Prog Timeline
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36823
Printed Date: April 19 2024 at 20:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Prog Timeline
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Subject: Prog Timeline
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 04:10
Have a look at this prog timeline I created: Some genres are still missing. I am trying to create a simple view of the "prog universe" ... I don't want to make it too detailed, but I also want to show the important differences between the styles. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 04:17
| I like it. I've wanted to do something like this myself for quie a while. I particularily like how you've also marked a core period of some styles. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 04:30
| Very interesting MIke. Is it fair to say that some of the metal categories you have included are not considered Prog on this site? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 04:39
^ Not really:
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 04:50
I think "technical" and "shred" metal began in the late 1980s - and would dispute some of the "core" timelines - but great 1st attempt!
 ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 04:54
|
^ Thanks! Could you name some of these early tech/shred metal bands/albums? I agree that the "core" timelines need to be adjusted ... Neo prog begins a bit too early for example. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 05:02
|
Mike...Cert... as you all know .. I'm not an expert on metal... just as always ..curious... what do you say to those who call... groups like Uriah Heep and Deep Purple proto Prog Metal. I see them called that every once in a while ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: paolo.beenees
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 05:39
|
I think you've totally forgotten Krautrock ------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 05:48
^ yes, I mentioned in the first post that some genres are missing. Feel free to make some suggestions as to how to add them to the timeline, and I'll try to add them.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 05:51
|
^ good thing I held off posting ... I figured you had it under classic prog...
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: ProgFan
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 05:54
|
Mike, you did some nice work here But which bands do you consider as "Nu" Prog??
|
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 06:52
|
Excellent! However, my usual comment: careful with that word 'fusion'! Indo jazz fusion from 1965 (e.g. Harriott-Mayer Indo-Jazz Fusion Double Quintet) - which allows you bring in Indo-prog...... US proto jazz rock from 1966 (e.g. Free Spirits) UK proto jazz rock from 1963 (e.g. Graham Bond, Georgie Fame) First distinct jazz rock album Emergency by Lifetime - possibly - 1968. Soft Machine Volume 2 clearly shows the cross over from psychedelic to jazz rock fusion In fact Mike you have inspired me to make a more detailed time-line for jazz fusion, bringing in acid jazz, fuzac, (god forbid) smooth jazz, and that more exciting and often cutting edge jazz fusion dating from the 90's: nu.fusion, drum'n'bass jazz, rap jazz, nu.jazz, etc. ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 07:19
  |
Dick Heath wrote:Posted By: coleio
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 08:04
|
Canterbury Scene missing too?
------------- Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!! |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 08:09
'classic prog' if I ever heard it.. unless it is just a synonym for the same old hat symhonic stuff ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Uroboros
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 08:47
|
I suspect what you mean by power prog, but the term was used initially to desribe bands like Savatage and Crimson Glory in the eighties/early nineties, so saying it's a post-'95 affair is not really exact. Then again, I realise you have a totally different style in mind, but think about where the said bands would fit in that case. ------------- Tous les chemins qui s’ouvrent à moi ne mènent à rien si tu n’es plus là |
Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 16:19
Moreover, I have seen Rush frequently categorized as both heavy metal and progressive rock (and rightly so, IMO, since they fused elements of both styles), so isn't it fair to say that - if not full-blown prog metal as we know it now - they are at least proto-prog metal? Interesting chart though, if a little "crowded".  On the other hand, at least that's a good way to show nay-sayers that prog is still "alive" in the 21st century!  |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 16:57
|
Mike, Nice first shot - although I get rashes from the moniker Nu-Prog, like I got a couple of years ago with Nu-Metal. Oh well.... Are you picking the genres from Progtology or common use, or are you naming them specifically for this chart? ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 17:02
|
I must say I like your time line a lot, even when some things like Canterbury are missing |
Posted By: kickflipthecat
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 17:06
| I don't like the naming of "nu prog," since it makes it like it's drawing a parallel to nu metal, which is just a good concept simplified and made formulaic. Also, I tend to think prog is a lot more musical than metal, so it really can't be simplified and "punk-ized." Also, The Mars Volta is not punk prog. |
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: April 14 2007 at 17:12
Good job, but some say Prog-Metal started around 73/74 with KC.  ------------- Bigger on the inside. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 15 2007 at 02:30
The more I think about what "Technical" actually means, the further back it goes;
I think it's probably rooted in (early) Deep Purple, Colosseum II and Uriah Heep - but there's also a Led Zeppelin (and hence Yardbirds/Bluesbreakers) link, as Rush (later) indisputably brought technique to the forefront - so "Proto-prog metal" would fit these bands.
The technical approach progressed through bands like The Scorpions and arguably Focus (when Focus played heavy, it was very heavy, and very technically oriented), with Budgie worth consideration. It's quite hard to see how Krautrock fits in, despite the heavy moments, as nothing I've heard from this period is particularly technically-oriented - although Necronomicon's "Tips Zum Selbstmord" is very interesting, formally, and Eloy later developed their music in a more metal vein.
Of course, King Crimson are a constant, throughout their numerous changes, in terms of technique and heavy, riff-oriented music.
This covers 1969-1973.
Also indisputable is the root in "Glam" rock - Queen and Bowie providing the increasing technical slant. I'm currently investigating this period in greater depth, looking at bands like Man and Nazareth, and even the Sweet, in order to find the links - but more importantly, development of technique in heavy bands (AFAIK, the phrase "metal" wasn't really used until the late 1970s to describe the "second wave", but "heavy" has been in use since the late 1960s). Again, there's nothing in the Krautrock scene that jumps out to me as being technically outstanding, in relation to metal.
This covers 1973-1975.
Fairly obviously, Judas Priest dominate in terms of technique in the next stage - albeit rather clumsily at first - "Exciter" is the first piece of music in which I've heard the thrash (up and down picking) technique used, and it's extremely important in the development of technical metal. Rush, obviously fit in here, and it shouldn't be overlooked that Ritchie Blackmore brought a temporary "classical" approach to Rainbow.
This covers 1976-1978.
Raven's debut and follow-up, Rush (again) and Ozzy's new band (featuring ex-Heep Lee Kerslake and ex-Rainbow Bob Daisley, although, allegedly uncredited on Ozzy's 2nd album). Yup, that's right - no mention of Sabbath, whose influence on all things metal is a given, but Ozzy's band cited as an important influence. Well, that's thanks to Randy Rhoades, who used the thrash technique used by Priest on "Exciter" on "I Don't Know", also used more advanced classical techniques than Ritchie Blackmore, and, as far as I can tell, introduced the "shredding" style to metal - I'm still looking for earlier examples.
This period also includes Van Halen and Iron Maiden, whose foundational contributions are legendary.
So now I'm up to 1980, and I'll have to revisit, as I've run out of time today... any comments or glaring omissions?
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 15 2007 at 03:45
|
^ nice!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 15 2007 at 04:51
|
Need to verify, by revisiting the music, but I found this article - which is interesting, because I was going to mention UFO, primarily because of Schenker - who was also in the Scorps with UJ Roth.
http://www.houseofshred.com/features/shredhistory/history_1201.htm - http://www.houseofshred.com/features/shredhistory/history_1201.htm
The Wikipedia article on shredding also reminds me of the Alvin Lee performance at Woodstock - which is a worthy contender for proto-shred. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: aprusso
Date Posted: April 15 2007 at 12:27
| Nice but please define "modern prog" |
Posted By: Tony K
Date Posted: April 15 2007 at 12:28
Very good.
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 00:54
| Neat, but your post-rock dates are off. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 01:26
|
^ How so?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 01:35
|
I was going to mention both UFO and Michael Schenker Band early albums... plus - and I know this sounds nuts - Tom Scholz may have had a significant impact on the "tech/metal" movement, and perhaps Martin Barre as well. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 01:39
|
^ but not all tech metal is necessarily prog. The distinction is very difficult and also quite subjective ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 01:42
|
No, much if not most 'tech' is not prog-- but I was speaking more of influence. |
Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 03:57
|
By "Nu Prog" do you mean "Post Prog"? That's the term I'm hearing a
lot, if not reading it so much. I haven't heard anyon use "new prog" as
a genre term yet. And is "Modern Prog" an attempt at giving SB, TFK and the like their own genre? If so, I applaud it heartily, even if the name is a tad vague. -------------  
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 04:35
|
I gave "Fly to the Rainbow" a spin, primarily listening for technical elements - and it is, as the article I pasted a lik to suggests, a stunner.
UJ Roth can clearly be heard to punish the tremolo arm in no uncertain terms - raising it's position to "whammy bar", using it to perform "dive-bombs" and a host of other effects. There is an obvious Hendrix influence in some of what he plays, and a lot of Blackmore - but an awful lot of his own invention.
