Which of these two bands was more instrumental in bringing about the progressive rock revolution of the late sixties and  early seventies:

I would say Pink Floyd because they were the most influential band during the hippi underground movement back in 66'-67'. It was their experimentation that influenced the other bands to take rock to the outer limits. While it was all considered psychedelia and not progressive at the time you couldn't of had progressive without psychedelia in the 1st place. 

Dick Heath wrote: gdub411 wrote: Which of these two bands was more instrumental in bringing about the progressive rock revolution of the late sixties and  early seventies: I would say Pink Floyd because they were the most influential band during the hippi underground movement back in 66'-67'. It was their experimentation that influenced the other bands to take rock to the outer limits. While it was all considered psychedelia and not progressive at the time you couldn't of had progressive without psychedelia in the 1st place.  As I wrote elsewhere in Progarchives, Floyd were not considered prog  by many of us British prog fans who were around then until at least Dark Side Of The Moon. They hung on to their hippiness (like Gong) several years into the 70's. Of the British bands, King Crimson and Renaissance (the Keith Ralf originals) were the earliest influential bands - I've not forgotten Moody Blues but a lot of us serious prog fans there then, said ITCOTCK was the album the Moody Blues were struggling to make. Soft Machine and Floyd in 1967 were co-headliners of the British underground movement, but Machine moved out of psychedelia in prog (Volume 2) and onto jazz rock (Third) a couple of years before Floyd recovered from Syd Barrett's departure. Soft Machine influenced a large number of European bands.

How could the Floyd not have been considered prog until Dark Side? Is it possible to not consider Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother, and Meddle not prog? They are more prog than Dark Side is, IMO.

I agree with vegetableman - although its only my opinion - i also think DSOTM was when Floyd left the prog stuff behind and became more aligned with a sort of classic rock with lsight prog tendencies. Of course this all depends on your definition of prog rock - which is a very controversial area? -

what is prog? - was it just symphonic rock of the genesis, crimson (early), yes, greenslade type or did it encompass all the avant-garde bands of the early seventies such as Faust, Neu!, Third Ear Band, Henry Cow???? -

in a wide defintion of prog then perhaps even post-DSOTM can be consoidered progressive. I certainly think wish you were here and DSOTM added things to musical experiences, but one could hardly call Animals a progressive piece of art - even tho I love the LP myself.

I think to to go back to the question Pink Floyd's early work is nowadays seen as being very influential, espec. in terms of the contemprary post-rock scene - while Crimson's early work is also important in beig a text-book e.g of the symphonic rock style.

Of course, both bands are massively important.

Ok...fair enough Mr Heath.But with all due respect  let me present the question this way:

Could Pink Floyd exist without any of those bands and King Crimson of course that you listed? Undoubtably yes since they predated all but Soft machine and Soft machine was considered the 2nd act during those times.

Now could have those bands exist without Pink Floyd Maybe, but one cannot be too sure of that either which leads me to once again come to the conclusion that the biggest influence on Prog was Pink Floyd.

gdub411 wrote: Ok...fair enough Mr Heath.But with all due respect  let me present the question this way: Could Pink Floyd exist without any of those bands and King Crimson of course that you listed? Undoubtably yes since they predated all but Soft machine and Soft machine was considered the 2nd act during those times. Now could have those bands exist without Pink Floyd Maybe, but one cannot be too sure of that either which leads me to once again come to the conclusion that the biggest influence on Prog was Pink Floyd.

It is clear we are going to continue to disagree - something like eye (ear) of the beholder??? But please answer my question: which bands did Floyd influence before they did Meddle or DSOTM, i.e. before 73 or so?? Machine had far more influence on European bands in that period, and I would argue spawned the sub- genre of RIO.

> Soft Machine was considered the 2nd act during those times. depends on who agreed to go first - at one of those Roundhouse gig the played simultaneous at each end of the hall!! And of course Machine toured the US some time before Floyd.

I think a problem here with people having quite distinct ideas about history and developments, stems from the quality of writing on the subject of early day prog. This has ranged from poor (inaccurate, thirdhand, incomplete) to a few being excellent (but usually the subject matter is very selective). However, but can you name a critical  book that actually puts things into a chronological order, especially the first 10 years? Too many opt for the encyclopaedic entry approach (i.e. bands listed in alphabetal order, with little inter-connectivity) or erudite  essays (e.g. Holme Hudson's and McCann's books). What we need is a well researched book by somebody who was there at the time - Krimson biographer Sid Smith was most certainly doing that, however, he is currently finishing a project on musicians from the NE of England. (I even got pulled in by Smith to describe the record retail side in the late 60's).  The Syd Barrett biog Lost In The Woods and Graham Bennett's forthcoming Soft Machine (and I must stop plugging this) give some clues, but obvious both are mainly focussed on the named subject, rather than giving an unbiassed analysis/review of the times.

I love Floyd to bits but (and I'm sure this comes as no surprise), the Crims for me are the quintessential prog band. There is a case to say that Floyd were experimenting with prog by way of psychedelia but at the same time Fripp was doing similar things with Giles, Giles & Fripp albums around the same time.

To be fair however, KC & PF were approaching the prog genre at opposite ends so If I'm being REALLY  honest, I'd call it a draw.  

sigod wrote: I love Floyd to bits but (and I'm sure this comes as no surprise), the Crims for me are the quintessential prog band. There is a case to say that Floyd were experimenting with prog by way of psychedelia but at the same time Fripp was doing similar things with Giles, Giles & Fripp albums around the same time. To be fair however, KC & PF were approaching the prog genre at opposite ends so If I'm being REALLY  honest, I'd call it a draw.

GGF's The Brondesbury Tapes  is an ear-opener, recordings from sessions, rehearsals, experiments, outtakes etc.,  it is essentially a work-in-progress album recorded about  a year before ITCOTCK. Former Fairport singer Julie Dyble collaboration, especially singing a demo(?) for I Talk To The Wind, with which  we are more familiar having Gregg Lake's voice, does suggest Krimson could have gone off in a different direction, perhaps rock with more of a folk feel. The liner notes are some assistance in knowing a little of what was going on 67 to 68.

Pink Floyd for sure. Although many believe King Crimson made the first prog rock album, Pink Floyd was experimenting long before anyone else. "Saucerfull of Secrets" is a perfect example of this, the orgy of sound effects and "music" was the first of its kind and is arguably the only effective one to date.

er I think you'll find that loads of groups were experimenting at that time and before! The Byrds "8 Miles High" being the oft-cited 1st example of psychedelia, and the offspring "United States of America" experimented with all sorts of instrumentation.

Before that, Karlheinz Stockhausen experimented with tape loops and electronica way back in the 1940s, as did Berio and a whole troupe of electronic avante-garde composers - so it wasn't that new.

...you said "arguably"

Certif1ed wrote: er I think you'll find that loads of groups were experimenting at that time and before! The Byrds "8 Miles High" being the oft-cited 1st example of psychedelia, and the offspring "United States of America" experimented with all sorts of instrumentation. Before that, Karlheinz Stockhausen experimented with tape loops and electronica way back in the 1940s, as did Berio and a whole troupe of electronic avante-garde composers - so it wasn't that new. ...you said "arguably"

yeah....... i said it was the only song to really ever do it effectively. Sure, there was always progressive music, but for the most part it is utterly boring or unlistenable before that period.. It's really the first (mainstream) song to effectively take randomness and create a sort of organized feel, and other bands have since tried doing the same but it sounds miserable. My point was that they were one of, if not the only bands to do this succesfully, i didnt even mention that they were the first example of psychedelia , which they werent

Crimson were more influential in forming the prog sound. Their 69 debut changed the world of music as far as I'm concerned.  In 69, Pink Floyd were still trying to come up with their sound. And it wasn't really till "Meddle" that they achieved that.  Of course, by that time Crimson was on the way to something totally different.

Certif1ed wrote: Before that, Karlheinz Stockhausen experimented with tape loops and electronica way back in the 1940s, as did Berio and a whole troupe of electronic avante-garde composers - so it wasn't that new.

Some info please? When was the tape recorder invented? When was it first commercially used?

I ask this because live recordings were originally made by cutting a disc (a vibrating needle into a suitable soft wax) - the legendary Benny Goodman Carnegie Concert recorded in 1938 was apparently cut onto huge 30" discs, two at a time so there was no gap in recording when one disc had to be replaced with a fresh one. (CBS issued a brilliant double CD of the complete concert in the early 90's based on this recording method). And I believe the BBC recorded a lot of its comedy shows in the 50's by cutting  discs, with tape recorders being introduced later in that decade. I also believe (but needs confirming), wire recorders were used in the 40's by the military, through the medium of magnetisable steel wire. However, Elvis Presley's earliest recordings were on tape - there was a long article a long time ago on how the recording engineers tackling the  remastering of a greatest hits CD, had a major problem due to drop-out, since the ferric powder bonded to the cellulose tape had partially fallen off. To solve the problem of  drop-out during the vocals the engineers had to go find identically sounding words or vowels or consonents remaining on the tape, copy and paste them in place digitally.

Velvetclown wrote: Some info please? When was the tape recorder invented? When was it first commercially used? In 1798

AD or BC

.........anyway, King Crimson are better.

That's my objective, unbiased opinion.

I've taken the liberty to ask a professional rock historian and author to take a gander at the correspondence associated with this thread, and offer a more studied opinion. Further an author who is researching the early days of British progressive rock and written the definitive book on King Crimson, In The Court of King Crimson, i.e. Sid Smith.

This is Sid's succinct response: