In my native Spain in the early 70's, the music we love was generically referred to as "rock sinfonico" (I guess no need to translate), regardless if we were talking about Genesis, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Gentle Giant, Mike Oldfield, Renaissance, VDGG or much of the jazz-rock-based prog which was made at that time (think Weather Report for an international reference).

 

As far as I can tell it was only quite a few years later (don't ask me precisely, I guess in the beginning of the 2nd half of the 70's) that the term "rock progresivo" started to be used since the music had branched so much that "rock sinfonico" had clearly become a too limited term and not fitting much of the music that had developed.

 

I just would like to confirm if it was the same in english-speaking countries (or any other language-speaking countries for what matters).

 

What terminology came first, "symphonic rock" or "progressive rock"?

 

What I'm saying is that in Spain back in the early 70's everybody spoke about "symphonic rock" but (as far as my circle of people goes) if you would have talked about "progressive rock" nobody would have known what you were talking about. I can assure you that in Spain the term "symphonic" came first.

 

The term "prog rock" came only later, and only then "symphonic" became a sub-genre of the more general term "prog". 

both terms (as all these kind of terms) are coined once the genre takes off. i dont think robert fripp said "ok, i do some prog-avantgarde-psychedelic-symphonic-heavy-art rock" those are just labels used to categorize something that was already played.

so, those terms are just to help, they are not concepts that came first or second or whatever.

go ask Rick Wakeman if he did prog or symphonic.

In terms of musical styles - the generic Progressive Rock (by whatever name, Art Rock if you lke) came first. Symphonic Rock didn't really appear as a distinct style until 1971, started by ELP self-titled debut the year before. The Moody Blues, The Nice and Procol Harum did not produce Symphonic Rock, but were the precursors of the genre, similarly Renaissance's "Jane Relf" albums where richly "classical", but they were not "symphonic" until "Prologue" in 1972. Genesis and Yes were late-comers to the party and didn't get "symphonic" until 72.

 

I would say "symphonic", specially when one notices the connection to a lot of classically trained musicians, that gave up that life to do something else.

 

Progressive was not a term that was used until at least 20 years later ... and is used mainly for commercial reasons than anything else so you know the difference between one band and another. Sadly, there are too many people that take the terminology way too seriously and many bands lose sight of its own creativity when they become afraid of some of the comments. The best bands are pretty much immune to it, if they have any weight at all on their work.

 

However, the "symphonic" that most people look for today, does not mean the same thing when the earlier music that we refer as "progressive" first appeared. Synthsizers then were used as "sounds" and a new instrument. Today, synthesizers are nothing but orchestra replacements, and some are confusing the symphonic nature of a composition with a synth in its middle, instead of a synth just doing standard strings and keyboards! Symphonic today, is symphonic, and for me I'm not sure that the illusion pans out all the time ... some folks are merely playing with the new toys and technology, and that's not enough to define "music". It is, however, enough to define a band on the Internet!

Who exactly?

 

moshkito wrote:   Progressive was not a term that was used until at least 20 years later ... and is used mainly for commercial reasons than anything else so you know the difference between one band and another. Sadly, there are too many people that take the terminology way too seriously and many bands lose sight of its own creativity when they become afraid of some of the comments. The best bands are pretty much immune to it, if they have any weight at all on their work.

In America yes - everywhere else - no.

moshkito wrote:   However, the "symphonic" that most people look for today, does not mean the same thing when the earlier music that we refer as "progressive" first appeared. Synthsizers then were used as "sounds" and a new instrument. Today, synthesizers are nothing but orchestra replacements, and some are confusing the symphonic nature of a composition with a synth in its middle, instead of a synth just doing standard strings and keyboards! Symphonic today, is symphonic, and for me I'm not sure that the illusion pans out all the time ... some folks are merely playing with the new toys and technology, and that's not enough to define "music". It is, however, enough to define a band on the Internet!

-------------
What?

The actual term Progressive Rock may have developed around the release of "Pictures At An Exhibition" but, possibly earlier in Europe. I have no idea when.... really, but, I do remember purchasing Pulsar albums in the late 70's from a vendor who termed the music as Symphonic rock. I didn't pay enough close attention to the terms until much later in life. 

 

1.- Any Prog genre appeared before Symphonic

2.- Being Symphonic a Prog sub-genre, if Symphonic came first, then both Prog and Symphonic acme simultaneously.

 

I believe the first Prog album was by The Nice, so they came simultaneously INHO.

