenres - how do you define the "sound" of Symphonic Prog or Eclectic Prog when none of the artists in those subs sound the same? Well, you can't - all you can do is point to Yes, Genesis and Camel and say "It sounds like that" or to Crimson, Gentle Giant and VdGG and say "It sounds like that".

Unfortunately we cannot quite do that here with Proto-Prog because not all the bands that created Proto Prog  type albums reside in the one PA category. As I said, there is no such animal as a Proto Prog band - just bands that made albums or recorded songs that can be thought of as precursors to Progressive Rock. But we can list some albums and tracks that fit the bill and point out the artists that made them.  So we can point to *some* of the albums by *all* the bands we have listed in Proto Prog section and *some* of the albums of *some* bands listed in other subgenres and say "Those are Proto Prog".



With all due respect to "Svetonio" (well, as much respect as I can muster), he has given a very definitive description of just one aspect of what we here at the PA would consider to be Proto Progressive Rock and no doubt as I type this he is writing yet another aggressively emphatic reply to you stressing this again. He is not wrong - that narrow definition exists in the world of buying and selling old vinyl just as the term "desirable residential area" exists in the vocabulary of the Real Estate Agent, but it is not a definition that works for the PA or in this Poll.
What?
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13064 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 09:36
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

 Oh and that song of which I posted the link as an example of proto-prog sound in my previous post is from the album released in 1975 by British "super-group" called Armageddon - already in PA as a heavy prog act LOL Hug
Which blows clean out of the water any notion of it being "Proto-Prog" just because of how it sounds to you. Such a suggestion does a disservice to the band, the memory of Keith Relf, and other heavy rock artists such as Steamhammer and Warhorse (none of whom would be listed here as Proto Prog).
 
This serves my point specifically. If one looks up Armageddon's 1975 album on any accredited musical site (even an uncreditable source like Wikipedia), Armageddon is referred to as "hard rock", "heavy metal" or "progressive rock". There is never, ever a mention of proto-prog. Ever. Never. Because the use of the modifier "proto" in any of its definitions must come prior to the actual advent of the specific genre (in this case, prog).
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 09:49
Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

 Oh and that song of which I posted the link as an example of proto-prog sound in my previous post is from the album released in 1975 by British "super-group" called Armageddon - already in PA as a heavy prog act LOL Hug
Which blows clean out of the water any notion of it being "Proto-Prog" just because of how it sounds to you. Such a suggestion does a disservice to the band, the memory of Keith Relf, and other heavy rock artists such as Steamhammer and Warhorse (none of whom would be listed here as Proto Prog).
You both made my perception of proto prog zero in what it possibly might be. Confused I'll ignore that term and think it's anything without orchestration plus warm tunes. Big smile
It's very simple actually. Originaly, "Proto-prog" is the term for heavy Rock sound  without much of blues, without a pop-rock, without synths as a general rule ( i.e. rock music with kraut-like electronics could not be originally called "proto-prog", though Hammond organ, Mellotron, violin, harmonica etc. are welcome), but with fast rhythm & long songs that were singing by great Rock  "screamers", with infinity guitar solos played by huge number of Rock guitar masters of late 60s / early 70s, and with a touch of psych, sometimes also jazz and classical music.  That's PROTO-PROGHug


You've been confusing texture with style since the day you joined the site Svetonio. Brown Sugar has a sax on it (it ain't jazz) Crazy Horses has a Synth on it (it ain't Electronica) Go Let it Out by Oasis features a mellotron (it ain't Prog) The Endless Enigma by ELP has a Zoukra (north african flute) on it (it ain't ethnic folk)
Maybe the reason for the dearth of synths in Proto-Prog is that they weren't widely available until AFTER Dr Robert Moog actually invented them and sold same to those (wealthy) emergent Prog artists who could afford them. What do 'fast rhythms' and 'long songs' have to do with artists who formed the bridge between Psyche and Prog in the late 60's? i.e. is a slow tempo and short song indicative of some reactionary impulse to return to beat groups with matching outfits and synchronized dance routines?
Back to Top
Kati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 09:50
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

You both made my perception of proto prog zero in what it possibly might be. Confused I'll ignore that term and think it's anything without orchestration plus warm tunes. Big smile
You are being too literal and need to be more conceptual. 