I look forward to listening to "In Trance" and "Virgin Killers", where I suspect I'll hear these techniques being developed.
A lot of this album reminded me of Wishbone Ash, so I gave "Pilgrimage" a spin - and I think that they can probably be included in the 1969-1973 timeframe; their twin-barrelled melodic leads are an obvious influence on the likes of Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest and Iron Maiden - and hence much that followed them - and the song constructions are reasonably adventurous.
The mention of Martin Barre reminded me of "Heavy Horses", which isn't really metal, or in the metal tradition, but certainly has a wide appeal and, of all Tull albums, could easily be found in the collections of metal fans - and the influence of Progressive Rock on metal musicians focussing on technique is fairly obvious - so I think this is a good link, but I'm not sure which techniques were "passed on" - unusual time signature usage, possibly?
It's probably also worth considering some of the big US bands in the mid-1970s, such as Boston (acknowledging the Tom Scholz link), Kansas (acknowledging the Prog link) - and even Styx and Journey, whose polished and technical approach remains a deep influence on technically-minded bands, even if the end results are generally nothing to shout about. There are probably better examples - but these are best known.
1979-1980 has been making me think a bit more; That was the time of the rise of the "New Wave" of Heavy Metal, and the new bands could be split into two main groups (although most blurred the line significantly with their early outings);
1. The "This goes to 11" brigade, where everything was louder, faster or more obnoxious than ever before - boundary pushing in its own way, but not technical.
2. The other side of "This goes to 11", where technique got a clearer focus - these bands needed to prove that it wasn't about how loud or fast it was, but rather about the musician's skills or techniques.
To show how the boundaries were blurred, listen to Def Leppard or even Saxon's first albums - both bands made concerted efforts to write metal songs that weren't 3-chord wonders, with extended solo passages; Saxon's "Frozen Rainbow" and Def Leppard's "Lady Strange" are good examples.
Taking the lead in this (need to confirm dates) was Diamond Head, whose 1st album was praised as the natural succession to Led Zeppelin by one major music paper (I think it was Sounds, but can't find source). All 3 Diamond Head albums from this time show an amazing development of techniques, dynamic in writing and musical styles. Canterbury is probably the most interesting - at least, the 50% that isn't commericially-oriented drivel,
Also of great interest at this time is production techniques in metal - which also plays a great part in the development of technical metal; with the new, more transparent and sounds attainable, greater precision of technical execution led to new ways of thinking about what was possible;
I think that Robert "Mutt" Lange was probably the man here;
His production on AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" is astonishing for the time - and "Back In Black" would possibly not be the kickass album it is without him raising the bar on the production standards again. Note that there's nothing particularly technical about the music, but there's not a single note out of place - everything is razor sharp. "Back In Black" arguably defines the sound of Heavy Metal better than anything before it.
The new focus on production was prevalent everywhere; Black Sabbath's "Heaven and Hell", as well as featuring RJ Dio on vocals (a technical vocalist if ever there was one - and a nice link from Rainbow), Iommi's riffs never sounded as clean-cut before, and the album packs a wallop that Sabbath had previously only dreamed of. The song writing technique also benefits - we see an emphasis on lights, shades and contrasts that always existed in Sabbath taken to a new extreme. Depending on release dates, this probably defines the metal sound even better than "Back in Black" - especially from a technical point of view.
Another band that received a surprising polish was Motorhead - "Ace of Spades" production is still peerless - and although hardly a technically focussed band, Motorhead had plenty of unique tricks up their collective sleeves that would influence later generations; The album "Overkill" is possibly their most astonishing to newcomers to the band, as it ranges from the cosmically atmospheric "Metropolis" to the aptly named title track.
I also frequently mention 2 other albums as being important landmarks, in terms of metal, and these are Samson's "Head On", which showcases an amazing variety of approaches to metal songwriting, with great attention to technical detail, and Riot's "Narita", a guitar-focussed follow-on to the Deep Purple tradition, with added speed - there are no easy precedents for this album - the title track and "White Rock" are outstanding in terms of technique.
Finally (how could I forget!); Twelfth Night, who in 1979 sounded almost nothing like the same band that would record "Fact and Fiction". Often lumped in with metal bands, because music stores weren't sure where else to file them - and almost a constant on the stages at Reading Festival in between the NWOBHM bands, their "Live at the Target" LP is a curious and unique blend of Prog Rock, Hard Rock, Space Rock and Wishbone Ash style Classic Rock, with shifting atmospherics that frequently give way to driving metal-styled riffs.
1979-1980 was an amazing time for metal - almost equivalent to 1969-1970 for Prog Rock, and I'm bound to have missed something out - but I think that these are the roots for the explosion in development of technique to come in the 1980s.
*To clarify my use of the term "Technical", I see it as music that clearly focusses on technique as a means of expression (as opposed to "straight" virtuoso music), and particularly gave rise to widespread use of those techniques.
*EDIT: Footage of Uli Jon Roth shredding in 1977 (from what I can make out from the comment on YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5r16oIOfXY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5r16oIOfXY  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 05:28
|
@Cert: Doesn't Zeppelin's approach to riffing (on all instruments) from their 1976 album "Presence" fit well inside this discussion? It was especially on the Knebworth 1979 live performance from the DVD where I noticed a really strong connection with was to become of metal in the 80s ("thrash" is the name if I'm not wrong). There are two or three moments in "Achilles' Last Stand" when the guitar stops its "narrative" tempo and the bass & drums put together an extremely agressive and syncopated riff (the guitar joins at some point if I'm not wrong). That's something I have yet to hear in any other stuff from the 70s, it is only with Metallica that I've found it again. What do you say? ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 06:29
|
okay but too many metal subgenres I think it'd be more practical to put them under the prog metal banner just like you have done with the canterbury, zeuhl and italian prog under the classic prog category ------------- |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 06:44
|
^ of course ... that's also why I placed prog metal on the opposite side of the timeline than prog rock. Technically Jazz-Fusion also deserves its own area, and probably Krautrock/Avant/RIO/Zeuhl too.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 07:05
Probably: I mentioned Zep earlier, as a direct influence on Rush, so it's fair to include them in the technical timeline right up to the 1980s. I'm a little reticent to view Zep as a technically-oriented band, however important they are in the development of technical metal; technique was pretty much a by-product rather than a goal.
However, to be fair, this is primarily because I'm not very keen on Zep's music after their fourth album and not due to any genuine musical considerations. I guess that consensus would be a good indicator here.
This is also a nice opportunity to present this link to footage of Michael Schenker shredding (sweep-picking) and also using other techniques that are still widely used by shredders with UFO in 1975: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6H-uxXwdrg - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6H-uxXwdrg
Note also the rhythmic accompaniment, which predicts Iron Maiden's trademark style, as well as thrash (pre-dating "Exciter"), and the careful design element in the arrangement of the solo passage.
I think this video clearly shows technique as a goal - as a means to express musical ideas, rather than as a by-product of experimentation - no matter how clumsy the execution may seem in the light of today's clinically pristine shredders. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 07:16
|
I would concur that Zep's musical focus was on expression through blues rock rather than technique as a centerpiece, and whatever influence on technical playing they had peaked by about 1972. andu's point about 'Achille's Last Stand' is valid, but by '76 the real techies were in full swing and had begun to leave Page in the dust. One of the key junctures was the first two Ozzy albums, as Certif1ed has noted. Randy Rhodes' rhythmic attack is deeply felt throughout this school and though Iomi, Schenker, Roth and others had influence, none had the impact that Rhodes would turn out to have on those who followed. |
Posted By: Baza
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 07:21
|
There is of course this map by Jerry Lucky:
http://mitkadem.homestead.com/files/map.html - http://mitkadem.homestead.com/files/map.html
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 07:26
|
^ I know that chart - it's very nice and detailed. But for my timeline I explicitly want to keep things simple ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 09:01
He put Zappa in an interesting spot...  
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 09:56
I'm not convinced - I think that both Schenker and Roth had profound influence in both lead and rhythm styles - you can hear most of the techniques in use in Kirk Hammett's soloing - and while no-one would argue the case for Hammett being the greatest ever, he did have lessons from Satriani (who in turn had lessons from Billy Bauer and Lennie Tristano - but more of that later).
Schenker was considered by Ozzy as a suitable replacement for Rhoads - whose early Quiet Riot material shows a fair amount of influence from both Schenker and Roth, as well as Blackmore, Van Halen, Brian May and a host of other great guitarists - and while it takes a great guitarist to have so many influences, it does indicate that Rhoads evolved existing technique rather than innovated: There is more evidence of those other guitarists having exerted influence on successive generations than Rhoads himself.
