Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Genesis of Classic Prog : When did it all begin ?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedGenesis of Classic Prog : When did it all begin ?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 16434
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Genesis of Classic Prog : When did it all begin ?
    Posted: April 29 2010 at 15:06
Quote ... If you were an average "Prog Fan" in 1970, you probably
      never heard of Magma, Soft Machine, or Gentle Giant, even though they all had debut
      albums out at that time. Maybe you bought Saucerful of Secrets, Freak Out, and Days of
      Future Passed, but you didn't think of yourself as a "prog fan", because the term didn't
      really exist yet. But you probably associated yourself with this "cool new music" and
      maybe loosely associated these bands on that basis (?)
 
Well, let me tell you this ... I was not a prog fan and have never been, because the word means nothing about music!
 
But in 69 I already had Pink Floyd and Soft Machine and Frank Zappa and had already phazed out of the popular music stuff for the most part. But I was also way more aware of other musics out there from Heinemann, Stockhausen, Terry Riley, Carl Orff, Benjamin Britten, Varese and many others ... so when you hear some Zappa having fun and the mix includes 2 sections of Verese, 1 section of rock music, 1 section of who cares, and 1 section of jazz and 1 section of kitchen sink ... you go immediately ... ohh my gawd ... this guy knows music and knows it well! ... sadly, what has become a definition for prog, is not about people experimenting with music ... but some London based fantasy about some dollies and drugs? Or some pseudo Grimm Brothers like story? Or some pseudo variation on a title to make it sound more interesting and people feeling like the cover was magical and mystical and the music was the same? Ohhh , the better one ... costumes! Like they have never been used on a stage!
 
Music was the important part, not the media events!  ... yes, sometimes we have to stand up naked and do something stupid to get attention and get folks to find something in the art itself ... and while it might not be fun to do that all the time, more often than not it does get the attention. Doesn't make it prog, but it gets attention!


Edited by moshkito - April 29 2010 at 15:18
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Devonsidhe View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2010
Location: PDX, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 74
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 29 2010 at 11:43
Originally posted by Floydman Floydman wrote:

[
 
 The Beatles put out an album with the experimental trappings, without sacrificing all of their great melodies, the world had no choice but to take notice.
 
Agreed.  The penultimate is never reached without the steps leading up to it.  By keeping the pop/rock feel to their work, they were able to reach a bigger audience than those, say, of a Frank Zappa during that time period.  By bringing in the public, it made it much easier for the following bands to gain studio support from the record labels or a chance to be heard on the radio and many other elements.
 
That is not to say the effects of a less commercial band like Frank Zappa and the MOI is less important.  Oft times, it is the less heard records aiming for a smaller audience that has the freedom to go beyond the limitations of the public buying sector and aim for work that could be ahead of its time.  That work can influence other artists instead of the public and still reach the suburban living rooms through those other artists albeit in a less direct manner.
 
With all of this cross fertilization, we do not have a single tree to branch out from which is why it is near impossible to look at beginnings.  Each branch that comes from a single trunk usually has many  roots.  Each root usually leads to many branches.  Add to that several different trunks of prog, when we try to map it, we have a multi-dimensional nightmare but infinitely enjoyable to explore.
Even a man who stumbles around in the dark will influence those he does not see.
Back to Top
Floydman View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: November 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 67
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 29 2010 at 10:02
Originally posted by ferush ferush wrote:

THE BEATLE ALBUM REVOLVER MUST BE DEFINITIVELY INCLUDED IN LIST
 
 
Revolver and Sgt Pepper are not the most experimental albums ever it didn't have to be. "Strawberry Fields Forever" was a bizarre sounding pop hit full of avant ideas to create trippy sounds which you couldn't really say that about "Good Vibrations" though I love that song.
 
It's a fact those were experimental albums with great songs done by the world's greatest pop group showing that rock could be a serious genre. It was one thing for the Velvet Underground, Pink Floyd or Frank Zappa do their weird experimental stuff. Their ideas may have been more out there than the Beatles. The fact is that since they were not on the world stage of music at this point, they could be dismissed as an anomaly. The Beatles put out an album with the experimental trappings, without sacrificing all of their great melodies, the world had no choice but to take notice. Rock, pop, and all of it's cousins, was here to stay. So if you agree or not it was a huge influence.


Edited by Floydman - April 29 2010 at 10:05
Back to Top
Dick Heath View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Jazz-Rock Specialist

Joined: April 19 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 12803
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 29 2010 at 07:52
Related discussion at:
 
perhaps worth dipping into 
The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS.
CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php
Host by PA's Dick Heath.

Back to Top
ferush View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 363
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 28 2010 at 13:20
THE BEATLE ALBUM REVOLVER MUST BE DEFINITIVELY INCLUDED IN LIST
Back to Top
shockedjazz View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 28 2010 at 11:24

Yes finaly i understood you so sorry for the mistake and the tone.

Is just i consider Procol (incredible) Symphonic proto-prog, the same with the Moodys...well not the same....i love Procol much more...one of the greatest.

