Print Page | Close Window

Black Sabbath, the unsung prog trailblazers

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=122252
Printed Date: November 30 2024 at 11:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Black Sabbath, the unsung prog trailblazers
Posted By: dougmcauliffe
Subject: Black Sabbath, the unsung prog trailblazers
Date Posted: February 16 2020 at 13:35
I've been listening to Black Sabbath a lot recently and they're often credited for being the first real metal band and I cant argue with that. But I feel that the material on their early albums is extremely progressive. The songs generally have several distinct sections with some really interesting unconventional non-straightforward uses of their instruments. I believe what they were doing was really unlike most music at the time. What they did was the definition of progressive.

 On their debut they had these 10 minute suites of music with various changes throughout. Look at songs like War Pigs and Planet Caravan, Wheels of Confusion... Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and more. Are they a progressive rock band? Well, they're probably heavy metal before that label. But I think they deserve a spot in the heavy prog or arguably even the progressive metal sub genre rather than prog related.

No matter what they are, Sabbath is awesome!


-------------
The sun has left the sky...
...Now you can close your eyes



Replies:
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 16 2020 at 14:31
Agreed (except for moving them; doesn't matter as long as they're here).   Here's a quote from the notes in Warhorse's Red Sea from Philip Walker that describes part of what you're getting at :

"...Heavy Rock as a style grew out of Progressive Rock sometime in the early 1970s. The trend setters were Deep Purple and Black Sabbath" .

So the perspective way back in 1972 was that heavy rock/metal was born of a larger progressive movement that included all new forms of rock, whether hard, soft, modern, or retro.





-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: February 16 2020 at 16:08
Originally posted by dougmcauliffe dougmcauliffe wrote:

I've been listening to Black Sabbath a lot recently and they're often credited for being the first real metal band and I cant argue with that. But I feel that the material on their early albums is extremely progressive. The songs generally have several distinct sections with some really interesting unconventional non-straightforward uses of their instruments. I believe what they were doing was really unlike most music at the time. What they did was the definition of progressive.

Between Iommi's atypical Drop-D and Drop-C(#) tunings from Master of Reality through Sabotage, alternate voicings, multi-tracking his solo on "War Pigs," and his penchant for ostinatos, not to mention their lyrical oeuvre and a complete lack of hesitation to let the music swing, there's more than enough in Sabbath's compositional makeup to qualify them as progressive.

Originally posted by dougmcauliffe dougmcauliffe wrote:

On their debut they had these 10 minute suites of music with various changes throughout. Look at songs like War Pigs and Planet Caravan, Wheels of Confusion... Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and more. Are they a progressive rock band? Well, they're probably heavy metal before that label. But I think they deserve a spot in the heavy prog or arguably even the progressive metal sub genre rather than prog related.

Blue Oyster Cult, as well.

Originally posted by dougmcauliffe dougmcauliffe wrote:

No matter what they are, Sabbath is awesome!
 

True, that! Clap



-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay


Posted By: LAM-SGC
Date Posted: February 16 2020 at 17:02
It was what it was progressive underground hard rock but it wasn't prog rock.


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 16 2020 at 17:15
I've said it often enough, and it bears repeating: in the late 60s through about the mid-70s, bands with any ability did whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted, because the record industry lost a lot of control during that time period. They could not effectively pigeonhole bands and place them in slots if the said bands had any success or autonomy or balls. Frank Zappa once stated quite clearly that the old-school record marketing execs clearly didn't know what they had, didn't understand the music, and just pushed out product (and Frank mentioned that didn't change until younger execs took over in the mid-70s and started placing every performer in specific slots and regurgitated it throughout the air-waves). 

Therefore, bands like Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Santana, the Allman Brothers, Zappa, Pink Floyd, Traffic and Jethro Tull veered from blues to jazz to prog to straight-ahead rock as it suited them. Shall we do 2 double-album rock operas within a three-release span of time? Sure, why not! How about a 45 minute long song without a single? What the hell, go for it! Our next album is not going to have a title or our band name anywhere on the cover. Ummm...okay...if you think so. We are going to release an album that sl*gs the whole record industry. Sure, it could be made into a monster if we all pull together as a team. 

From 1968 to 1972, Frank Zappa released a parody of hippies, a doo-wop album, an avante-garde experimental album, jazz-fusion/prog albums, an avant-rock/free jazz album, a few comedy rock albums, and a big band jazz album. Tull released a blues rock album, a blues/folk/rock album, two hard rock albums (once arguably a concept album), and then two progressive albums with record-long sides of uninterrupted music. Floyd went from psychedelia to full-blown prog to a rock opera. Yes decided to record albums with 10 to 20 minute-long songs and abandon pop music altogether. The Who released Tommy and Quadrophenia with Who's Next sandwiched in the middle. Zeppelin went from blues rock, to folk/hard rock to prog to a double album that had nearly every genre (Middle-eastern, prog, blues, folk, hard rock, etc.). King Crimson went from being already eccentric King Crimson to a metal version of King Crimson. Santana left rock altogether for a while. And Sabbath got more and more proggy till they reached a max of prog on Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and Sabotage.

There really was no such thing as "prog" because on any given album, a band could suddenly turn to being Prog before they decided to do something completely different. Queen is another case in point. Stevie Wonder and David Bowie as well.


-------------
...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...


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: February 16 2020 at 17:36
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

I've said it often enough, and it bears repeating: in the late 60s through about the mid-70s, bands with any ability did whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted, because the record industry lost a lot of control during that time period. They could not effectively pigeonhole bands and place them in slots if the said bands had any success or autonomy or balls. Frank Zappa once stated quite clearly that the old-school record marketing execs clearly didn't know what they had, didn't understand the music, and just pushed out product (and Frank mentioned that didn't change until younger execs took over in the mid-70s and started placing every performer in specific slots and regurgitated it throughout the air-waves).
 

Ain't that the truth! Were it not the case, no Tangerine Dream, no Mike Oldfield, and no Vangelis.


-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay


Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: February 16 2020 at 17:55
Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

I've said it often enough, and it bears repeating: in the late 60s through about the mid-70s, bands with any ability did whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted, because the record industry lost a lot of control during that time period. They could not effectively pigeonhole bands and place them in slots if the said bands had any success or autonomy or balls. Frank Zappa once stated quite clearly that the old-school record marketing execs clearly didn't know what they had, didn't understand the music, and just pushed out product (and Frank mentioned that didn't change until younger execs took over in the mid-70s and started placing every performer in specific slots and regurgitated it throughout the air-waves).
 

Ain't that the truth! Were it not the case, no Tangerine Dream, no Mike Oldfield, and no Vangelis.
I had no idea Black Sabbath and Blue Oyster Cult were both included in ProgArchives until now. That's great news! I'd always assumed those two very 'eavy, very 'umble bands weren't progressive enough to be included in ProgArchives. It makes me wonder now if the Hard Rock bands Led Zeppelin, UFO and Uriah Heep are included here too, but maybe that would be too much to hope for. Smile
 
If Tangerine Dream, Mike Oldfield and Vangelis are all included on ProgArchives too, then that would really make my evening. Smile


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 16 2020 at 17:58
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

I've said it often enough, and it bears repeating: in the late 60s through about the mid-70s, bands with any ability did whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted, because the record industry lost a lot of control during that time period. They could not effectively pigeonhole bands and place them in slots if the said bands had any success or autonomy or balls. Frank Zappa once stated quite clearly that the old-school record marketing execs clearly didn't know what they had, didn't understand the music, and just pushed out product (and Frank mentioned that didn't change until younger execs took over in the mid-70s and started placing every performer in specific slots and regurgitated it throughout the air-waves). 