Rhoads was unique in some ways (witness this great solo from his Quiet Riot days in the late 1970s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxN0mQgQdPM - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxN0mQgQdPM ) but the Scorpions' founder guitarists appeared to have done a lot of the groundwork for him to build on - that much seems evident in the heavier parts of his soloing; checkout his sweep-picking technique, string bending as part of repeated figures, and use of the whammy bar for dive-bombing - all characteristic of Roth/Schenker.
While the quieter more melodic parts using harmonics and such like are pure Randy, observe also that he was given to using a fair bit of bluff for showmanship - in the older blues tradition. Nothing wrong with that - until the mid 1980s, just about every guitarist used it - but we're discussing technique, and bluff is not a technique that any teacher would pass on, not something that's particularly evident in the Scorpions music, and it's not part of technical metal as anyone thinks of it.
This is why I still think that Roth and Schenker stole a march on all technical guitarists and remain more overlooked than they should be - simply because they were at the cutting edge - developing these techniques to fit the music they wanted to write, instead of crowbarring the techniques into showy solos...
...that came later for Schenker with his own group (just for fun, compare Ozzy's "Steal Away the Night" with MSG's "Armed and Ready") - while Roth went off on one, beyond astral skies... this is what he was doing in 1979; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekDkd0oUxzQ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekDkd0oUxzQ (and it's supposed to play tribute to Hendrix - Uli became friendly with Jimi's ex-girlfriend, and legend has it that she imparted the spirit of Hendrix to him... not sure if that's true, but that's the story!).
I'll stop now, and try to focus on 1981-83 (pre-thrash). ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 10:06
I think that's two tales mixed up - it was Frank Marino who claimed to be imbued with the spirit of Hendrix, Uli was just sha**ing his ex-girlfriend...
 |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 12:49
You need to visit the Knebworth Fair again, David. Anyway, the riffing I noticed there was not from the guitar, but from the drum & bass. It's when the lead guitar is soloing, that the drum and bass put down down this supporting riff. Here you have two samples (there are actually four such moments in the song): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xBdsRs857E - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xBdsRs857E and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLoTznrdSA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLoTznrdSA The difference with Metallica and thrash metal is (imo of course) that this riffing is not back-up support but lead structure, and the guitar(s) follows it instead of flowing over it. However I still say it was revolutionary at the time of 1975-1977 and I haven't seen anything like it at any of the 70s bands that I know. Of course this doesn't make Zeppelin technical oriented, nor a part of the development of shredding and other related metal issues. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: jikai55
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 13:12
| I would put the Core of Post-Metal now, but Post-Metal began much earlier in the 90's with Neurosis evolving it from hardcore. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 16:08
Could be - I don't have access to the source, only 3rd-party stuff like this;
http://www.houseofshred.com/features/shredhistory/history_1201.htm - http://www.houseofshred.com/features/shredhistory/history_1201.htm
http://www.ulijonroth.com/sky/lux_artis/monika_1.htm - http://www.ulijonroth.com/sky/lux_artis/monika_1.htm
http://www.artists2events.co.uk/artists/ulijonroth.html - http://www.artists2events.co.uk/artists/ulijonroth.html
I guess that anyone who comes within a sniff of Hendrix's socks is bound to feel his spirit imparted to them - there's something very universal about Hendrix's music that makes you feel like you understand it, even if you can't play it.
Personally, I think that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GSpbuFSr2o - Stevie Ray Vaughan got closest - but I'm catching up - I once had a mate who had Lemmy crash on his floor for a month - and Lemmy was Hendrix's roadie, so that counts...
 ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 16 2007 at 16:50
Speaking of great shredding blues guitarists ... check out Greg Koch and Scott Henderson!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 17 2007 at 03:08
Lemmy was everyone's roadie . I think you're on the right track, Certif1ed, just remember not to overestimate the impact of Schenker/Roth. The Scorpions could be as much a pop band as they were cutting edge metal.. a melodic power group that knew how to thrill teens. As great as 'Sails of Charon' was, there were many more 'Speedy's Comin', 'Robot Man', 'Dark Lady' and many anthemic love songs. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 17 2007 at 03:34
Neither of those really falls into the time period I've looked at so far - but the Miles Daivs/Chick Corea links are of interest - shredding ultimately came from jazz, but tying the style down to specific musicians is not easy. Billy Bauer is the top man, as far as I can see, with Allan Holdsworth playing a later important role in the development of shred.