Back to Top
octopus-4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams

Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 13431
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 28 2010 at 03:43
The good thing with this post is that we are debating about a question that can't be answered. For me prog is a way to feel music so highly individual. I think us olders are mentioning groups and artists that made us feel the "prog" sensation for the first time. Others look back to older artists looking for the beginning.
I guess that in 2015 this post will still be receiving comments.
 
About Procol Harum, symphonic ir not, they conquered me to prog with "A salty dog".
Back to Top
ProcolWho? View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 06 2007
Location: New york
Status: Offline
Points: 160
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 27 2010 at 20:40
Originally posted by shockedjazz shockedjazz wrote:

And maybe clear that i was not saying that Procol made the first symphonic prog-rock album, no i was saying that they were the first to made symphonic rock. So calm down procolwho


 I'm not sure if you understood what I was saying or if I understand what you're saying.

 So we must agree.
Back to Top
Garion81 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 27 2010 at 18:20
Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:

Originally posted by carlmarx38 carlmarx38 wrote:

 
If they sold many records or not, isnt that besides the point ?
 
 
             Yes, although I'm trying with this blog (and the Time line Project on my other blog),
      to also convey the Historical perspective of what was actually happening if you were
      there at the time between 69-71.....If you were an average "Prog Fan" in 1970, you probably
      never heard of Magma, Soft Machine, or Gentle Giant, even though they all had debut
      albums out at that time. Maybe you bought Saucerful of Secrets, Freak Out, and Days of
      Future Passed, but you didn't think of yourself as a "prog fan", because the term didn't
      really exist yet. But you probably associated yourself with this "cool new music" and
      maybe loosely associated these bands on that basis (?)

                 The big question is "When did the term Prog Rock first get used ?"         

An excellent post indeed. Even in 1973 a lot of different names were around for that "new cool music", as can be seen in a rock-lexicon of that time.. And people back then had no progblem to put Deep Purple or Led Zeppelin (which are only prog-related in the archives) into the same category as Genesis, Pink Floyd or Yes; it was just this new cool music.  At least this was the way my brother and his friends used to look at it. They never used the term "prog" at all. And this is not the faulty memory of a kid which was born about the same time as prog was born;  I checked back with my brother,  who is ten years older than I am.
 
You hit right on the nail head. Almost everything back then that wasn't top 40 was called progressive rock.  I never heard the term prog until this decade.  The development of what we now call prog (which is what we meant by the British groups) evolved over several years.  There are many albums that contained elements of prog many listed in this thread.  So what was first or when did it happen are kind of relevant because there were elements in some of the music we wouldn't place here that eventually went into prog. 1969, 1966 what does it matter.?


"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 16434
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 27 2010 at 16:41
Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:

It is nonsense to reduce the "start" to one band or one record; it was simply in the air. King Crimson's first album may be the first prog album which came out (by the way: what about "Sea Shanties" by High Tide?), but a lot of things like that were going on at that time. Whoever published the first album can't claim that they invented it..
 
Thank you Baldie ... sometimes I think we need to lock some of these people up with Miles in a room somewhere in 1954 and listen to these guys for 30 minutes ... not to just appreciate jzz, mind you, but to get people to realize ... the inspiration and the love for creating "music" ... has absolutely nothing to do with the wording and terminology that we talk about 50 years later!
 
Not sure some folks here want to hear that about "prog", though!


Edited by moshkito - April 27 2010 at 16:45
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
sealchan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 12 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 179
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 27 2010 at 11:15
It seems that heavy metal and prog may share some deep roots based on comments made about Procol Harem and Deep Purple.
Back to Top
BaldJean View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10377
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 27 2010 at 09:01
I believe that "Sea Shanties" is every bit as progressive as ITCOTCK. but "Sea Shanties" also can be seen as the first prog-metal album - so it is in my opinion a better candidate for getting the honors. only "Sea Shanties" is not as well known as ITCOTCK


A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Back to Top
shockedjazz View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 27 2010 at 08:56
Sorry i missed your point know i see.Smile Embarrassed
Back to Top
shockedjazz View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 27 2010 at 08:51
And maybe clear that i was not saying that Procol made the first symphonic prog-rock album, no i was saying that they were the first to made symphonic rock. So calm down procolwho
Back to Top
shockedjazz View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 12 2008
Location: Madrid (spain)
Status: Offline
Points: 169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 27 2010 at 08:47
Originally posted by ProcolWho? ProcolWho? wrote:

 Nothing that came after Procols Shine on Brightly can be considered the first prog album.  Absolutely absurd notion, not to be taken seriously.  SOB came a year before ITCOTCK.

 If you want to hallucinate something that came before might have been #1, I will allow you that indulgence.
 
There were some groups that have some ingredients of what would be latter called prog, one these ingredients is symphonism- wich groups like Procol mixed with rock...but it was 100 % prog. Omonimous album the one i was refering is symphonic pop-rock, no progrock.
"Shine on brightly" is a concept album, the music have contaminations but miss some ingredients like jazz, and hiper fantastic rock riffs, things like that.
I still bet for ITCOCK
Back to Top
BaldFriede View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10261
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 26 2010 at 23:17
Originally posted by carlmarx38 carlmarx38 wrote:

 
If they sold many records or not, isnt that besides the point ?
 