 

Iván

I believe you...

 

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: so they came simultaneously INHO.   Iván

-------------
What?

I expect Ivan meant their second release Ars Longa Vita Brevis (1968) which featured orchestration. However  The Moody Blues' Days Of Future Passed' came earlier (1967).

 

Symphonic or Progressive: What came first?

 

The Thoughts of Emerlist Davjack (December, 1967) - first Prog album.

 

Days of Future Passed (November, 1967) - first Symphonic album.

 

 

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: The use of Symphony orchestras, orchestras or even wind sections in rock bands, I also seen people calling Days of Future Passed Symphonic Rock when as a fact it is Pop with orchestral intro and coda.

 

 

This is so obvious, that The Moody Blues have released Tuesday Afternoon and Nights in White Satin countless times as HIT SINGLES, without changing a note from the original release, only deleting the orchestral intro and Coda.   (I know, but just in case)

The Nice already had a lot of Symphonic elements in their first album that developed more in the next release (Ars Longa Vita Brevis), and they played music with Symphonic structure, not only adding Symphony Orchestra to play intros and codas.

Iván

But right, in fact Spain was not yet a western country back then  

 

Easy ... Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman. Gee ... and their enjoyment for classical music was evident too.

 

To say that The Moody Blues are not symphonic ... is scary ... they are for the most part and the mellotron was used basically to sound like a bunch of string instruments. YES, it was a lot of pop music, but if it help bring about the awareness and the dedication to help make music better, it did not matter that it was pop music or not.

 

Ivan ... the fact that Nights in White Satin, or Tueday n the Afternoon ... were released as singles and had no portion with the symphonic elements in it, is more about the record company ... and a lot less about the members of the group and the work they were doing ... and you know that ... this was the viciousness that the Beatles, Rolling Stones and Kinks were fighting off hard ... and basically you are punishing a group because the times within radio and music stunk something fierce. You should really check out that one list on the Internet of the worst business deals ever made and the first 4 of 5 are in music! You are dealing with rich, fat assed people smoling cigars that didn't think that idiot kids playing some pop music would amount to anything!

 

Maybe you would like to see and find the band'ed versions of Close To The Edge. Or Tales From Topographic Oceans. Or Relayer. Or Thick as a Brick. Yeah ... I'm not kidding you! And that should tell you what a lot of musicians were fighting and trying hard to force record companies to allow them their art! And the majority of these people became known in time as "progressive" ... And now, people here are punishing some of those people for the hard fight they had to endure ... and of course, since they did not own the music ... these musicians are sh*t! Sorry Ivan ... that's not nice. And that's not right. It's almost like ignoring that Dr. Martin Luther King meant anything to anyone ... and he could not be symphonic because he's a different color ... and that is not right! Rap is not symphonic! And the structure is the same! Or maybe check out a DVD about Tom Dowd so you can see some of the history and how original and very progressive music was killed in the 50's ... yeah! By movie studios!

 

Almost all progressive music that we listen to has symphonic elements in it that were derived from classical music and some of its forms. It's possible to say that some of these are harder to find in Frank Zappa or a couple of others, like King Crimson, whose influences were more eccentric, and it appears that Robert Fripp was experimenting with other avenues for finding creativity that included some things that are a bit more towards the mystic side of things than anything else. But KC's first three albums are actually quite symphonic in the structure of the songs for the most part, even if some of them might have a little this and that or jazz or what not in them! By being different it creates problems with any definition.

 

There are very few, VERY FEW, bands that do not prescribe a lot of the classical elements in music and went out of their way to create something different and not defined by those musical structures. The majority of these bands are listed under krautrock, since the rest of them could not even get past one song! There were/are some other bands that tried to do things off kilter and off center ... and one can easily point to oddities like Third Ear Band ... which came off like graduate music students trying to show us the new music ... and it was mostly improvised with a few composed segments in between. Even that is structured somewhat.

 

Western music, with the exception of a hand full of folks, is way too tied up to scales and notes to learn how to experiment and take the music further. Even jazz is now defined as centered around some chords ... how stupid is that?  And these things can not imprve as long as we do not allow them too and call some of these musicians idiots because the times were bad then ... It's really sad ... so you have all these things trying to get you to understand and appreciate ... and we're becoming a group that wants to close it all down?

 

Wow!

