I have a different perspective.

Most of the Moody Blues career was done aster 1969, as a fact I do believe that their only 100% Prog release (Long Distance Voyager) was recorded in the 80's, as a fact The Moodies roots are in the 60's but most of their career is passed the 60's, so it was ridiculous to have them as Proto Prog.

On the other hand Procol Harum is an Icon of Proto Prog and lets be honest their career after "A Salty Dog"  (1969) or if you want "Home" (1970), is less transcendental. It's also important to notice that Procol Harum roots go back until 1959 with The Paramounts (AKA The Pinewoods), so if we focus in the peak of their career and their importance for the genre, they can't be in other place than Proto Prog.

As a Proto Prog fan, I'm tired to see this real sub-genre being compared with Prog Related, Proto Prog is a necessary and logical stage of Prog evolution, without which, the genre wouldn't ever existed or had been completely different, while Prog Related is a parallel category that could had or had not existed without real significance for Prog.

The Proto Prog movement would not existed without songs like Fire (Arthur Brown) or A Whiter Shade of Pale" so moving Procol Harum is removing a good part of PP's identity.

My two cents

Iván

I have been visiting this Web site for several years but this is only my second post. I couldn't resist jumping in because the topics are near and dear to my heart. I'm 57 years old (gulp), started listening to rock and roll when I was nine, got turned on to Dylan in '65 and saw him live that year with The Band backing, followed the development of folk rock from its inception, and then followed the development of psychedelic-progressive rock from its inception. After some initial stirrings in ’65 (e.g., The Yardbirds) and some deep rumblings in ’66 (e.g., Revolver) in ‘67 the creative lid was blown off of the music scene. So much was happening that you no longer had a frame of reference and anything seemed possible. Creative experimentation was going on everywhere you looked and not just in what would later be called prog. Just a few examples: The Doors, The Beach Boys (Smile could have been the beginning of prog if Brian Wilson hadn't been sabotaged by both Mike Love and his own unstable mind, and even the 2004 version of Smile still sounds far ahead of its time), Van Dyke Parks (Song Cycle), The Beatles (Sgt. Pepper, of course), Love (Forever Changes), The Mothers of Invention, The Velvet Underground, The Who (the mini-opera "A Quick One While Hel's Away”), and I could go on and on. At the time, Procol Harum, the Moody Blues, The Nice, Pink Floyd, and Traffic were not "proto-prog," they were PROG. I even coined the term "progressive rock" to describe what I was hearing (not to suggest that I started the use of the term, but great minds think alike!). I totally agree, however, that In the Court of the Crimson King was the beginning of progressive rock in the fully developed sense of the term that came to define the genre in the '70s. So looking back on it all, I would say yes, you people by and large are very astute in your choice of terms for these genres and subgenres. The Moody Blues and Procol Harum were very progressive for their time, and without them and the other bands the prog that we know and love would never have developed (e.g., it seems that PH's “In Held Twas in I" paved the way for the theatrical prog that Genesis explored so effectively), but they are rightly classified as "proto-prog" because they do not include all the features of the classic prog of the ‘70s, and its interesting that they never felt compelled to emulate what the other bands were doing at that time. They remained true to their own muses and continued to be originals, even though they were overshadowed by the weightier music that was then being created. However, I would make one additional and final point. "Proto" doe not necessarily mean "inferior." For me there is a magic to The Moody Blues music (especially heard in the Classic 7 albums) that all of the progressive rock that would follow could never quite touch, no matter how superior the musicianship and more complex the music would be, although Genesis and The Strawbs came very close.

Both Rush and Return to Forever (RTF) were formed in the '70s and so if we're still talking "proto-prog" they don't qualify. RTF does qualify as prog though. They are classified both as progressive jazz and jazz (-rock) fusion, so do the math. We saw RTF at House of Blues Orlando a month ago and it may have been the most impressive instrumental performance I've ever seen. My wife's mouth was wide open during Stanley Clarke's bass solos. She compared it to the wonder of seeing Yellowstone National Park for the firs time.

ITCOTCK is considered the first fully formed example of prog because of several features. I'm sure others could help me out on this but here's a starter list: (1) length of the tracks; (2) virtuosic instrumentation with each member of the band allowed opportunities to display his skills; (3) absolute lack of anything that could be used as a Top 40 single, at least because of length but also often because of free-flowing artistic exploration that goes far beyond the boundaries of commercial pop; (4) highly imaginative and "far out" concept album including song themes, album title, and cover; (5) long foray into instrumental experimentation and dissonance (second half of "Moon Child"); and (6) indulgence of musicians’ creative whims at the expense of what could reasonably be expected to fall within many listeners’ comfort zones (second half of "Moon Child"). With the mellotron, flute, and some of the melodies the album was definitely reminiscent of the Moody Blues and this fact was noted in the music press at the time, but the album was also widely recognized as a bold and exciting departure from anything that had been done before (i.e., they were taking what the Moodies and other bands did far beyond the limits of what had been considered commercially acceptable), and the Moodies (according to their producer Tony Clarke) felt threatened by their instrumental virtuosity. They needn’t have felt threatened because their strengths were in other areas (five gifted songwriters, four capable lead singers, outstanding harmonies, the wonderfully inimitable Justin Hayward, etc.).

As for PH, you are in for a treat. Their first three albums are probably their best and are important examples of proto-prog. Start with their first album, Procol Harum (1967), then move on to the second, Shine on Brightly (1968), then on to their third, A Salty Dog (1969). These were groundbreaking albums that played a major role in laying the foundation for prog. Especially note Keith Reed’s lyrics, Matthew Fisher’s Hammond organ, Gary Brooker’s vocals and piano, and both Brooker and Fisher’s sometimes classically tinged musical scores.

Good question. I thought of that after I submitted my post. It is currently called A Whiter Shade of Pale. It was originally titled Procol Harum and didn't even have “A Whiter Shade of Pale” on it.

I understand your attachment to the Moodies. They are my favorites. Just saw them live for the umpteenth time last March and they have not lost the magic. But a Moodies fan is likely to enjoy PH, which is also still a touring band and released the album The Well's on Fire in 2003, one of their better efforts and it hearkens back to their early work.