Stevie Ray Vaughan is important from the blues perspective, as a Hendrix revivalist he was peerless, even compared to Frank Marino who it was claimed, as Tony pointed out, was rumoured to be Hendrix re-incarnate in the early 1970s.
These two strands bring together blues and jazz, to form the ultimate root to the timeline;
Summary so far of the timeline to technical metal and shred
I've greatly simplified this to 3 core periods - or 5, if you consider that Progressive Jazz then Progressive Blues gave way to late 1960s hard rock acts, some of which became technique-oriented. From Jazz came techniques such as modal harmonies and scales, not to mention shredding itself (alternate or sweep-picking), and from Blues came riffing and "emotional" techniques such as string-bending. From both came soloing techniques such as double-stopping, intervallic leaps, octave runs, chromaticism, etc - and crucially for metal, use of effects pedals.
The devil is in the detail, as they say - but I think these 3 periods are accurate, even if there are other genre definitions for most of the bands. I've made a few revisions
Proto-technical-metal bands (1968-1972);
Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Spooky Tooth, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Budgie, Wishbone Ash, King Crimson, Frank Zappa, Groundhogs, Pink Floyd, Hawkwind, Pink Fairies, Uriah Heep, Ten Years After.
Technical hard rock/early heavy metal (1973-1978)
Rush, Queen, some Bowie, the Scorpions (crucially, for shredding!), UFO (because of Schenker), Rainbow, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Boston, Judas Priest, Thin Lizzy, Motorhead, Kansas, Budgie, Blue Oyster Cult.
Technical New Wave of Heavy Metal (1979-1982)
Diamond Head, Raven, Iron Maiden, Samson, Riot, Twelfth Night, Hawkwind, Uli Jon Roth, MSG, Van Halen, Blizzard of Ozz (Rhoads), Frank Zappa (was joined by Steve Vai at this time), Metal Church, Black Sabbath, Blue Oyster Cult, Venom (for sheer dumb right place, right time luck rather than skill).
That simplifies the overall timeline for technical metal as a whole, up to 1982 - but it's always possible to overlook stuff, so please feel free to point out important omissions - and documentary evidence always goes down well (I love watching old videos and listening to old music that I haven't yet "discovered").
 I've sneaked a few into each period - any comments?
Can you think of any specific Krautrock bands that were technically oriented in a manner that's relevant to the development of technical metal?
It seems logical to assume that the Scorpions arose from the Krautrock scene, so there must have been others that focussed on the "how" a little more than the "why" - ie, most Kraut I've heard tends to be about the expression itself, using existing techniques (e.g. Pink Floyd, Hawkwind, Hendrix) rather than developing unique and measurable methods of expression.
Kraftwerk, Faust and Can are notable exceptions - but while their technical focus is beyond question, I'm not sure of their place in the metal scheme of things. As I mentioned earlier, Necronomicon were almost insanely dark, and could qualify - but again, they were exceptions. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 17 2007 at 03:41
|
Don't forget the influence Kevin Heybourne and his 'AngelWitch' record (1980) had on Metallica's formative period-- we know this because Hetfield stated it as being vital to their early music. Other great Hendrix channelers were of course Randy Hansen and, to a lesser degree, Robin Trower. But SRV took the cake.. live he was astounding in his ability not only to replicaye Hendrix but to capture the spontineity of Jimi's style. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 17 2007 at 03:54
That's the thing about the Scorps, and technical music in general in this period - it's hard to extract the technical bits, because the songs are so strong.
Speedy's Comin', for example, contains some amazing technical bits and pieces; listen to Roth pound that whammy bar... sorry, tremolo arm with no advanced locking system or nice things to make it easy to play. Robot Man too, if I recall correctly.
I don't remember the technical sections of Dark Lady - but the anthemic love songs didn't really come until later in the Scorps career - even then, there tended to be only 1 or 2 per album, e.g. In Trance, Lady Starlight, and both have nice vocal harmony techniques, tempo changes, and strong suggestions of modulation and somewhat advanced harmony writing - they're a bit above the average for this time period (Styx, Journey, REO Speedwagon, etc).
I appreciate what you're saying about the pop-oriented songs, though, as that is what ultimately split the band - or rather, scared off the technical players. MSG and UFOs songs weren't exactly radio-unfriendly either - and I think that is why Schenker ultimately stopped developing.
