Clouds

What's caused the controversy is 1-2-3 not recording any albums, and Clouds were essentially a different band who, with great irony, ended up seeming like any other prog act. Had 1-2-3 albums existed, there wouldn't be anything to argue about. Even without the albums though, there's no doubt whatsoever about the kind of music 1-2-3 was playing or the influence they had. The other big problem is the lack of commercial success. Mainstream mags and even this forum lean heavily on what sells rather than what counts in artistic influence. Though this forum, while by necessity/populariy using that commercial centre as its basis, at least in passing, shines the spotlight on every other kind of artist it can. That's rare and should be nurtured. 

Terrific to see info re 1-2-3 /Clouds in depth. Well done Prog Archives.

Originally posted by giselle I still find it shocking that popularity and record sales decide the priorities of history. This genre is owed so much by 1-2-3 but you have to trawl the 'serious' critiques to find that openly stated.

I don't see why this should be so shocking. After a gap of some 40+ years, recorded material (which is what 'popularity and record sales' is a measure of) is the only factual evidence there is while everything else is anecdotal. This is not to say that anecdotal evidence is inadmissible or wrong, what it lacks is provenance and supportive contemporary documentation, in the form of magazine and trade paper articles from the late 60s and early 70s or even the hyperbole of press releases from record companies and band management. While what passes for music journalism, (which has never been an objective or accurate medium when it comes to popular music and the music business), cannot be considered reliable since it is generally biased and subjective rather than being factual reportage or the plain documentation of historical events as they happened, any subjectivism within that would tend to normalise to some extent if taken across a representative sample. This is how we can measure the relative success of any band in its live environment - the collective reporting of a number of journalists would average out any personal bias of an individual reporter - but to do that requires a number of different reviews to analyse. Later printed 'histories of Prog/Rock' are equally unreliable, since they themselves are based upon the similar anecdotal evidence they are cited to support, rather than upon any actual documentation from the era they are documenting. That we (modern Prog fans in general rather than PA in particular) are prepared to consider anecdotal evidence and scant contemporaneous documentation and not be wholly dismissive is enough I would have thought.

Edited by Dean - October 06 2011 at 16:43

Good stuff from Dean, but quote from Encyclopedia of Popular Music  re 1-2-3  " a definitive precursor to the progressive rock movement".

That tome is the bible of music industry professionals, and though the original entry was 1989 or thereabouts, the entry on Clouds was rewritten in the past few years including that quote. Having said that, I still agree with much of the sentiment of Dean's post. Must also confess an ignorance re Larkin, back to homework on that!

Oh yes, I remember now, Colin Larkin was the original editor, I only remembered it as Muze publications. As I said, the critique was rewritten quite recently, certainly in the last few years, and Larkin certainly saw the band in its heyday. Mojo magazine coined the bit about "1-2-3 and the Birth of Prog", though I think all of us accept that birth was nowhere as simple as that. Then again, Brian Hogg's testimony in particular is definitely not anecdotal, he was obviously there and witnessed it happen. Nevertheless, much of what you said is true. I think the point you make about the time lapse and the lack of witness testimony may help to explain the relative mainstream disinterest in many influential bands of that era who didn't have major sales or success.

er....well....no....caught me out a bit...I dont know that Larkin or Hogg were actually there, I read that into what they wrote, though it seems to say the opposite to you! Larkin's original account seems factual, not inherited (though I cant, as you say, be sure). Hogg's account (pge 67) definitely doesn't seem anecdotal, too much detail etc. Also testimony from the actual time, ie, Marquee programs, Bowie's letter etc. There are also people who were there, myself included, but as a mere punter (and admirer), I dont suppose my testimony counts for much. Trouble was, at the time we didn't know we were listening to the future, we only knew it was different. Have you read member Malreaux's interesting testimony? He really should post more (and not just on this subject).

Is that live recording at the Marquee the only 123 track?

The rest of that live set might be out there somewhere, it does seem unfortunate that only one track survives.

Might be worth writing to the Clouds website?