Besides, they don't get enough mention around here. I'm glad you included them.

This is torture.

 

Ok....went with The Who.....

The Who...torture vote...

 

Now I know what the problem is. Can you repeat that? "They don't get enough mention around here", but maybe we should ask Captain Beyond why that is? Captain Beyond is a character on Doctor Who. Rod Evans who was a Tom Jones type was beat into shape by Deep Purple and in the end, receives more credit than Spooky Tooth any day of the week.

 

That is the most daft and incorrect definition for proto-prog I have ever heard. I think we went through this before on this forum and decided you didn't know what you were talking about. It doesn't get any better the second time around.

In fact e.g. The Who never were "proto-prog" in the second half of 60s. The Who were prog related due to the famous Rock opera from 1969 and due to their long and complex Rock songs with a lot of synths at their 70s albums, but they never had a touch of proto-prog sound as the bands as e.g. Deep Purple as well. In the second half of 60s, The Who were recorded some great Freakbeat songs but Freakbeat is not proto-prog; for example, Mr Townshend's "mini-opera" A Quick One While He's Away , I Can See For Miles  the song or Armenia City In The Sky  the song writen by John "Speedy" Keen ( from Who Sell Out  LP ) and indeed that's all Freakbeat, not "proto-prog".

Also The Pretty Things in late 60s were representatives of  http://www.allmusic.com/style/freakbeat-ma0000012342" rel="nofollow - Freakbeat , not "proto-prog". And that's not my opinion or my desire. That's an historical fact ; proto-prog(ressive) the term wasn't existed in 60s.

Proto-prog the term will appear in the mid 70s by the records dealers to firm at their lists that one of Rock (not pop-rock) styles of late 60s / early 70s. As I already said, it was Hammond organ driven, pretty heavy and "greasy" sound (with a mellotron too, but not synths - as a general rule), very often with a touch of Psychedelia, Jazz and Classical music.

 

 

 

 

 

I prefer Kaleidoscope ... they have been one of my favourite bands since 1972 when I accidentally bought "A Tangerine Dream" after hearing a German band with that name on the radio. Back then their albums had been long deleted and were incredibly hard to find, by 1974 copies of "A Tangerine Dream" and "Faintly Blowing" could be found at Record Fairs for £200 a piece (that's like £2000 in today's money). It's only since their entire catalogue has been reissued on CD that I have completed my collection.

Hammond organ driven, is July Morning original here with Ken Hensley proto prog? I bet I sound like an idiot I know. I am the worst ninny sorry  but am very curious tho' xxx

uriah heep - july morning 1972 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzRrGNygjzs&index=3&list=PLMyHPEAFkfwMnzu3X4ADg_4lK7g75AIDM" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzRrGNygjzs&index=3&list=PLMyHPEAFkfwMnzu3X4ADg_4lK7g75AIDM

In our context (and I must stress that), it is any band that produced music that lead to the creation of Progressive Rock as a distinct genre of music in the years prior to 1969. That date is an arbitrary "stick-in-the-ground" to give us a notional reference point (it is not cast in stone). 

You could say, for example, that the early Psychedelic albums by Pink Floyd are Proto-Prog, (especially Saucerful of Secrets), even though they later went on to produce Progressive Rock albums and we would not classify them as a Proto Prog band.

Inventing of Proto-prog the term for distinctive sound, historicaly, as I already said: 

 

Svetonio wrote: (...) (proto-prog=Hammond organ driven heavy rock that was played on late 60s / early 70s, mainly British, but can be detected in USA and other countries too)   (...)   Proto-prog the term will appear in the mid 70s by the records dealers to firm at their lists that one of Rock (not pop-rock) styles of late 60s / early 70s. As I already said, it was Hammond organ driven, pretty heavy and "greasy" sound (with a mellotron too, but not synths - as a general rule), very often with a touch of Psychedelia, Jazz and Classical music.

