Cream: Proto-Prog?

Every blues group can improvise live.  That is the attraction to going to the concerts.  This being the case you might as well admit Albert King, Magic Sam, B. B. King, Fleetwood Mac(before the Buckingham/Nicks joined), John Mayall's Blues Breakers,....etc.  Admit all the jazz artists also because jazz is blues based.  I do not see why bands like Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple are included only because they have only elements of prog in thier music and the length of the songs.  Wow, if this is the case for a band to be admitted into PA, you might as well let all the 1980's hair metal bands in because the length of their hair. 

  yeah, well, I guess it's all in the wording

oh BTW, I picked up Calliope's Citta di Frontiera  ..really good!










Edited by Atavachron - February 15 2008 at 19:12

micky wrote: wow.. touchy... listen.. I can be a bit of a prick at times.. and will fully admit it.  However David is one of the nicest and most thoughtful people on this forum.  He did not attack you... only ask you to explain yourself and your reasons.

that's very sweet of you Mike    ..I should have been less confrontational with p0mt

micky wrote: Logan wrote: No time to even read what's been said, but since coming here I've felt and expressed that Cream would be a worthy addition to the archives under Proto-Prog, but never started a topic on it because the full "Prog" additions deserve more concentration.  I personally don't think that the blues elements should exclude the band, either. except for prog seemed to be.. at least in the formative stage an attempt to get away from the blues based riffing of the late sixties and incorporate art.. structure... and other influences in music.  At least that is how I see it.

You're correct to my knowledge; that was my understanding, and I certainly wouldn't recommend Cream for a proper Prog category.  While blues was important to Cream (and how many blues covers did they do?), and some of the band's best work was sort of blues/ psychadelic fusion, the band was considerably more than just a bluesy jam rock band.   Not only do I understand the band to have been influential to the progressive rock and jam scenes, but to my ear quite a bit of the music has compositional/ structural and instrumental similarities to Prog.  I'd also say that they deviated from bluesy songs, but many such songs were not typical rock -- though had mainstream success.  Can find songs with unusual time signatures (helps that they had a jazzy drummer), jazzy elements, and use of various non-typically rock instrumentation.

Personally, I think Wheels of Fire is a pretty progressive album of 1968, and while there is the typical blues-based music, music like Pressed Rat and Warthog, Anyone for Tennis, and Passing the Time which opens in a bluesy fashion show something of the whimsy quite commonly found in Prog (and Proto-Prog).  Rather bombastic songs like Tales of Brave Ulysses (off Disreali Gears - 1967) and White Room have something of an early prog pedigree too.

Anyway, for tall this talk, it's been ages since I last listened to Cream, though I once loved the band, so perhaps I'm going on memory too much and I didn't know Prog so well then.

Perhaps people don't think Cream influential enough to Prog bands (and I suspect it may be more influential to Prog-Related ones lol) and not simailar enough in sound to those bands in Proto-Prog that set the standards (yes, I think the old if x is valid for inclusion then y does too argument, if relevantly used, has merit).

Ah well, this was bit of a waste of time typing as I don't really anything worthy of noting.

If this site sought to be the most comprehensive Prog, Prog Related, and Proto Prog (term I'd change) resource on the net, then Cream's, inclusion, I believe, would be highly warranted.  I like the idea of a pre-Prog category as it can help trace the development of progressive rock, but as it is now it is so disorganised, which is fine in a way because more work should be put into working with Prog bands/ artists.  The choices just appear so arbitrary at times.  It only natural that people will ask if x is here why not y?  And as long as it's not a case of apples and oranges, then it's fair.

Logan wrote: No time to even read what's been said, but since coming here I've felt and expressed that Cream would be a worthy addition to the archives under Proto-Prog, but never started a topic on it because the full "Prog" additions deserve more concentration.  I personally don't think that the blues elements should exclude the band, either.

except for prog seemed to be.. at least in the formative stage an attempt to get away from the blues based riffing of the late sixties and incorporate art.. structure... and other influences in music.  At least that is how I see it.

p0mt3 wrote: I understand. And I admit, I personally have not listened to Cream enough to really give a good argument, but felt like at least they should be given a chance, and it seems that they have, which as all anyone could ask for. If someone (topic starter, perhaps?) could convince a collaborator of Cream's influence in prog, then maybe they will have a shot; if not, well, then they won't. Simple as that, I suppose.

honestly with all the Cream fans here.. and I am sure as hell one of them... if there was any merit... they probably would have been here already. There is  little argument TO be made for them to be in proto.. or related.


Edited by micky - February 15 2008 at 14:21

Proto Prog and Prog Related are the responsibility of the Admins, and to that end the case for addition must be presented to us (ie The Admin Team) by a Collaborator giving sound reasons why they should be included. Aside from direct requests from the site owner, we do not add bands to these "genres" without solid explanation of their merit, legacy to Progressive music and its development and (to a lesser extent) benefit to the site as a whole. Without reasoned arguments to support their inclusion there is no case to be presented, ergo, no inclusion.

p0mt3 wrote: Atavachron wrote:  ^ and yet you haven't presented a single argument to support your desire   ..*how* would they be 'good for the site'?  In what way, exactly are they Protoprog?  What does Zeppelin being Progrelated have to do with Cream being Protoprog? Why, because both genres aren't strictly prog, so I think Cream has just as good a shot at making it as anyone else.   Thanks for attacking me, though. I needed it. Boy, I'm stupid, thanks for that. Whew! I realize my lack of intelligence, now!

wow.. touchy... listen.. I can be a bit of a prick at times.. and will fully admit it.  However David is one of the nicest and most thoughtful people on this forum.  He did not attack you... only ask you to explain yourself and your reasons.

Atavachron wrote:  ^ and yet you haven't presented a single argument to support your desire   ..*how* would they be 'good for the site'?  In what way, exactly are they Protoprog?  What does Zeppelin being Progrelated have to do with Cream being Protoprog?

Edited by p0mt3 - February 15 2008 at 02:44

Ghost Rider wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Led Zeppelin is no more prog than cream is, so why not add them? (By the way, I like that Zeppelin is on this site, but they aren't prog, and we all know it.)   Led Zeppelin were added at the owner's request, as were other bands or artists in PR. Unfortunately, the site is not ours, and if the owner wants an addition, then we comply. Simple as that. I think it is high time people realised this simple fact.

Edited by p0mt3 - February 15 2008 at 02:39