Well, that's two - not "a lot"

 

However:

 

Wakeman dropped out of the Royal Academy of Music after 1 year - if I had left my University Engineering degree after 1 year I would not be an engineer, or even be able to pass myself off as an engineer - I may have been able to wing it as a technician for a few years, but not for long. Wakeman may have an interest in classical music, but he was at best 1/3 classically trained.

 

Emerson is even harder to prove - there is no documented evidence that he was ever classically trained - if he was, and as such a high-profile musician, there would be evidence. The best anyone has come up with is that he had piano lessons. The highest level you can achieve in that is Grade 8, which is considered entry level to a music college. Grade 8 Piano includes music theory, notation, construction of scales and composition, however, it is not classical training even by a long stretch of the imagination.

 

Enjoying classical music, and being able to play it, does not equate to classical training.

 

(I would have given you Tony Kaye, Tony Levin, Pierre Moerlen, Holger Czukay, RJ Godfrey, Karl jenkins...)

 

 

 

 

 

Iván

 

11 classically trained prog musicians - Given the total number of Prog musicians, I'm still not seeing that as being *a lot* - since we cannot audit every musician in every band, I'm going to be generous and say that this figure could extrapolate to 3-figures, but it would be a low 3 digit number - less than 200, but I'm in a generous mood let's say 500 ... out of ~15,000 musicians - 3% ... still not *a lot* - I think you'll find a higher correlation to Jazz and lower correlation to Pop (unless we count crossover-classical, then all bets are off and Vanessa Mae meets Myleene Klass in the final).

 

From this list we have 1 drummer, 1 violinist, 2 bass players and 7 keyboardists... no guitarists.

 

6 of these 11 were in Symphonic Prog bands (if we accept that RPI is symphonic). Since Kaye and Moraz were in the same band, that's 5 Symphonic bands to be precise ... (so whether Yes were Symphonic while Kaye was in the band is immaterial, but I'm still in a generous mood since the three bands Kaye was in post-Yes were decidedly not Symphonic).

 

Going back to the original proposition (What came first?):  "symphonic", specially when one notices the connection to a lot of classically trained musicians - the correlation between classical training and Prog is small, the correlation between classical training and Symphonic is even weaker. No matter how generous I'm being I cannot make this proposition ring true. But even if I could, it still would not prove that "Symphonic" came first.

 

The music I enjoy is the music I enjoy, regardless of who contributed to it. However the idea of a record company executive inspiring prog, rather than the artists, somehow doesn't seem right to me. Just my opinion though  

 

There is a distinct difference between progressive music and progressive rock, the latter being a significant narrowing down of the former.

I was moonlighting selling records at the time, and so have a slightly different view point. The Moody Blues had  reached a low point in their career, being some time after their hit Go Now. They were contracted to Decca (the parent record company of Deram*) were pushing the new fangled stereo LPs to the British middle class who could afford the equipment in the mid 60's. This was definitely something rich parents with an interest in recorded music might buy as a luxury, as opposed to their or poorer kids. We kids had  had to put up with MW radio's rare broadcast of pop (like Saturday Club, or the crackling Radio Luxembourg), 45rpm 7" singles or eps. The occasional 30 bob LP was a luxury and had to be saved up for and was almost always monoaural (stereo had to be ordered in specially - if pressed up in stereo at all). So the wheeze/experiment at Decca was to put a has-been (but still under contract) pop group with a studio orchestra (wasn't this Decca's house Phase 4 Orchestra?), and to hit both the middle class/middle age market with pop and/or the late teens and twenties market with stereo, by selling this hybrid. Now whether they intended recording a popped-up Dvorak's 9th or something else from the classical pops - or the new line-up of the Moody Blues originally came with some else to the table or offered something at a later date, is clouded. However, Days Of Future Passed emerged, having some commitment by Decca to promote it. Apart from the Nights In White Satin single, the album didn't not have the expected impact on the UK marketplace initially. I do believe the MBs decamped and spend some time touring/promoting the album in the USA, while a few singles were successfully released from the album over there? With the momentum of US success they came back to the UK and broke into the big time over here. Something lost in the mists of time, was the first UK issue of Days Of Future Passed on Decca or their Phase 4 label (*which begs the question when did Deram appear?) - I do remember the stereo version being pushed in shop but punters asking for/ordering the mono versions?

 

We're missing the folks from CAN in that list. Considering that 2 of them were direct students of Stockhausen ...

 

Being based in Santa Barbara at that time, near LA and a thumb away from San Francisco, was not quite the same.

 

Because I was into the European scene I bought a lot of Melody Makers and NME to find out what was going on in the music scene. I knew that the term progressive had been used in conjunction with a lot of bands and advertisements, but it had not exactly been defined in styles and basically what the word meant then, to me, was that the music was not commercially minded and had a very individual and often eccentric side to it. In other words it was not popular music per se, although some of the bands did well, mostly in an underground sort of way.

 

But there is a nice list of groups in that flyer, Dean ... and I'm partial to the Edgar Broughton Band and even Principal Edwards, that so few have heard.  I never thought of these as "progressive" other than the fact that  they were a bit more eccentric and fit the Harvest label perfectly ... this was the new underground, and that was (I thought) the original term for it.

 

I think the time allowed for people to express themselves a lot more. Today there is such a high emphasyz on the commercial side of things, and even here, discussing oddities is something that most people can not do because they have not given it a good listen. In the end, because of their eccentricity, like Peter Hammill and VdGG, this became known as progressive. And I still think that it was more about the music  and the individual expression for most of these people than it was about the "progressive" thing ... even a look at the list of bands shows the incredible variety and the fact that they do not have a whole lot in common at all! ... which was a statement that "progressive" was a lot more about  the music and the art itself, than it was about it being "progressive"  ... but it helped pool together odd ball bands and find them an audience, and in that sense I will not criticize.

 

Btw ... "symphonic" has been around for hundreds of years. "Progressive" is in its infancy still comparatively speaking. I suppose that as time goes by that description will get better and perhaps more efficient and descriptive of each band's music, but it bothers me that some bands are being called something simply because they use an effect or two on the guitar or keyboards or what not. At that point it's not about the music anymore I don't think, but the technology behind it. And while there is some merit and I would not want to place these bands in the scales of justice in music, I do think that they are not as progressive as some of the things that we listen to and like, and in fact when you look at the drumming and the song format in it ... there is nothing "progressive" here, except the use of the effects!

 

I don't think that the majority of the bands that we consider progressive were so much about the technology as much as they were about the music. The technology helped add a personality, but in the end, they also had the music to satisfy!  And that is the main difference.

Dean wrote:   (I would have given you Tony Kaye, Tony Levin, Pierre Moerlen, Holger Czukay, RJ Godfrey, Karl jenkins...)

 

okay add Irmin Schmidt

 

But you're missing the whole point, the bigger picture, the full Monty, the complete angler ... sure we can find *a few* classically trained Prog musicians but it doesn't mean anything - these few are proving to be a bit of an exception when we actually try and metaphorically pull this classically trained rabbit out of the Symphonic/Prog hat - it's a nice idea, one we'd all desperately love to be true to exalt our beloved genre into the lofty heights of "serious music", but it doesn't hold up, it doesn't hold water and it doesn't hold together - none of those classically musician's listed played any part in the formation of Symphonic Prog, or even its lesser cousin of Symphonic Rock, or its long lost uncle Baroque Pop, even if they were around at the beginning. (Okay I'm less generous this afternoon - Kaye doesn't count as a Symphonic Prog keyboardist in my universe since Yes were not wholly symphonic when he was a member of the band).

The "underground" wasn't quite as underground as we'd like to think it was - all those underground bands were signed to either pretty major labels, or labels allied to major distributors, all were available in record stores in every major town - this wasn't word-of-mouth promotion, it was paid ads in all the trade mags.

moshkito wrote:   But there is a nice list of groups in that flyer, Dean ... and I'm partial to the Edgar Broughton Band and even Principal Edwards, that so few have heard.  I never thought of these as "progressive" other than the fact that  they were a bit more eccentric and fit the Harvest label perfectly ... this was the new underground, and that was (I thought) the original term for it.

Of course few of those bands are today thought of as Progressive Rock - that flyer was printed in August 1969 - it took a further 5 years for the genre to stabalise and for the groups to develop or move on. Notice that it mentions King Crimson and Fat Matress as future attractions - no one in 1969 would have predicted the future of those bands to have turned out as it did.

 

The flyer was one of many showing a 2 month period in the whole 15 year existance of the Friar's club (a small club that brought bands out of London into the provinces) - it was never a completely Prog club (no where was - just as no record label was either) and catered for all types of progressive music.

 

The history of the club, with complete gig lists and more flyers can be read here: http://www.aylesburyfriars.co.uk/ - http://www.aylesburyfriars.co.uk/

 

moshkito wrote:     I think the time allowed for people to express themselves a lot more. Today there is such a high emphasyz on the commercial side of things, and even here, discussing oddities is something that most people can not do because they have not given it a good listen. In the end, because of their eccentricity, like Peter Hammill and VdGG, this became known as progressive. And I still think that it was more about the music  and the individual expression for most of these people than it was about the "progressive" thing ... even a look at the list of bands shows the incredible variety and the fact that they do not have a whole lot in common at all! ... which was a statement that "progressive" was a lot more about  the music and the art itself, than it was about it being "progressive"  ... but it helped pool together odd ball bands and find them an audience, and in that sense I will not criticize.

One of the first things that struck me when I first scanned the pages of PA was the number of bands that were now considered to be Progressive Rock, and the number that were not - it certainly didn't fit with my personal memories of those days, but it was pretty close. Again - geographical differences account for a lot.

 

moshkito wrote:   Btw ... "symphonic" has been around for hundreds of years. "Progressive" is in its infancy still comparatively speaking. I suppose that as time goes by that description will get better and perhaps more efficient and descriptive of each band's music, but it bothers me that some bands are being called something simply because they use an effect or two on the guitar or keyboards or what not. At that point it's not about the music anymore I don't think, but the technology behind it. And while there is some merit and I would not want to place these bands in the scales of justice in music, I do think that they are not as progressive as some of the things that we listen to and like, and in fact when you look at the drumming and the song format in it ... there is nothing "progressive" here, except the use of the effects!

The term "symphonic" when applied to Symphonic Prog and Symphonic Rock (and Symphonic Metal) is a misnomer. If we apply the strict concert hall (ie "Classical") definition of the word then no piece of Progressive music qualifies, since none of them follow the strict structure of a symphony (though some perhaps get close).

moshkito wrote:   I don't think that the majority of the bands that we consider progressive were so much about the technology as much as they were about the music. The technology helped add a personality, but in the end, they also had the music to satisfy!  And that is the main difference.

-------------
What?

 

I don't know Dean, Mosghkito says classically trained, not graduated from any institution.

 

For example, Hackett has no Conservatory, as a fact I believe he's self taught, but he self trained himself to the point that he released Classical albums as Tony Banks.

 

Wakeman, may not have a degree, but he received INCOMPLETE CLASSICAL TRAINING, but Classical training nevertheless.

 

Keith Emerson received Classical trainning by a local teacher, and if I'm not wrong he passed a British National Test that was the equivalent to a graduate of a Conservatory.

 

You may study music with a private teacher and pass that test in any part of the world.

 

I written at least 300 band bios, and found that hundreds, even thousands of musicians, had clasical training.

 

 

To start, the vast majority of Italian Prog Rockers have classical trainning, becaudse in their countries they receive this formation almost for free if I'm not wrong, also Swedish musicians.

 

So I believe that even if you don't have a degree, you can be classically trained if you studied Classical music, maybe not graduated, but trained for sure.

 

Iván

 

And I agree...the Blues came first.

Let's put the bar at some level at least - Every musician can claim classical training by that definition. Please let's keep this a little bit sensible - when people use the worlds Classically Trained they mean at conservatories or a college of music - they mean that the musician was eligible to join a Philharmonic or Symphonic orchestra - they do not mean, or imply, had a few lessons or read few books on music theory.

 

Of course we are not talking about a couple lessons, but I know personally musicians who took lessons and were accepted in an advanced stage in a Conservarory, for example my mother, she graduated as Pianist only after a year in the Conservatory after taking private lessons for years..

 

Without going too far, Ponty joined the Conservatory atthe age of 14 afte taking years of lessons wuth his father, he graduated after a year and a haf with the Premier Prix with srudents twice his age.

 

So years of lessons can equate a Conservatory in some degree.

 

BTW: Wakeman reached he Royal Collede of Musc if I'm not wrong, that alone is an achievement.

 

Iváb

 

When people around here say that a certain musician is classically trained I believe that they are implying the former not the latter because they are saying it in such a way as to elevate that prog musician above all those self-taught musicians who where not "classically trained" as if it were a badge of honour, that makes that musician "special" and something to be venerated and spoken in awe. To that end I believe we should at least be honest when saying that musican "X" is classically trained when in reality all we mean is that he has Grade 8 Piano. I think the lawyer analogy holds true - someone who took Law in high-school is not trained in the art of law, he's had "a few lessons". If we do not have this measure then the term is meaningless and anyone can be called "classically trained" - you may not need a degree qualification to play music, but if you want a job in an orchestra you do.

