A team for Proto Prog is impossible?

Ok, Tetra-gone...


welcome back my friends to the show that never ends....


Edited by Tony R - August 09 2007 at 19:22

Tetragon wrote:

Bollox simple as that. It was called the progressive movement & you know it was.   I know it was not exclusively, because obviously I read and I dedicated decades to Progressive Rock, something you obviouly won't understand because you express later in this post  say that reading is crap.   I won't even waste my time making quotes for you, you're not worth the effort.   What you babling on about new bands for.I'm talking the early eprog in which this DISCUSION is all about.Who cares about crap that came after the first half of the '70's That's not prog it's crap.   Says who?   How many articles have your wrirtten? What's your area of expertise? How many reviews and biographies have you written? Who are you? and mot important, Why should we care about what you say if you dare to say that what we listen is crap?   I dare to use my full name and not hide behind a nick to be rude and offensive in a civilized forum for people who like Prog of the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's.   If you believe Anglagard, Par Lindh Project, Echolyn, T-Tauri, Magrathea, Magenta, Karda estra, After Crying, etc are crap, your knowledge about Prog is inferior to what your language and maners seem to indicate.    What do you know anyway your in Peru,how can you know about what happend over in this country apart from rubbish you obviously read?   Oops I forgot you believe we're are indians with bows, arrows and feathers that can't read, probably you believe we have to take a canoe to go to the next village, and use smoke signals to get the news about the bands, sad little pedant  you're making a fool of youtself.   Let me tell you Tetragon, in this forum you can find people from all the world who obviously have forgotten this morning more about Prog and maners than what you will learn in your whole life with that attitude.   While you believe you are the center of the world because you were born in England, we don't care for the nation or year in which an album was released, we care for music come from where it comes.   It's a shame for the people of your country to have insignificant arrogants with delirium of greatness like you.   Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 09 2007 at 18:14

Tetragon wrote: All this babbling for nothing.If you cast your body back to when prog first surfaced you will know it was caled the Progressive movement, nothing more nothing less, there was no proto,No Symphonic, Art rock etc word used it's just something listerners & press alike have created to try catergorize certain bands.They may have found this entertaining but it's near on impossible to correctly catergorize.

 

Tetragon wrote: All this babbling for nothing.If you cast your body back to when prog first surfaced you will know it was caled the Progressive movement, nothing more nothing less, there was no proto,No Symphonic, Art rock etc word used it's just something listerners & press alike have created to try catergorize certain bands.They may have found this entertaining but it's near on impossible to correctly catergorize.   If you must just think of Proto as Proto(type) progressive.& forget about the Rock bit cos it was'nt.

So we avoid categories/genres etc and just call it Progressive music, do we? So if one is looking for bands similar to Yes, what might one do?

Why not just call it all music and file from A to Z. Should make things easier shouldnt it? Wonder why libraries bother having sections like "biography", "crime", "thrillers", "history" etc? Why not just shelve them A To Z by author?
It's wrong to over-analyse the genres but they have some use as a general reference aid.

ClemofNazareth wrote: I suspect Pan & Regaliz and Maquina are related somehow, probably through Maquina's bass player. He also played with Chick Corea and I think Al Di Meola, so those two bands should have some circutuous route to the rest of proto-prog, probably through someone like Steve Howe or maybe Tony Levin.

I suspect Pan & Regaliz and Maquina are related somehow, probably through Maquina's bass player. He also played with Chick Corea and I think Al Di Meola, so those two bands should have some circutuous route to the rest of proto-prog, probably through someone like Steve Howe or maybe Tony Levin. Nirvana (UK) connects somewhere but I got tired of looking. Sweet**ter is pretty self-contained but their drummer got around a little. I can't find any other bands he was officially in though. I have no clue about Salamander.

Easy Livin wrote: ...there may well be no musical link between the bands who are classified as proto-prog. Bands assigned to a prog sub-genre will of course always be linked musically in some way.

Just for fun Bob!

OK, the proto-prog name was proposed by me at the time and it didn't turn out as I expected it be. Right now, we are misusing the term; the way it is generally understood is not what we do with it

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   And i go further, I believe Proto Prog is a sub-genre of Prog, not like in the case of Prog Related or Art Rock.   Iván

hmmmm....

you are in the minority on PP...and there's nothing wrong with that...  If it is prog.. it should be classified as prog.. in it's proper sub-genre here,  even if it before 1969.. which silly me...would be an arbitrary date if there was indeed prog.. worthy of being a sub-genre of prog.. before 1969.

and AR not a prog sub-genre here... was that a mistype Ivan.

thanks for showing again what the AR team has to face and why we must have that broken up and defined better.  I'm just used to that from kids that read about Art Rock being a parallel to progressive rock.. and wonder why King Crimson is in a non-prog category. It gets tiring after awhile


Edited by micky - August 04 2007 at 18:24

Easy Livin wrote: Out of interest, I had a look at the bands defined here as Proto Prog. I don' t think they all lend themselves to the Psychedelia description by any means. Prog took it's influences from many different sources Psychedelic being just one of them. Perhaps psychedelic was more obviously close to prog than others, and some psych bands such as Pink Floyd became prog bands, but I think the notion that prog developed only from psychedelia is misleading.   Jazz for example is a completely separate genre from psych, yet its influence can be seen clearly in much of prog. Perhaps this indicates that there is an absence of other influences from the PP category which needs to be addressed

I couldn't agree more... but since Psychedelic rock ruled... in order to go past that,  to jazz influences... you might have to consider ... in fact should consider an artist I proposed over a year ago...but got little to no attention. Again, I didn't push it.

The Dave Brubeck Quartet....  whether I like it or not, and I don't hahhaha. Most people think metric complexity is a large part of what prog is.... and Brubeck pretty much pioneered that in popular music.  Nothing like hearing a hits  like Blue Rondo in 9/8 or Take Five in 5/4 to break people out of standard 4/4 hahhah.

The downside obviously is there will those who will call for classical artists... but is that a downside though????