I cannot give you a definitive description of what Proto-Prog sounds like any more than you can give me a definitive description of what Progressive Rock sounds like. It's like trying to define what "Art" is - it is one of those Pythonesque "I don't know what it is but I can recognise it" type things.

One important thing to think about that is going to melt your mind is this: there is no such thing as a Proto-Prog band or artist. All the bands that are called "Proto Prog" (by either definition) made music that could (and is) classified elsewhere under "real" musicological subgenres. No one in their right mind would call The Beatles, Deep Purple or The Doors Proto-Prog bands, and no band since that time was ever formed with the idea of being a "Proto Prog" band. It is a classification not a musical genre.



You define Prog by what you recognise to be Prog, and you do that by listing all those bands you consider to be Prog even when there are no musical similarity between them. I cannot define what makes a band Progressive Rock but I can point to Floyd, Yes, ELP, Tull, Crimson and hundreds of other unrelated bands and say "they are Prog", (even when *some* of the albums they released were not Prog).

The same "issue" exists with most of our subgenres - how do you define the "sound" of Symphonic Prog or Eclectic Prog when none of the artists in those subs sound the same? Well, you can't - all you can do is point to Yes, Genesis and Camel and say "It sounds like that" or to Crimson, Gentle Giant and VdGG and say "It sounds like that".

Unfortunately we cannot quite do that here with Proto-Prog because not all the bands that created Proto Prog  type albums reside in the one PA category. As I said, there is no such animal as a Proto Prog band - just bands that made albums or recorded songs that can be thought of as precursors to Progressive Rock. But we can list some albums and tracks that fit the bill and point out the artists that made them.  So we can point to *some* of the albums by *all* the bands we have listed in Proto Prog section and *some* of the albums of *some* bands listed in other subgenres and say "Those are Proto Prog".



With all due respect to "Svetonio" (well, as much respect as I can muster), he has given a very definitive description of just one aspect of what we here at the PA would consider to be Proto Progressive Rock and no doubt as I type this he is writing yet another aggressively emphatic reply to you stressing this again. He is not wrong - that narrow definition exists in the world of buying and selling old vinyl just as the term "desirable residential area" exists in the vocabulary of the Real Estate Agent, but it is not a definition that works for the PA or in this Poll.


 
Dean, I did not say that those bands are what I perceive as prog, I posted specific tracks which some have the most continuous amazing changes and build ups, again for instance Salisbury by Uriah Heep I love that track and they only ever performed this live 3 times during David Byron and Ken Hensley era. That was not my indication to what I think prog music is, I am aware but I don't care what it means, accept as a tool to guide me to what I seem to prefer to listen which mostly is classified as prog but not all prog however when I do like it I can listen and replay it 24/7 nonstop too.  The tracks not bands parse was to give you an indication within those known bands, the music I prefer. Hug
 
I know what is perceived as prog music. Wink I believe Big smile


Edited by Kati - March 25 2015 at 09:54
Back to Top
Svetonio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 09:51
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

 Oh and that song of which I posted the link as an example of proto-prog sound in my previous post is from the album released in 1975 by British "super-group" called Armageddon - already in PA as a heavy prog act LOL Hug
Which blows clean out of the water any notion of it being "Proto-Prog" just because of how it sounds to you. Such a suggestion does a disservice to the band, the memory of Keith Relf, and other heavy rock artists such as Steamhammer and Warhorse (none of whom would be listed here as Proto Prog).
 
This serves my point specifically. If one looks up Armageddon's 1975 album on any accredited musical site (even an uncreditable source like Wikipedia), Armageddon is referred to as "hard rock", "heavy metal" or "progressive rock". There is never, ever a mention of proto-prog. Ever. Never. Because the use of the modifier "proto" in any of its definitions must come prior to the actual advent of the specific genre (in this case, prog).
LOL it doesn't metter if internet sites reffered Armegeddon as a "hard rock" band; yeah, their debut (and only one) album was released in 1975 but it sounds like heavy rock (i.e. proto-prog) of 1968 / 1969 / 1970. In fact their album sounds pretty "retro" for 1975.
Also, in 70s, the term *heavy prog* was not existed.


