Any suggestions for improving it would be gratefully accepted 

That's a very well-written description of Progressive Rock and I wouldn't change it in any way.

SF Sorrow was before Tommy but it was after "a quick one" by the Who which could be considered an early rock opera(a mini rock opera but a rock opera nonetheless). So depending on what you consider to be a full blown opera it is indeed arguable.

Enough already!

Can we all just agree on the fact that Progressive Rock is the "Jambalaya" of music (look it up) and leave it at that?

I've always felt that prog and cooking are closely tied.

A little more than I intended, but this is honest ... hopefully this helps, and I think that some folks might bring out their horns and kazoos against some of the wording. 

What I said doesn't contradict what you said. So in the end as far as full albums The Pretty Things wins but for individual tracks the Who wins. Why would he admit it when he had his own song(a quick one) to be inspired by? 

Let's not forget The Nice - Ars Vita Longa Brevis - Symphony For Group And Orchestra (1968)

Granted it's not a "Full" concept / rock opera album, but it is half way there.

I've updated what I wrote to try and take account of some of the points you all make. If you'd like to check it out and see what you think, feel free!

( http://www.johncologon.com/#pr" rel="nofollow - http://www.johncologon.com/#pr )

Thanks again,

John

I recommend creating a list (not on the write up!), at home, of the things you mention ... the order of things is not quite in order and things like The Moody Blues probably deserve more credit than Pretty Things, but there is a significant difference between one thing and another ... 

Classical music was a far greater influence in "progressive rock" than the better known "rock/blues/jazz" elements, and sometimes we think of these because it is convenient and not a reality. However, it is impossible to ignore the trio ... because they were all around as well, and in many ways closer to the musicians than classical music ... but that would not explain the English wave of music that was symphonic all over with string arrangements by the dozen, going back to the early 60's ... and in America, since the movie studios were pushing their stars, in the background was all strings and orchestra. (This hurt a lot of music distribution by popular groups ... but it could not be ignored when things started selling big ... and the final nail on the movie studios was Woodstock ... in terms of music ownership!)  It started changing big time around the time Henry Mancini came around, where the tunes were mostly centered and augmented with really clever and well defined rock instruments, and became the venue for a lot of soundtracks ... with the exception of folks like Maurice Jarre, who became more symphonic than ever and won Oscars for it.

I am not sure that what you are writing is totally correct ... it maybe more specific to ENGLAND than the rest of the world, that didn't exist ... and I will remind you that in America the experimental, progressive music, had been growing since the Bob Dylan days when he went electric ... and helped define/add a new expression to a lot of music. AND IN THIS CASE, it was much more defined by rock/blues/jazz than it was defined by classical music ... in England the reverse could be said to be true ... 

I would recommend a separation of both things ... other wise calling it "progressive rock" just because of England, is ... IN MY BOOK ... a very harsh disrespect to the word "progressive" and the rest of the world that also had a lot of music ... that is being CONTINUALLY DENIED! It makes it sound like France, Italy, Germany and Spain never had music ... and their examples show far more creative design and desire ... that should not be ignored.

and Emerson is spelled wrong.

I just find the whole thing sad ... I think the write up is more of an attempt at putting together 2 or 3 websites information into one piece of work.

Sadly, it is something that does not recognize that in different countries there was no music, and that players were too stupid to not know what rock/jazz/bs/whatevah was in the first place. Specially when you consider the incredible history of music in Germany, Austria, Italy, France and Spain ... which one could say ... is far superior, within a historic context.

You know what it feels like? The constant ... no music elsewhere is valid! I'm sorry ... that is wrong!

Regarding the music of different countries, I live in Australia, where aside from having a little home grown music of our own, we have generally been flooded with music from the US and the UK in equal measure, so that from my perspective they are all merged in together and I don't make much distinction between the two. If that is reflected in what I've written, I apologise, but not having lived in either place means that I no doubt miss the local nuances.

If anyone would like to make specific suggestions for addressing this, please do (but they kind of need to be specific or they may go right over my head, not having the local knowledge).

Thanks again, everyone!

If you want to look at my revisions, here's the link again:

http://www.johncologon.com/#pr" rel="nofollow - http://www.johncologon.com/#pr

You need top watch the TOM DOWD special for its historical effect in America ... it will give you a very important view of America and its musical development and then you can put Bob Dylan in the story with his electricity. That will define America, more or less, since there is no "classical music" to speak of here as most music has been the pop thing, or the movie thing ... based on the "star" thing.

Europe, and England, are far more different ... and closer to a lot of Classical Music, and its "progressive" thing was, in essence, started by kids/youngsters that were classically minded ... and the influence is clear and obvious, even with The Nice and Moody Blues ... but instead it has become "oblivious"! Next we are going to hear that GMartin was not an influence ... where did he come from? Classical Music!

Without a good understanding of the history of the processes, getting a correct, and proper feel for what we love in music, the "progressive rock" of the old days, our understanding of it all will be nothing but kids chewing bubble gum and smoking their cigarettes to prove they are adults!

Another great example ... Italy was almost exclusively classical and symphonic, and you could easily say, that it was a continuation of their musical history ... now played by kids with electrical instruments! And the big "trio" is only in effect as a side bit to add flavor, and more or less say ... I can do that, too!

It was very similar in Spain and France. Germany has a very different story to tell and the first "krautrock" special from the BBC series has it all in the words of Edgar Froese. If you HEAR that, and think on it for a bit, all the comments, from the CAN grouping and others about them not wanting a westernized form of music, all of a sudden explains their works in a lot of the arts, not only music, but film, theater and other arts!

The problem being, of course, that "progressive music" in most websites, completely ignore the arts that they came from and they think that Peter Gabriel invented wine! When it was a historical tradition in Europe for many many many years ... and PG's version was cheap, albeit very English!

this is fine for me although the white on black style really hurts my eyes!

All in all, a very pithy and apt summation of a phenomenon that cannot be easily condensed down into just a few short paragraphs. Kudos to you John

The only point I might take issue with is that the lyrics of Prog became the poetry of the 70's*. Sadly, the lyrics in the vast majority of the genre are gauche hippy f*ckwittery that disintegrates under even the flimsiest of scrutiny.

* (Lou Reed, Bob Dylan, Scott Walker, Loudon Wainwight III, David Bowie, John Cale, Randy Newman, Ray Davies (the list goes on)