 

 

The PA's definition of proto-prog writen by Ivan Melgar - Morey:

 

The denomination Proto Prog comes from the combination of two words, Proto from the Greek The earliest,. and Prog which as we know is a short term for Progressive Rock, so as it's name clearly indicates, refers to the earliest form of Progressive Rock or Progressive Rock in embryonary state. These bands normally were formed and released albums before Progressive Rock had completely developed (there are some rare Proto Prog bands from the early 70's, because the genre didn't expanded to all the Continents simultaneously The common elements in all these bands is that they developed one or more elements of Prog, and even when not completely defined as part of the genre, they are without any doubt, an important stage in the evolution of Progressive Rock. Generally, Proto Prog bands are the direct link between Psyche and Prog and for that reason the Psychedelic components are present in the vast majority of them, but being that Progressive Rock was born from the blending of different genres, we have broadened the definition to cover any band that combined some elements of Progressive Rock with other genres prior to 1970. Some of these bands evolved and turned into 100% Prog, while others simply choose another path, but their importance and contribution in the formative period of Prog can't be denied, for that reason no Prog site can ignore them.

 

Kati, it is up to you now what you prefer to accept as your definition

Dean, I quote you: "Our "Proto Prog" section is not a musical/musicological subgenre, it is a just a historic classification that acts as a safety net to catch those early bands that didn't "progress" onto becoming fully-fledged Progressive Rock bands."

Sventonio, I continue to be confused however atleast you came to a closer definition in terms what it means, even if some disagree xxxx

 I'm not going to get drawn into another endless, fruitless and pointless debate on The Beach Boys. They were an influential band that is not to be denied and the (staged) rivalry between Wilson and The Beatles cannot be ignored. But I cannot regard them as being specifically influential on the formation of Progressive Rock as a genre. Also, as you have since spotted, by being American they are not subject to this particular poll.

If you cannot see why some bands are called Proto on the PA and others are not then stop worrying about it. Rejoice in the ones we have listed and listen to their music for what it is - great music - if we went by a purely musicological (Record Fair) definition many of those bands wouldn't be on the site at all.

btw: I am not going to ask you to play "favourites" - there are two distinct definitions for two distinctly different purposes  - both are valid but only one applies here.

 

hihihi Dean. true all you said plus The Beatles were at the forefront of progressive moozik :) the white album for instance they did whatever they wanted. But Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club was the first and foremost unique progressive album at the time, no one even imagined that. xxxxx

Another band that is of interest is Hapshash & The Coloured Coat, though their music is perhaps a lot less well known than their art, which was far more influential and popular. Few people have probably ever heard their music but we can all recognise the posters and album covers they created for other people:

So, to their Proto-Prog music:

Oh yes I see what you mean with the artwork, the music however

They are weird.

changed my mind they are very sharp, one or two tracks had enough now.

Personally I love Art Nouveau so their psychedelic re-imagining of the Beardsley, Mucha and Klimt (and even Rackham) is always going to appeal to me. As artists they were hugely influential in 1960s London and on the Psychedelic scene, inspiring the psychedelic imagery & fashion of The Beatles, The Stones and Hendrix and many more besides.

I'm not surprised you didn't care for the music since you've not given any indication that you like avant prog or Krautrock music in general.

Prog is a very broad church and so by that any notion of proto- is going to be even broader. Few people like every aspect of Progressive Rock so it is to be expected that not everyone will like what influenced the formation of Progressive Rock. Every facet of what we think of as Progressive Rock draws its influence from somewhere and so restricting the idea of Proto-Prog to one identifying sound or style of music simply doesn't make archaeological sense, even if a nice tidy definition makes sense to people who sell and collect used vinyl.

Oh no Sventonio besides the above you mentioned I have found no similarities to jazz that has heavy bass influence plus has tunes. I found this lacking so far in terms of what I found in bands related to proto-prog.

Hapshash's 1967 debut album was called "Hapshash and the Coloured Coat Featuring The Human Host And The Heavy Metal Kids"

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).

 

p.s. One of the best Yugoslav proto-prog style songs ever recorded:

 

 

 

 

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?  

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.

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

I know what is perceived as prog music.  I believe

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.

Never said you did. You have hold of the wrong end of the stick Sonia. 

damn  bah again? This always happens to me.

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_language" rel="nofollow - πρωτο- (prōto-), combination form of http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%80%CF%81%E1%BF%B6%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek" rel="nofollow - prôtos, “first”), http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/superlative" rel="nofollow - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%80%CF%81%CF%8C#Ancient_Greek" rel="nofollow - pró, “before”).

Erm... Proto is of Greek derivation - as in Prototype, Protoplasm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-human" rel="nofollow - 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.

/edit: damn, Ninja'd by Greg 

 

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).

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).

 

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.

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.

Sorry, Dean. I have consumed way too much coffee this morning.

 

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.

Simply put: if we didn't have Proto Prog section with that definition then The Who would not be listed in this site at all.

And since Iván's definition has been copied and reprinted on several other sites, his canonisation is imminent.

erm... lol.

 

The point I was making, Moses, is that nothing is set in stone. I used the words "redefine" and "reassess" because that is what has been done and what continues to happen as part of the historical record.

 

Nothing is infallible, as you inferred, yet you still hold on to some archaic (and really silly) definition like Yahweh himself slapped you upside the head with the commandment:

 

 

But as a reasonable music listener and as a musician, I find the PA definition of "proto-prog" far more reasonable than the short-sighted and fundamentally inaccurate definition by some 70s flea-market resellers. As a person degreed in English and history, linguistically the prefix "proto" is supported far more reasonably and in historical context by PA than your flea-market resellers.

 

As a reasonable person, I cannot hold to a definition that is no longer valid or does not make sense to me, particularly when a far more reasonable and sensible definition is available.

 

That style was called Freakbeat, a genre what I mentioned earlier in this thread.

By the way, Rick Davies is great as always....

 

And slightly off the topic - Kati, do you think that The Steve Miller Band would be in Prog Archives' Proto Prog section - as per PA' definition of *proto-prog*, of course -  due to their first two albums from 1968?

Aww my sweet Sventonio, this time I think I am the last person here to answer your question. I am clueless here still as to proto actually stands for

I however I do think Steve Miller Band - Fly Like An Eagle (1976) certainly has prog elements i.e. sitar and B3 organ, plus the moozik has a groovy sexy vibe  Steve Miller Band - Fly Like An Eagle (1976) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdB9lTUyshM" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdB9lTUyshM  hugs

 

 

SteveG,

Now you just confused me more hahahaha ...  I was told by Dean that proto was before prog, the music term was invented (this finally started to make sense to me) thus prior to prog, bands can be proto thereafter none can be considered that  hugs xxxx

The Dark Elf wow wow wow WOW~!!!!!!!!!!! Most tracks you posted on your website front page are my favorites! I promise, I have those tracks, just to prove that they are my favs you can check here my playlist too https://www.youtube.com/user/SoniaKatiMota/playlists" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/user/SoniaKatiMota/playlists  too  yay whooheeehiiiiiiii you are wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Love your taste in moozik jajajaja yep ahum yes si sim oui  big hug  

 

Aww also leave pls Sventonio be as he is so nice  more  to you!!!

Wrong Nirvana. 

Steve is being sarcastic.

Naughty Steve

hahaha this just proves how much of a ninny I am  I never heard of them, ha! Going to listen right now, thank you, Dean   

hoh I like them! This I really like! They in my mind weirdly sound like Paul McCartney on vocals and King Crimson somehow

good-good-good.

This one is fun - Nirvana cover Nirvana:

Ha! hahaha thank you! Going to listen right now

 

not bad but that beat auto 80's tune kills me, not as bad as others but argghhh  it's club 54 on rollerskates too.

 

MOTT THE HOOPLE - All The Young Dudes [ HQ remaster audio ]  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkqQj8Z_aVY" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkqQj8Z_aVY

this is oh frickin' brilliant! I am so happy right now! Thank you very much, Sventonio!!!! Now why the heck is this not considered prog? Flippin fantastic this is!!!!  Going to replay yay again now !!!

^ It was an amusing distraction nothing more.

This is far more representative of the original Nirvana:

hahahaha today is a great day I love this so much! The vocalist reminds me so much of Paul McCartney really! I love him and love this too! God this is just so flippin' fab!!!! love love love!!!! Instrumentals too! I have no idea how I never came across them, now I want to go search more moozik they made!!!!!! Dean, you are just too fantastic, thank you!!!!!!!!!!

Nirvana (uk) - June  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuNfnFNcjn0" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuNfnFNcjn0

 this track reminds me of Big Big Train  album far skies deep time

No - too late to be "what came before"

Finding later bands that seem to "fit the bill" is the major problem of trying to define Proto Prog as a style of music (which it isn't), it is a classification not a genre.

Genre  = style of music

Classification = bunch of unrelated styles (psychedelic pop/rock, baroque pop, folk rock, jazz rock, etc.)

It gets even more complicated than that. Two 1968 band can be playing an identical style of music - one is recognised as Proto Prog and the other is not. The reason for that is simply one of influence - the first band may have been better known at the time, or playing on the same tours as some of those emergent Prog bands. It would be very unusual to classify a completely unknown band as Proto Prog.

Ok fair enough, however I love this song a lot  also Bowie wrote that song for them and I adore him (except his 80's albums I must admit bah those are awful)

Mott btw rejected Bowie's first song written for them, called Suffragette City hugs

Mott were an established band with four albums under their belt when Bowie approached them (he was a "fan" and heard they were thinking of splitting up). Prior to his involvement they were very much a blues Heavy Rock band as their début single from 1969 shows:

Of course that The Steve Miller Band first two albums were / are considered prog! For example, well know British rock journalist Nick Logan wrote on those albums in The illustrated New Musical Express Encyclopedia of Rock ( Salamander Books, London, 1977) as "the cornerstones of progressive rock" as well. I had Yugoslav version of that great book, in fact the most comprehensive rock-publishing effort in the seventies

Yep that was very common at the time blues music, I personally am not of fan. hugs

Well, for a start the track is not Progressive Rock - it's blues rock. Other tracks from their early albums were blues rock/acid rock which leads some people to consider them to be "psychedelic rock" (I do not). There is a certain "Englishness" to their first two albums that was inspired/influenced by the blues revival happening in London at that time (Cream, John Mayall, TYA, etc.). The first album was recorded in London, the second in LA and both were produced by English producer Glyn Johns, who also produced an early Prog album - Family Entertainment by Family. That Miller would be influenced by the psychedelic scene in London at that time is hardly surprising - what little Psych that can be detected in those early Miller Band albums is more English than American. For Miller to be considered Proto Prog on this site he has to be an influence into the scene that gave rise to Progressive Rock.
 

Guilty as charged.  I use videos as illustration by way of example and admit to being heavy-handed this morning but only in the endeavour of "Educating Sonia" 

I tire of your misquoting from that (inadequate) book. He does NOT call the first two albums "cornerstones of progressive rock" he says (and I quote verbatim from an original 1977 English print) "two albums which are still regarded as milestones."  (note the full-stop/period at the end of that quote).

1. Cornerstone is NOT a synonym of Milestone - two different words, two different meanings.

2. The quote does NOT say they were milestones of progressive rock, it just says they were milestones (period). That could imply lots of things, for example: they were a milestone in rock (unlikely since they were not particularly successful on release) or the were a milestone in Miller's career (more likely).

 

 

 

We will all be gone except for a lone retired admin who will haunt this site still munching on his popcorn and complaining about spam.