| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
micky 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
|
 Posted: February 27 2015 at 13:00 |
|
easy answer for me...
the short answer... the Beatles.
No Beatles.. no prog.
long answer... the drugs man.. or they'd have cranked out years of She loves you yeah yeah yeah.
Drugs fueled the inner talent and creativity and gave us Rubber Soul and Revolver .. the resulting success empowered and inspired later bands to not just write songs.. but make albums.. where the only limitations were their own talent and creativity. Who was stopping them.. not the labels. It was pre 'industry' days.
my two cents!
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
 |
Progosopher
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 12 2009
Location: Coolwood
Status: Offline
Points: 6393
|
Posted: February 27 2015 at 15:02 |
For the sake of simplicity I voted 'Other' instead of clicking on all the options because each and every one contributed. These are not the only roots, however, and many good suggestions have been mentioned already. I reject the notion that there is one cause, one beginning moment, one point where Prog or anything else became what it is. There are always multiple causes, not the least of which are certain conditions that promote such developments. In the case of Prog, both an openness to experimentation and training in music were aspects with wide-ranging results. Given the existence of rock, classical, jazz, and an openness to mixing musical styles, something like Prog would almost be an eventuality. To get away from references to Delta Blues or ancient musics, a clear definition of 'Prog' would be in order, but that is the most difficult thing to define on this site. Mostly, I think, because people try to limit it to a single concise definition when it is too broad for that in much the same way people insist on a single cause for something. This is not to say we cannot identify the characteristics of something specific because we most certainly can. 
|
|
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20497
|
Posted: February 27 2015 at 15:07 |
 richardh wrote:
Drugs , Counter Culture , New Tech and Zappa! |
Shame on you Richard. You can't use Drugs, Counter Culture and Zappa in the same sentence! 
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20497
|
Posted: February 27 2015 at 15:09 |
Progosopher wrote:
For the sake of simplicity I voted 'Other' instead of clicking on all the options because each and every one contributed. These are not the only roots, however, and many good suggestions have been mentioned already. I reject the notion that there is one cause, one beginning moment, one point where Prog or anything else became what it is. There are always multiple causes, not the least of which are certain conditions that promote such developments. In the case of Prog, both an openness to experimentation and training in music were aspects with wide-ranging results. Given the existence of rock, classical, jazz, and an openness to mixing musical styles, something like Prog would almost be an eventuality. To get away from references to Delta Blues or ancient musics, a clear definition of 'Prog' would be in order, but that is the most difficult thing to define on this site. Mostly, I think, because people try to limit it to a single concise definition when it is too broad for that in much the same way people insist on a single cause for something. This is not to say we cannot identify the characteristics of something specific because we most certainly can. |
I agree with you Mr. Philosopher of Prog. Placing music in some homogenous box is the bane of all music genres!
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10837
|
Posted: February 27 2015 at 15:10 |
|
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20497
|
Posted: February 27 2015 at 15:13 |
^ Sacrilege! I can hear Frank spinnnig in his grave right now!  (Unless he was cremated, of course.)
Edited by SteveG - February 27 2015 at 15:26
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20497
|
Posted: February 27 2015 at 15:16 |
micky wrote:
easy answer for me...
the short answer... the Beatles.
No Beatles.. no prog.
long answer... the drugs man.. or they'd have cranked out years of She loves you yeah yeah yeah.
Drugs fueled the inner talent and creativity and gave us Rubber Soul and Revolver .. the resulting success empowered and inspired later bands to not just write songs.. but make albums.. where the only limitations were their own talent and creativity. Who was stopping them.. not the labels. It was pre 'industry' days.
my two cents!
|
I'm glad that all my talk on hallucinogenic drugs in the psych lounge has had a positive effect on someone. 
|
|
Progosopher
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 12 2009
Location: Coolwood
Status: Offline
Points: 6393
|
Posted: February 27 2015 at 18:21 |
SteveG wrote:
Progosopher wrote:
For the sake of simplicity I voted 'Other' instead of clicking on all the options because each and every one contributed. These are not the only roots, however, and many good suggestions have been mentioned already. I reject the notion that there is one cause, one beginning moment, one point where Prog or anything else became what it is. There are always multiple causes, not the least of which are certain conditions that promote such developments. In the case of Prog, both an openness to experimentation and training in music were aspects with wide-ranging results. Given the existence of rock, classical, jazz, and an openness to mixing musical styles, something like Prog would almost be an eventuality. To get away from references to Delta Blues or ancient musics, a clear definition of 'Prog' would be in order, but that is the most difficult thing to define on this site. Mostly, I think, because people try to limit it to a single concise definition when it is too broad for that in much the same way people insist on a single cause for something. This is not to say we cannot identify the characteristics of something specific because we most certainly can. |
I agree with you Mr. Philosopher of Prog. Placing music in some homogenous box is the bane of all music genres! |
|
|
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"
|
|
BrufordFreak
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 25 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 7955
|
Posted: February 27 2015 at 19:29 |
micky wrote:
easy answer for me...
the short answer... the Beatles.
No Beatles.. no prog.
long answer... the drugs man.. or they'd have cranked out years of She loves you yeah yeah yeah.
Drugs fueled the inner talent and creativity and gave us Rubber Soul and Revolver .. the resulting success empowered and inspired later bands to not just write songs.. but make albums.. where the only limitations were their own talent and creativity. Who was stopping them.. not the labels. It was pre 'industry' days.
my two cents!
|
I'm not going to disagree with this! So Timothy Leary deserves some credit, hunh?
|
|
Drew Fisher
https://progisaliveandwell.blogspot.com/
|
|
BrufordFreak
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 25 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 7955
|
Posted: February 27 2015 at 19:31 |
Progosopher wrote:
For the sake of simplicity I voted 'Other' instead of clicking on all the options because each and every one contributed. These are not the only roots, however, and many good suggestions have been mentioned already. I reject the notion that there is one cause, one beginning moment, one point where Prog or anything else became what it is. There are always multiple causes, not the least of which are certain conditions that promote such developments. In the case of Prog, both an openness to experimentation and training in music were aspects with wide-ranging results. Given the existence of rock, classical, jazz, and an openness to mixing musical styles, something like Prog would almost be an eventuality. To get away from references to Delta Blues or ancient musics, a clear definition of 'Prog' would be in order, but that is the most difficult thing to define on this site. Mostly, I think, because people try to limit it to a single concise definition when it is too broad for that in much the same way people insist on a single cause for something. This is not to say we cannot identify the characteristics of something specific because we most certainly can. |
Great response with which I whole-heartedly agree. My above analogy of prog as a tapestry is not unfounded.
|
|
Drew Fisher
https://progisaliveandwell.blogspot.com/
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
|
Posted: February 27 2015 at 19:44 |
BrufordFreak wrote:
micky wrote:
easy answer for me...
the short answer... the Beatles.
No Beatles.. no prog.
long answer... the drugs man.. or they'd have cranked out years of She loves you yeah yeah yeah.
Drugs fueled the inner talent and creativity and gave us Rubber Soul and Revolver .. the resulting success empowered and inspired later bands to not just write songs.. but make albums.. where the only limitations were their own talent and creativity. Who was stopping them.. not the labels. It was pre 'industry' days.
my two cents!
|
I'm not going to disagree with this! So Timothy Leary deserves some credit, hunh?
|
of course.. as all do. Of course the Beatles were the prime ingrediant but not the only one. One could say it was a mix of all that stuff man that led to the music. however though...what good is music without an audience receptive TO the music. ummm.. or else you'd have groovy music being ignored by square people. It was as much about the audience as it was the musicians. Without audience what good and how lasting would the music have been and that was fueled not by drugs.. those are just fun... it was the social uphevals.. Vietnam .. the student uprisings... the notion that the young COULD change the world and music was part of the deal, as well as the soundtrack to it.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
zwordser
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 04 2008
Location: Southwest US
Status: Offline
Points: 1361
|
Posted: February 27 2015 at 20:52 |
|
I'd say all of the above too, adding classical music and plenty of ambitious virtuoso musicians who knew that the time was right for something new and different.
|
|
Z
|
|
thwok
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 15 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 160
|
Posted: February 28 2015 at 08:56 |
|
If forced I would pick new technology, but 1 choice simply isn't sufficient to answer the question. I would reiterate what zwordser posted but also include new technology.
|
|
I am the funkiest man on the planet!
|
|
danyboy
Forum Newbie
Joined: October 29 2014
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 28
|
Posted: February 28 2015 at 09:53 |
|
New technology
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: February 28 2015 at 15:41 |
|
I've always felt that the beneficial influence afforded to drugs on any creative endeavor to be completely spurious. The idea that if someone like Syd Barrett, the Beatles, Pete Townshend, Stones, Ray Davies etc hadn't been chipped off their tits, they wouldn't have been able to fashion such innovative and unprecedented music is putting the cart before the horse. Judging by most of the aforementioned's testimonies to the creative process, these classic songs are arrived at when sitting on a bus/train/fence, reading a book, waking up in the morning, having a piss/dump, staring into the middle distance, night/day-dreaming, walking the dog or hearing/seeing a simple phrase. Our finest creations completely dwarf their mundane and humdrum origins.
The late Bill Hicks perpetuated this stubborn myth by asserting that if you're so against drugs, you should destroy your entire album collection. (He was a very funny and insightful man but an incorrigible and deluded hippy right to the end). Most great rock and pop seems to exist in spite of the unheeded warnings of it's legions of ungrateful dead.
Even those substances that kept touring bands and artists upright and awake to meet an insanely heavy workload are at best, tenuously connected to creativity.