 

Yes, being accepted into the Royal College of Music is an achievement - graduating from it is a greater one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time and hindsight has elevated Days Of Future Passed to being an important album, but it wasn't the keystone release that many people make it out to be at the time -- it didn't launch a flotilla of imitators or inspire dozens of other bands to adopt the same approach. The Moodies themselves took the basic idea and progressed it - In Search Of The Lost Chord replaced the symphony orchestra with melotrons and exotic instruments, they would then develop that over the next two or three albums and grew more Progressive, but they never became Symphonic in my opinion.

 

In the 60s using orchestras on pop records was common - they were used to provide filler to pad out the thin sound of guitar and drums, this would be added later by the record producer using a sessions orchestra. From Genesis To Revelation and David Bowie's eponymous debut album are examples of this (to the point where it's hard to hear the original "band" playing). Producers like Phil Spector made orchestration an integral part of the music, George Martin encouraged the Beatles to use orchestral instruments as more than just filler, the result of this was "Revolver" - one of the early examples of Baroque Pop - the fusion of classical instrumentation within a basic pop song structure. Days Of Future Passed takes that one step further by adding orchestral intros and codas to that structure, but the end result is still a pop song, it does not contain symphonic structures or arrangements, it is Baroque Pop. Procol Harum developed it further still, bringing in classical themes and motifs as counterpoint alongside the classical instruments, but again (Repent Walpurgis excepted) it does not venture far from standard pop structures - their early albums were Baroque Pop, later ones Baroque Rock.

 

Personally I think Baroque Pop is an overlooked genre that has produced some classic songs and is with us still today. Many of the Dream Pop bands from the 80s to the present day are essentially Baroque Pop, Tori Amos is a fine example of modern Baroque Pop, as are the so-called New Prog bands like Mew and Elbow. None of these artists are Symphonic, but they all employ orchestration and either real or synthesised classical instruments.

uduwudu wrote: Yes and Genesis may have been relative late comers (like 2010 instead of 2005) as time seems more constricted in those days as more happened on one album  (freer times artistically and commercially) but did they not then own the sub genre? Yes had an orchestra in 1970 and I'd rate The Yes Album as a symphonic rock album.

This is subjective: The orchestra on Time And A Word doesn't fit comfortably, it's not integrated into the music but added on - much like the orchestra on From Genesis To Revelation, I cannot see this as being Symphonic Rock, but Rock with a Symphony Orchestra - I certainly don't consider those to be the same thing. The Yes Album is a transitory album - Howe is making his presence felt, but Kaye is still dominant in the music - the introduction of Wakeman and his Synths would complete the picture making Fragile the more complete Symphonic (Prog) Rock album.

 

And yes, timing is key during this period of music history. The Nice were very important to the fusion of Psyche Rock, Jazz and Classical Music, but it was ELP that actually produced Symphonic Rock, King Crimson are important in developing that fusion into a new form of music that didn't lean on the past, but created something different that contains the hallmarks of symphonic rock. Yes (and to a lesser extent) Genesis took that further (along with Focus, Banco and PFM), but after the pioneering development work had already been done. Renaissance tried the same thing years before and basically failed to get the recognition they deserved until they found the right forumla with Annie Haslam voice some years later.

uduwudu wrote: But to the question... symphonic was first. Progressive rock was mentioned a bit but it was always so vague (as most hear know all too well...) Art Rock is better as a term even though that gets placed on the less chops lighter and more song oriented bands such as Roxy, Supertramp and 10cc (ie.e. not ELP. )

Geography

Time and hindsight has elevated Days Of Future Passed to being an important album, but it wasn't the keystone release that many people make it out to be at the time -- it didn't launch a flotilla of imitators or inspire dozens of other bands to adopt the same approach. The Moodies themselves took the basic idea and progressed it - In Search Of The Lost Chord replaced the symphony orchestra with melotrons and exotic instruments, they would then develop that over the next two or three albums and grew more Progressive, but they never became Symphonic in my opinion.

In the 60s using orchestras on pop records was common - they were used to provide filler to pad out the thin sound of guitar and drums, this would be added later by the record producer using a sessions orchestra. From Genesis To Revelation and David Bowie's eponymous debut album are examples of this (to the point where it's hard to hear the original "band" playing). Producers like Phil Spector made orchestration an integral part of the music, George Martin encouraged the Beatles to use orchestral instruments as more than just filler, the result of this was "Revolver" - one of the early examples of Baroque Pop - the fusion of classical instrumentation within a basic pop song structure. Days Of Future Passed takes that one step further by adding orchestral intros and codas to that structure, but the end result is still a pop song, it does not contain symphonic structures or arrangements, it is Baroque Pop. Procol Harum developed it further still, bringing in classical themes and motifs as counterpoint alongside the classical instruments, but again (Repent Walpurgis excepted) it does not venture far from standard pop structures - their early albums were Baroque Pop, later ones Baroque Rock.
[/QUOTE]

Baroque rock and pop. Well, Baroque is a very much older form of classical, certainly A Whiter Shade Of Pale has a Bach leaning. Perhaps Symphonic rock might be best described as indicated by Jon Lord as Concerto Rock. True, no spoecific allegros and Andantes turn up. I rather thought it was the depth of harmonic structure and sound texture that defined symphonic. The rock part merely did away with conventional classical modes and applied the sound to broaden and deepn the rock format.

Personally I think Baroque Pop is an overlooked genre that has produced some classic songs and is with us still today. Many of the Dream Pop bands from the 80s to the present day are essentially Baroque Pop, Tori Amos is a fine example of modern Baroque Pop, as are the so-called New Prog bands like Mew and Elbow. None of these artists are Symphonic, but they all employ orchestration and either real or synthesised classical instruments.

uduwudu wrote:

Orchestral additions are nothing new, it's really the extent they get used, most often a quartet does a pop record and a twenty piece can fit a more extended work. But symphonic, baroque or concerto rock had to begin at some stage much as it had to develop until rejected as it wasn't classical enough or rock enough. In some people's opinions that is, not mine.

Perhaps it all began with George Martin after all.

This was largely my experience in the US in the early 1970's, when Yes/ELP etc. were termed "classical rock" owing to their classical music influences, instrumentation (piano, Mellotron, pipe organ etc.).

I really have no recollection of the term "progressive rock" in wide use back then, but it probably was, and I agree that it was more for the emerging synth bands, avant-garde etc.  

 

And symphonic music is about 500 years old, to my knowledge..

 

As far as I know, there's nothing as Symphonic genre. The term is used mostly to describe (without accuracy) rock or Prog  with clasical elements.

 

Both Symphony and Symphony orchestra are basically Classic era terms (1750 - 1820 more or less).

 

Iván

 

 

 

I mean the symphonic "genre" is an additional tag for make more specific a kind of genre, but you are right symphonic is not a genre anyway thanks for the info.

 

Being in the Symphonic team, has made me realize how inaccurate the term Symphonic is, I haven'te heard a propper Symphony written by any Prog band, as a fact I don't know how the term was born, maybe somebody heard the music and said: "Hey, this sound as a Symphony" or most likey when The Moody Blues used a Symphony Orchestra (rwice inaccurate because the Moodies were never Symphonic).

 

The point is that mopst of the musical terms we use are inaccurate. For example Progressive Rock doesn't need to evolve or progress, even a Genesis clone band is part of the Progressive Rock genre despite they offer nothing new.

 

Another term we use commonly is Classical music to describe all the orchestral music from the late Medieval era  era until today, when Classical music is only from 1750 until 1820 more or less.

 

So this terms may lead to confussion, but are so extended, that is too late to change them.

 

Cheers.

 

Iván

 

 

 

There is no need to sound harsh. But getting a point accross can be hard, when the terminology is not properly defined and it is simply a term to describe music so it can be found in the internet for folks with similar tastes.

 

While I have no direct issue with that, in general, what a lot of these "fans" do not get or understand, is that they are not allowing themselves a chance to listen to "music" ... they are simply hearing one thing, and in the end, by the time you open up and realize the mistake, you will have missed way too much around you to get an appreciative philosophy about it all. And come to appreciate music for its beauty. So you like metal and the rest is crap? See the problem? It's a bit of respect, care, love and understanding about an art form.

 

This needs to be clear and cleaned up to help people understand music and not just fall into one addiction.

 

Being in the Symphonic team, has made me realize how inaccurate the term Symphonic is, I haven'te heard a propper Symphony written by any Prog band, as a fact I don't know how the term was born, maybe somebody heard the music and said: "Hey, this sound as a Symphony" or most likey when The Moody Blues used a Symphony Orchestra (rwice inaccurate because the Moodies were never Symphonic).

 

I've said this all along. On top of the fact that the big fight in the 60's was about the harsh controls in radio and no one could get through, and one way to get attention was to either be more musical knowledgeable than the popsters, or add some kind of symphonic arrangement so folks would be impressed that the band is better than just Chuck Berry!

 

And in essence, things like this led to Sgt Peppers, and Moody Blues and many others. And for all intents and purpposes they were not "symphonic" since they were mostly a pop band ... but it doesn't mean that their work did not have "symphonic" elements, which is recorded history of music for the last 200 years at least!

 

Most of them DID!

 

...The point is that mopst of the musical terms we use are inaccurate. For example Progressive Rock doesn't need to evolve or progress, even a Genesis clone band is part of the Progressive Rock genre despite they offer nothing new.

 

This has been my concern, and is clearly visible in bands that think they are continuing some kind of "progressive" theme or idea. And "idea" does not prog make! A synthesizer playing flutes with a choir, does not "prog" make. Wayside frankzappawannabes do not "prog" make! Why? ... it's a copy. Yes, it may have some very nice musicianship - no doubt about that ever - but in the end, it's just fridaynightbar music. You get a drink, and yo uspend your time trying to make it with that girl, and who cares about the music!

 

In general, I would prefer that the terminology be cleaned up. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it does not. An example that ended up interesting was the use of the word "ambient" ... when Eno and others kinda started it in those days. And it developed kinda nicely with some interesting variations, like when Hawkwind matched up their hard rock with the ambient mode to create an astounding soundscape ... and then you can catch Nik Turner on his own in the Isis/Osiris stuff that he did ... which is rather trippy, even if weird, but it fits the Ambient mood. It's more "psychological" and "mystical", (and not because of the theme either!) than it is "music" per se, but for one the term fits.

 

The term "progressive" is getting distorted. It scares me that at least one of the sub-genres are there simply because they use a guitar effect or a type of sound effect on their music ... and there is nothing progressive on that for one, and neither is it true "gothic/goth" music because the lyrics are "dark" ... which is a total mis-representation of the music itself and a corruption of the progressive music genre, into a commercial ideal simply to sell more music.

 

Now comes the hard part.

 

PA has to help sell these things. PA's job is to help identify and put this music in the map that you and I love Ivan. And here is the hard part. How are you going to identify all this to help people find it. That is not easy. PA would not be here, or have survived this long if it had not helped in that area. It's that simple!

 

I have no issues with saying that this or that has symphonic elements in it. I have a problem with it being called "symphonic", specially when it is not, and it is just a synthesizer playing string sounds! I have no problem with calling it "rio" or "rheul" or "rude"... but the description is horrendous, and says absolutel nothing about the music and the work within.

 

I'll tell you what is weird ... no one saying that there is a lot of Orff in Magma ... with the difference being that it is done with rock instruments and with a different language ... but somehow, we haven't called it "orff-prog" ... !!!!!!!

 

Are you sure?

 

Review K.A. by Iván_Melgar_M on  2009-10-15 wrote:     K.A II" starts dramatic and epic, with the excess of pomp and brightness that I love so much, maybe the casual listener will find it too excessive, but the clear "Karl Orff" reminiscences are simply delightful.   http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=244760 - http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=244760

 

Of course we all noticed that, we are not deaf, but  Zeuhl is a term coined by Christian Vander from Magma in a language invented by Christian Vander from Magma named Kobaian, to describe HIS music  and translated means something like Celestial or Celestial Music.

 

We can't change what the author did, he created his music based in the term Zeuhl, and IMHO fits perfectly.

 

I agree that Folk Prog for example is identified mostly with British pastoral or Celtic oriented music and creates confusion when talking about Los Jaivas or Attila Kohlar who buy their albuums wanting to listen something remotely similar to Jethro Tull

 

Also in the case of  Symphonic as I previously mentioned, but Zeuhl is almost a trademark that describes Magma music and we can't touch it.

 

Iván

 

 

 

Wacht out for Cert i remember that you and him had an issue of this kind of topic not many months ago

 

and yes Ivan, Lawyers Rocks!

 

This is my recollection too. In El Salvador (and Central America in general), we used the term "Comercial" when we refereed to the pop/radio/dance music of the times. The music from bands like yes, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Genesis, etc, was known and refered to as "No Comercial" for lack of a better term, and later, I believe it was towards the end of the 70s, was clasified as "Música Progresiva". This music was quite exclusive and hard to find, so not very many people knew about it, and it made you feel like you belonged to an elite group of music lovers.