Ultimately, Roth appears to have brought shredding into metal - which is hugely significant, and both Roth and Schenker were ahead of their time in terms of other techniques both in the Scorpions and in their later projects - but it's the 1974-1978 time frame I'm looking at - who would you say was more/equally advanced in the world of metal at that time and why?
Maybe so - and it's tempting to include AngelWitch, but while they had a unique sound and great style, there wasn't anything specific in their technique that I can identify as being significant.
We can't really include all of Metallica's influences - don't forget that they were also influenced by Crass, Killing Joke and the Misfits
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 17 2007 at 05:21
|
oh there's no doubt Uli was and is hugely important.. more so than Schenker or possibly even EVH, so you are quitre correct (Yngwie may not even have picked up a guitar without him). And he was much more significant to shred with the Scorps than his work on the Electric Sun records (Earthquake, Firewind-- '79/80).. great albums and very progrssive but more organic psych than tech. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 17 2007 at 07:16
|
I guess it's all proto-tech until the mid 1980s and the emergence of Vai and Malmsteen as major players - it's conclusive from his approach that Roth was an organic player, but also an incredibly technical one. I'm not looking at "technical" as an overall style - I dislike meaningless genre labels intensely - I'm looking at it from a practical and provable point of view by asking the question; Did the musician(s) use and develop specific and demonstrable techniques that were later used as a (demonstrably) fundamental element of composition?The problem I'm having finalising the early 1980s is with bands like Night Ranger and Bon Jovi, in which whammy bar (Brad Gillis - notably ex-Ozzy) and shredding (Jeff Watson), pinch harmonics and muting (Sambora) were regularly used as an integral part of solo writing. It's interesting that some sources state that Bon Jovi opened for the Scorpions in their early days.
Who would see these bands as contributors to a technical genre, given the standard pop songs they put out?
 The other problem with the early 1980s is sorting out the technicians from the bluffers in the thrash metal camp - at the time, most of it seemed incredibly technical - but in perspective, only a select few really developed techniques that had staying power. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 17 2007 at 07:27
right.. like Viv Campbell with Ireland's Sweet Savage, later with Dio-- great early shredder, but more from a blues tradition (Gary Moore, Jimmy Page), and did few things we hadn't seen from Moore or Rhoads. |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: April 17 2007 at 15:04
|
Never expected that a thread about a timeline could become so interesting. Keep this up Mark & Mike & others, this could be material for part 3 of ProgLucky's Prog Rock Guide.... Mike: did you attempt an update of the figure already? ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 17 2007 at 15:29
No, unfortunately I'm currently very busy with work ... I might have some time to update the timeline next weekend, but it's more likely that it'll have to wait a while longer.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: April 17 2007 at 15:33
|
Know the feeling. I spent the day at home today because I was ill, but tomorrow it's back to the trenches. I'll keep an eye on the thread - this is great stuff. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: glass house
Date Posted: April 17 2007 at 15:46
|
Quote from Certif1ed:
Technical New Wave of Heavy Metal (1979-1982)
Diamond Head, Raven, Iron Maiden, Samson, Riot, Twelfth Night, Hawkwind, Uli Jon Roth, MSG, Van Halen, Blizzard of Ozz (Rhoads), Frank Zappa (was joined by Steve Vai at this time), Metal Church, Black Sabbath, Blue Oyster Cult, Venom (for sheer dumb right place, right time luck rather than skill).end quote.
Would you put Y & T's Earthshaker in this section? Surely Meniketti's guitar play deserves that.
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: April 17 2007 at 20:23
Well post-rock albums were out before 1995. So the date of it starting in 95 is wrong. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 18 2007 at 02:26
|
^ example?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 18 2007 at 03:00
I saw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS06pQJrZdo - Y&T at Reading festival in 1982 (Link to "Forever") - and they surely kicked ass - but Meniketti had a strong tendency towards bluff at that time; there are no identifiable techniques in the above linked video that are peculiar to or developed by Meniketti; most are very similar to Schenker.
There's no doubting Meniketti's ear for a good melody, and the rhythms are strong - but very strongly reminiscent of the Scorpions/UFO.
Just because Y&T were so good, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMIAEpdz7EI - here's "Black Tiger" from 1983 - but illustrating more strongly his tendency towards bluff/showmanship over measurable musical technique (which is very different to implying that the technique wasn't any good from a feeling point of view - it's simply that the provable elements are missing).
Illustrating further the UFO connection, here's the rather wonderful (and no less dodgy) video to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga1lJxGI3BM - Mean Streak with plenty of similarities to "Rock Bottom"), a passable shredding attempt and rich pinch harmonics.