Therefore, bands like Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Santana, the Allman Brothers, Zappa, Pink Floyd, Traffic and Jethro Tull veered from blues to jazz to prog to straight-ahead rock as it suited them. Shall we do 2 double-album rock operas within a three-release span of time? Sure, why not! How about a 45 minute long song without a single? What the hell, go for it! Our next album is not going to have a title or our band name anywhere on the cover. Ummm...okay...if you think so. We are going to release an album that sl*gs the whole record industry. Sure, it could be made into a monster if we all pull together as a team. 

From 1968 to 1972, Frank Zappa released a parody of hippies, a doo-wop album, an avante-garde experimental album, jazz-fusion/prog albums, an avant-rock/free jazz album, a few comedy rock albums, and a big band jazz album. Tull released a blues rock album, a blues/folk/rock album, two hard rock albums (once arguably a concept album), and then two progressive albums with record-long sides of uninterrupted music. Floyd went from psychedelia to full-blown prog to a rock opera. Yes decided to record albums with 10 to 20 minute-long songs and abandon pop music altogether. The Who released Tommy and Quadrophenia with Who's Next sandwiched in the middle. Zeppelin went from blues rock, to folk/hard rock to prog to a double album that had nearly every genre (Middle-eastern, prog, blues, folk, hard rock, etc.). King Crimson went from being already eccentric King Crimson to a metal version of King Crimson. Santana left rock altogether for a while. And Sabbath got more and more proggy till they reached a max of prog on Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and Sabotage.

There really was no such thing as "prog" because on any given album, a band could suddenly turn to being Prog before they decided to do something completely different. Queen is another case in point. Stevie Wonder and David Bowie as well.
Excellent synopsis.  Though prog as we understand it did in fact become the predominant rock style between about 1970 and '79 ~ it was mainstream before anyone knew it (Yes, ELP, Tull), and the idea of (and term) "progressive rock" certainly existed and was used from time to time in the '60s & 70s ~ prog itself is a thing we mostly see in hindsight.

Everybody else is just green--  have you seen the chart ?




-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: February 16 2020 at 20:21
They were a major contributor to early heavy metal but there were other bands around the same time who were leaning in that direction(Uriah Heep, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and lesser known bands like High Tide, Lucifer's Friend, Bloodrock, Sir Lord Baltimore and even Blue Cheer). 

Also, they don't get enough credit for having music that could be considered proto prog metal(Rush seems to get all the credit for that).

They were doing some jammy stuff and then more complex stuff before other heavy bands so in some ways they were a progressive metal band but that genre didn't reallly exist back then so they were more of a proto prog metal band. The term heavy metal did actually exist but it wasn't applied to them. Sabotage is probably my favorite but all of their first six are great. I haven't heard many of their later albums.


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: February 17 2020 at 01:05
Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

It was what it was progressive underground hard rock but it wasn't prog rock.

Agreed. I come from a metal and hard rock background, with over a decade of recording and live experience. and I will say I never, ever viewed Sabbath as progressing anything other than the heaviness of certain styles of rock and metal riffing. Sabra Cadabra was their closest IMHO. In fact, Sabbath is very one-trick pony beyond the tunings and slower paced riffs IMO. That's a logical progression someone would've stumbled upon, and falls prey to the "they did it first" fallacy, which is always BS.


-------------

"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021


Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: February 17 2020 at 04:16
I think Sabbath is the first band I´ve heard, at least the first I remember. My brother got somewhere "Master Of Reality" & "Vol 4" as a cassette when I was 3-4 old and I remember to listen those (my brother hasn´t got even stereos that time). Ozzy period is just great, never cared much all the other singers periods. I have always thought Sabbath got prog elements from the beginning (listen for example Behind the Wall Of Sleep from the first album). I am glad I saw Sabbath in original line-up 2004 or 2005, it was one of the greatest gigs I have seen!


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 17 2020 at 10:07
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

...
Excellent synopsis.  Though prog as we understand it did in fact become the predominant rock style between about 1970 and '79 ~ it was mainstream before anyone knew it (Yes, ELP, Tull), and the idea of (and term) "progressive rock" certainly existed and was used from time to time in the '60s & 70s ~ prog itself is a thing we mostly see in hindsight.

Everybody else is just green--  have you seen the money chart ?

There were many bands that were doing "heavy" stuff, metal or otherwise, before BS came along ... in fact I even had the QUATERMASS album which was released (it looks like) the first album in 1970 by Harvest. And one song from it was used in various places and redone later by many bands!

I'm not a great fan of the big name kissing, and I find it bothersome, and childish, sometimes like a lollipop, and how we think that this band, or that band started everything ... and that discussion is endless, specially when the person writing has not heard anything elsewhere ... so, either than DE mentioning a couple of things here and there, it's almost like saying that no bands before BS in the Midwest ever did "metal" and were not progressive in some respects ... and we know that there were several of them ... that no one ... here or elsewhere, will spend a whole lot of time listening to.

Madison, WI had a band, I think it was The Crucible, that was a sort of BS with the heavy everything, but I can not find anything by it, or the name of one other band that they "competed" with, that I think was from Chicago ... and what made it harder for these bands on these things, was ... one typical idiot DJ in Madison, saying that the station would never play the crap in the streets ... and since he was "hip" and number one, no one said anything ... and new bands had a really hard time, not to mention that his jargon included trashing anything that was West Coast! While he spent his time getting stoned in front of the microphone!

It's really hard for us to conceive that other folks also did things that we think our big name bands did ... but that is like saying that PG invented costumes and conceptual staging, when it had been a historical thing in Europe for hundreds of years ... in fact, some French kings used to create vignettes around ... "bye, bye, blackbird" ... which was a joke that you can find in a Ken Russell film, that seems ... so out of place, but you know the meaning right away!


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: February 17 2020 at 12:58
I like the early Sabbath lp's.......never thought of them as 'prog trail blazers' at all...many bands around in the 68-70 period that were doing interesting things. From day one I thought of them as 'underground' hard rock...I always put them in the same box as Zep and similar bands. 

-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: February 17 2020 at 13:49
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

I like the early Sabbath lp's.......never thought of them as 'prog trail blazers' at all...many bands around in the 68-70 period that were doing interesting things. From day one I thought of them as 'underground' hard rock...I always put them in the same box as Zep and similar bands. 
 
Me too! I've never thought of Black Sabbath as a Prog-Rock band. They've always been a Heavy Metal band to me, in the same way as Led Zeppelin are Hard Rock and not Prog-Rock, although I'm glad they're both included in ProgArchives. Smile


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: February 17 2020 at 14:09
Sabbath isn't capital -P-  prog, no...

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay


Posted By: dr prog
Date Posted: February 17 2020 at 14:33
Sabbath and Purple were pretty cool in the 68-76 period. I’d say they had just as many good tunes as Yes, Genesis, Floyd, Elp and Crimson did in that period

-------------
All I like is prog related bands beginning late 60's/early 70's. Their music from 1968 - 83 has the composition and sound which will never be beaten. Perfect blend of jazz, classical, folk and rock.


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 17 2020 at 14:33
Originally posted by Psychedelic Paul Psychedelic Paul wrote:

I've never thought of Black Sabbath as a Prog-Rock band. They've always been a Heavy Metal band to me, in the same way as Led Zeppelin are Hard Rock and not Prog-Rock, although I'm glad they're both included in ProgArchives. Smile

Actually if you look at the evidence and know the band's repertoire and performance content, Zep were a prog rock band:  they took blues-rock to a whole other level, widened musical boundaries, indulged in lengthy complex tracks, and expanded their live performances like no one of their time ... or any time.   Each album was different, showed highly technically skilled arrangements for the time, experimented with all number of styles, and took cues from no one.   In other words, prog rock.

What's forgotten is at the time if you weren't progressing rock, you were nothing--  almost everyone except Judas Priest and maybe Seals & Crofts were, or wanted desperately to be, prog.   That's what rock had become, and until the cold water of the '80s hit us all in the face, that's what rock would surely continue to be in even greater ways.   Didn't work out that way but it sure seemed like it would.




-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 17 2020 at 18:53
Originally posted by dr prog dr prog wrote:

Sabbath and Purple were pretty cool in the 68-76 period. I’d say they had just as many good tunes as Yes, Genesis, Floyd, Elp and Crimson did in that period

There was no BS in 1968! Tongue


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: February 18 2020 at 02:46
It’s a little funny. What used to be metal nowadays is refered to as hard-rock. I had a friend over a few weeks back. He’s 21 and very handy around electronics, wires and a soldering iron. In short he was manhandling a headphone of mine and we were casually talking music.

He: ‘Metallica? Mjeah I’ve never really thought of them as metal...hard rock perhaps’
Me: ‘ New Wave Of British METAL doesn’t ring a bell?’
He: ‘Are Metallica British?’
Me: ‘Touché’

Still Black Sabbath seems to be one of the rare exceptions where youngins still seem to both appreciate the music as well as understanding the legacy behind.
BUT as Dark Elf previously alluded to: nothing exists in a vacuum..and while Tony did achieve a wholly unique and dark sound by way of ingenuity (and loss of fingertips), there were still bands out there around the same time with an equally proto-metal sound to them. Mountain fx. Leslie’s guitarwork was freaking heavy for the time! So was Paul Kossoff’s for Free...and then you got bands like Blue Cheer, MC5 and The Stooges.
Black Sabbath though had one thing distinguishing them from the rest of the pack: danger and mystique by way of the dark one.
That image is perhaps one of THE most replicated ones inside the metal world...possibly also why we all throw up the devil’s horns at seemingly cookie-cutter gigs nowadays. Justin Bieber gigs see this too!

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: February 18 2020 at 04:33
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

I've said it often enough, and it bears repeating: in the late 60s through about the mid-70s, bands with any ability did whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted, because the record industry lost a lot of control during that time period.
 
The idea that the record industry "lost control" in that era is laughable to me, especially when iron fisted rulers like Ahmet Ertegen controlled labels like Atlantic Records. He put Neil Young together with CSN in order to make a super group and sunk big money into Yes And Genesis, who he stole from Charisma Records, because he felt that progressive bands were the next big thing. He also put a ton of promotional money into a little blues rock group called Led Zeppelin. He's just one example of many. The Beatles may have been the first to launch their own vanity label, but it had no bearing on the wealth of EMI records, who they were stilled signed to while the Beatles were losing their minds as well as their own money. And while Led Zep manager Peter Grant negotiated for 90% of the concert gate and more points for record sales, Atlantic never ceded total artistic control to the group.That's why Zeppelin album covers are quite tame when contrasted with the music that's on the record groves.
 
That the record industry was welcoming to oddball acts was just due their own drive to find the next big thing, when there was an era in pop music when the old "cookie cutter" musical trends of 50s were temporally put on hold until new "cookie cutter" trends evolved and took hold in the late 70s. A practice that still exists up to this day, albeit with different music trends.


-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 18 2020 at 06:55
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

... 
That the record industry was welcoming to oddball acts was just due their own drive to find the next big thing, when there was an era in pop music when the old "cookie cutter" musical trends of 50s were temporally put on hold until new "cookie cutter" trends evolved and took hold in the late 70s. A practice that still exists up to this day, albeit with different music trends.

Steve, please watch the TOM DOWD special ... you will then see this completely different.

Since the 1910's and 1920's ALMOST ALL OF THE MUSIC RIGHTS AND REGISTERING was owned by the MOVIE STUDIOS ... and this means that a lot of artists after the war and in the 1950's that were recorded and released, were done for the studio artists and folks ... and Tom Down even goes so far as to say that this created a horrible problem for black artists ... who managed to survive ... but could not get distributed anywhere beyond their city, for the most part.

That the whole thing began crumbling down in the 1970's is not a surprise ... once The Beatles and Rolling Stones let out that ... guess what ... we don't own our music! ... and all of a sudden you got many bands creating their own registry system for the music ... and soon enough to own their own albums and productions ... but there was a problem ... they needed record company money (from other losing bands!) to be able to tour!

BS is not a trailblazer for anything, except the "image" of something dark, because of a cover and a sound that was registered lower than usual ... and btw, our favorite FM station had the turntables turned down 1% ot so ... which you can't quite hear, but it sure makes that bass sound heavier! Try it on one of those Stanton turntables ... oh yeah ... BS is heavy ... !!!!


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: February 18 2020 at 06:58
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

... 
That the record industry was welcoming to oddball acts was just due their own drive to find the next big thing, when there was an era in pop music when the old "cookie cutter" musical trends of 50s were temporally put on hold until new "cookie cutter" trends evolved and took hold in the late 70s. A practice that still exists up to this day, albeit with different music trends.

Steve, please watch the TOM DOWD special ... you will then see this completely different.

Since the 1910's and 1920's ALMOST ALL OF THE MUSIC RIGHTS AND REGISTERING was owned by the MOVIE STUDIOS ... and this means that a lot of artists after the war and in the 1950's that were recorded and released, were done for the studio artists and folks ... and Tom Down even goes so far as to say that this created a horrible problem for black artists ... who managed to survive ... but could not get distributed anywhere beyond their city, for the most part.

That the whole thing began crumbling down in the 1970's is not a surprise ... once The Beatles and Rolling Stones let out that ... guess what ... we don't own our music! ... and all of a sudden you got many bands creating their own registry system for the music ... and soon enough to own their own albums and productions ... but there was a problem ... they needed record company money (from other losing bands!) to be able to tour!

BS is not a trailblazer for anything, except the "image" of something dark, because of a cover and a sound that was registered lower than usual ... and btw, our favorite FM station had the turntables turned down 1% ot so ... which you can't quite hear, but it sure makes that bass sound heavier! Try it on one of those Stanton turntables ... oh yeah ... BS is heavy ... !!!!
I watched it mosh, what's your point?

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 18 2020 at 07:10
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

...
I watched it mosh, what's your point?

Sad ...  there is nothing in it that was valuable to your history ... the cookie cutter lives in many ways, and you can see some battles (Taylor Swift recently and others) about it ... but they do not "dominate" the industry that much anymore ... although it seems like it because the numbers are so big ... but in essence what it really says is that there are more "fans" out there, than before, and it is much more visible, and has been since the days of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. And even Elvis! (... and specially when the record companies cheated, lied and distorted numbers so they could make some more money!)

But artistically, it's not even a discussion.

I think, and consider, our "job" to help artists that we love and appreciate for their great music ... not yet another version of a pop song with a tuned down instrument ... but your concern is about putting me down, instead of discussing the point shown/given ... and you skipped the part about the record to platter directly in the special, which was almost all done from black music!

The lack of respect and appreciation for the work that so many great people have done ... to keep the music going ... just so you could make your comment about me! Progressive ... indeed!


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 19 2020 at 16:29
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

I've said it often enough, and it bears repeating: in the late 60s through about the mid-70s, bands with any ability did whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted, because the record industry lost a lot of control during that time period.
 
The idea that the record industry "lost control" in that era is laughable to me, especially when iron fisted rulers like Ahmet Ertegen controlled labels like Atlantic Records. He put Neil Young together with CSN in order to make a super group and sunk big money into Yes And Genesis, who he stole from Charisma Records, because he felt that progressive bands were the next big thing. He also put a ton of promotional money into a little blues rock group called Led Zeppelin. He's just one example of many. The Beatles may have been the first to launch their own vanity label, but it had no bearing on the wealth of EMI records, who they were stilled signed to while the Beatles were losing their minds as well as their own money. And while Led Zep manager Peter Grant negotiated for 90% of the concert gate and more points for record sales, Atlantic never ceded total artistic control to the group.That's why Zeppelin album covers are quite tame when contrasted with the music that's on the record groves.
 
That the record industry was welcoming to oddball acts was just due their own drive to find the next big thing, when there was an era in pop music when the old "cookie cutter" musical trends of 50s were temporally put on hold until new "cookie cutter" trends evolved and took hold in the late 70s. A practice that still exists up to this day, albeit with different music trends.

Slow your roll there, Chachi. I wasn't referring to copyrights and catalog ownership, which has always been a deplorable near-slavish aspect of the record industry ever since Jellyroll Morton was plinking the ivory,  I was referring to the blithe release of material that was decidedly anti-establishment, creative-in-the-extreme, and about as non-pop as you can get, and said material was inexplicably (how else can one define it?) allowed to compete with your aforementioned cookie-cutter and knock-off assemblages of bands emulating the more crazy stuff in a more sedate and politically correct manner. And for a brief period in music history, the crazy sh*t was marketed well enough and appeared on enough underground FM stations to sell as many or more units than the conventional crap. As I inferred previously, Zappa makes clear the modus operandi of how this incendiary material made its way on the airwaves:




-------------
...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...


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 19 2020 at 21:51
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

...
And for a brief period in music history, the crazy sh*t was marketed well enough and appeared on enough underground FM stations to sell as many or more units than the conventional crap. As I inferred previously, Zappa makes clear the modus operandi of how this incendiary material made its way on the airwaves:



And that "brief period" probably lasted until the mid 70's ... and what a lot of folks might consider the golden period of the music ... however, this was the case in America and England, a lot more than anywhere else in the world ... Germany (with the old guard still controlling things -- well shown in the book Future Days), France, Italy, Spain and many other places did not lose the spirit of the music ... they kept it alive, more or less and added their own cultural touch. 


-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: February 20 2020 at 04:18
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

I've said it often enough, and it bears repeating: in the late 60s through about the mid-70s, bands with any ability did whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted, because the record industry lost a lot of control during that time period.
 
The idea that the record industry "lost control" in that era is laughable to me, especially when iron fisted rulers like Ahmet Ertegen controlled labels like Atlantic Records. He put Neil Young together with CSN in order to make a super group and sunk big money into Yes And Genesis, who he stole from Charisma Records, because he felt that progressive bands were the next big thing. He also put a ton of promotional money into a little blues rock group called Led Zeppelin. He's just one example of many. The Beatles may have been the first to launch their own vanity label, but it had no bearing on the wealth of EMI records, who they were stilled signed to while the Beatles were losing their minds as well as their own money. And while Led Zep manager Peter Grant negotiated for 90% of the concert gate and more points for record sales, Atlantic never ceded total artistic control to the group.That's why Zeppelin album covers are quite tame when contrasted with the music that's on the record groves.
 
That the record industry was welcoming to oddball acts was just due their own drive to find the next big thing, when there was an era in pop music when the old "cookie cutter" musical trends of 50s were temporally put on hold until new "cookie cutter" trends evolved and took hold in the late 70s. A practice that still exists up to this day, albeit with different music trends.

Slow your roll there, Chachi. I wasn't referring to copyrights and catalog ownership, which has always been a deplorable near-slavish aspect of the record industry ever since Jellyroll Morton was plinking the ivory,  I was referring to the blithe release of material that was decidedly anti-establishment, creative-in-the-extreme, and about as non-pop as you can get, and said material was inexplicably (how else can one define it?) allowed to compete with your aforementioned cookie-cutter and knock-off assemblages of bands emulating the more crazy stuff in a more sedate and politically correct manner. And for a brief period in music history, the crazy sh*t was marketed well enough and appeared on enough underground FM stations to sell as many or more units than the conventional crap. As I inferred previously, Zappa makes clear the modus operandi of how this incendiary material made its way on the airwaves:


You and I must have different definitions for "losing control". But I agree that it was a brief "anything goes" time in pop music, and the catalyst for so much musical experimentation. Something we'll never see again, I'm afraid.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 20 2020 at 07:27
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

 they took blues-rock to a whole other level, widened musical boundaries, indulged in lengthy complex tracks, and expanded their live performances like no one of their time ... or any time.   Each album was different, showed highly technically skilled arrangements for the time, experimented with all number of styles, and took cues from no one.   In other words, prog rock.


You could be describing the Allman Brothers or the Grateful Dead here. (even The Sensational Alex Harvey Band reductio ad absurdum) Both of us know full well that Zep were added on PA solely as click-bait to attract their fanbase with the bauble of a Prog Related képi blanc to bolster membership. That's a smart move by a site owner whose exploiting unfettered musical snobbery to further his own fiscal ambitions.


-------------


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: February 20 2020 at 07:34
^ I was told that this was s a non for profit music site. Damn, I want my sign up fee back! With interest. Wink

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: LAM-SGC
Date Posted: February 20 2020 at 08:38
Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

It was what it was progressive underground hard rock but it wasn't prog rock.


Agreed. I come from a metal and hard rock background, with over a decade of recording and live experience. and I will say I never, ever viewed Sabbath as progressing anything other than the heaviness of certain styles of rock and metal riffing. Sabra Cadabra was their closest IMHO. In fact, Sabbath is very one-trick pony beyond the tunings and slower paced riffs IMO. That's a logical progression someone would've stumbled upon, and falls prey to the "they did it first" fallacy, which is always BS.
 

Agreed. I'm the same, hard rock and metal has been my main drive, since forever. Never ever thought of Sabbath having anything to do with prog in anyway at all, the same applies to Queen and in fact all the 60s and 70s hard rock bands. The fact that so many prog fans like them, and incorrectly identify and appropriate hard rock and metal elements as prog is irrelevant. Prog is not the only fruit.   

The fact that their anomaly "Paranoid" was such an underground hit does not make them a psych or prog band. In the same way that Jethro Tull winning that metal award in 89 does not make them a metal band. 

"One warm day does not a summer make"     


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 20 2020 at 12:02
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

 they took blues-rock to a whole other level, widened musical boundaries, indulged in lengthy complex tracks, and expanded their live performances like no one of their time ... or any time.   Each album was different, showed highly technically skilled arrangements for the time, experimented with all number of styles, and took cues from no one.   In other words, prog rock.
You could be describing the Allman Brothers or the Grateful Dead here. (even The Sensational Alex Harvey Band reductio ad absurdum) Both of us know full well that Zep were added on PA solely as click-bait to attract their fanbase with the bauble of a Prog Related képi blanc to bolster membership. That's a smart move by a site owner whose exploiting unfettered musical snobbery to further his own fiscal ambitions.

Whew, there's some buckshot in that !  

Largely true of course.  But I'm a shameless Zephead.  Someone has to be.




-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy


Posted By: LAM-SGC
Date Posted: February 20 2020 at 13:22
The Big Three:

Black Sabbath
Deep Purple
Led Zeppelin


And only DP had some prog in them.

If you call LZ a prog band, then so is every other rootsy blues rock band of the 60s and 70s.


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: February 20 2020 at 13:29
Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

The Big Three:

Black Sabbath
Deep Purple
Led Zeppelin


And only DP had some prog in them.

If you call LZ a prog band, then so is every other rootsy blues rock band of the 60s and 70s.


Nobody calls LZ prog, although they had a few prog songs.


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 20 2020 at 13:43
Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

If you call LZ a prog band, then so is every other rootsy blues rock band of the 60s and 70s.

Not at all: 
- Cream was not a prog band (simple,quick songs; almost no emphasis on complex arrangements or technicality) though they had a big influence on proto- and heavy prog.
- Janis & the Holding Co. was not a prog band for the same reasons Cream wasn't, though they contributed greatly to both Psych and Heavy Blues.
- Johnny Winter, Blind Faith, Canned Heat, same thing

Zeppelin were a totally different animal: much more interested in, and capable of, high musicianship.   They progressed blues/blues-rock rather than just celebrating it like everyone else, and recreated their music almost every night.   The other bluesrock artists of the time can't really say that.