Edited by Svetonio - March 25 2015 at 09:56
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: March 25 2015 at 09:53
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

 
Dean, I did not say that those bands are what I perceive as prog, I posted specific tracks which some have the most continuous amazing changes and build ups, again for instance Salisbury by Uriah Heep I love that track and they only ever performed this live 3 times during David Byron and Ken Hensley era. That was not my indication to what I think prog music is, I am aware but I don't care what it means, accept as a tool to guide me to what I seem to prefer to listen which mostly is classified as prog but not all prog however when I do like it I can listen and replay it 24/7 nonstop too.  The tracks not bands parse was to give you an indication within those known bands, the music I prefer. Hug
Never said you did. You have hold of the wrong end of the stick Sonia. Wink
What?
Back to Top
Kati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 09:56
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

 
Dean, I did not say that those bands are what I perceive as prog, I posted specific tracks which some have the most continuous amazing changes and build ups, again for instance Salisbury by Uriah Heep I love that track and they only ever performed this live 3 times during David Byron and Ken Hensley era. That was not my indication to what I think prog music is, I am aware but I don't care what it means, accept as a tool to guide me to what I seem to prefer to listen which mostly is classified as prog but not all prog however when I do like it I can listen and replay it 24/7 nonstop too.  The tracks not bands parse was to give you an indication within those known bands, the music I prefer. Hug
Never said you did. You have hold of the wrong end of the stick Sonia. Wink
damn Unhappy bah again? This always happens to me. OuchHug
Back to Top
sublime220 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 21 2015
Location: Willow Farm
Status: Offline
Points: 1563 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 09:58
Never got into Deep Purple or Arthur Brown. The Who it is.
There is no dark side in the moon, really... Matter of fact, it's all dark...
Back to Top
Kati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 10:05
I am fascinated by the word Proto, it's rare not to find a word which is not derived from Greek or Latin. This is partly due to why I could not understand what Proto Prog meant.
Back to Top
Svetonio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 10:14
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

I am fascinated by the word Proto, it's rare not to find a word which is not derived from Greek or Latin. This is partly due to why I could not understand what Proto Prog meant.
Yea, maybe the word "proto" was used wrongly, but again - "proto-prog" doesn't mean something like proto-priest i.e. the student of theology who will become a priest, lol. It's not a child-prog which is not growed up yet. It just a term for distinctive sound, as same as symphonic rock doesn't meant a symphonic orchestra that play along with a rock band...
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13064 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 10:30
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

I am fascinated by the word Proto, it's rare not to find a word which is not derived from Greek or Latin. This is partly due to why I could not understand what Proto Prog meant.
 
From Ancient Greek πρωτο- (prōto-), combination form of πρῶτος (prôtos, “first”), superlative of πρό (pró, “before”).
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
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: March 25 2015 at 10:36
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

I am fascinated by the word Proto, it's rare not to find a word which is not derived from Greek or Latin. This is partly due to why I could not understand what Proto Prog meant.
Erm... Proto is of Greek derivation - as in Prototype, Protoplasm and Proto-human. In literal terms it means "first" or "earliest" but is when used as a prefix it is generally accepted to mean "what came before"

Once again Svetonio gets it wrong.LOL


/edit: damn, Ninja'd by Greg LOL


Edited by Dean - March 25 2015 at 10:37
What?
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13064 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 10:40
Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

Yea, maybe the word "proto" was used wrongly, but again - "proto-prog" doesn't mean something like proto-priest i.e. the student of theology who will become a priest, lol. It's not a child-prog which is not growed up yet. It just a term for distinctive sound, as same as symphonic rock doesn't meant a symphonic orchestra that play along with a rock band...
 
What came "before", Svetty, what came before. Like Indo-European languages all come from a Proto-Indo-European precursor. Proto means the same in linguistics as it does for any other field of study, like genetics and, not surprisingly, music.
 
There is a term "proto-punk" which denoted bands from the 60s and early 70s that influenced punk (not surprisingly, there is also a term "post-punk" that defines bands that were influenced by the punk movement).
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
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: March 25 2015 at 10:57
Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

It just a term for distinctive sound, as same as symphonic rock doesn't meant a symphonic orchestra that play along with a rock band...
Actually that's not completely correct either. 

Like it or not, Symphonic Rock is not a distinctive sound. At best you can call it an approach


There are many orchestral albums of symphonic (and philharmonic) orchestra's playing Rock and Pop tunes that are called symphonic rock and there are examples of rock bands playing with an orchestra that are also called symphonic rock. There also exists Rock bands that play rock versions of classical peices that are also known as Symphonic Rock and there are rock bands who create symphonic rock that are not Progressive Rock bands just as there are Symphonic Metal bands that are not Progressive Metal. We purposely called the subgenre here Symphonic Prog to avoid such confusion. 

