| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
MovingPictures07 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Beasty Heart
Status: Offline
Points: 32181
|
 Posted: December 02 2008 at 20:01 |
 Atavachron wrote:
none on the list for building prog, I'd say the Nice --> ELP, early Yes & Genesis, Egg, Soft Machine, a few others
|
Include Zappa and the Mothers of Invention in this list and that's a good assessment.
|
|
|
 |
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65505
|
Posted: December 02 2008 at 20:09 |
|
yes, Zappa was crucial to rock progressing and was doing it while or before most of the British groups, but his impact on the Prog movement has always seemed unclear ..if one could pinpoint his influence on the English progressive scene I'd give it to him
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: December 02 2008 at 21:31 |
Atavachron wrote:
yes, Zappa was crucial to rock progressing and was doing it while or before most of the British groups, but his impact on the Prog movement has always seemed unclear ..if one could pinpoint his influence on the English progressive scene I'd give it to him
|
I'd say it's less an artistic impact than a business impact, and I'd argue the same was true for the Beatles during the very early era (1964 original British Invasion bands). By business impact I mean, Record Company A (in this case Verve) is making some money by virtue of Zappa (or thinks they will make money). Record Company B sees Verve having some success with that "weird" music and decides it had better sign a "weird" artist or two, just to not miss out should the whole thing pan out. Particularly in the '60s, I'd say this led to the signing of any number of bands who might normally have been left in the scrap heap.
I don't mean to diminish FZ's contributions -- we all know McCartney cited Freak Out as an influence for Sgt Pepper. But the impact is that some bands got signed to record contracts and released records, which in turn had some success which in turn allowed other bands to get signed, and so on.
Plus FZ was the first 'mainstream' rock musician I know of to actually use classical music in a song: the melodic quote from Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in Amnesia Vivace on Absolutely Free.
(Edit: personally I voted for the Beatles, for the above-stated reason.)
Edited by jammun - December 02 2008 at 21:34
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
|
Posted: December 03 2008 at 11:54 |
|
Oh yeah, I forgot about the Nice. By the way, I think that a lot of mid to late-sixties bands had been forgotten in this poll. The fusion of classical music and pop-music should be talked about.
|
|
jimidom
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 02 2007
Location: Houston, TX USA
Status: Offline
Points: 570
|
Posted: December 03 2008 at 13:25 |
|
Gotta go with the Fab Four. Although there were others more instrumental in building prog, the Beatles embodied the very notion of pushing rock beyond its 3-chord blues & country roots.
|
|
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65505
|
Posted: December 03 2008 at 23:23 |
|
of course the real unsung heroes are all the lost bands of the English post-underground period like Room, Marsupilami, Arc, many others
|
|
Abstrakt
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 18 2005
Location: Soundgarden
Status: Offline
Points: 18292
|
Posted: December 04 2008 at 01:38 |
|
I'd say Procol Harum. But they all laid the foundation for what was later known as prog, or heavy psych/blues/hard/rock.
Beatles, Procol Harum, Iron Butterfly, The Doors, Deep Purple, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Zappa...
Edited by Abstrakt - December 04 2008 at 01:39
|
|
Chelsea
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 10 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 44
|
Posted: December 04 2008 at 16:51 |
Atavachron wrote:
none on the list for building prog, I'd say the Nice --> ELP, early Yes & Genesis, Egg, Soft Machine, a few others
|
Without the Beatles innovation, fame and experimenting with unusual things like classical avant, Traditional Indian Music, strange time signatures, modal music, mellotron and chamber styled arrangements all in 1966 Progressive Rock might have failed. We might still be listening to the Four Seasons, Fabion and My Girlfriend is Back. "Tomorrow Never Knows" is a very early Art-Rock song.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65505
|
Posted: December 04 2008 at 17:00 |
|
oh I think it goes further back to the Beach Boys.. the Beatles were hardly innovators, taking from almost every important songwriter of their time and re-interpreting it in their own way.. it was this rock/pop revision that they did so well and didn't really begin major innovations till '67 (Brian Wilson had already trumped them anyway, Dylan as well) -- further, I think the Nice would've done exactly what they were doing in 67/68 regardless of the Beatles, Emerson being both a savvy marketer and highly trained and gifted pianist which put him in the ideal position to create a pop/psych/classical fusion for a ready market The Beatles primary impact was on pop and not much else, sorry if this is blasphemous but to suggest Emerson (and even Fripp) would not have done what they did without the Fab Four is, IMHO, completely absurd.