-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy


Posted By: LAM-SGC
Date Posted: February 20 2020 at 14:13
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

If you call LZ a prog band, then so is every other rootsy blues rock band of the 60s and 70s.

Not at all: 
- Cream was not a prog band (simple,quick songs; almost no emphasis on complex arrangements or technicality) though they had a big influence on proto- and heavy prog.
- Janis & the Holding Co. was not a prog band for the same reasons Cream wasn't, though they contributed greatly to both Psych and Heavy Blues.
- Johnny Winter, Blind Faith, Canned Heat, same thing

Zeppelin were a totally different animal: much more interested in, and capable of, high musicianship.   They progressed blues/blues-rock rather than just celebrating it like everyone else, and recreated their music almost every night.   The other bluesrock artists of the time can't really say that.




You may have a point, you seem to know your stuff and so I won't argue with that. But you are hearing something in their music that I don't hear then. Don't get me wrong I love a lot of LZ but I don't hear anything proggy in them, in fact as you mentioned Cream, I hear a lot of invention and genius on Disraeli Gears. The first two LZ albums are not my cup of tea at all.


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 21 2020 at 00:07
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

 they took blues-rock to a whole other level, widened musical boundaries, indulged in lengthy complex tracks, and expanded their live performances like no one of their time ... or any time.   Each album was different, showed highly technically skilled arrangements for the time, experimented with all number of styles, and took cues from no one.   In other words, prog rock.
You could be describing the Allman Brothers or the Grateful Dead here. (even The Sensational Alex Harvey Band reductio ad absurdum) Both of us know full well that Zep were added on PA solely as click-bait to attract their fanbase with the bauble of a Prog Related képi blanc to bolster membership. That's a smart move by a site owner whose exploiting unfettered musical snobbery to further his own fiscal ambitions.

Whew, there's some buckshot in that !  

Largely true of course.  But I'm a shameless Zephead.  Someone has to be.




Just for clarity, I consider you one of the least snobbish progressive music fans on here


-------------


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: February 23 2020 at 22:40
Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

The Big Three:

Black Sabbath
Deep Purple
Led Zeppelin


And only DP had some prog in them.

If you call LZ a prog band, then so is every other rootsy blues rock band of the 60s and 70s.


Nobody calls LZ prog, although they had a few prog songs.

So did Deep Purple but I would argue that LZ had just as many if not more. Come to think of it all three had prog songs but that doesn't make any of them prog bands. It's not like they all put out full blown prog albums like even Pink Floyd, Kansas or Rush(bands who some say aren't prog). 


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: February 23 2020 at 22:42
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

 they took blues-rock to a whole other level, widened musical boundaries, indulged in lengthy complex tracks, and expanded their live performances like no one of their time ... or any time.   Each album was different, showed highly technically skilled arrangements for the time, experimented with all number of styles, and took cues from no one.   In other words, prog rock.
You could be describing the Allman Brothers or the Grateful Dead here. (even The Sensational Alex Harvey Band reductio ad absurdum) Both of us know full well that Zep were added on PA solely as click-bait to attract their fanbase with the bauble of a Prog Related képi blanc to bolster membership. That's a smart move by a site owner whose exploiting unfettered musical snobbery to further his own fiscal ambitions.

Whew, there's some buckshot in that !  

Largely true of course.  But I'm a shameless Zephead.  Someone has to be.




Just for clarity, I consider you one of the least snobbish progressive music fans on here

I guess my posts go unnoticed or I don't post enough because no one on here is less snobby than me. I listen to frigging pop(some anyway) and arena rock for crying out loud and defend bands like Asia, Journey and Styx not to mention neo prog. You can't get any less snobby than that. Wink  Anyone who listens to a wide variety of music and not just prog is typically not a prog snob.


Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: February 24 2020 at 02:04
Originally posted by AFlowerKingCrimson AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:

Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

The Big Three:

Black Sabbath
Deep Purple
Led Zeppelin


And only DP had some prog in them.

If you call LZ a prog band, then so is every other rootsy blues rock band of the 60s and 70s.


Nobody calls LZ prog, although they had a few prog songs.

So did Deep Purple but I would argue that LZ had just as many if not more. Come to think of it all three had prog songs but that doesn't make any of them prog bands. It's not like they all put out full blown prog albums like even Pink Floyd, Kansas or Rush(bands who some say aren't prog). 
Rush have always been a Hard Rock band to me and not a Prog-Rock band, but I'm glad they're here on ProgArchives. Smile


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 24 2020 at 06:21
Originally posted by AFlowerKingCrimson AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

 they took blues-rock to a whole other level, widened musical boundaries, indulged in lengthy complex tracks, and expanded their live performances like no one of their time ... or any time.   Each album was different, showed highly technically skilled arrangements for the time, experimented with all number of styles, and took cues from no one.   In other words, prog rock.
You could be describing the Allman Brothers or the Grateful Dead here. (even The Sensational Alex Harvey Band reductio ad absurdum) Both of us know full well that Zep were added on PA solely as click-bait to attract their fanbase with the bauble of a Prog Related képi blanc to bolster membership. That's a smart move by a site owner whose exploiting unfettered musical snobbery to further his own fiscal ambitions.

Whew, there's some buckshot in that !  

Largely true of course.  But I'm a shameless Zephead.  Someone has to be.




Just for clarity, I consider you one of the least snobbish progressive music fans on here

I guess my posts go unnoticed or I don't post enough because no one on here is less snobby than me. I listen to frigging pop(some anyway) and arena rock for crying out loud and defend bands like Asia, Journey and Styx not to mention neo prog. You can't get any less snobby than that. Wink  Anyone who listens to a wide variety of music and not just prog is typically not a prog snob.


The 'least snobbish progressive music fan' is hardly anything to aspire to. It can't be dissimilar to 'tallest dwarf in the village award'


-------------


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: February 24 2020 at 06:50
Originally posted by Psychedelic Paul Psychedelic Paul wrote:

Originally posted by AFlowerKingCrimson AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:

Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

The Big Three:

Black Sabbath
Deep Purple
Led Zeppelin


And only DP had some prog in them.

If you call LZ a prog band, then so is every other rootsy blues rock band of the 60s and 70s.


Nobody calls LZ prog, although they had a few prog songs.

So did Deep Purple but I would argue that LZ had just as many if not more. Come to think of it all three had prog songs but that doesn't make any of them prog bands. It's not like they all put out full blown prog albums like even Pink Floyd, Kansas or Rush(bands who some say aren't prog). 
Rush have always been a Hard Rock band to me and not a Prog-Rock band, but I'm glad they're here on ProgArchives. Smile
I don't know, Paul. 2112 is so prog that an Argentine prog band named themselves 2112.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: February 24 2020 at 08:19
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Psychedelic Paul Psychedelic Paul wrote:

Originally posted by AFlowerKingCrimson AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:

Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

The Big Three:

Black Sabbath
Deep Purple
Led Zeppelin


And only DP had some prog in them.

If you call LZ a prog band, then so is every other rootsy blues rock band of the 60s and 70s.


Nobody calls LZ prog, although they had a few prog songs.

So did Deep Purple but I would argue that LZ had just as many if not more. Come to think of it all three had prog songs but that doesn't make any of them prog bands. It's not like they all put out full blown prog albums like even Pink Floyd, Kansas or Rush(bands who some say aren't prog). 
Rush have always been a Hard Rock band to me and not a Prog-Rock band, but I'm glad they're here on ProgArchives. Smile
I don't know, Paul. 2112 is so prog that an Argentine prog band named themselves 2112.
I guess that settles it then. Smile


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: February 24 2020 at 09:48
Rush were full on prog from about A Farewell to Kings to Moving Pictures or maybe Signals. A little later and they were more synth rock then hard rock. Before AFTK mostly proto metal/hard rock. 2112 is half prog and half hard rock. CoS of steel is about the same. FBN is 20 percent prog(mostly just by tor and the snowdog). The first is just hard rock/proto metal. All, imo of course. Smile


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: February 24 2020 at 10:24
Yup, 2112 was only a little pregnant.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: Gentle and Giant
Date Posted: February 24 2020 at 13:22
^^ Prognant I think you mean Wink


Posted By: LAM-SGC
Date Posted: February 25 2020 at 02:55
As a serious heavy metaller and hard rocker rather than a progger I say that Rush made three hard rock albums, their fourth one was completely different, it was not hard rock it was prog and they remained prog.


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: February 25 2020 at 03:24
Originally posted by Psychedelic Paul Psychedelic Paul wrote:

It makes me wonder now if the Hard Rock bands Led Zeppelin, UFO and Uriah Heep are included here too, but maybe that would be too much to hope for. Smile
 
If Tangerine Dream, Mike Oldfield and Vangelis are all included on ProgArchives too, then that would really make my evening. Smile


Zep & Heep are inStern Smile
Not sure about UFO... their first four that are Space Rock could be, but it was a little basic, but their Hard AOR doesn't

So are Newpasture, Tangerine & VangelisTongue

Maybe you oughta explore a little the DB, instead of posting 135 times a day in here




Posted By: LAM-SGC
Date Posted: February 25 2020 at 10:30
Even the first two UFO, weren't half as spacey as the covers and song titles promised, in fact Early UFO, before MS, were pretty much a meat & potatoes hard rock band, and as well as their own stuff they played far too high a percentage of covers of 50s rock n roll songs and 60s rock. They weren't even close to prog and when MS joined they moved even further away from it.

A case can be made for UH, WA, DP, Rainbow and even early Scorpions but not UFO, LZ, BS, TL or Queen.


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 25 2020 at 11:20
Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

A case can be made for UH, WA, DP, Rainbow and even early Scorpions but not UFO, LZ, BS, TL or Queen.

Not Queen? Seriously? I would suggest that much of their first four albums was very progressive. "Prog" with a capital "P".

Please count the time signatures changes in this composition, then add the absolutely crazy harmonies, the esoteric lyrics, the operatic and symphonic interludes, and then tell me how you could not consider it one of the best examples of 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...


Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: February 26 2020 at 04:38
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Originally posted by Psychedelic Paul Psychedelic Paul wrote:

It makes me wonder now if the Hard Rock bands Led Zeppelin, UFO and Uriah Heep are included here too, but maybe that would be too much to hope for. Smile
 
If Tangerine Dream, Mike Oldfield and Vangelis are all included on ProgArchives too, then that would really make my evening. Smile


Zep & Heep are inStern Smile
Not sure about UFO... their first four that are Space Rock could be, but it was a little basic, but their Hard AOR doesn't

So are Newpasture, Tangerine & VangelisTongue

Maybe you oughta explore a little the DB, instead of posting 135 times a day in here


You're right. I spend a lot more time in the PA forums than I do on the main site, but you already knew that anyway. Tongue
 
I've since discovered that UFO aren't included on ProgArchives, so maybe they're just not proggy enough. Smile


Posted By: LAM-SGC
Date Posted: February 27 2020 at 05:22
Seriously Paul, if you like UFO, just like them. Why do you feel the need to apply a prog tag to then? They were never even remotely prog.


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: February 27 2020 at 06:07
Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

Even the first two UFO, weren't half as spacey as the covers and song titles promised, in fact Early UFO, before MS, were pretty much a meat & potatoes hard rock band, and as well as their own stuff they played far too high a percentage of covers of 50s rock n roll songs and 60s rock. They weren't even close to prog and when MS joined they moved even further away from it.

A case can be made for UH, WA, DP, Rainbow and even early Scorpions but not UFO, LZ, BS, TL or Queen.


Yeah, as I said UFO is a bit the Status Quo or Ramones  of space rock. LOL
Rather than progressive rock, they were more la regressive rock or approximative rock Evil Smile

Zep has a few tunes that can qualify as "prog", Sab has some legitimacy as groundbreakers (more than Iommi, Geezer's bass and Ward's drumming were very inventive) with their first two albums, then a few tracks on their next few are "proggy", but please note they're in Prog-related, not a full-blown prog subgenre

Not in favor of Lizzy or UFO's inclusions , thoughOuch





Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: February 27 2020 at 06:30
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

Even the first two UFO, weren't half as spacey as the covers and song titles promised, in fact Early UFO, before MS, were pretty much a meat & potatoes hard rock band, and as well as their own stuff they played far too high a percentage of covers of 50s rock n roll songs and 60s rock. They weren't even close to prog and when MS joined they moved even further away from it.

A case can be made for UH, WA, DP, Rainbow and even early Scorpions but not UFO, LZ, BS, TL or Queen.
Not in favor of Lizzy or UFO's inclusions , thoughOuch

Amen to that.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: February 27 2020 at 08:04
The first 2 UFO are interesting ,,,perhaps prog related , though there are 2 very long songs on UFO 2....
UFO1 (UFO album - cover art).jpg

Ufo2flying-UK.jpg









-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: LAM-SGC
Date Posted: February 27 2020 at 08:15
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

The first 2 UFO are interesting ,,,perhaps prog related , though there are 2 very long songs on UFO 2....
UFO1 (UFO album - cover art).jpg

Ufo2flying-UK.jpg











I've owned those two albums for years, and I hear nothing prog on them at all. Long songs and blues rock jams are not prog. If you think early UFO are prog, so then are Cream,Hendrix, Blind Faith, Blue Cheer, Vanilla Fudge, Led Zeppelin,Iron Butterfly, Spirit, Whitesnake and so on.


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: February 27 2020 at 08:27
Originally posted by LAM-SGC LAM-SGC wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

The first 2 UFO are interesting ,,,perhaps prog related , though there are 2 very long songs on UFO 2....
UFO1 (UFO album - cover art).jpg

Ufo2flying-UK.jpg











I've owned those two albums for years, and I hear nothing prog on them at all. Long songs and blues rock jams are not prog. If you think early UFO are prog, so then are Cream,Hendrix, Blind Faith, Blue Cheer, Vanilla Fudge, Led Zeppelin,Iron Butterfly, Spirit, Whitesnake and so on.

Well...Zep is here so is Spirit, Hendrix, Fudge, Butterfly...  etc...they are under proto prog btw..., but I'm not asking for them to be included just giving out some info on the band...and 2 other bands Gravy Train and Steam Hammer who are in the same early 70's area are also here. Just saying...maybe we should simply kick them all off the forum..they aren't prog dammit.

Wink


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: LAM-SGC
Date Posted: February 27 2020 at 08:33
When People start to realize that prog as an umbrella doesn't exist then we can kick everything off the forum. :)

Having sub-genres to a non-existent genre is pure lunacy.


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: February 27 2020 at 09:44
The first time I heard Lights Out that's exactly what I did. Shut the stereo off and put out the lights.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.


Posted By: fracturematt
Date Posted: February 28 2020 at 08:51
I totally agree with this!  I always thought about this with their song Hand of Doom.  They were way ahead of their time and have influence multiple genres for sure. 


Posted By: Intruder
Date Posted: March 02 2020 at 14:51
Still say the Grateful Dead is THE most progressive band to ever exist - still doesn't make 'em a prog band (though I still say they should be on PA, if only to allow the uninitiated a guidepost).  

-------------
I like to feel the suspense when you're certain you know I am there.....


Posted By: AZF
Date Posted: July 10 2020 at 05:46
It'll probably have dismissals of "Yeah, but Bill Ward wasn't on it" but "13".
I recently listened to it, a good couple of times.
Never left a better studio album they could have gone out on.
Too bad never saw them live.