This is why Ivan and his team does not accept every band suggested to them.

Wikipedia has recently changed its Symphonic Rock page so that it refers specifically to a subgenre of Progressive Rock - I believe this to be an over-reaction and a mistake, but with all under-damped second harmonic functions this will eventually settle upon a less one-sided definition. Amusingly the ten identifiers that Wikipedia lists as attributes of Symphonic Rock are "optimistic" at best (i.e. they're wrong).
What?
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13064 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 11:10
Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

 Oh and that song of which I posted the link as an example of proto-prog sound in my previous post is from the album released in 1975 by British "super-group" called Armageddon - already in PA as a heavy prog act LOL Hug
Which blows clean out of the water any notion of it being "Proto-Prog" just because of how it sounds to you. Such a suggestion does a disservice to the band, the memory of Keith Relf, and other heavy rock artists such as Steamhammer and Warhorse (none of whom would be listed here as Proto Prog).
 
This serves my point specifically. If one looks up Armageddon's 1975 album on any accredited musical site (even an uncreditable source like Wikipedia), Armageddon is referred to as "hard rock", "heavy metal" or "progressive rock". There is never, ever a mention of proto-prog. Ever. Never. Because the use of the modifier "proto" in any of its definitions must come prior to the actual advent of the specific genre (in this case, prog).
LOL it doesn't metter if internet sites reffered Armegeddon as a "hard rock" band; yeah, their debut (and only one) album was released in 1975 but it sounds like heavy rock (i.e. proto-prog) of 1968 / 1969 / 1970. In fact their album sounds pretty "retro" for 1975.
Also, in 70s, the term *heavy prog* was not existed.
 
Svetty, it does matter that accredited Internet music sites (not the odd blogger who is certain that Paul McCartney died in 1966), including Allmusic, RYM or even ProgArchives recognizes the term "proto-prog" as a precursor to prog. There is a general agreement regarding this across the goddamn internet. Look up every damn site you care to and see how Armageddon is defined as far as their musical approach: hard rock, Prog rock, heavy metal. Every site. It is pervasive. No one identifies proto-prog like you do, not even hippy record sellers with dusty cut-out bins anymore. They're mostly dead, thank god.
 
Historical reassessments occur all the time. We try to define things as clearly as possible. It is human nature and part of the scientific method. It is also a historiographical imperative. As far as music, every great movement was defined in hindsight. Bach and Vivaldi didn't refer to their music as "Baroque", yet music historians generally refer to the classical music between 1600-1750 as "Baroque". Even the term "classical music" was not a term Bach or Vivaldi would have used, because it wasn't considered "classical" at the time.
 
History is written in the present to define the past. All terms and genres for music were written and compiled after-the-fact. "Context" is a word you should learn, Svetty:
 
Context: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed. 
 
Your view of proto-prog is not in context.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
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: March 25 2015 at 11:15
Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

Also, in 70s, the term *heavy prog* was not existed.
How very *perceptive* of you, and still confusing yourself in the process I see.

Heavy Prog is a madeupism, or to be more specific it is a neologism - a freshly coined term for something that previously didn't have a name.  

Like Eclectic Prog and Crossover Prog we created the term Heavy Prog after splitting out Progressive elements of Art Rock from all those arty bands that were not Progressive - and not surprisingly it is a combination of Heavy Rock (what the Americans would call Hard Rock) and Progressive Rock.

Linguistically it is called a Noun Phrase (where Prog is the original noun) with a particular meaning - it is not an adjective followed by a noun so "Heavy" is not a descriptive word, just as the word Progressive is not a used as descriptive adjective in Progressive Rock (it is NOT Rock that progresses).


/edit: bollox- Ninja'd again Angry *I*must*type*faster*


Edited by Dean - March 25 2015 at 11:18
What?
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13064 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 11:36
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

/edit: bollox- Ninja'd again Angry *I*must*type*faster*
Sorry, Dean. I have consumed way too much coffee this morning.Wink
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
Svetonio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 11:55
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

 Oh and that song of which I posted the link as an example of proto-prog sound in my previous post is from the album released in 1975 by British "super-group" called Armageddon - already in PA as a heavy prog act LOL Hug
Which blows clean out of the water any notion of it being "Proto-Prog" just because of how it sounds to you. Such a suggestion does a disservice to the band, the memory of Keith Relf, and other heavy rock artists such as Steamhammer and Warhorse (none of whom would be listed here as Proto Prog).
 