|
|
Chelsea
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 10 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 44
|
Posted: December 04 2008 at 17:30 |
Atavachron wrote:
oh I think it goes further back to the Beach Boys.. the Beatles were hardly innovators, taking from almost every important songwriter of their time and re-interpreting it in their own way.. it was this rock/pop revision that they did so well and didn't really begin major innovations till '67 (Brian Wilson had already trumped them anyway, Dylan as well) -- further, I think the Nice would've done exactly what they were doing in 67/68 regardless of the Beatles, Emerson being both a savvy marketer and highly trained and gifted pianist which put him in the ideal position to create a pop/psych/classical fusion for a ready market The Beatles primary impact was on pop and not much else, sorry if this is blasphemous but to suggest Emerson (and even Fripp) would not have done what they did without the Fab Four is, IMHO, completely absurd.
|
The Beatles were already experimenting with odd chord progressions in 1962 while the Beach Boys were a surf group.
Brian Wilson apparently does not agree with you Strawberry Fields Forever" came on the radio: "He just shook his head and he said, 'They did it already'. And I said, 'They did what?' And he said, 'What I wanted to do with Smile - maybe it's too late?'"
Brian Wilson say Rubber Soul-signaling a new seriousness in pop music-and it influenced him on Pet Sounds.
I think Brian Wilson know more than us about innovation and songwriting.
Bob Dylan reacted in a similar way, by remarking: "They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid ..
I don't think there is anything more innovative than what the Beatles did with "Tomorrow Never Knows" than what's on Pet Sounds. Pet Sounds still sounds like an early 60's record with all it's orchestration. The Beatles were already flirting with Baroque Pop in 1965 before the Beach Boys.
Edited by Chelsea - December 04 2008 at 17:39
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65505
|
Posted: December 04 2008 at 17:56 |
Chelsea wrote:
The Beatles were already experimenting with odd chord progressions in 1962 while the Beach Boys were a surf group.
"..a surf group" ? You mean compared to the Beatles bubblegum pop and adolescent love drool of their early work? In 1962 the Beatles were a loud, almost hard rock/punk band in Germany and England and had little desire to 'expand rock'.. they wanted to play rock, and play it all night till they dropped which is how they became such a tight little band. Odd chord progressions? No I don't think so.
Brian Wilson apparently does not agree with you Strawberry Fields Forever" came on the radio: "He just shook his head and he said, 'They did it already'. And I said, 'They did what?' And he said, 'What I wanted to do with Smile - maybe it's too late?'"
but of course it wasn't too late, with the unfinished, stillborn but incredible and almost avant-garde Smiley Smile released 1967, making Sgt. Pepper seem tame by comparison. No one noticed of course, but we have hindsight on our side.
Brian Wilson say Rubber Soul-signaling a new seriousness in pop music-and it influenced him on Pet Sounds.
yes, I'm sure it did
I think Brian Wilson know more than us about innovation and songwriting.
no doubt, and the Beatles as well
Bob Dylan reacted in a similar way, by remarking: "They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid ..
this is hearsay mostly, but I'll take your word for it-- again though, the Beatles influence was on pop music, not progressive rock.. Prog musicians were REJECTING the simple appeal of the 60s pop market, not embracing it
|
Edited by Atavachron - December 04 2008 at 17:56
|
|
sean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 02 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1155
|
Posted: December 04 2008 at 18:49 |
|
I think Zappa did the prog thing before the beatles, and certainly influenced them, but i don't think his influence was as widespread and I think his music was a lot less marketable than what the Beatles were doing, thus why he didn't get as much attention.
|
|
ModernRocker79
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 02 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Posted: December 04 2008 at 23:47 |
Atavachron wrote:
Chelsea wrote:
The Beatles were already experimenting with odd chord progressions in 1962 while the Beach Boys were a surf group.
"..a surf group" ? You mean compared to the Beatles bubblegum pop and adolescent love drool of their early work? In 1962 the Beatles were a loud, almost hard rock/punk band in Germany and England and had little desire to 'expand rock'.. they wanted to play rock, and play it all night till they dropped which is how they became such a tight little band. Odd chord progressions? No I don't think so.
