A brief history of prog
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27006
Printed Date: January 28 2025 at 13:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A brief history of prog
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Subject: A brief history of prog
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 12:19
|
"Oh no!", you are thinking, "not another history of prog, and by a newbie who should know better..."
Actually, this newbie intends to write his own history of prog (one day), and much of it is already alive and living inside his head. Sites like this one (which looks great to my eyes) will help in my research, as it is not possible to know about EVERY band and EVERY trend and EVERY pioneering musician, and I'm sure I will find some answers here. I just wanted to give a short history of "prog". Yes, I mean the word itself, not the music which I've always loved. A few facts: >>> "Prog" was a sneering contemptuous term coined by punk-era journalists who were looking for enemies wherever they could find them. The word never existed before 1976. "Ah, he's wrong", I hear some of you older people muttering, "I remember progressive in 1969". Yes, quite right. Progressive was a word used (briefly - 1969 to 1970) to describe... what? Actually, mostly heavy blues bands like Led Zeppelin, Free, Deep Purple, though also Pink Floyd and King Crimson too of course. >>> What we call 'prog' now was effectively finished by 1973, long before punk rock came along (another myth - that punk killed off prog). In the intervening 3 years we were turning to disco, reggae, and wondering where Bowie was going next. Of course, prog didn't die forever, and we have the wonders of Radiohead, Mercury Rev, Goldfrapp, and the Flaming Lips to enjoy nowadays, not to mention the frontiers of hip hop / Celtic fusions. So what finished the 'classic era' of "prog" up to 1973? Ah, well that is a radical new theory I have. I'm very sorry, but you will have to wait for the book to read it! (The said book, by the way, will cover what I call the Golden Decade, from 1963 with the emergence of The Beatles, to 1973 with the release of Dark Side Of The Moon.) >>> There are some startling omissions from the prog pantheon. There were few musicians more progressive or revolutionary than Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart - yet they are never classified as prog. Nor are the Grateful Dead, nor Brian Wilson, nor Stevie Wonder in Margouleff/Cecil-mode, nor Sly Stone, nor The Temptations from 1969, nor - except occasionally - The Beatles themselves. Yet curiously, a group like ELP, about whom there was nothing even remotely progressive, are always included. I've never worked that one out. It seems the sneering journalists who first invented the genre of 'prog', also decreed who would be included and who would not (which is fair enough, I suppose, as the whole thing was their invention in the first place). Well that's my toe into these prog waters. I guess I will soon learn if I have inadvertently trodden on any toes when I read the replies (if indeed there are any.) ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Replies:
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 12:30
|
------------- 
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 12:32
|
Its still just an advert for a book.....wrapped up in a few arrogant paragraphs.
Check out our database,our descriptions of Prog and our included artists before rambling on. "There are some startling omissions from the prog pantheon....Frank Zappa.....never classified as prog" Do not insult our intelligence! http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_BAND.asp?band_id=1023 - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_BAND.asp?band_id=1023 Do your homework first please. |
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 12:55
It's not an advert for a book, as the book hasn't even been written yet. I am what I claim to be: a newbie to your site with a long interest in "prog" rock. As for your lack of respect, I'm surprised that doesn't break your own rules. Is that the flavour of this forum? Are there more polite, less cynical members of admin here who can tell me this is NOT a 'representative' response? As for my original remark, I was referring to ignorant journalists who have a 'down' on prog, not forums like this. If you classify Zappa as prog, then all credit to your site. But do you expect every new member to read EVERYTHING your site contains before being allowed to make a post? We have never met, and you have no reason whatsoever to attack me. Learn some manners and some respect. Talk to people before you launch into a rant. Before accusing others of arrogance, remove "the beam in your own eye". I look forward to staying around, at least as long as I am sure that most of the members here are human beings and behave like it. As for you, read your own rules and behave yourself. ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Tony R wrote:Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 12:59
I wish it was written! As soon as it is I will let people know, but apart from marshalling the thoughts inside my head I haven't even begun to research it yet. If I give myself a deadline - say, 2008? - maybe I can stick to it. Most of it is (so far) based on my own experience as a rock fan and record buyer in the early 70s. ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:11
|
Sorry YouthfulTid you are quite right.I jumped to conclusions.
I have restored your thread to its rightful place. |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:11
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:13
|
-------------
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:14
 Good man Tony... your reading on micky's respect-o-meter jumped from max.. to off the charts ahhaha  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:19
Well ,when I get to do my research on zeuhl (for my book) I will know where to go! There will have to be a BIG section on the Germans as they were very influential in the 70s. But really, it should be international. As for the Temps and Sly and Stevie Wonder, I think their influence on music has never been enough recognised. Sly was HUGE on what became hip hop, and from what I remember of the impact of Stevie Wonder in 1973 and 1974, people were buying his music and discussing his albums like it was ROCK music. He was B-I-G, and not just because he used Tontos Expanding Headband as his synth experts. I will have to do a whole chapter on 'psychedelic soul'. ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:21
Ok. Thank you. No problem. ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:28
|
-------------
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:31
don't worry about stepping on my toes... I spend so much time on others toes... I wouldn't recognize when someone was on mine hhahah ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Schizoid Man
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:37
If that is how you really view ELP you probably never will.
With an uninformed statement such as that please forgive me for passing on your book. You have no idea what Prog is all about. ------------- Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:40
damn I missed that..... what the hell are you talking about.... ELP nothing remotely progressive? ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:43
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Schizoid Man
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:45
Drum machines have virtually nothing to do with Prog.
You keep making these ridiculous statements that I just don't understand.
 ------------- Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:50
I think perhaps you're confusing the genre known as prog rock with "progressive" music. No matter how "progressive" the music of Grateful Dead, Brian Wilson, Stevie Wonder, Sly Stone or The Temptations may have been, they are not "prog", whereas ELP, who you have dismissed. are without a doubt one of the giants of prog rock. You only have to listen to Tarkus and Karn Evil 9 to realise that. And I really don't see any connection between prog rock and Goldfrapp. |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:54
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Csejthe
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 13:58
|
YouthfultheTid, perhaps you would like to explain your signature?
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/VomitalxX"> 
|
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 14:01
|
-------------
|
Posted By: pirkka
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 14:02
|
As I read the original post by you, YouthfulTheTid, I suggest that you reconsider... there are already good books about the subject and with the errors, you wont find
a) publisher
b) buyers
So take an older mans advise: Keep it in your head and listen to music.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 14:05
hahah especially if you put these words to print... 'ELP.. nothing remotely progressive about them'. He'd be laughed out of the office.... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Csejthe
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 14:22
I couldn't quite figure it out from that. It seems like one of those "darkness is the lack of light and therefore doesn't exist" arguments. I think a more detailed explanation is in order... ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/VomitalxX">
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 14:36
No toes trodden on - but I hope you've got some good reasoning behind the assertions I've commented on - as I don't see how you came to the conclusions you did.  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: pirkka
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 14:46
| Don't bother...this guy has lived in some institution with a weird LP collection and not always the best possible medication...their coming to take me away hihii hihaa hihoo |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 14:57
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 15:34
|
To add my two cents worth. Progressive was term used by most people who listened to the music of a period of time 1967-1975. It was "underground" it was album orientated and generally not played on the radio outside of few hits by certain bands. You have to expand that 1973 because it does not allow for such music as Return to Forever Where Have I known you before 1974 and Kansas 1974 who both brought unique styles to the stage.
Frank Zappa has always been here with no argument and I find the same around most of the progressive rock forums and sites. Brian Wilson would be a perfect example of proto-prog myself.
As for ELP not being a progressive band you have to be careful here. You are injecting a very large opinion into what is supposed to be a history. ELP was a progressive band formed by others from other progressive bands. It was one of the few bands ever to feature keyboard as it lead instrument without a singer/songwriter attachment (Lee Michaels, Elton John) They were the first band to actually take the synthesizer on tour and play it live. (Something Bob Moog himself never envisioned). They could be as heavy as the heaviest rockers of the day and still fit in with other light rock bands with Greg Lakes ballads. They also adapted Classical pieces to fit in a rock format bringing this music to millions who had never heard it before. What more needs to be added? Maybe you don't like them that's fine but their importance in progressive rock history cannot even be argued certainly not with an unverifiable opinion.
Do more research!
 ------------- 
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: RoyalJelly
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 17:52
| ELP was one of the seminal prog groups, & the Nice one of the very first...Keith's close work with Bob Moog lead to some of the most important developments in the synthesizer, to which all synth players owed and owe him a great debt of thanks. Such assertions come off as rather eccentric opinionizing, and cast doubt on perhaps otherwise good contributions to the subject. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 17:56
|
YouthfultheTid....
good luck writing your book...you don't state your age but i would think carefully about such an undertaking as a brief history of prog, a term which actually was not coined by sneering journalists but by endearing fans!
I have been into Prog for 40 years and would be wary of writing such a Tome on such a vast subject...when i arrived on this site i thought i knew most of what there was to know, but i soon realised i know hardly anything at all. I expected to find a pond here and i am now swimming in a sea, there is so much i don't know and haven't heard and I am amazed at the depth of many members' knowledge on Prog. If you wish to study the subject of Prog you should listen to experienced fans and musicians and leave all those preconceptions in the bin.
Personally I would rather write a simple subject such as a brief history of the world rather than the complex subject of Prog!!.
-------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 18:03
hahahhaha and a hell of a lot less contentious as well  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 03:59
|
"Oh no!", you are thinking, "not another history of prog, and by a newbie who should know better..."
That's the only thing you wrote that makes sense to me.
|
Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 05:48
|
I don't know what Youthfulthetid means by prog being dead in 1973, if he/she means but not being innovative or breaking new groung I think he is quite incorrect the following albums took prog into new directions:after 1973, look at King Crimson with Starless & Bible Black and Red, also Genesis the Lamb was pushing it into new territorys, Kraftwerk really pulled it off in the late 1970s breaking ground in electronic music, Brian Eno in the late 70s with ambient albums and his collaborations with David Bowie, Univers Zero and Art Zoyd although never big broke ground by making prog scary. New Zeuhl bands were popping up in France in the late 70s. Return Forever's groundbreakingMasterpiece Romantic Warrior was released after 1975
ELP not prog? Keith Emerson was an innovator with the keyboards always getting the latest technology, the fact ELP was a three piece performing covers of classical music is quite astounding, they created a hyperactive intensity like no one else anyone can see that in Toccata on Brain Salad Surgery. I think Youthfulthetid's defintion of prrog is rather narrow/misguided?
Of course I mean no offence to you Youthfulthetid, just giving my views ------------- |
Posted By: verrata
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 07:02
|
The defiintion of prog itself gives me some questions. but as it is, im so glad to see someone else who questions the accepted terms of groups within prog. I'm so glad that someone other than me questions the "Powergroup"-ness of ELP (I don't see what's so special) and the exclsuion of especially Brian Wilson in progressive discussions. As it is, theres a lot of prog being created today, so to call it gone in 1973 is somewhat ignorant, but i think your ideas are rather refreshing, dont let these grey sharks consume your vibrant colors. |
Posted By: pirkka
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 07:22
|
There should be an age limit in this kind of discussions.
It takes a lot of time to explore (listen and read) prog. Before you should speak loud about its status, it's form of existence or it's history you are bound to be an older person.
|
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 07:42
Then I read it & thought, "phew - NOT another history of prog, just a series of vaguely connected statements showing a total lack of understanding of the subject  ."
Then I thought again, "maybe this person is deliberately trying to bait those who know, and have known prog/prog rock for a number of years, by dropping in ridiculous ideas, such as inferring the Beatles' first album being in any way related to prog, and Goldfrapp? My wife & I love the band (although my motives may be a little different to those of my wife ), but prog? Dear, oh dear, oh dear..."
So, sadly deluded newbie, or a wind up merchant? ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 12:54
Well, actually you have stumbled on the very reason why I intend to write my book. You are quite right when you say there is a B-I-G difference between progressive and prog. The fact is, 'progressive' is everything that was new and different and boundary-pushing from The Beatles onwards (who were the main pioneers when you look at their output from Revolver to The White Album). Progressive is what we looked for and bought with eager anticipation in the early 70s. Early 70s? There was no such thing as prog rock back then. As I say, the term was invented by punk journalists in around 1976, and has only emerged as a recognised 'genre' in the years since then. THAT is the REWRITING OF ROCK HISTORY that has occurred ever since. Now everyone, except the people who were there and remember, believes the myth. No-one bought prog rock in 1973 because there wasn't any prog rock. It was just rock, we didn't call it anything else. Now as a ROCK band, I have no quarrel with ELP (I don't personally like them myself but that's just a subjective taste). But tell me exactly what qualifies them as progressive? No, they are (sadly to my ears) formulaic and little more then a vehicle for Keith Emerson's showmanship and ego. That's what many of us thought in 1973, but there were also a helluva lot of people buying their albums back then, so they must have been doing something right. What you now think of as 'prog' is a back-filled, retrospectively defined genre, defined originally by journalists who hated it with a venom. And what is the huge irony in all this? Why, that true progressive music was inventive and pioneering, whereas 'prog' (as belatedly defined) was formulaic and totally unoriginal. The most important thing is to separate progressive and prog, which you have done. But make no mistake, most of what you are discussing in this forum is PROGRESSIVE. It's great stuff, it will never die. Don't be seduced by a myth. Otherwise every punk journalist will still be sniggering into their snotty sleeves. [ Jim Garten - I read your comments too. Listen to Goldfrapp's FIRST album (not the later disco stuff) - it is definitely progressive. ] [ CSEjthe - hope this lengthy reply explains my signature ] [ Cropper - I don't have much to say about art rock. Except to say that Bowie's Ziggy Stardust was most definitely art rock, but the music was the most basic rock music, i.e. not progressive (but still great). ] ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 13:29
Most of those artists are definitely progressive. Whether they are 'prog' or not doesn't matter to me, as prog is a mythical category which you rightly say no two people will ever agree on. ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 13:33
I won't give my age away, but I'm afraid the Youthful part of my name is only wishful thinking!! ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 13:36
I think it would be a good idea to give your age,certainly some of the statements regarding the term "Prog Rock" would be more legitimate if you could show that "you were there." I am 45 years old and was 13 in 1974 and not only had I heard the term I was using it.If I could dig out a school music project I did im my "3rd Year" at school I could prove it as I used the term on the cover and when discussing how Prog Rock was influenced by classical music. |
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 14:37
|
You are extremely confusing, but I think I have an idea of what you're talking about...maybe. You're saying that ELP is prog (as defined by your sniggering journalists), but they are not progressive. Well, you know what? Prog is simply short for progressive rock, and I think quibbling over the supposed origins of the term is a waste of time. For example, Taal is progressive rock, and I honestly don't care if what is "true prog" died in 1973; I'm going to continue calling them prog because progressive rock takes too long to type and say. Your mythical punk journalists can snigger in their snotty sleeves all they want.
Are you honestly suggesting that Karn Evil 9 doesn't push musical boundaries? I don't care for ELP very much, but they were very progressive. ------------- "Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber. |
Posted By: pirkka
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 15:10
|
The starnge thing about history is that it is always, yes always, written after it all happended! So it is no wonder if name prog was given only after it happended. How could somebody know it in fore hand. Like: I'll start playing a bit differently and I'll call it xxxxx. No the boys just did what they wanted and afterward it has been possible to analyze what they did.
Actually quite fast the music was called progressive and among friends prog. In finnish it was in the beginning of 70's : proge. And still is. The term existed indeed and was generally known but in sweden it was a little misunderstood and they called their political alternative music as progg. And already in early 70's prog was called symphonic rock.
And about ELP. It was extremely progressive (it is prog). The music is not typical chorus based like rock and pop but they take a musical thema and treat it progressively. There is nothing you can do about it.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 17:32
Ah - I see - you're talking about progressive rock/music rather than Progressive Rock. King Crimson were very different to Zep, Free and Purple - especially in 1969, I might point out.
A separate category each, perhaps...
Why do you think that psychedelia was a British invention? I don't think that it necessarily had weird instruments either - witness the Great Society for one.
There was a lot that was progressive in Disco - and punk itself was a kind of progression - so I don't see why it's another story, it seems like the same one - now you've reset the goal posts.
One to me, I feel - you can thank me later...
Not really - Hip Hop has been around for ages and got mixed up with all sorts of things. If you're going down that path you should really consider progressive trance, drum and bass and a plethora of other styles that were intrinsically progressive to start with, but quickly got diluted.
OK, I get that - but what about the other progessive fields? How about Prog in punk itself? How about the electronic pioneers of the late 1960s and again in the late 1970s - leading up to present day Autreche et al?
Yes, and 1955 is significant as the year that Elvis Presley released "Heartbreak Hotel"...
OK, but now you've opened up a whole can of worms and possibly missed out on some significant fields of music. The book you are planning on writing must surely stretch to encyclopaediac lengths in order to cram in the progressive music of the last 60-odd years. And no matter how much I dislike the music of ELP, it's obvious to me that what they did was to produce Progressive Rock - I rather think that you're deliberately muddying the waters with some of your comments. The area you seem to be addressing is huge - but not beyond the scope of a site like this, where I'm sure you'll pick up loads of really useful information: There are a lot of knowledgeable people here - and I would not condescend to blow my own trumpet.
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 18:23
|
Despite my youthful years (18), there are some statements I agree with and disagree with.
'Progressive' as an entity, from what I can see, was used to describe any music that wasn't consciously aimed at the singles chart and was based around albums as the primary form of musical expression.
I recall a post by (I think?) Dracken Theaker where he said his dad worked in a record shop in the early 70s and albums by Joni Mitchell and James Taylor were in the 'progressive' section. This would appear to backup the suspicion that the shorthand term and simplification 'prog' is a modern creation.
But by the same token, surely bands like Yes, ELP, Zappa, Beefheart, whoever, would have been considered progressive by that 70s version of the term? These acts rarely, if ever, did singles, and if they did, they were usually a result of record company desparation. Whilst the term has admittedly been subdivided over time (eg- Sly Stone is considered funk/soul, Joni Mitchell/James Taylor singer-songwriter), there seems little doubt to me that bands like ELP or Yes would have been considered progressive at the time.
Whilst the subdividing may well have been a journalistic tool, I think it was a useful one in that bands like Yes, ELP, Genesis etc have no obvious antecedents the same way that people like Sly Stone or The Temptations had. The Temptations, of course, started out as a Motown 5 piece vocal act. They remained thus of course- whilst the music is different from their era working with Norman Whitfield, you can still trace the
lineage back to what they did initially in the early 60s. A band like ELP however, or even earlier, The Nice, could not really be pigeonholed in the same manner in that they hardly fit standard blues/soul/folk what-have-you categories. The whole purpose of acts like ELP really was to do something completely different to what went before. To these ears, they succeeded hugely- listen to The Nice if you can't see ELP as progressive as Keith Emerson had laid the basic seed there, but even then ELP were a far more developed and ambitious band than The Nice ever were. There is obvious stylistic progression in all the ELP studio albums from the debut through 'Brain Salad Surgery'- the sheer sense of experiment and ambition means they could never be labelled 'formulaic'- no two albums from this era sound the same, to my ears anyway.
I'm rather tired now- I hope my points are valid in some way. Or of course, you could find my whole rant the biggest load of codswallop ever!
 |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 20:04
I for one would be curious my friend to read that if you could scan and send.... I'd love to hear your views on prog before they were poisoned by heavy hand of Neil Peart hahhahah ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 07 2006 at 20:14
hahha.. well let me blow it for you... I'm cheap and easy... and you make a hell of a lotta sense CertifIed. I can't get my head around two things... the ELP thing... and his view on psychedelia.. oh well.. better you than me... I would have just called him an idiot by now
I could see one who has a very narrow view of prog seeing that it died
a young death... but even in the interim between the end of the classic
era and the neo-prog scene.. we had a thriving Prog Andaluz scene in
Spain in the late 70's. Prog, never died, it just progressed and
moved to other places...------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: ldlanberg
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 02:23
|
Its good to write your thoughts out like that. And feel no guilt about being a "newbie" doing that either.You are right on the money about two things: The word "prog" and what bands were called "progressive."
I never heard the corruption "prog" until just a couple years ago. Before then, Yes and Genesis were mainly labeled as Art Rock bands. Sometimes they were called Progressive. "Progressive" used to refer to album tracks that were played on those tiny college radio stations. Just about anything on the mellow side that wouldn't be played on a Top-40 station.
------------- LDL |
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 07:19
I did overstate the case about 'prog being finished in 1973'. What I meant was, there a definite break between the golden age (1969-1973) and the later progressive movements in all sorts of genres. What I was trying to say was that the oft-stated 'fact' that punk rock killed off prog is wrong. As fans of rock music in the 70s, we didn't even know there was a 'prog rock' to die as the term wasn't coined until 1976. What we did see was that rock music in all its infinite and diverse forms became somewhat less infinite and less diverse between 1973 and 1976. (Pub rock? Oh please - the 'great new rock idea of 1973' was neither great, nor new, and is now largely forgotten except as a footnote in rock histories. Glam rock? Great fun, but what significant albums ever emerged from it, Bowie and Roxy Music excepted?) What is true is that there was a lot of good work being done that LATER came to be seen as hugely influential, Kraftwerk for example, laying the foundations of the whole electronica genre; Roxy Music and more especially Eno and Phil Manzanera. At the time though, it seemed like the great days of rock were over and we were turning to reggae and soul and disco where there was real action going on in those 3 or 4 years. As for the ELP debate, I guess I'm going to be outvoted on this. What I personally feel is that all their classical 'nurdlings' (Pictures At An Exhibition and other) is exactly the trap that The Nice fell into and fell back on after the guitarist Dave O'List left the band (their first album Emerlist Davjack was strongly psychedelic, you could even say progressive, and also their working of Bernstein's 'America'.) But what is even remotely progressive about churning out classical music in a rock form? I will agree that ELP are among the early pioneers of metal. Ultimately its down to personal opinion though. Which I am beginning to find out there is a whole lot of in this forum! (All over the Internet in fact). I'm just adding my four cents (oh ok, then, 444 cents...) ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 07:24
|
I still insist that the term "Prog Rock" existed before 1976. I am just having trouble proving it....
Where's Dick Heath when you need him? |
Posted By: NutterAlert
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 07:25
|
To use Keith Emerson's own words for the reason critics did not get ELP:
'was because we were just too good'
 Bravo Keithi agree with cert (as always )------------- Proud to be an un-banned member since 2005 |
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 07:43
I'm older still (sad to say). Happy to say though, that I actually managed to see many live 'progressive' acts including Yes, King Crimson, Genesis (several times including supporting Medicine Head at a University Hall of Residence JCR 'bop'!!!), Focus, Traffic, Curved Air (sadly underrated these days), Kevin Ayers, Caravan, Beefheart, Hawkwind, Pink Floyd (including one of the first airings of DSOTM in the days when it was still called "Eclipse"), Van Der Graaf Generator, ELP (the loudest indoor gig I ever went to), Barclay James Harvest, Gong, Quintessence, Marsupilami, and various other lesser gods too. Eeeeeh, those were the days eh? Could go t'Town Hall, see three good bands, score a 'quid deal', buy a copy of Oz magazine, and STILL have change out of a fiver. Kids today eh? Don't know they're born... [with apologies to Cook, Cleese, Idle, and Palin, TSPB 1979] As for 'proof' - if you can show me your 1974 essay (it must say PROG and not Progressive), or any issue of the Melody Maker or NME that use the term, I'd be interested to see them. I never kept the music papers from those days sadly, but I remember reading them. I do still have a copy of International Times 1971, and a copy of Zig Zag magazine 1973, and there's no mention in there. As I will never tire of saying until someone proves me wrong, we talked only about 'rock' in those days, unless it was one of the minor categories of genre rock, i.e. folk rock, jazz rock, space rock, country rock, Krautrock, glitter rock, glam rock, or pub rock. But not.... prog rock. ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 08:06
Not a break per se - I would say that it's more a settling into the newly created soundscapes.
However, in 1976, we did know that there was a prog rock to die, and we effectively saw punk lay the boot in. The irony is that Punk itself was a kind of progression - and it literally became progressive - witness many great albums by the Stranglers, some nice psychedelic forays by the Damned and XTC, the stark soundscapes of Killing Joke and the "punk" synth movement - Tubeway Army, the Human League, Cabaret Voltaire et al.
Not Kraftwerk - you need to do some more homework! There were plenty of electronic bands before Kraftwerk who produced some amazing music - White Noise "The Electric Storm" is an album that will blow your mind if you've never heard it, whatever generation you're from - and it's massively influential. You think Goldfrapp are progressive? Listen to this LP. The Goldfrapp/Celtic connection reminds me of the composer Karl Jenkins's excursions with Enigma in the late 1980s.
I don't see the trap - The Nice progessed from album to album.
It's all in the way you do it. Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Variations" is a superb example of how it can be done subtly - there was nothing subtle about ELP as you point out. But that was the nature of their progessiveness - they took a "tamed" art form and let themselves as a rock band loose on it, with often wild results. It seems obvious to me that it was progressive in a literal sense - very few others did it - or even could do it. While "Pictures..." could be seen as a reflection of Prog Rock at the height of absurdity, it's also a brilliant (and progressive) idea in and of itself. The approach was clearly not to do a note-for-note copy, but a rock band interpretation. Although they had "treated" other works in the past, a full-scale work was the next logical step in the progression - and psychedlia was no longer progressive in the latter half of the early 1970s. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 08:08
|
I would say it's fairly academic when "progressive rock" known as became "prog". I have no recollection of what we called Yes, ELP and Genesis when we were all listening to them at school in the early 70s. In the abscence of Tony's essay, you could contact my old friend Clive Whichelow at http://www.backnumbers.co.uk - www.backnumbers.co.uk and I'm sure he'd be happy to supply you with some old Melody Makers from 1973 to help resolve the argument. |
Posted By: Baza
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 08:09
I've heard (not saw myself) that in the liner notes of the first Caravan album (from 1968) it is written that the music is, among other stuff, progressive rock.
|
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 08:25
For sure the term existed; although might it perhaps have been more current in Britain than in the US?
Certainly, it was a term my contemporaries used in 73/74, although I have to confess there was usually a presumption of musical superiority when using it....  ------------- "Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS 
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 08:36
|
i remember an album in 1969 called "wowie zowie the world of progressive music"  though i can't remember when i first heard the term shortened to "prog rock", maybe it was around the "punk rock" era??
but surely they are one and the same thing??
 ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 08:39
| There is a sampler on this site released in 1969 called "Wowie Zowie! The World of Progressive Music". I think the question is when "progressive rock" became known as "prog". |
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 08:45
|
Certif1ed - I did a HUGE response to your big post at the top of page 3 - I did nested replies to all your points, using different colours etc, it took me an hour to do, but when I hit the 'post reply' button, I must have got logged off because it disappeared without trace. You made some very good points and I made some very good replies, but sorry, I don't have the heart to do it all again. Originally posted by YouthfulTheTid What I was trying to say was that the oft-stated 'fact' that punk rock killed off prog is wrong. As fans of rock music in the 70s, we didn't even know there was a 'prog rock' to die as the term wasn't coined until 1976. What we did see was that rock music in all its infinite and diverse forms became somewhat less infinite and less diverse between 1973 and 1976. However, in 1976, we did know that there was a prog rock to die, and we effectively saw punk lay the boot in. The irony is that Punk itself was a kind of progression - and it literally became progressive - witness many great albums by the Stranglers, some nice psychedelic forays by the Damned and XTC, the stark soundscapes of Killing Joke and the "punk" synth movement - Tubeway Army, the Human League, Cabaret Voltaire et al. Yes, but the whole point I have been making is that 1976 saw the invention of a genre by journalists who had several pet hates, of which Stadium Rock was the number one (not prog, that came a bit later). Punk put the boot into a genre which they invented themselves, so what was the point? What you do say very clearly - and I agree entirely - is that the whole post-punk period was one of the most creative periods ever, and yes - progressive. Have you read Simon Reynolds book Rip It UP And Start Again? Magazine, just to take one example, were just as progressive as anything successful that had gone before: it's just they were guitar-based, not keyboard, so it was not recognised as Quote Progressive at the time. [Sorry about the confusing colours in my quotes but I don't want to get logged off again and lose an hour's work, so I've done it the 'quick and dirty' way.] ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 08:57
That is the 64,000 dollar question! "Progressive" was very popular in 1969 and 1970, but that was a time when rock music was still trying to get itself taken seriously. By 1971 or 72 that had already happened, so progressive took a back seat, and the bands we all know now as 'prog' (Yes, Genesis, ELP, Crimson, etc) were just looked on as 'rock'. Another reason why these bands stopped being called 'progressive' is the simple fact they were selling shedloads of albums, and therefore they were 'too commercial' to be 'progressive'. (There was nascent snobbery back then too). "Prog" - if you really look at it, and that is hard to do now, because it has become a term that lots of people love - is something of an ugly shortening of 'progressive'. One syllable. One grunt. One contemptuous dismissal. "Prog". It was intended as an insult, and that could only have happened in the punk era. The nearest thing to a 'prog genre' before then was either 'space rock' (Floyd, Hawkwind, Tangerine Dream) or 'Krautrock' a term the Germans applied to themselves. ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 09:24
^ I think you underestimate the proclivity of 13/14 year old boys to "invent" slang - we didn't waste all those valuable seconds enunciating "progressive rock music" every time we boasted about our music collections - it was prog!!!  ------------- "Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
|
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 10:14
Maybe it was! But it didn't get into NME, Melody Maker, or Rolling Stone, or concert programmes, or reviews, or documentaries. Somehow the informal slang of 13/14 year old boys didn't make it out of their bedrooms... Unless of course you can prove it? ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 11:22
|
Typical early 70s conversation between two 14 year old boys:
"I say old chap, have you heard the most recent excellent offering from that super progressive rock band and popular beat combo, Pink Floyd ?"
"Can't say I have, old boy - but I'll discuss the matter further with your good self when I've finished masticating and imbibing this imitation-chocolate covered, chain-shaped caramel refreshment snack...."....
 Does anyone have access - either online, or via a library - to the Oxford English Dictionary? They're generally the bee's knees -although always subject to updating -as regards first use of English words. (I'm not really prepared to take out a mortgage to subscribe just for one word - albeit the word....) ------------- "Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
|
Posted By: captainbeyond
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 11:48
|
I'm feeling the presence of a dozen red herrings swimming around and have lost, regained, and lost the point of this conversation a few times over. Youthfulthetid: I'm not sure I'm getting your point, nor do I see why it is important whether the word "prog" came to use in 1973, 76, or 2006. Is your whole point that, because the word prog may have been invented after the initial flowering of progressive rock to apply to a specific type/genre/sound embodied by groups such as Yes, Genesis, etc, that other artists such as Frank Zappa and Stevie Wonder and Magazine were denied the use of the word "progressive," despite being very progressive, innovative artists, ultimately resulting in a wide underappreciation for their innovations? |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 13:49
|
One does like to indulge in a Curly-Wurly every so often when the mood pleases one. -------------
|
Posted By: Rando
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 16:04
I still feel George Harrison is one of the most underated guitarists in Rock. No, not because he didn't play a million or more notes per second, or because he didn't fill two Lp sides of gut-wrenching blues improvisations, but because he introduced to us, (to the Rock world), World Music. In his case, Indian Ragas. There was the use of the early Mellotrons in various albums and songs. Sampling, "found sounds," and other eclectic sundries throughout their repertoire. Just listen to "I Am The Walrus," or "Tomorrow Never Knows," as examples. Most of the artists you mentioned came after the event. Well, maybe Pink Floyd were parallel. And so forth, and so forth...
------------- - Music is Life, that's why our hearts have beats - |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 08 2006 at 17:18
That's happened to me all too often - I feel your pain 
Thanks for the kind comments and thanks for taking the time and investing the energy to reply, even if it didn't quite get here. My current big musical interest is in electronic music and its development from the invention of the Theremin to the present day - and I really think that this is the most progressive area of music in the whole of the 20th Century, hence my particular line of questioning in that department. I think that the most creative period in Rock music was 1965-1973, but there's so much between 1968 and 1971, that I haven't exhausted my research of that small timeframe yet. I'll check out that book - and Magazine, who are already on my "will investigate soon" list. I would recommend in return the 3CD set "Ohm" - which also comes with a DVD, if you can find the limited edition version - but it's not cheap! ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 09 2006 at 12:51
No, it's mainly because all you guys (any women here?) are swimming around in your glorious prog universe, which is colourful and bright and rich and oh so many good things, while 'out there' is a world of media (broadsheet newspapers, magazines, TV, radio) where 'prog' is simply a dirty word and looked down on even now. Take a magazine like MOJO - the only magazine I subscribe to. They are brilliant, covering music from the past. present, and almost future too. But if you scratch the surface even of a good magazine like that, you will find an intolerance of prog that almost borders on the obsessive. Their demigods? 1. The Ramones 2. Iggy Pop 3. The Ramones 4. The Sex Pistols 5. The Ramones 6. The White Stripes... well, you get the picture. So I did a bit of digging around, and combined this with the fruits of my own memory as I lived through the era in question. Biggest mystery - why doesn't recorded rock history agree with my memories? Why doesn't it also agree with the few copies of contemporary music papers I could find? Then I began to see what has happened... As briefly as possible - what we call 'prog' now was called 'rock' in the late 60s eraly 70s. You could go out and buy albums by The Stones, King Crimson, Yes, Humble Pie, Black Sabbath, Genesis, and The Groundhogs, all in one go, and no-one back then thought you were 'mixing genres' or 'can't make up your mind, eh?'. It was all just rock. It wasn't till punk was leering on the scene in the mid-70s that 'prog' became classified, categorised, compartmentalised, and then loathed. The echoes of that change in perspective sstill echo today, which is why I try to help people see (or remember) how it really was. Punk really did change the world - not the world they wanted to change, but certainly how rock history is now told. ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: YouthfulTheTid
Date Posted: August 09 2006 at 13:06
Ok thanks for that. I will try another method (copy and paste) to have a go at something you said yesterday. _______________________________________________________________________________ Originally posted by YouthfulTheTid Psychedelia is basically British freakbeat / RnB but with added things like weird instruments for the time (sitars, flutes, mellotrons, harpsichords etc) plus a whimsical lyrical approach. Why do you think that psychedelia was a British invention? I don't think that it necessarily had weird instruments either - witness the Great Society for one. _______________________________________________________________________________ I was too ambiguous - I was talking about British psych, which I'm sure you know was a different animal than the US variety. British psych used exotic instrumentation (sitars and flutes, harpsichords etc), and weird production effects (backward tapes, phasing, multi-tracking etc). But its foundation was pretty solid freakbeat RnB as laid down from 1965. The US psych was more based on folk and jazz (Byrds, Jefferson Airplane, The Dead) - it used less gimmicks, but its structure was much more free-form and unstructured, more improvisational if you like (more Eight Miles High and Dark Star than Sunshine Superman and Strawberry Fields Forever). I'll try to be more specific next time (it's difficult when you're furiously trying to get an idea from your brain, through fevered fingers, onto an online forum... not enough proofreading.) ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - prog may be great but it is also a complete myth |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: August 09 2006 at 15:16
|
I would have said the British psych of the later 60s wasn't particularly akin to freakbeat- there were bands that obviously were, such as The Game, The Creation, John's Children, Small Faces, Who et al., but by and large these were the bands that had been around in the 'mod' or R & B era anyway. IMO, the UK psych was a far tamer beast. I got Kaleidoscope's 'Tangerine Dream' the other day. Fantastic album I must say, but hardly 'maximum R & B' so to speak. It owed more to the poppier, whimsical and occasionally twee (and I say that as a compliment!) of Donovan, Barrett era Floyd etc. I have various compilations of UK psych singles/bands and most of the tracks are quite tame when you compare it to freakbeat.
|
Posted By: captainbeyond
Date Posted: August 09 2006 at 20:11
|
[/QUOTE] It wasn't till punk was leering on the scene in the mid-70s that 'prog' became classified, categorised, compartmentalised, and then loathed. The echoes of that change in perspective sstill echo today, which is why I try to help people see (or remember) how it really was. Punk really did change the world - not the world they wanted to change, but certainly how rock history is now told. [/QUOTE] OK, so let me try to summarize your thesis: pro-punk journalists and media invented the word "prog" in order to create a bogey-man against which to define themselves and make themselves feel superior and cool. Is that about the extent of it? If so, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people who agree with you. However, I think you might find more who do not really care what the pro-punk journalists thought or continue to think.
|
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 09 2006 at 20:58
|
I find this thread very interesting, Whether or not the word prog was bandied about means little to me. Young music journalists appropriating words or slang is neither here nor there. They are doing their job. And their job is to inform us of the latest thing. Because, let's face it, it doesn't come around too often. Sit around the office all day waitin' for a scene.... Maybe a coupla years passes Still nothin' happening. Oh bollocks ! Missed it I know these guys are paid well but I would rather have Mickys' testicles lightly roasted for a fortnight than have to come up with the new trend in music. -------------
|
Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: August 09 2006 at 21:54
Well it sounds like you've got some ideas worth considering about, I'll have to explore this, but I do disagree with you about ELP. ------------- |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 09 2006 at 22:58
|
Very interested to read this if it gets published. And I hope it does. YouthfulTheTid I didn't check where you are from but I really hope you write this book in your regional accent. -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 10 2006 at 05:22
|
^Juzt arz laarng arz 'e ain't fraam Daaarzet! ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: August 10 2006 at 09:36
...but "Daaarzet" is surely the spiritual home of prog? Think of the alumni..... ------------- "Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 10 2006 at 17:05
Ah yes, the Wurzels... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: August 10 2006 at 18:35
Nice try,
, but the mighty Wurzelistas hail from Zummmerzet........ I was thinking more of A Certain Band which drew many of its finest members from Hardy Country......  ....and I know you know I know you know which one......------------- "Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 07:38
|
Anyone got any on-topic suggestions?
Mr Heath??? |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: August 11 2006 at 12:52
I was on topic when I asked if anyone could check the date of origin of the word "prog" in the big OED - but no-one replied....I can't believe there are no tweedy academics in the audience here who have access to a university copy....------------- "Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
|
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 14:54
Our radio station was acknowledged by Phonogram (KW's label) as the one that gave the band its initial break - after the Beeb ignored them - and this was mid 70's. I can assure you Kraftwerk was an antedote to prog, at the time not thought as prog. The band's first few albums were heard as avant garde industrial electronics, but with their third (or was it the 4th) album Autobahn, they had simplied matters. As one who has bought all RTF's albums (including the dire 4 LP Live set), and one of many who much prefer Hymn of The 7th Galaxy, IMHO RTF's Romantic Warrior was not ground breaking (in deed you'll have to explain "ground-breaking" in this context because I don't get it); I recommend you hear their much earlier eponymous album for that. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 14:59
| So when was the term "Prog Rock" first used Dick? |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 15:03
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 15:11
I gave up a long time ago over-worrying about the historical inaccuracies, ambiguities and other unreliable info - particularly when somebody suggested us old dogs have our ideas but the kids who weren't there at the birth of progressive music (to give its 1967 or '68 terminology - yes I agree progressive rock is a later term, but as to being coined after 1973, 4, 5, 6, 7, or??? I'll have to dig into my clippings). In deed I've asked here in the past if somebody could actually locate in print when the term "art rock" was first used - verbally I've heard claims as to it being as early as 1965...... I think 'underground music' or 'progressive music' were interchangeable between 1967 to 1969. Perhaps King Crimson's exposure to the crowd at the Rolling Stones' Hyde Park gig brought them and the music above gound - although Keith Ralf's Renaissance was getting more TV exposure through Jim Mossman's BBC 2 arts programme. And as said before the first prog sample Wowie Zowie The World Of Progressive Music was released in 1969, and gathered some real sod'n'sods of music to demonstrate the breadth of the genre at the end of the 60's (at least to the pundits at Decca Records who compiled the disc - but how many sampler albums have been and continue to be padded out with spurious examples of music?). Working in a record store from 1965 to 1970, I personally labelled a section "progressive music" about 1968 although the first albums in that slot were the first two Canned Heat LPs and a John Mayall album (Diary of a Band??) - just confirmed Boogie With Canned Heat was originally released in 1968. I would suggest that 'progressive music' was first used in the UK music press in 1968. More after dinner. |
Posted By: Yukorin
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 15:21
|
-------------
|
Posted By: RaślGuate
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 19:45
|
Here's proof that the word "prog" wasn't coined in 1976: http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=2387 ../Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=2387 - Peter and The Wolf - Prog FairytaleSo? |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 19:48
Well done-released in 1975
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 19:54
|
hmm... I'm sure the 'prog' term was coined by some college kid who after a few too many bong hits couldn't finish saying 'progressive rock' with out inserted potato chips in his mouth...... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 19:56
Spent the last few hours trawling through my clippings garnered from the pages of Melody Maker, Disc, Record Retailer (ie the UK musical trade weekly), NME and even some Rolling Stone materials, and this covering the period approx 1967 to 1980. Although I've largely saved material from what we now would call 'prog rock', the term 'progressive' is hardly used!(and as for 'progressive rock' or even 'progressive music' not a thing - and then two references (so far) of 'progressive blues' bands - reinforcing what I remembered as to the earliest labelling. However, a critic reviewing the compilation Love Masters credits Love as being 'truly progressive'. Keef Hartley's Halfbreed has a critic comment " the music goes far beyond the blues and must establish Hartley as one of the leaders in Britain progressive pop scene". 'Underground' is being used for Pink Floyd on a Ummagumma review. Quicksilver Messager Services's Happy Trials is called 'head music'. (Remember the Monkee's movie directed by Jack Nicholson...) 'Experimental pop' is used for The Nice's Ars Longa Vita Brevis. Soft Machine by the time of the Triple Echo box set is called 'fusion'. RTF's Light As Feather is attributed 'jazz rock' The Doors (Love Street) as 'a pubies underground group' - pubies??? Yes interviewed when Rick Wakeman first joined the band are calling themselves 'orchestral rock'. BTW the term 'rock' seems to be fairly common in the UK press after 1969. An article in the Daily Express May 1973, are calling Yes 'probably the most musically brilliant pop group in the world'. No genre or other pigeonholing in many reviews including those for Greenslade (Spyglass Guest), Genesis (Wind & Wuthering), Steve Hackett (Please Don't Touch), Hugh Hopper(1984), Steve Hillage (Open), King Crimson (Wake Of Posiedon), Magma (DMK), Matching Mole (first album), apart from comments about the musical complexities and borrowing from varous other musical genres. So hard referencing with accurate dates are still to be nailed wrt 'progressive rock' - so folks time to dig through the the old newspapers hidden away for 30 years in lofts. etc. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 20:01
I
have to say.. I wouldn't mind being a guest at the Heath abode..
I could get lost in all those clippings hahahha publies huh.... I will have to find a way to work that into a post somewhere.. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 12 2006 at 21:02
However I would have to see the album cover to be sure. On this and two other Prog Rock sites the album is referred to as "A Prog Story" however o0n other sites it is referred to as a "Rock Story" so maybe the "Prog" bit was added to the title at a later date. |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 09:15
|
There's a clear reference to the term "progressive music" from the "Record Mirror" dated 16/5/1970 in the various contemporary quotes included in the sleeve notes to the remastered "In the Wake of Poseidon":
"The album has been impeccably produced and arranged and must rank as one of the most important contributions to progressive music for some time."
To my mind, the phrasing of this sentence suggests that the term "progressive music" is already an accepted one, as it's used in a very casual way.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that if the term "progressive music" is used about this sort of music, alongside the term "rock", that at least some people weren't talking about "progressive rock".....but I admit that isn't proof.....yet....
------------- "Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 09:20
| Its the contraction of the term into "Prog Rock" that we are searching for CT. |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 09:33
| http://krisma.mayancaper.net/records/peter/peterbig.html - http://krisma.mayancaper.net/records/peter/peterbig.html I suspected the 'prog fairytale' bit was added later, and this cover confirms it. No mention of it being 'prog' on the front... |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 09:35
I agree with you that they were maybe added later to the description. |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 09:45
|
I found a bit of an article in Mojo that has a small section that suggests who exactly came up with the shortening of progressive music to 'prog'. Here's what Mick Farren (of The Deviants) says, who wrote the whole article.
'Progressive music had to be de-capitalised and some underground press wag- possibly Charlie Murray- shortened it to "prog", making it sound like a Saxon mining implement.'
This perhaps backs up the original post....
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 09:48
|
or he could have just been tapping into the vernacular of the fans.
I am adamant that I was referring to it as "prog rock" prior to 1976,it's just proving it! |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 09:49
|
I have a magazine somewhere that has a selection of music related ads from the 1970s- I shall have a read over that.
EDIT- Found one ad that clearly makes reference to 'progressive rock':
'FOUR GIRLS, 15-16, to write to four lads in progressive rock band.'
There are addresses etc after that, and sadly there's no date. However, apparently this comes from Sounds Magazine, long since defunct.
No explicit mention of the vernacular 'prog rock' but it could obviously easily have been abbreviated in everyday speak as Tony says.
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 09:54
I have scoured articles about Genesis from the Genesis Music.com Archive eg: http://www.genesis-music.com/Archivephase2.htm - http://www.genesis-music.com/Archivephase2.htm The trouble is they are invariably described as performing pop music-maybe these scribes were psychic.. |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 09:55
| ^ I updated my previous post just above your one, Tony. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 13 2006 at 09:57
| Sounds survived into the 80s. |