 
             Yes, although I'm trying with this blog (and the Time line Project on my other blog),
      to also convey the Historical perspective of what was actually happening if you were
      there at the time between 69-71.....If you were an average "Prog Fan" in 1970, you probably
      never heard of Magma, Soft Machine, or Gentle Giant, even though they all had debut
      albums out at that time. Maybe you bought Saucerful of Secrets, Freak Out, and Days of
      Future Passed, but you didn't think of yourself as a "prog fan", because the term didn't
      really exist yet. But you probably associated yourself with this "cool new music" and
      maybe loosely associated these bands on that basis (?)

                 The big question is "When did the term Prog Rock first get used ?"         

An excellent post indeed. Even in 1973 a lot of different names were around for that "new cool music", as can be seen in a rock-lexicon of that time.. And people back then had no progblem to put Deep Purple or Led Zeppelin (which are only prog-related in the archives) into the same category as Genesis, Pink Floyd or Yes; it was just this new cool music.  At least this was the way my brother and his friends used to look at it. They never used the term "prog" at all. And this is not the faulty memory of a kid which was born about the same time as prog was born;  I checked back with my brother,  who is ten years older than I am.


BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Back to Top
BaldFriede View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10261
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 26 2010 at 23:06
It is nonsense to reduce the "start" to one band or one record; it was simply in the air. King Crimson's first album may be the first prog album which came out (by the way: what about "Sea Shanties" by High Tide?), but a lot of things like that were going on at that time. Whoever published the first album can't claim that they invented it..


BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 16434
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 26 2010 at 18:34
Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

It's NOT always the case. It was in the early 60s. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that Close to the Edge would have sold a single copy if published in 1955.  The people that I have mentioned, but I omitted a lot of them, helped breaking the previous schemas and gave the following authors the freedom to look for alternative ways of expressions. Can you imagine Interstellar Overdirve played in the 50s?
 
If you ever see that DVD about Tom Dowd you will change your mind about how you said this ... there were a lot of "interstellar overdrives" done, and "close to the edge"s done, but they were slightly different and may have been not as electrified as you expect. The transposition of elements in time causes confusion and bringing the "rock/electric" element to the 30's is like watching Michael J Fox do his guitar thing on that movie ... "I guess you're not ready for that yet!" ... It's out of time and place. BUT, you missed the important point. That there was music out there that was being done with similar inspirations and tastes in mind. And it might have been done within different contexts in music. How else would you explain the Stravinsky's and so many others from the turn of the century on?
 
Music is not that "exclusive" to the point where nothing else matters ... and while you do not have to look at it in a quotidian manner, it helps, and in the end gives you a rather nice perspective. But thinking that what you "want" today, and why it did not happen yesterday ... is not going to get you any answers! It doesn't reverse a lot of bad history! ... you do know that right?
 
You probably want to go through the 40's and 50's jazz stuff that ended up giving us Miles and such, people that did nothing but long cuts and played for a long time, which is where some of the "prog" and "rock" things that we love got their inspiration, including classical music. See the experiments in literature, film and thater in the 30's and 40's and what was being done ... a lot of music history might make a lot more sense to you. And please, look up that Tom Dowd DVD ... it is the history of 30 years of music like you have never heard it and it will surprise the living heck out of you! ... assuming you love music enough to even appreciate having your knockers knocked senseless all day long!


Edited by moshkito - April 26 2010 at 19:09
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
sealchan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 12 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 179
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 26 2010 at 17:42
Originally posted by Devonsidhe Devonsidhe wrote:

As with all things, there is no one explanation for anything.  Especially when we consider prog which is all about freedom to make our own definitions.  There are exceptions to this out there and that will only make the discussion more interesting.
 
I think it is fair to say that there there are albums which are prog before ITCOTCK.  In fact, I am willing to believe this is true just based on the fact that more than a handful of alternate candidates for first prog album have been put forward. 
 
Also, I think any thing which arises out of a creative background probably does so through multiple roots and incrementally such that there is no clear moment of the creation of a genre.  This is probably just as true in the evolution of species where no species magically started at one generation. 
 
For my own part I enjoy the discussion and the debate. 
 
In an effort to engage myself further with the music I know and love I will probably start examining song by song my music collection and use (and no doubt adjust) my own particular prog rock definition and see how that applies through the years of music since the late 60s.  I can then compare that and share this with others hear and see if the definition appears valid.  At the very least I will be learning something as I go and in a way that I will enjoy. 
 
There may be a value in saying that the genre started a bit later than the first prog rock album...but then again for many there might not be a value in this.  It should be fun finding out!
Back to Top
ProgressiveAttic View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 05 2008
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 1243
Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 26 2010 at 17:30
What about Deep Purple?....this is 100% symphonic prog in 1969:



And Donovan:

Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.162 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.