Here's the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6H-uxXwdrg - UFO version (1975) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnQFLoCbWw - MSG version (1982) of "Rock Bottom" for reference, and just for kicks, a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_mFjFvbkb0 - bonus version from UFO in 2001 at Donington - with Uli Jon Roth!.
Y&T made great music - but in 1983, there were plenty more higher up on the technical front - think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6qyPaJZsrw - Queensryche , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn7Q-Zczbxk - Mercyful Fate , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuwgnP2CiO4 - Metallica and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4QcKT2fPvU - Slayer . No-one's saying these bands were better - but their techniques were demonstrably more advanced (check the linked videos!).
Talking of advanced, there are http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzqoflT70b4 - other guitarists of the time who deserve http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5ORGWfJiTI - gratuitous links while we're talking technique in the early 1980s.  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 18 2007 at 03:17
|
I saw Y&T regularly and they rocked, especially Dave who did have a couple techie riffs ('Hurricane', 'Forever') but didn't really influence. Sadly, after the metal chunks of Earthshaker and musicality of Black Tiger, they went downhill fast. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 18 2007 at 03:31
|
^Did you check out the vids to "Forever" and "Black Tiger" I linked to above?
That'll stir up the nostalgia! ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 18 2007 at 03:38
|
ooh yeah, I should do that. Thanks for reminding me... |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: April 18 2007 at 20:31
Slint - Tweez (1989), Spiderland (1991) Tortoise - Tortoise (1994) Rodan - Rusty (1994) Don Caballero - For Respect (1993) Gastr Del Sol - The Serpentine Similar (1993), Crookt Crackt or Fly (1994) Dirty Three - Sad and Dangerous (1994) |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 19 2007 at 01:47
|
^ Ok, maybe 1994 instead of 1995 because of the Tortoise debut. But I really think that it wasn't until GYBE! and Sigur Ros that Post Rock became a genre (as opposed to some isolated experimental minimalistic albums).
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: April 19 2007 at 19:00
| Well it was pretty much Slint, and then everyone after who wanted to be them. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 20 2007 at 01:50
|
^ Slint is tagged mostly "Post Rock" on last.fm ( http://www.lastfm.de/music/slint - http://www.lastfm.de/music/slint ) ... but the album Tweez for example ( http://www.lastfm.de/music/Slint/Tweez - http://www.lastfm.de/music/Slint/Tweez ) is only tagged alternative rock, and for Spiderland it's half Indie, half Post Rock. I'd say that they are some kind of Proto Post Rock. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: April 20 2007 at 13:37
|
Vanilla Fudge seems to be a precursor for two branches of prog related music. Clearly their mix of rock and other other musics (serious, Tamla) can be heard very soon after in Nice (of course the main precursor for ELP ). However, Jeff Beck is quite clear about the heavy rhythm section of VF being his influence for the heavy rock of Truth and Cosa Nostra Beckola - which in turn provide the precursor for LZ - as stated in the Truth/Cosa Nostra CD liner notes. Then I alway think the heavy rock heard both on the May Blitz albums and the early Stray albums, should not be neglected.And what about the Heavy Metal Kids? ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: April 21 2007 at 02:27
I would say Tweez was more a mix of post-rock and post-hardcore, but leaning more towards post-hardcore. While Spiderland was all post-rock. That's just me though....as far as I know. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 22 2007 at 11:14
Vanilla Fudge is a band I've never really treated seriously, due to the many "unusual" cover versions I've heard them do - which album(s) would you say are most important from a timeline perspective (earliest with mixed styles, etc.)?
I've always heard Spooky Tooth as a major influence on Led Zep (outside of Yardbirds, Bluesbreakers, etc) - and also on Deep Purple and Black Sabbath - would you concur?
If Iron Maiden want to cover their stuff ("All in Your Mind" was the B-side of "Holy Smoke"), Stray must be OK. and Heavy Metal Kids are fascinating because they released their debut in 1974 - indicating that the term was in use to describe Hard Rock music back then.
May Blitz I agree with; Their heavy sound (which they evolved - or possibly devolved - only slightly from their direct ancestors, Bakerloo) is only rivalled by High Tide. They're an acquired taste though - I understand they weren't very popular at the time (getting booed off on at least one reported occasion), and the music has a tendency to descend into noise (which I heartily approve of, but can understand why it might put people off!). ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |