The Who? Proto-Prog?
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=40161
Printed Date: December 04 2024 at 13:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Who? Proto-Prog?
Posted By: jfleischh
Subject: The Who? Proto-Prog?
Date Posted: July 22 2007 at 23:31
What is The Who doing on this website and why are they considered proto-prog? Now, don't get me wrong, I like The Who a lot, I have Tommy and Who's Next. I just don't think that they have a place on this website; I am sure that their presence here cannot be reversed, but come on. I have always thought of The Who as proto-punk. They are basically the fathers of punk music, which is in complete opposition to progressive rock music. I am not saying that I am against punk either. But punk and progressive rock are two genres of music that are complete opposites. The whole idea behind punk is that you don't have to know how to play your instruments; emotion is more important than skill or technique. The music is based on simplistic power chords. As we all know, prog is completely the opposite; it prides itself on being complex (and still emotional). To me, The Who is the farthest thing from "proto-prog." I mean, just because you have a couple "concept" albums does not mean that you are prog. It just seams to me that some people around here don't know much about genres of music. I can't believe the guff I got for suggesting Steely Dan be placed in prog-related! I'm sorry, but seeing The Who on this website is a totally mind-boggling to me. Does anyone else share my viewpoint; or maybe someone can explain why a proto-punk band is on a progressive rock website!
|
Replies:
Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: July 22 2007 at 23:46
|
^^ Just an FYI: This has been discussed ad nauseum in previous threads... ------------- "The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle." |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 22 2007 at 23:51
|
this notion of the Who as proto-punk is quite bizarre. Blue Cheer, the Troggs or the Kinks maybe, but the fact that 'My Generation' or a few other Who songs had a vague effect on a rebel-rock attitude is not the same as having a direct impact on a genere the way Who's early concept records did on Prog rock.
|
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: July 22 2007 at 23:55
|
^ not more bizzare than the who beig proto prog ------------- 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 00:17
|
jfleischh wrote:Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 00:38
-------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 00:42
many artists had recorded albums that had a loose association between songs, but not a sequentially-told story done in a rock format. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 01:06
Are you sure my friend?
Tell them (Punk 77 is the most important Punk site), I find much more coherence in their arguments than in ours.
But again, they are already here and nothing can be done.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 01:13
|
that's a passionate write-up from punk77 but it doesn't persuade... That the band had influence on multiple areas of popular music, and on certain artists who later were labelled as 'punk', doesn't negate their effect on concept rock and, consequently, prog.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 01:24
 You made my point, Proto Prog is for bands that "Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock The late 60's was a predominately experimental period for music. These bands were moving in a stream that eventually led to prog. The influence could have come from new sophisticated forms of writing and playing music, recording techniques, new instruments and vocal harmonies to name a few. Some of these bands became progressive rock bands themselves others did not."
http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#37 - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#37
Not for bands who influenced everything and maybe could have influenced Prog in a relative way. Again, I find the MOD culture absolutely consistent with PUNK and with no Prog relation, the Who in the 60's WERE A MOD BAND. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 01:33
and a big thanks to you, Ivan, for helping me to make mine 
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 01:37
|
Let us not forget that one a band the Who competed with was Pink Floyd...dunno why that needed to be said, but this seems like as good a place as any to drop it in. And show off my ((largely) useless) knowledge (i.e., trivia).
...Sorry, I'll go now... ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 01:39
|
The fact that Punk 77 hates the Who is enough reason for them to be here. ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 01:40
well I tend to consider Pink Floyd psych above all else, even through to Animals-- but of course early psych had a big influence on Prog... let's not go there 
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 01:41
Well, I've always wondered...(ala Seinfeld): "The Moody Blues, I mean, what's up with them? Am I right?"
(Besides, didn't the Floyd do extended tracks, avantegarde crap, yadda yadda yadda...we're supposed to love all that, right?) ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 02:09
I don't see how Atavachron, Proto Prog is the natural limk between Psychedelia and Prog.
More advanced than Psyche but not yet totally Prog. Proto Prog bands essencially were the next step in musical evolution between Psyche and Prog and for that reason Proto bands share Psyche and Prog elements that you can find in each and every band listed, The Who has none, they were playing aggressive Blues oriented Rock, while other bands were miles ahead them.
This is not bad, The Who never pretended being a Prog band, they were good in their style, but bands like Sweetwater or Arthur Brown were miles ahead of them.
Destroying instruments, auto destructive behaviour is much more related with Punk and that paraphernalia was being used by The Who.
Only with Quadrophenia they approach a bit more to Prog, but it was 1973 and they could be at the most Prog Related, we are judging a band like The Who for their less Prog Related material pre-70's instead of checking Quadrophenia.
But again, this is done.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 02:21
|
much of what you point out is acurrate, Ivan, but again I stress that none of it deletes history-- the effects the Who's theme albums (and perhaps certain cuts on Who Sells Out) had on what a rock album could be, the size, theater and sophistcation, is clear and deeply felt.. most markedly on prog, not punk.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 02:31
Had influence in everything that came later, but we can't include them,. because they are generic influences for all Rock the case of The Who is exactly the same. Proto Prog is for bands that were DIRECT INFLUENCE for Prog, and that' not the case of The Who.
The Who may not had existed and Prog would never been affected, take psyche from History or The Moody Blues or The Nice or Pink Floyd Psyche era, and there's probably not Prog as we know it.
Cheers.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 02:38
|
prog might be similar without the Who, but not exactly the same..
..and they're a lot more Proto than the bloody Doors
|
Posted By: Speakerfish
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 02:47
|
The Who drew a lot of symphonic influence, as well as avant-garde composers (Baba O'Reily). I always thought it was interesting how they juxtaposed proto-punk with those influences. That fusion alone should merit, at least, a "proggish". ------------- Dissonance; subtle harmonic dissonance Contemplating and completing the negative space Romantic symphonies left on the floodplains |
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 02:49
|
Edit // deleted my last post because it was just plain dumb |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 03:20
I definitely agree with Ivan. Now that the Who are here, you might as well include the Stones and the Kinks. Aren't "Gimme shelter", "You can't always get what you want" and "Sympathy for the devil" prime examples of proto-prog? And Ray Davies wrote even more rock operas than Pete Townshend! So while we're at it, where are the Small Faces and the Bonzo Dog Band? Not to mention Percy Sledge! 
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 03:28
|
HEY! "When a Man Loves a Woman" is a beautiful song! But I think that half of the reason the Who ought to be here is that they were prog in spirit. Did the Stones (much as I like 'em) or the Animals have any virtuoso players? And was their main purpose in life to create ART? Or were they a bunch of talented guys playing at a profession? Pete had already written his first rock opera by '64, they (the record companies) just wanted something a little more...single-ish. And I think that the supreme talents, certainly worthy of a "real" prog band, of Misters Entwhistle and Moon have been mentioned enough that I need not do so. And the Who seem to be an influence on the likes of Tull, ELP...certainly the Zepsters. Gods, they even modeled their photos after the Who. I'm not sure if they should be in related rather than proto, but the fact is they're here. Pity we can't jam 'em in art rock. ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 03:30
I wouldn't agree with the other acts you mentioned, but wouldn't these guys might be seen as some kind of proto avant band?
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 03:32
They're often lumped in with Zappa anyways. Oh well, I actually sort of like the Bonzos, so if anyone makes a fuss, I've got their back. ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 03:36
if I know Ivan, he's the last one that would use such a ridiculous excuse to add any band
|
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 03:37
And it's proto-prog! 
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 03:38
And so is Benny Goodman! And J. S. Bach! ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 04:15
The Who was a mod band! And their only link to punk is mod/punk band The Jam.
Proto punk included MC5, The Stooges and eventually Velvet Underground (VU who might also one day find its way into PA under proto-prog BTW), but I never saw The Who included in there.
However, I wished Micky included The Who in prog related rather than proto-prog, because The Who's proggier works was in the 70's, unlike Deep Purple's whose proggier works were from the 60's >> which is why they are proto-prog.
BTW, I have no qualm with SD being in prog-related. ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 04:17
|
Or Ween...is what Mr. Trane meant to say... ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 04:18
|
I don't know the Who, I don't care about the Who. I trust members who do know about these "prog-related"/"proto-prog" bands are not diluting the site with superfluous additions. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 04:20
|
...Wait, you don't know the Who? Is that humanly possible? They're one of those bands that you're allowed to call "The greatest band ever" (you know, like the Stones or the Ruttles or what have you). ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 04:22
|
"Know" as in know more than the hits.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 04:25
|
Oh. Whew. Well, they're pretty sweet, and I've always thought they were artsy-fartsy enough to be here. Uh, for whatever that's worth...
And I think that the argument "If we have the Who, then we should have Percy Sledge" falls a bit flat because so often people forget that half of prog rock...is the rock. Sledge was a pop guy who used an orchestra, but for pop arangements. Standard lenght pop arrangements; the Who could carry on for a while if they wanted to.
And Sledge didn't rock, or have any kind of a fusion attitude. Not that the Who were big about fusion (although Pete loved to bring in orchestras and synths, which just SEEMS old hat to us, because we've been overexposed. I guess). But they did rock. ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 12:50
You know me well Atavachron, I wouldn't add a band with the "If x, then why not Y" argument, as a fact I don't add Prog Related bands unless it's a band that has comed to our team and we notice that being DIRECTLY AND UNDOUBTLY related with Prog but not 100% Prog, and if it's only the only solution.
When we as a team receive a band that could go to Prog Related we ask all the possible teams and post it, but unless there's a clear concensus (Which we see is not the case with The Who) we don't add it.
But Fuxi was just being sarcastic, he knows I would never add such bands to Prog Archives.
Now, if The Who must be here (I can't find the priority when Erik, HT You Atavachron, Chus, Rico, myswelf among others make daily posts wiith 100% bands that capture no interest of ther members), lets do it the less traumatic, Proto Prog is a well defined sub-genre and The Who have no relation with it, Sean is right, their almost Prog Related stuff is from the 70's, tio be precise October 19, 1973, so they would fit better in Prog Related.
Now I added Proto Prog bands becausee I believe this sub-genre is well defined and it's part of Prog, but not without a poll at least in the Collaborator's section.
In this case I believe Viv Stanshall and the Bonzo Dog Band deserve to be here, they as Arthur Brown are clear examples of what Proto Prog is.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 13:05
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 13:16
A massive thumb up for the Bonzo Dog Band in proto-prog section. They are much more complex, diverse (and progressive) version of Giles, Giles and Fripp. ------------- |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 16:10
If it helps, on HATWISE CHOICE Dave Stewart clearly states that Hatfield & the North were influenced by the Bonzos! |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 17:17
| A new thread is needed in the "Suggest bands" section for the Bonzos if they are being proposed for addition. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 17:52
I'll start it tonight or tomorrow Bob.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 17:52
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35591 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35591 ------------- |
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 10:18
|
Why can't The Who be proto-punk and proto-prog? ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 10:34
can`t believe Sabbath aint here but the who is man ? 
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 10:38
|
^ Both bands albums come at the height of the prog-rock movement, so I don't know how either are proto ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 10:45
One of the things I love about this site is the open-mindedness of the members but that seems to be in short supply when it comes to the Who. Like them or not, they blazed a trail that contributed to what became progressive rock because they thought outside the box. If one has a problem with Pete and the boys being here then I would venture to say that Led Zep, Beatles, Deep Purple and many others would fail to qualify for similar reasons. I suggest that you read the reviews for the Who albums and consider the rational arguments for their inclusion before writing them off. Or just get over it. Either one.  ------------- "Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain |
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 10:50
|
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 10:51
Proto-Prog definitionRock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock. The late 60's was a predominately experimental period for music. These bands were moving in a stream that eventually led to prog. The influence could have come from new sophisticated forms of writing and playing music, recording techniques, new instruments and vocal harmonies to name a few. Some of these bands became progressive rock bands themselves others did not.i think The Who have met this definition since 1966, when they released A Quick One. ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 11:00
|
^ I disagree. I'm not taking away any influence The Who had in the rock spectrum. Indeed, nearly every rock band since has been influenced by them. I'm also not taking away from the band's musical prowless. I think both Who's Next and Quadrophenia are absolultely genius, great song writing, 5 star albums. However, I think these albums were influenced by the progressive rock movement which was at its height. Pre-69 The Who were doing things that would forever change and influence rock musicians. In the 70s they were bitten by the prog bug and were very much filing suit with their unique tinge of it. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 11:08
|
I personally think The Who are as prog as many bands on the Archives but, since many don't, proto-prog fits the bill. ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 11:18
hmmm..... obviously no one is 'in' Townshend's head. However I think he can be seen much like Waters... he has his vision...and he wasn't a slave to the prevailing currents around him. It's easy to see the prog influence on Zeppelin...they went from stealing blues songs to having prog rock creep into some of their music. That is why they went in PR (disagree still as I do with their inclusion). However to say that the Who suddenly started in the 70's making prog ignores a more general concept of what prog is about. That is what the Who brought to rock...and what prog was all about. The Who influenced prog on an order of light years more than the prog movement influenced them. It's all opinion of course... and I think the bio states nicely that point of view. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 12:36
|
^
The Who brought plenty to rock, but we don't hail every innovation as progressive or there would be scores more bands here. I don't think what they were doing before the 70s necessarily contributed to the progressive aspect of the prog rock we know (though beyond a doubt they did to the rock part).
Anyway I'm not necessarily against their inclusion giiven it fits the interpretation we have of proto-prog at the archives. It's not a interpretation or to some degree even a genre I agree with but that's the way it is and I know there's no changing it. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 24 2007 at 14:31
awesome.... I really do love how people can look at the same picture and draw different interpretations from it. I don't mean that as a smartass but in a serious way. For me the Who's real importance was not exactly for rock in general (we have the more blues based groups where rock has always tended to lay, like Zeppelin, to count as the major influences on rock in general) but where the Who really influenced rock was again for what I tried to mention in the bio by bringing intellectualism and 'art' (along with all it's pretentiousness and seriousness) to rock music... and that again is exactly what prog was ALL about when you dissect prog down to the bone. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: August 31 2007 at 11:03
|
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: August 31 2007 at 11:26
|
the only thing i have against this,is calling the who punk related,just cuz of power chords and the high energy the provide which to be honest if you listen to most albums isnt always trademark for example quadrophenia,a quick one,who are you,tommy no real relivance to punk and even with the my generation the song writing capabiltys are much more complex then punk music.Weather there should be on here or not, i dont care the more awesome bands the merrier. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: August 31 2007 at 11:43
|
Posted By: jimidom
Date Posted: August 31 2007 at 12:38
I know where they are coming from regarding Kiss as an influence. In their very early days, Kiss shared the bill with bands like the New York Dolls and the Harlots of 42nd St. ------------- "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 31 2007 at 14:02
I won't talk about The Who belonging here or not, becvause once they are here, they can't be deleted, so why loose time.
But The Who are DIRECTLY related to Punk. They were a MOD band (Townshend described themselves as Mod posers because they were College material except Keith who was a real Mod).
Mod is the direct predecessor and base of the Punk movement, specuially the "Gang Mods" who were incredibly violent and enemies of Rock but specially enemies of Pshychedelia (My Generation was almost their anthem), as a fact Quadrophenia is a retrospective view of the MOD culture, just look at Jimmy with his scooter with a lot of mierrors as a rebelion to the British law that forced every motorcycle to have at least one mirror.
So if the relation of The Who with Prog is doubious, their relation with Punk is direct and undeniable, they were a MOD band this is not an opinion, is an historic fact.
Mod -------------
|
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: August 31 2007 at 14:23
P.S. Its nice seeing Coltrane on here. |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 10:44
|
I would of thought punk would be more inspired more the mod lifestyle then mod music as they were more of a statement,i guess an influence non the less.But now the discussion should be can punk related be in progressive music? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 11:31
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 11:51
 I agree with Ivan. I always saw Townshend & company as much more forerunners of punk, not prog.Besides the aforementioned historical mod scene which they attached themselves to, just listen to the music and attitude of early Who songs like My Generation or Pictures of Lily, etc. Re "proper" punk in general, it was of course American (NYC) in origin, not English. Everyone always points to the Sex Pistols' Never Mind the Bollocks, but these guys, and this very influential album, were there first:  Along with early Who, I'd also point to Iggy and the Stooges as "proto-punk," any day. Just listen listen to 1969, or I wanna be Your Dog. Punk didn't just come out of nowhere. ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 12:16
| Before Iggy, there was the Velvet Underground, which reminds me of another artist who combines punk and prog tendencies, John Cale. Before the Velvets there were a lot of very raw garage rock bands that were ignored by the big record companies, and before that, some very punkish underground rockabilly. Punk has been around a long time, but it didn't get a genre defining name till after the Ramones toured England and set off a wave of do-it-yourself bands. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 12:43
BTW Peter: The Who was comming to South America with Iggy who was gioing to open each and every concert, so it's obvious Roger and pete recognize the ties between them.
The tour was suspended, first due to Iggy health problems (rumors) and then The Who followed them, hope they come in October.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 13:50
Excellent, informed -- and informative -- post, Easy Money. I've noticed your posts lately -- a newer member well worth the reading.  Well, gotta go -- the sun is shining brightly, and those saturday chores are calling once more (plus, there's the siren song of the beer store)! ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 14:28
| Thanks Peter, I love music, and I love details, obsessive compulsive probably. Anyway, I love beer also, great idea, mmmmm ... beeeeer. |
Posted By: meinmatrix
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 07:48
Well, early songs were just that - early songs. Later on The Who continued to become very progressive, don't you think? I haven't heard of any punk band making Rock Opera with multilayer harmonies, synthetizers and stuff like that. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 11:58
 Well yes -- "progressive" in the more literal sense of evolving in their music, but I've never seen them as a capital-P prog rock band -- simply a great, classic rock band who didn't stay in one place musically. (Like many, many artists with longer careers.)(But "progressive" is largely a subjective concept anyway -- as I've long maintained. There's no way to definitively "nail down" the parameters of this supposed "genre," to the agreement of all. The term is more historical, and far from perfect as a word to describe something as varied as music. It's almost synonymous with "good" or even "complicated" -- though not all that is gathered under the prog umbrella is arguably "complicated" music. Due to its vague, subjective nature, the term and its scope re individual artists is ENDLESSLY argued over here! It's really up to each listener to decide, and order his or her albums accordingly.)
Damn fine band, and one of my lifetime faves, in any case! ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: philippe
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 12:02
|
Published in 1973, only "Quadrophenia" is strictly prog, so maybe it's sufficient to add them in prog related / proto-prog ------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 12:10
It's not prog to me, though Phillippe. i see it as intelligent, classic hard rock -- I think "Who's Next" was more sophisticated, overall. Quadrophenia rocked harder than its predecessors, IMO.
Still, I can see why a track like Love Reign O'er Me would be tagged as "prog" by many here -- but does the inclusion of strings make rock or pop prog? (if so, lots of 60s-70s soul and Motown must be prog....)
I still think "prog" is almost entirely subjective, often basically equating to "stuff we like." The scope of the term is vague in the extreme! (Thus basically pointless to argue about.) ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 13:49
Yes i agree Phillipe, that was my point from the start, a band that released their only semi Prog album in 1973 should not be in Proto Prog but in Prog Related.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Pawned Heart
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 16:08
|
I agree somewhat with Ivan. Their most Progressive (note the capital 'P') record, Quadrophenia, came out in 1973, after prog was pretty well established. Who's Next, in 1971, has some proggy-ness, but not enough to really count considering when it came out. Thus, the only contender for them being proto-prog would be Tommy, which aside from being a concept album, isn't really progressive at all. Finally, all their material before that is just typical 60s rocky nonsense. Certainly not Proto. (Except maybe Proto-punk, but that's already been covered). However, due to the importance of Quadrophenia and to a lesser extent Who's Next, they should definitely be in Prog Related. ------------- What I see I know is real, what I touch I know I feel If I don't care for what you say, it won't mean much to me today http://www.proga |
Posted By: Zargus
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 19:08
|
Why cant they have influenced both prog and punk? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 05:30
|
Posted By: ClashWho
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 04:15
Bingo. We have a winner. The Who are indeed both proto-punk and proto-prog. That's one of the many reasons they're such an amazing, and enormously influential, band. |
Posted By: ClashWho
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 04:20
You've apparently never listened to "A Quick One While He's Away" from 1966 or "Rael" from 1967. Perhaps you haven't heard their 1967 cover of Edvard Grieg's "In the Hall of the Mountain King", either, years before ELP produced works in a similar vein. |
Posted By: ClashWho
Date Posted: September 18 2007 at 04:26
The Who and Black Sabbath? The Who were releasing music half a decade before Black Sabbath. The Who were releasing mini-operas in 1966 and 1967, years before the height of the prog rock movement. That's why they're proto-prog. |