Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20468
Posted: June 27 2013 at 23:16
These guys were usually lumped into psych rock but who cares....I like some of their tracks and we used to see them live in 69 since we lived just south of Chicago, their home town
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20468
Posted: July 06 2013 at 19:43
Svetonio wrote:
A perfect example what is proto-prog sound.
PA here has them listed as crossover /progressive rock.....so does that mean they are not truly proto prog but fall into prog? Do we need something even more 'proto'..?
btw I have their first 4 on vinyl.....always liked them
Edited by dr wu23 - July 06 2013 at 19:44
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: July 06 2013 at 20:36
dr wu23 wrote:
PA here has them listed as crossover /progressive rock.....so does that mean they are not truly proto prog but fall into prog? Do we need something even more 'proto'..?
btw I have their first 4 on vinyl.....always liked them
Proto is not a genre or style here at the PA (it may be elsewhere - we don't care about elsewhere much), we limit those included to only those bands that had a significant influence on the development of Progressive Rock - obscure bands that no one has ever heard of need not apply, bands that later went on to produce full-blown Progressive Rock albums need not apply and we have no need to include every Psychedelic Rock band that existed from 1966-69. The phrase "truly proto prog" is meaningless. What came before Prog was not "Proto Prog" and it's a nonsense to call it that after the event since it would have been impossible to call it that at the time - no band sets out to be "proto" anything.
Rare Bird made Progressive Rock albums of shortish catch tunes well into the mid 70s, it would be inaccurate to put them anywhere other than Crossover Prog (ie Art Rock) IMO.
dr wu23 wrote:
Where do these guys fit....psych....proto...?
I think Eyes Of Blue are a possible omission here but I don't know enough about them to speculate further than that. Based on the one tune you've posted I don't see them in fitting into psych or any other "Prog" sub.
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20468
Posted: July 06 2013 at 22:33
Dean wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
PA here has them listed as crossover /progressive rock.....so does that mean they are not truly proto prog but fall into prog? Do we need something even more 'proto'..?
btw I have their first 4 on vinyl.....always liked them
Proto is not a genre or style here at the PA (it may be elsewhere - we don't care about elsewhere much), we limit those included to only those bands that had a significant influence on the development of Progressive Rock - obscure bands that no one has ever heard of need not apply, bands that later went on to produce full-blown Progressive Rock albums need not apply and we have no need to include every Psychedelic Rock band that existed from 1966-69. The phrase "truly proto prog" is meaningless. What came before Prog was not "Proto Prog" and it's a nonsense to call it that after the event since it would have been impossible to call it that at the time - no band sets out to be "proto" anything.
Rare Bird made Progressive Rock albums of shortish catch tunes well into the mid 70s, it would be inaccurate to put them anywhere other than Crossover Prog (ie Art Rock) IMO.
dr wu23 wrote:
Where do these guys fit....psych....proto...?
I think Eyes Of Blue are a possible omission here but I don't know enough about them to speculate further than that. Based on the one tune you've posted I don't see them in fitting into psych or any other "Prog" sub.
You're stealing Knobby's line; 'Proto prog is not a genre'..........but I agree it's not really a 'style or genre', but be that as it may people still use the term and bands are put in that 'style' whether it exists or not and most of us know bands we would place in that ' faux category'. And the original intent of my thread was what are your personal favorite 'proto prog' bands/lp's and not another discussion about styles or genres.
IMO, Eyes Of Blue could certainly fit in that area even though many collectors put them in psych I see them more as early prog/ proto prog. There are many bands like that from 68-70 (some obscure as you mentioned) that have that very early prog sound but aren't quite full blown prog yet.
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: July 07 2013 at 03:26
dr wu23 wrote:
You're stealing Knobby's line; 'Proto prog is not a genre'..........but I agree it's not really a 'style or genre',
Wally made that comment first in this thread, and I have stated it several times here and in other threads over the past 6 years, he also claimed it was "a sound" and that may be true elsewhere, but it isn't here.
dr wu23 wrote:
and not another discussion about styles or genres.
twas you who questioned Rare Bird's placement in Xover, I merely provided an explanation.
Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213
Posted: July 07 2013 at 06:34
dr wu23 wrote:
Svetonio wrote:
A perfect example what is proto-prog sound.
PA here has them listed as crossover /progressive rock.....so does that mean they are not truly proto prog but fall into prog? Do we need something even more 'proto'..?
btw I have their first 4 on vinyl.....always liked them
As you can hear, the band have nothing in common with that PA' Crossover Prog definition; especialy have nothing with the present day music which is added to PA as Crossover Prog. Explanation of the mystery is very simple. ITCOCK is that boundary-stone for PA; everything have to begining with ITCOCK and proto prog sound "not existed" after 1969.
Actually, I don't blame PA. At present day, a website is the World for itself and that re - writing history (not only that history of rock music) is "normal" thing as one of the biggest results of post-modern era; so, they can listed e.g. The Who as proto-prog insidePA system, although The Who apparently were not used Hammond organ what was THE rule for LPs dealers to describe a band as proto-prog back then as Knobby explain to us as well.
Joined: September 03 2005
Location: Olympus Mons
Status: Offline
Points: 15916
Posted: July 12 2013 at 18:19
I wonder what sort of electric piano Dave Kaffinetti is using on the 'Beautiful Scarlet' clip ?? I always thought he had a Pianet. After Rare Bird, Graeme Field formed the band 'Fields', which produced another 'Proto-Prog' classic (and they were quite heavy too). Two great keyboardists in Rare Bird at that stage - pity they veered off from Prog a bit after G.F. left.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Favorite Proto-Prog Album
Topic Options
Svetonio wrote:
....but I agree it's not really a 'style or genre', but be that as it may people still use the term and bands are put in that 'style' whether it exists or not and most of us know bands we would place in that ' faux category'. And the original intent of my thread was what are your personal favorite 'proto prog' bands/lp's and not another discussion about styles or genres.