Brian Wilson apparently does not agree with you Strawberry Fields Forever" came on the radio: "He just shook his head and he said, 'They did it already'. And I said, 'They did what?' And he said, 'What I wanted to do with Smile - maybe it's too late?'"
but of course it wasn't too late, with the unfinished, stillborn but incredible and almost avant-garde Smiley Smile released 1967, making Sgt. Pepper seem tame by comparison. No one noticed of course, but we have hindsight on our side.
Brian Wilson say Rubber Soul-signaling a new seriousness in pop music-and it influenced him on Pet Sounds.
yes, I'm sure it did
I think Brian Wilson know more than us about innovation and songwriting.
no doubt, and the Beatles as well
Bob Dylan reacted in a similar way, by remarking: "They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid ..
this is hearsay mostly, but I'll take your word for it-- again though, the Beatles influence was on pop music, not progressive rock.. Prog musicians were REJECTING the simple appeal of the 60s pop market, not embracing it
|
|
I hate this topic to be honest because honestly you either don't know what you're talking about or you can't admit the obvious. Mostly every future Progressive Rock band was influenced by the Beatles. Pink Floyd, The Moody Blues, Yes, King Crimson all were influenced by the Beatles. Saying the Beatles had no influence on Progressive Rock is like saying the Beatles had no influence on Power Pop. It's absurd. Sorry that I’m pissed off
.Lennon and McCartney would often introduce jazz chords into their very early compositions unlike typical rock and roll; they would incorporate secondary harmony, especially in the middle eight. On their second song in 1962 “P.S I Love You" already has two odd chord progressions. The first unusual type of progression is called a "chord stream this is a technique is most closely associated with either early twentieth century Impressionism or Jazz and it happens to break one of the standard old-fashioned rules against using parallel octaves and fifths between chords. The second unusual type of progression is called a "deceptive cadence". This was just the start. Yeh the Beach Boys were just a surf band in late 1962. www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-beatles_canon.shtml
Smiley Smile was recorded after Sgt Pepper was released. The Beatles already recorded songs with strong Avant Influence "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Love You To", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "A Day in the Life". The Beach Boys were miles late with "Smiley Smile. Like who cares if the Beatles also did their share of pop music. The Beatles also experimented. They did not play one type of music.
Strawberry Fields Forever" is at least Proto-Prog. With its use of mellotron, Indian scales and two separate versions of one song into one. Strawberry Fields Forever" uses diminished chords that are common with jazz music. It changes time signatures often 4/4, 6/8, 3/4, 2/4. Hardly simple stuff. It helped pioneer Progressive Rock. "Within You" uses a raga-like form that contains both major and minor thirds in different octaves, kind of a combination of mixolydian and Dorian modalities. Lennon used forms similar to Tibetan chants
Is it the Beatles fault that Zappa did not have the influence of them? You don't seem to get that pop music is a form of music. The Beatles merging progressive, experimental with pop music is a concept. They succeeded at it. Zappa non-pop experimental music did not. The Beatles experimental style of backward tapes, Indian Instruments, tape loops, and mellotron on "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" were done in 1966 way before the Beach Boys Smiley Smile.
"Tomorrow Never Knows" early Art Rock Song
"Love You To" first pop song to emulate a non western form in style, instrumentation and rhythm. Very Progressive
“Strawberry Fields Forever" and "A Day in the Life" both very proto-proggish
Then Bob Dylan on the Beatles
"John and the Beatles were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid. Everybody else thought they were for the teeny boppers, that they were gonna pass right away. But it was obvious to me that they had staying power: I knew they were pointing in the direction where music had to go."
(Bob Dylan)
Edited by ModernRocker79 - December 04 2008 at 23:58
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65505
|
Posted: December 05 2008 at 00:20 |
|
yeah, sounds like the same old stuff we've been hearing for years with no further independent thought , and little of it indicates they pioneered prog rock.. we all know the Beatles were progressive, but firmly within a pop format till the day they broke up-- what they started was a new way to look at songwriting, a fresh take on the possibilities within a standard song format, and this is evident on every album they recorded including Pepper, White Album and Abbey Road. There is little doubt they influenced the early proggers (certainly Giles,Giles&Fripp had Beatles all through them), but I increasingly feel they've become over-credited and some people have decided they were the first 'prog band' ..this is of course false
They're influence is heard on early Yes and Genesis, there's no doubt about it, but you hear much more direct musical impact from the Beatles on the pop scenes of Britain and America than the prog ones.. again, Prog artists appeared to be moving away from the blues/rock/beat of Beatles and Cream, and instead were drawing much more from the psychedelic/experimental movement but with a technicality that hadn't been applied; Fripp's classical and minimal forays in GG&F, Emerson's true fusion of classical, jazz and rock.. very much unlike the Beatles faux classical, which was more a novelty than anything.