This serves my point specifically. If one looks up Armageddon's 1975 album on any accredited musical site (even an uncreditable source like Wikipedia), Armageddon is referred to as "hard rock", "heavy metal" or "progressive rock". There is never, ever a mention of proto-prog. Ever. Never. Because the use of the modifier "proto" in any of its definitions must come prior to the actual advent of the specific genre (in this case, prog).
LOL it doesn't metter if internet sites reffered Armegeddon as a "hard rock" band; yeah, their debut (and only one) album was released in 1975 but it sounds like heavy rock (i.e. proto-prog) of 1968 / 1969 / 1970. In fact their album sounds pretty "retro" for 1975.
Also, in 70s, the term *heavy prog* was not existed.
 
Svetty, it does matter that accredited Internet music sites (not the odd blogger who is certain that Paul McCartney died in 1966), including Allmusic, RYM or even ProgArchives recognizes the term "proto-prog" as a precursor to prog. There is a general agreement regarding this across the goddamn internet. Look up every damn site you care to and see how Armageddon is defined as far as their musical approach: hard rock, Prog rock, heavy metal. Every site. It is pervasive. No one identifies proto-prog like you do, not even hippy record sellers with dusty cut-out bins anymore. They're mostly dead, thank god.
 
Historical reassessments occur all the time. We try to define things as clearly as possible. It is human nature and part of the scientific method. It is also a historiographical imperative. As far as music, every great movement was defined in hindsight. Bach and Vivaldi didn't refer to their music as "Baroque", yet music historians generally refer to the classical music between 1600-1750 as "Baroque". Even the term "classical music" was not a term Bach or Vivaldi would have used, because it wasn't considered "classical" at the time.
 
History is written in the present to define the past. All terms and genres for music were written and compiled after-the-fact. "Context" is a word you should learn, Svetty:
 
Context: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed. 
 
Your view of proto-prog is not in context.
You did not understand me. I'm not saying that Armageddon not generally belong to 70s hard rock as same as e.g. Uriah Heep, Black Sabbath or BOC and that the internet sites who say so are wrong; they aren't wrong, especially not wrong in the time of multiplied tags. I just want to point out that 1) the style of that single album by Armageddon is not of a kind of hard rock which was generally played in 1975 and that the sound of the album is nicely suited to what the records dealers at that time named "proto-prog" to firm that dinstictive sound of late 60s / early 70s at their selling lists ( they did not created a new genre nor they wanted to do anything like that)  2) I mentioned Armageddon's album as an evidence that the "proto-prog" sound was still exist until mid 70s even in UK.

Edited by Svetonio - March 25 2015 at 12:00
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13064 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 25 2015 at 12:18
Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:

You did not understand me. I'm not saying that Armageddon not generally belong to 70s hard rock as same as e.g. Uriah Heep, Black Sabbath or BOC and that the internet sites who say so are wrong; they aren't wrong, especially not wrong in the time of multiplied tags. I just want to point out that 1) the style of that single album by Armageddon is not of a kind of hard rock which was generally played in 1975 and that the sound of the album is nicely suited to what the records dealers at that time named "proto-prog" to firm that dinstictive sound of late 60s / early 70s at their selling lists ( they did not created a new genre nor they wanted to do anything like that)  2) I mentioned Armageddon's album as an evidence that the "proto-prog" sound was still exist until mid 70s even in UK.
 
See, that's the difference between us. I understood what you were saying. I just don't accept it. Neither do I accept the tag "proto-prog" that a few record resellers decided to scribble with black magic marker on their flea market bins. That was not a defining moment or the end-all, be-all for the definition of proto-prog.
 
We are 40 years in the future since some amateur used-record vendors moved out of their mothers' basements and tried to sell scratched albums for a living. Musical genres, like prog or proto-prog, have long since been reassessed and redefined. The definition you are using is no longer valid, and honestly wasn't necessarily correct when the record sellers first used it. It is too restrictive, too ill-defined and it does not take things into historical context.
 
It is, in fact, not progressive. LOL
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.200 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.