Edited by ExittheLemming - February 28 2015 at 19:13
|
|
Mellotron Storm
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 27 2006
Location: The Beach
Status: Offline
Points: 12938
|
Posted: February 28 2015 at 17:17 |
|
For me none of the options in the poll is the answer and maybe i'm naive but I just think it was musicians trying to think outside the box, being innovative with new ideas etc. Certainly once Sgt. Peppers came out and In The Court... it gave other musicians ideas to build on but like Iain I think the drug connection is maybe a little overrated. Did LSD open up minds to new ideas? I've did a lot of psychedelics in my youth and for me if anything it had the opposite affect. But that was me and i'm not going to say others couldn't have been inspired by these trips. I'm a sceptic I guess when it comes to that but then I didn't try to "think" or meditate or be creative under these circumstances and there's no way i'm into that now so...
|
|
"The wind is slowly tearing her apart"
"Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN
|
|
MattGuitat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 339
|
Posted: February 28 2015 at 17:32 |
|
To the idea of technology being the most important (so far), remmeber that the first groups to truly be what we consider to be fully "prog" were those who's main progressive aspect were composition. If we take ITCOTCK as the first "full" prog album by a progressive band (up for debate, its as close as we're going to come seeing as other prog artists beforehand hadn't fully embraced prog's expansiveness yet), then we see that the main aspect of it is its compositions.
|
|
Tom Ozric
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2005
Location: Olympus Mons
Status: Offline
Points: 15916
|
Posted: February 28 2015 at 17:41 |
|
Many of the above mentioned points certainly affected the way musicians thought about their art.
Lots of banter about LSD and drugs in general. I don't believe this to be the case - I know many folks who dabble, and they don't have a creative bone in their body. It fuels them to be dicks, not masterminds. I once sat next to a nerd in class, a few years out of school and this nerd took a trip and stabbed his Mum to death (poor Jamie, wonder how many times he had to pick up the soap.....)
Gilmour stated on the Pompeii film that 'you've gotta have it inside your head to be able to get it out....'
Inspired people, clever and creative. Eccentrics can churn out wonderful art - they probably eat vegetables......
I still think that The Beatles are overrated - had they not done what they did, who would be hailed as the revolutionary band ??? Of course it's hard for me to back that up, not having 'been there' as it happened, but I still think the likes of Floyd, The Airplane and so on stretched their music out much further than the Fab Four, just they weren't as accessible. Ramble over.....,
|
|
LearsFool
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 09 2014
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 8618
|
Posted: February 28 2015 at 17:53 |
MattGuitat wrote:
To the idea of technology being the most important (so far), remmeber that the first groups to truly be what we consider to be fully "prog" were those who's main progressive aspect were composition. If we take ITCOTCK as the first "full" prog album by a progressive band (up for debate, its as close as we're going to come seeing as other prog artists beforehand hadn't fully embraced prog's expansiveness yet), then we see that the main aspect of it is its compositions. |
Incorrect. ITCOTCK is not, in any way, shape, or form, the first prog album. It was beaten by a clear two years by the likes of Days of Future Passed, Absolutely Free, Piper At The Gates of Dawn, Safe as Milk, Procol Harum's debut... plus even Sgt. Peppers to a major extent.
DOFP, Peppers, Piper... these all demanded then revolutionary new tech to pull off. The kind of sampling, backmasking, multitracking, panning, and the like on Peppers and Piper demanded that. DOFP started as a proof of concept album for then modern techniques that could pull off recording orchestras.
And then DOFP required the mellotron to pull together the sound... and it went on to be vital to the sound of ITCOTCK.
And saying that the pre-ITCOTCK albums didn't focus on composition is foolish. Do pay attention to the flow between the tracks, orchestra, and band on DOFP, and remember that there is a reason that "A Day In The Life" is considered so important to prog - it helped pioneer a compositional form that prog lives on.
|
|
|
|
cstack3
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6747
|
Posted: February 28 2015 at 18:39 |
I voted "other." The progressive music movement was a moment of artistic inspiration, much like the rise of the Romanticism poetry movement in England. There are many similarities, including rebellion against the establishment, collaboration and admiration among the artists, use of drugs, etc.
The late Peter Banks discusses many of these in this quite wonderful interview:
I don't feel that technology played a particularly key role in the rise of prog, as all of the primary instruments (guitar, bass, drum, Hammond organ etc.) were pre-existing. Even Mellotron and synthesizer had been used in a variety of ways, although these came to their full usage in progressive music.
I'd argue that the way that the musical techniques were employed (using a plectrum with round-wound strings on a Rickenbacker bass, such as Squire and others did) were very innovative and helped to shape progressive music's sound. Otherwise, I don't see technology playing a big role.
Edited by cstack3 - February 28 2015 at 18:44
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Prog's Origins