I love them but at this point the boys are so worshiped that no one thinks twice about who was really influencing whom. Some still think Inner Mounting Flame was the first jazz-rock album but that doesn't make it so.
Edited by Atavachron - December 05 2008 at 00:46
|
|
ModernRocker79
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 02 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Posted: December 05 2008 at 00:49 |
Atavachron wrote:
yeah, sounds like the same old stuff we've been hearing for years with no further independent thought , and little of it indicates they pioneered prog rock.. we all know the Beatles were progressive, but firmly within a pop format till the day they broke up-- what they started was a new way to look at songwriting, a fresh take on the possibilities within a standard song format, and this is evident on every album they recorded including Pepper, White Album and Abbey Road. There is little doubt they influenced the early proggers (certainly Giles,Giles&Fripp had Beatles all through them), but I increasingly feel they've become over-credited and most people have decided they were the first 'prog band' ..this is of course false
They're influence is heard on early Yes and Genesis, there's no doubt about it, but you hear much more direct musical impact from the Beatles on the pop scenes of Britain and America than the prog ones.. again, Prog artists appeared to be moving away from the blues/rock/beat of Beatles and Cream, and instead were drawing much more from the psychedelic/experimental movement but with a technicality that hadn't been applied; Fripp's classical and minimal forays in GG&F, Emerson's true fusion of classical, jazz and rock.. very much unlike the Beatles faux classical, which was more a novelty than anything.
I love them but at this point the boys are so worshiped that no one thinks twice about who was really influencing whom. Some still think Inner Mounting Flame was the first jazz-rock album but that doesn't make it so.
|
I never said the Beatles invented Progressive Rock and I don't think they did. I said they were influential on Progressive Rock. I think the Beatles might be the first Progressive Pop band? I have argued this point before here that I think the Beatles were merging non western forms and avant forms with Western Pop Songs. I don't know why this is a bad thing for some people? Using odd time signatures, exotic instruments and non western scales wrapped around great melodies. To me it's brilliant they were able to do it and it's a form of innovation. I really don't care if they were not great players like King Crimson who I really like.
I have listened to Nice and I think they are progressive Rock. No one knows who really invents genres. I think the Beatles are Progressive Pop. The Beatles were a one off in my opinion they helped influenced both Rock and Pop music to experiment.
Edited by ModernRocker79 - December 05 2008 at 01:04
|
|
floepiejane
Forum Groupie
Joined: October 21 2008
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 43
|
Posted: December 05 2008 at 03:20 |
I appreciate the Dylan quote ModernRocker
I think about the influence Dylan had on the Beatles to open up
Dylan's lyrics were both traditional and very progressive at the time
his political anthems allowed him into the pop world
and then he turned inward and wrote for himself
songs like It's Alright Ma, Gates of Eden, Tambourine Man
and then albums like Highway 61 and Blonde on Blonde
opened the entire intellectual air in pop music
this affected Prog just like every other music
I see Dylan as the lynch pin for narrative poetic music that
defies boundries
|
|
floepiejane
Forum Groupie
Joined: October 21 2008
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 43
|
Posted: December 05 2008 at 03:23 |
Like a Rolling Stone was the first single over the 3 (?) minute mark
what was it like 7 some minutes?
that helped prog
as did am radio
and pirate radio (?) over in Europe
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
|
Posted: December 05 2008 at 12:03 |
|
Yeah, Dylan before the Beatles. Don't forget him: he made them smoke marijuana.
|
|
Grobsch
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 25 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 169
|
Posted: December 05 2008 at 12:57 |
|
Pink Floyd is important, but King Crimson is the father of progressive rock... after KC several bands changed their sound... is just like PFM for italian progressive... I miss The Nice and Moody Blues in the list... We have influences, we have moments, but the most important band is the father... KC sounds almost nothing like Beatles and Pink Floyd, so I really think their influences are small.
Most important band in building prog:King Crimson
In the list: Beatles...
|
|
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
|
Posted: December 05 2008 at 14:00 |
|
Well, that's answering "The Sex Pistols created Punk" when the thread is about Iggy Pop and the Stooges...
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Most important band in building prog