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: July 10 2020 at 05:52
Originally posted by AZF AZF wrote:

It'll probably have dismissals of "Yeah, but Bill Ward wasn't on it" but "13".
I recently listened to it, a good couple of times.
Never left a better studio album they could have gone out on.
Too bad never saw them live.
For sure !! 13 is pretty special. Wilkes did his best Ward. Passable. Great album. Love Sabbath till death.


Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: August 16 2020 at 01:07
Yes sabbath were very progressive. Not in the symphonic prog way but that mix of down tuning, jazz harmonies and using jazz rhythms gave them a distinctive sound. With hyper driven sound slowed down and with songs that had clearly stated content aka another reason why they were not yer classic prog.

Wheels Of Confusion with that awesome coda is a go to example of what can be done for heavy rock...


Posted By: ClosetothSupperBrick
Date Posted: January 15 2021 at 17:03
What modern prog bands combine Black Sabbath's type of old school metal/hard rock and prog? I'm looking for recommendations in this very narrow category so I'm not expecting a lot of answers haha. But Black Sabbath's proggy moments are one of my most loved musical styles ever in the history of music. I like metal (70s style, for the most part) and prog, I would like any band that adequately combined them in the BS vein.


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: January 15 2021 at 17:31
Volume 4 to Sabotage all sound like proto prog metal to me as well as select songs and moments from the first three. 


Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: January 15 2021 at 18:23
[
Originally posted by ClosetothSupperBrick ClosetothSupperBrick wrote:

What modern prog bands combine Black Sabbath's type of old school metal/hard rock and prog? I'm looking for recommendations in this very narrow category so I'm not expecting a lot of answers haha. But Black Sabbath's proggy moments are one of my most loved musical styles ever in the history of music. I like metal (70s style, for the most part) and prog, I would like any band that adequately combined them in the BS vein.


Maybe not what you are looking for, but I find that the Italian band Blizaro has some of that. From its 2016 Cornucopia Della Mortte album...





-------------
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: January 15 2021 at 18:38
Originally posted by ClosetothSupperBrick ClosetothSupperBrick wrote:

What modern prog bands combine Black Sabbath's type of old school metal/hard rock and prog? I'm looking for recommendations in this very narrow category so I'm not expecting a lot of answers haha. But Black Sabbath's proggy moments are one of my most loved musical styles ever in the history of music. I like metal (70s style, for the most part) and prog, I would like any band that adequately combined them in the BS vein.

Substitute Black Sabbath with Uriah Heep and you get Black Bonzo. Otherwise you are probably looking at stoner type bands. That said, I recommend checking out Temple of the Smoke and Lucifer Was. Also, not exactly modern anymore but in 2000 a band named after a Black Sabbath song called Spiral Architect put out one album called "a sceptic's universe" that might be worth looking into.


Posted By: ClosetothSupperBrick
Date Posted: January 15 2021 at 19:22
@AFlowerKingCrimson - thanks for the suggestions! I wasn't too sure if reviving a thread from 2020 was appropriate for my simple question but I'm happy I had replies regardless


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: January 16 2021 at 00:56
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

I've said it often enough, and it bears repeating: in the late 60s through about the mid-70s, bands with any ability did whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted, because the record industry lost a lot of control during that time period. They could not effectively pigeonhole bands and place them in slots if the said bands had any success or autonomy or balls. Frank Zappa once stated quite clearly that the old-school record marketing execs clearly didn't know what they had, didn't understand the music, and just pushed out product (and Frank mentioned that didn't change until younger execs took over in the mid-70s and started placing every performer in specific slots and regurgitated it throughout the air-waves). 

Therefore, bands like Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Santana, the Allman Brothers, Zappa, Pink Floyd, Traffic and Jethro Tull veered from blues to jazz to prog to straight-ahead rock as it suited them. Shall we do 2 double-album rock operas within a three-release span of time? Sure, why not! How about a 45 minute long song without a single? What the hell, go for it! Our next album is not going to have a title or our band name anywhere on the cover. Ummm...okay...if you think so. We are going to release an album that sl*gs the whole record industry. Sure, it could be made into a monster if we all pull together as a team. 

From 1968 to 1972, Frank Zappa released a parody of hippies, a doo-wop album, an avante-garde experimental album, jazz-fusion/prog albums, an avant-rock/free jazz album, a few comedy rock albums, and a big band jazz album. Tull released a blues rock album, a blues/folk/rock album, two hard rock albums (once arguably a concept album), and then two progressive albums with record-long sides of uninterrupted music. Floyd went from psychedelia to full-blown prog to a rock opera. Yes decided to record albums with 10 to 20 minute-long songs and abandon pop music altogether. The Who released Tommy and Quadrophenia with Who's Next sandwiched in the middle. Zeppelin went from blues rock, to folk/hard rock to prog to a double album that had nearly every genre (Middle-eastern, prog, blues, folk, hard rock, etc.). King Crimson went from being already eccentric King Crimson to a metal version of King Crimson. Santana left rock altogether for a while. And Sabbath got more and more proggy till they reached a max of prog on Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and Sabotage.

There really was no such thing as "prog" because on any given album, a band could suddenly turn to being Prog before they decided to do something completely different. Queen is another case in point. Stevie Wonder and David Bowie as well.

so true in many respects except that you completely forget Keith Emerson who was already creating something stylistically recognisable as prog with The Nice. Symphonic Prog was born in 1968 with Ars Longa Vita Brevis and never truly changed that much. There was a core to the movement even if in general there were a diversity of artists with many different ideas.


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: January 16 2021 at 12:03
Originally posted by ClosetothSupperBrick ClosetothSupperBrick wrote:

@AFlowerKingCrimson - thanks for the suggestions! I wasn't too sure if reviving a thread from 2020 was appropriate for my simple question but I'm happy I had replies regardless

I don't think anyone cares. As long as the thread isn't closed it shouldn't make a difference. I think typically threads are closed after six months or maybe after a year. Anyway, glad I could help. 

Also, if you are open to non prog some of the 90's grunge bands are worth looking into especially Soundgarden and Alice in Chains. Soundgarden in particular I know were influenced by BS.  Not a whole lot of prog influence in there though but there might be some(I really only know one album by them).


Posted By: nick_h_nz
Date Posted: January 16 2021 at 12:41
Originally posted by AFlowerKingCrimson AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:

Originally posted by ClosetothSupperBrick ClosetothSupperBrick wrote:

@AFlowerKingCrimson - thanks for the suggestions! I wasn't too sure if reviving a thread from 2020 was appropriate for my simple question but I'm happy I had replies regardless

I don't think anyone cares. As long as the thread isn't closed it shouldn't make a difference. I think typically threads are closed after six months or maybe after a year. Anyway, glad I could help. 

Also, if you are open to non prog some of the 90's grunge bands are worth looking into especially Soundgarden and Alice in Chains. Soundgarden in particular I know were influenced by BS.  Not a whole lot of prog influence in there though but there might be some(I really only know one album by them).

I would second the Soundgarden and Alice in Chains recommendation. My favourite Soundgarden album (Down on the Upside) is probably simultaneously their most most Sabbath and most prog.

Also, the new Sound of Origin album might interest you, too:
https://soundoforigin.bandcamp.com/album/the-all-seeing-eye" rel="nofollow - https://soundoforigin.bandcamp.com/album/the-all-seeing-eye



-------------
https://tinyurl.com/nickhnz-tpa" rel="nofollow - Reviewer for The Progressive Aspect


Posted By: I prophesy disaster
Date Posted: January 16 2021 at 13:45
Originally posted by ClosetothSupperBrick ClosetothSupperBrick wrote:

What modern prog bands combine Black Sabbath's type of old school metal/hard rock and prog? I'm looking for recommendations in this very narrow category so I'm not expecting a lot of answers haha. But Black Sabbath's proggy moments are one of my most loved musical styles ever in the history of music. I like metal (70s style, for the most part) and prog, I would like any band that adequately combined them in the BS vein.
 
Mastodon's album, Crack The Skye, sounds like Sabbathesque prog to my ears:
 
 
 
 


-------------
No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.


Posted By: ClosetothSupperBrick
Date Posted: January 19 2021 at 13:32
Originally posted by I prophesy disaster I prophesy disaster wrote:

Originally posted by ClosetothSupperBrick ClosetothSupperBrick wrote:

What modern prog bands combine Black Sabbath's type of old school metal/hard rock and prog? I'm looking for recommendations in this very narrow category so I'm not expecting a lot of answers haha. But Black Sabbath's proggy moments are one of my most loved musical styles ever in the history of music. I like metal (70s style, for the most part) and prog, I would like any band that adequately combined them in the BS vein.

 
Mastodon's album, Crack The Skye, sounds like Sabbathesque prog to my ears:
 
 
 
 

Cool, thank you! I've heard the name before but never listened to Mastodon. Seems like a great band just judging by their album art and long songs (haha)


Posted By: triptych
Date Posted: January 20 2021 at 02:45
Originally posted by Psychedelic Paul Psychedelic Paul wrote:

Originally posted by verslibre verslibre wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

I've said it often enough, and it bears repeating: in the late 60s through about the mid-70s, bands with any ability did whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted, because the record industry lost a lot of control during that time period. They could not effectively pigeonhole bands and place them in slots if the said bands had any success or autonomy or balls. Frank Zappa once stated quite clearly that the old-school record marketing execs clearly didn't know what they had, didn't understand the music, and just pushed out product (and Frank mentioned that didn't change until younger execs took over in the mid-70s and started placing every performer in specific slots and regurgitated it throughout the air-waves).
 

Ain't that the truth! Were it not the case, no Tangerine Dream, no Mike Oldfield, and no Vangelis.
I had no idea Black Sabbath and Blue Oyster Cult were both included in ProgArchives until now. That's great news! I'd always assumed those two very 'eavy, very 'umble bands weren't progressive enough to be included in ProgArchives. It makes me wonder now if the Hard Rock bands Led Zeppelin, UFO and Uriah Heep are included here too, but maybe that would be too much to hope for. Smile
 
If Tangerine Dream, Mike Oldfield and Vangelis are all included on ProgArchives too, then that would really make my evening. Smile

WinkBig smile


Posted By: triptych
Date Posted: January 20 2021 at 02:48

EARTH.....if this is not prog, then I'm King Arthur TongueClap



Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: January 20 2021 at 13:55
After 4 pages  .....it seems Sabbath is here on PA as prog related...so what's the deal?
Stern Smile


-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: Spacegod87
Date Posted: January 20 2021 at 16:06
Originally posted by triptych triptych wrote:

if this is not prog, then I'm King Arthur

Thought I had heard every Sabbath song..
Thanks for bringing this one to my attention. I like it.


-------------
Levitating downwards,
atomic feedback scream.


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: January 21 2021 at 00:13
Sabbath has some proggy songs but overall isn't enough to be considered proto prog, because if they are, then that introduces pretty much any and all rock band before them as well.

Where is the line and why do we keep moving it? 

Is this site realizing there are fewer bands to discuss, so eventually Wu-Tang Clan's 1993 debut will be considered proto-rap-prog because of odd meter rhymed verses?

This site has an amazing bandwagon effect of people rationalizing aspects of sounds they'd denounce in another thread lol.


-------------

"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: January 21 2021 at 00:16
So does that make Hendrix proto-proto prog as a result?

What about all blues based music before that, is that proto-proto-proto?

It's like you guys are looking backwards in hindsight to shoe-horn definitions to fit prog rock while not realizing in the process you're expanding the definition of it into uselessness, because if everything is prog, nothing is.


-------------

"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: January 21 2021 at 00:23
Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

So does that make Hendrix proto-proto prog as a result?

What about all blues based music before that, is that proto-proto-proto?

It's like you guys are looking backwards in hindsight to shoe-horn definitions to fit prog rock while not realizing in the process you're expanding the definition of it into uselessness, because if everything is prog, nothing is.

proto-prog or proto-metal are not music genres, they just are early examples of artists bands create something new, sometimes unique that would influence many others (a bit) later. I can't put it simpler than that. 


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: January 21 2021 at 00:43
Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

So does that make Hendrix proto-proto prog as a result?

What about all blues based music before that, is that proto-proto-proto?

It's like you guys are looking backwards in hindsight to shoe-horn definitions to fit prog rock while not realizing in the process you're expanding the definition of it into uselessness, because if everything is prog, nothing is.

proto-prog or proto-metal are not music genres, they just are early examples of artists bands create something new, sometimes unique that would influence many others (a bit) later. I can't put it simpler than that. 

You're right, because what you've explained here literally makes zero logical, let alone rational sense, my friend.

Keep arbitrarily deciding something is or isn't a genre or label depending on which way the wind blows.

So Sabbath is a metal band that has bits of prog elements here and there; why bother with the label "proto" if it's not a genre, but a description?

Where does the line between description and genre begin and end?


-------------

"I am so prog, I listen to concept albums on shuffle." -KMac2021


Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: January 21 2021 at 00:47
Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

So does that make Hendrix proto-proto prog as a result?

What about all blues based music before that, is that proto-proto-proto?

It's like you guys are looking backwards in hindsight to shoe-horn definitions to fit prog rock while not realizing in the process you're expanding the definition of it into uselessness, because if everything is prog, nothing is.

proto-prog or proto-metal are not music genres, they just are early examples of artists bands create something new, sometimes unique that would influence many others (a bit) later. I can't put it simpler than that. 

You're right, because what you've explained here literally makes zero logical, let alone rational sense, my friend.

Keep arbitrarily deciding something is or isn't a genre or label depending on which way the wind blows.

So Sabbath is a metal band that has bits of prog elements here and there; why bother with the label "proto" if it's not a genre, but a description?

Where does the line between description and genre begin and end?

I don't think Black Sabbath are proto-prog, but I would use "proto-metal". Black Sabbath are prog related here on PA and I agree. 


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 23 2021 at 20:31
Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

Sabbath has some proggy songs but overall isn't enough to be considered proto prog, because if they are, then that introduces pretty much any and all rock band before them as well.

Where is the line and why do we keep moving it? 

Is this site realizing there are fewer bands to discuss, so eventually Wu-Tang Clan's 1993 debut will be considered proto-rap-prog because of odd meter rhymed verses?

This site has an amazing bandwagon effect of people rationalizing aspects of sounds they'd denounce in another thread lol.

Once upon a time, Kate Bush used to be Prog Related on PA while Tori Amos was on Crossover Prog.  My objections, among those of others, to that were overruled with the usual set of PA reasons that bring to mind a Renaissance track about things you don't understand. But eventually, the anomaly was corrected at least to elevate Bush to Crossover Prog.  Though I still don't see what Tori's doing on here. It's nice and all, I like the first couple of albums, I liked them before Tori was added on PA.  But I don't hear the prog?

Likewise, I am a huge Black Sabbath fan and echo most of what you said.  It's a wonderful band but Iommi plays the same riffs and the same guitar solo on almost every track. Then again, this is a website that thinks Metallica is prog related but not Megadeth so clearly not much importance to riffs and variety thereof on here.  On that note, Sabbath being on here is par for the course when Iron Maiden gets there too courtesy Steve Harris playing the same bassline for the last forty years pretty much. 

In a nutshell, I don't give two f**ks anymore.  When I briefly took on the role of a collaborator (which I had to relinquish as work left me with little time to attend to vetting bands), I found most of the suggestions were of undeniably prog rock bands anyway.  So the crying need for the website is still to add those bands in time.  The contentious additions of famous bands that have little to do with prog happen once in a long while.  And haven't in a long time.  I think we have run the course. All these additions like Sabbath or Tallica were made long ago. 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk