Did the Beatles really Invent Prog? Or not?
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=103147
Printed Date: April 29 2024 at 02:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Did the Beatles really Invent Prog? Or not?
Posted By: SteveG
Subject: Did the Beatles really Invent Prog? Or not?
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 18:20
|
Ok, time for the final debate. You know what the age old question is, so let's settle it and try to have some fun. In his 2010 book, Electric Eden, author Rob Young argues that Strawberry Fields Forever by the Beatles defined what was the archetypal British Psychedelic rock song, based on the fact that it was constructed from two out of tune (by a semi tone) songs that were patched together in the studio, utilized a ground breaking new approach to pop songs with orchestration by utilizing a mellotron, used backwards recorded, as well as other, tape effects. All combined with "arty" lyrics. For the sake of argument, I will agree with Young, and further propose that Strawberry Fields was also the archetypal Prog Rock song and gave recording artists the expanded pallet to compose and record the Progressive Rock that flourished in the late sixties and took off in the early seventies. Every member of PA is a Prog expert, to some extent, so please chime in, and let's keep it civil (and fun.)
 |
Replies:
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 18:22
Is some kind of sick joke Steve  the Beatles? They never existed!I read it first here on PA's!  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 18:30
| ^I guess that Prog never existed either. OK, Never mind then. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 18:32
|
it never did.. it is just the figment of some record company executive's mind on how he can sell albums.. oh english.. songs longer than 3minutes 30.. people calling it progressive.. f**k it.. too long ..call it prog. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 18:35
Ouch! That hurt.  
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 18:41
The thing is, Strawberry Fields has almost nothing to do with what prog was or is. There is no doubt Psych-rock was largely the predecessor of Prog, that's obvious. But things like SFF were, in typical Beatles style, tailored, reduced, and distilled so that one could actually listen to and digest it; they were songcrafters, not art musicians. There appears to have been a simultaneous revelation about what you could do with the rock format ~ George Martin, Brian Wilson, Kit Lambert, Cooper/Guercio, etc. ~ and what became prog essentially was what an artist and a good producer could accomplish. Prog was invented by its time, not a band, certainly not a 3-minute Pop Vocal act like the Beatles. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
SteveG wrote:Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 18:41
|
Steve, you are my friend but....I have just written you out of my will for this post/question. Off the top of my head I would go with the Moody Blues, Nights In White Satin (1967)....Stawberry Fields (1967/68)..... People give the Beatles too much credit when progressive/psych rock was already being recorded... Plus the Fab Four sux.......IMHO of course. -------------   
|
Posted By: LearsFool
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 19:29
|
The Fab Four probably had less influence on prog than many believe, but it has to be there. Mainly, it would have to be the general influence Sgt. Peppers had through its use of the modern studio and how that inspired others to go forward with their ideas, and Abbey Road building on that, plus with its particular focus on flow and, to a extent, cohesion. Of course with that latter album, though, The Beach Boys already pioneered that kind of pop cohesiveness with Pet Sounds. "A Day In The Life", "Happiness Is A Warm Gun", and "I Want You" are prototypical prog songs, but that's it - they're early and, for lack of a better word, rudimentary examples. They brought up time signatures and structures that were irregular and shifting, but some of the later hallmarks of prog are missing due to the tracks' very nature. And when "I Want You" was being laid down, so was the entirety of In The Court of The Crimson King. Hello! And Crimson's big influence? Clouds, a proto-prog band oft forgotten. All in all, prog's the place that the Beatles didn't really have the same influence that's often attributed to them and is often otherwise there. But they and the Beach Boys were the two biggest contributors to the rise of the climate that helped birth prog. -------------  
|
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 20:03
|
Lol No. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 21:05
I would not call Strawberry Fields an archetypal prog rock song. Maybe by today's standards where we accept Radiohead as prog  , but not by the 70s standards with long, complicated epics. Strawberry fields seems to be a very sophisticated, 'weird' take on the classic verse-chorus format. There is no instrumental interlude and certainly the linearity of a Tarkus is yet far away. You could argue that CTTE too has a re-iterated verse chorus but even it has the "I Get Up, I Get Down" break. Archetypal proto prog song? Sure. I am in complete agreement that it opened up possibilities for the prog rock bands to come. But it wasn't prog rock in itself.
|
Posted By: Scoppioingola
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 21:27
|
People cite Sgt Pepper a lot, but to be fair, the Beatles we're already innovators during Help/Rubber Soul and the seminal Revolver. As early as Help, they were experimenting with shifting time signatures (on We Can Work it Out and, a bit later, Rain). Even in jazz shifting time signatures was unusual at this point (only a few years prior did the Dave Brubeck Quartet started to experiment with unusual time signatures in '59). It is perhaps a bit much to call all that 'prog' per se, but no doubt they laid the blueprints for what to come. If anything, they did give Robert Fripp the desire to create 'art rock'. If not they inventors of prog, I'd argue they still are the progenitors. |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 21:28
|
•Freak Out! was the first Prog, although with a tenuous historical connection with what occurred not long after in England. •Strawberry fields was Proto-Prog at best, also with a tenuous historical connection with what occurred not long after or concurrently in England. •Radiohead is not Prog. |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 22:12
I agree. Certainly Prog songs philosophically can exist without instrumental interludes. But just as I think that most people on PA tend to be more interested in instrumental parts than vocal parts currently, the historical development of instrumental interludes as evolved from psychedelic Rock was essential to the history of Prog. I just don't see any path of historical influence that owed itself to vocal passages. |
Posted By: A_Flower
Date Posted: July 05 2015 at 23:20
| The Beatles did invent prog, but were not alone. The other inventors were Procol Harum and The Moody Blues. All these three sort of grew inspirations and eventually came King Crimson with ITCOTCK. That's the captital album of prog that inspired many others, diffusing into more prog, and so on. |
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 00:05
| Strawberry Fields isn't really any more prog than say Good Vibrations. I think the first Beatles song you could say, "dang, that's prog right there" is A Day in the Life. It's rock, modern classical, and even jazz but creating something more. There is quite a bit of music between '66-'67 that was approaching prog, but it all had a little something that was too psychedelic, too blues, or too pop. The Moody Blues got as close as anyone in late '67, and Procol Harum's "In Held Twas in I" in '68 did practically everything prog would be famous for, so it's not really accurate to say the Beatles invented prog. People who point to Abbey Road need to check their timelines too. |
Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 00:14
|
I've been saying the Strawberry Fields single was the birth of prog for years and no eloquently formed argument will change my mind because unlike most other "PA experts", I was there ------------- https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987 |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 00:15
|
Yes, they did invent English Symphonic rock (as a subgenre of the progressive rock) with Strawberry Fields Forever. Everybody who's not deaf could hear it. English Symphonic rock actually was started with the single. However, the Progressive rock in general was invented by The Mothers of Invention with Freak Out! the album.
|
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 07:30
|
For what it's worth - I don't believe The Beatles were Prog per se, but they did introduce the 'thinking outside of the box' approach to composition and recording. Creative, for sure, but fairly average as musicians. As far as I'm concerned, Floyd's Piper was more Prog than Sgt. Pepper's. Even the Airplane's Baxter's album was more complex and diverse than Pepper's. Heck, even Magical Mystery Tour was more advanced than Pepper's. I can understand why many folks here at P.A. despise their inclusion. Were they creative - Yes Were they intelligent - Yes Were they innovative - Yes Were they complex - hmm, occasionally Were they good - Yes Were they Prog - No, I don't think so ......should they be a bona-fide inclusion here at P.A. ???? Well, they're here, and that won't change anytime soon, sooooo........... |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 07:31
| But Beatles are here as proto-prog, which they most definitely are. I don't even think it is worth much of a debate with songs like aforesaid Strawberry Fields, Day in a Life, Happiness is a Warm Gun, etc. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 07:48
|
Nope definitely not, but they paved the way for it. There's a big difference. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: NutterAlert
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 08:02
| I'd say hats off to Enrico Caruso for getting the ball rolling, others have just chipped away over the years' standing on the shoulders of giants. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 08:47
|
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 09:07
This. Took the words right out of my mouth!  ------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 10:12
|
I don't think the Beatles were the "first prog band", but as Gulbamsen writes, they "paved the way", or at least, helped paving the way (there were others, too, but the Beatles were the best-known among them). ------------- ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf "What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes." |
Posted By: hellogoodbye
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 10:25
They invent everything .... so why not prog ?   |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 10:32
|
OP's Response: Ok, I'm quite satisfied that the Beatles did not invent prog, but were it's fore runners. Remember, I proposed the Strawberry Fields example for the "sake of argument" in order to get the discussion rolling. However, if Strawberry Fields was not the archetypal Prog song of the sixties, then what song was? Please keep in mind that archetypal refers to "a typical example of something".
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 11:37
|
"archetypal" means a tad more than just "a typical example of something" ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 11:39
|
^Fair enough. Feel free to elaborate. ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 11:53
|
I feel that the Beatles were not really much more than a sixties boy band. They had some interesting compositions for the time, but they really never escalated more than that. Maybe sometimes praise them a little to highly for something that wasn't that amazing. ------------- http://fryingpanmedia.com |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 12:01
Your addled attempt at minimization lacks all historical perspective. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 13:49
If you insist. Young described Strawberry Fjords as being the archetypal British Psychedelic rock song and you, in playing devil's advocate  , proposed that it was the archetypal prog song. The use of the definitive article before the word 'archetypal' implies the more precise meaning of 'archetypal', namely "An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned; a prototype" (archetype is derived from the Greek: arkhe meaning first and typos meaning model). This means a tad more than just"a typical example of something"'.However, you've declared the boundary condition within which you are working by stating that 'archetypal refers to "a typical example of something"'. In this sense 'archetypal' has more or less the same meaning as 'quintessential'... (i.e., it doesn't have to be the first), so now all people need to do is list their favourite Prog song written any time during the decade that was the 1960s that they feel is "a typical example of Prog song" and the thread will wend its merry way.  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 13:56
|
Leave It To Stever starring Jerry Blathers and Phony Dow. ------------- "It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 14:17
|
No....next question...? ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 14:17
I second this and I add that prog doesn't have a birthday. It evolved from something else and it didn't take a day. If Zeuhl is prog Carl Orff deserves a place on PA more than Beatles. They had the merit of bringing psychedelia and art rock to the ears of the pop public, but they didn't invent it. Abbey Road is a prog album for me. ------------- Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half. My poor home recorded stuff at https://yellingxoanon.bandcamp.com |
Posted By: terramystic
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 14:20
Totally agree. IMO the Beatles reached the line between psych and prog. |
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 14:45
Prog didn't just happen, it was the result of many years (centuries) of musical and technological innovation....omitting the classical composers, we had:
etc. I cannot identify any one person or group who "invented" prog, it was an inventive process that spanned a long period of time. There are probably beat composers of the 1950s who developed some amazing progressive music that has never been heard since. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 15:11
Btw, arkhe derived from the Greek: means origin, protos means first.
(So PA will now have to change it's Proto Prog subgenre to Archeo Prog. Doh!) |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 15:22
|
Posted By: emigre80
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 15:33
This promises to be a fun evening. I'm going to go make the popcorn.
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 16:56
|
No one band can be fairly credited with inventing prog. I consider them to be proggy at least. I have everything from Rubber Soul to the bitter end and like them all very much. Over the years I have come to care less about what is officially prog or not. Is the music any good is all that really matters to me. |
Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 17:15
I'm Blathers! Freak Out's the first prog? ! It was Sgt. Pepper's, according to Bruford at one of his drum clinics I attended in the '80s. As he's one-third of Crimso's Red, so there you have it.------------- "It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 18:39
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: emigre80
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 18:52
you did - and you kept your word.
|
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 22:54
|
Freak Out is definitely NOT prog. I'll admit there's more prog on Revolver. Maybe Absolutely Free with "Brown Shoes" is getting there. The Who's "A Quick One..." should also be mentioned as a proto-prog epic. Funny, those two songs are pretty scandalous lyrically. I'd say those two and "Virgin Forest" by the Fuggs make the unholy trinity of proto-perv-prog epics
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 23:03
|
^ I have a Mothers bootleg from '67 Stockholm ('Tis the Season to be Jelly) and some of the material is very, very close to progressive rock, in fact it's about as prog as ItCotCK ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: July 06 2015 at 23:11
Interesting. I don't doubt it since some of the material on Uncle Meat is pretty dang prog.
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 00:45
|
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 01:18
Hmmm... Typical 60's boy band music...? ------------- Websites I work with: http://www.progressor.net http://www.houseofprog.com My profile on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/ |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 02:44
|
Can I just say no then leave without defending my position ;) Prog was always a bit of a polyvalent beast. Some of it emerged from British blues groups like The Graham Bond Organisation, some of it was driven by electric blues, some of it (such as PG's vocals or The Crazy World of Arthur Brown) by soul. I think the whole Beatles -> prog thing is kind of a short hand for the ton of psychedelia that influenced different bits of the prog rock borg. ---
That is superb. |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 03:51
Epic win. Thanks for this! ------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 05:23
Well, Frank Zappa had nothing to do with that melancholic, pastoral and moony https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk4MFCCrXdI" rel="nofollow - English Symphonic rock that was born with above mentioned Strawberry Fields Forever, and which in 70s become the most popular subgenre of the progressive rock, but it's undebtedly that The Mothers of Invention was the very first progressive rock band ever.
|
Posted By: La nouvelle terre
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 09:17
|
Some words of Peter Hammill about Tomorrow Never Knows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJJ7gQBdrZw |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 10:04
I have a sixties (?) bootleg of the Grateful Dead that sounds 'pretty damn prog', so are the Dead a prog group? I don't think so. Let's get back to the revered MOI album Freak Out! Dean went out of his way to expand on the meaning of archetype, to my benefit. Exactly what was archetypal about the music on Freak Out!? And who did it influence? KC? Genesis? Yes? Or anyone else shortly after it's release? No one that I can think of that enjoyed anything resembling mass popularity. Can and Pere Ubu's influences came from albums put out a few years later. And why should this album be considered full blown progressive rock instead of Proto Prog? If it comes down to a question of the Beatles vs Zappa, as who had the greater influence on progressive rock, the only thing I can say is "Frank who?" (With all due respect, to keep things civil and fun.)  Jesus, Really? And if it comes to the fact that Freak Out! is a concept album, both Woody Guthrie and Frank Sinatra beat Zappa to it.
|
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 11:35
|
The Beatles' effect on rock music was profound. Yes, profound. Zappa felt compelled to offer a mirror copy of the Sgt. Pepper's album cover for We're Only In It For The Money (we only parody that which has the most influence and popularity). Brian Wilson nearly went mad trying to keep up with The Beatles. Mick Jagger and The Stones spent most of the 60s making albums in emulation of The Beatles, basically going from tree to tree and pissing on the same spots The Beatles had already left their mark. And King Crimson have often noted their adoration of The Beatles: “The Beatles,” remarked Robert Fripp, “achieve probably better than anyone the ability to make you tap your foot first time round, dig the words sixth time round, and get into the guitar slowly panning the twentieth time”, and Bill Bruford commented, “It was felt after Sgt. Pepper anybody could do anything in music. It seemed the wilder the idea musically the better.” So, as a proto-prog influence The Beatles were immense, but as others have commented nothing grows in a vacuum. The lyricism of Bob Dylan, the studio experimentation of The Beatles, the electrifying pyrotechnics of Hendrix, the mini-operas of The Who, the harmonies of The Beach Boys and the integration of orchestra and mellotron by The Moody Blues all were synthesized into rock within a few short eventful years, culminating in what eventually we would term prog-rock.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 12:37
then you would have been hammered for incorrect choices. The Nice in 1968. and if you hear anything of Zappa or the Beatles in Ars Longa Vita Brevis.. let me know. I've never heard a smidge of it. This was ... the right anwer IMO as far as the talking points so far.. excellent post
The Beatles indirectlly by their creativity, massive influence, and overall material success...laid the foundation by giving artists the freedom of the medium to explore oh which many in England in the late 60's ran with. Zappa was a leading avant guarde artist.. had really very little to do with prog. Of course we have embraced him..as we have the music of RIO-AVANT...ut don't confuse him with prog. He wasn't... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 12:53
Who did Freak Out influence?... The Beatles for one
|
Posted By: Gentle Yes
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 13:16
|
I think there is no doubt that psychedelic rock was the predecessor of progressive rock, i mean you can clearly hear some progressive elements in mid 60's bands... Now I think that saying that SFF was the first prog song (or album) is farfetched. The Beatles were a classic psychedelic-pop band, maybe too classic.. don't get me wrong, i like the Beatles, who doesn't? but i couldn't say that they have anything to do with prog.. SFF is maybe a little bit different from ohter Beatles songs as they wrote it in the psychedelic-colours-drugs etcetera era. Nevertheless it's just another Beatles song. It's too difficult to say with precision who wrote the first prog song or album.. most say it was Zappas Freak out! but Strawberry Alarm Clock who formed in 1966 (same year as Freak out!) have a lot more prog elements (for me). The same goes for The 13th floor elevators who existed before Freak Out! Anyway.. i think most of you would agree that finding the actual prog birth is almost impossible... The only thing i can say for sure is GENTLE GIANT RULE.
|
Posted By: Pastmaster
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 13:23
Completely agree And yes, Gentle Giant does rule, they deserve more appreciation.
|
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 13:52
Yeah, I've heard the King Kong suite from Uncle Meat. "Dog Breath" is another good proggy tune from that and one of my favorites from Zappa. If you ask me, King Kong is early jazz fusion (quite a feat in itself) with very small hints of classical (negligible really if you consider most jazz artists were influenced somewhat by classical). I wouldn't quite say it's full on prog in the same way ItCotCK is, but it is cool to know he was playing this stuff live in '67. I still think "Brown Shoes" is probably a better example of '67 proto-prog. I side with people saying Zappa was definitely an influence, but a little too avant-garde and reliant on humor to be what we usually consider prog. BUT no doubt Zappa and these other proto-prog artists were totally progressive in spirit.
|
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 14:08
|
I warn you all I do NOT approve of the bestiality referenced in this video, but if ya'll love early Zappa and have not heard The Fugs, they arguably beat early Zappa at his game. Released March 1966. Definitely more ahead of its time than anything on Freakout. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 14:21
'64!
|
Posted By: Imperial Zeppelin
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 14:32
|
Yes. They also invented psychedelia and toasters. ------------- "Hey there, Dog Man, now I drink from your bowl." |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 14:40
Being the first fully Prog band does not necessitate that the band invented the progressive rock song. Who ever did that is who invented Prog.
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 14:44
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 14:46
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 14:47
Best overall summation on this topic so far..... ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 14:50
^ Paul Butterfield. King of Prog! ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 14:52
|
@Svetonio Thanks for the cool links. It's good music in it's own right, but I wouldn't call any of it progressive rock. If that's prog, so is this: Wouldn't call "Tomorrow Ever Knows" prog either, though it does clearly rule. I still believe prog rock has a sound, just because something is progressive it doesn't make it prog rock.
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 14:54
|
^Dick Dale. My hero! (really)
|
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 14:58
|
C'mon folks...we have had this discussion many times before and we all know that ITCOTCK and KC were the first 'real prog rock' album and band. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 15:02
| ^I agree Doc, but they did not invent the Prog song, IMHO, but were, are, and always will be the definitive progressive rock group. I wish I saw them live in their first incarnation! |
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 15:02
|
^ basically! King Crimson defines prog, so if it doesn't sound like King Crimson, than it ain't prog!
Seriously though, there were progressive rock songs prior to Crimson. Not sure any band prior to them was as committed to that sound though.
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 15:08
| ^Hmm, micky has a good case with the Nice. After Davy O'list left, they were mainly Prog and predated KC. But they did not have that quintessential KC sound, if that's what your referring to. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 15:10
|
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 15:15
| The Nice were...nice, but I can't forgive them for butchering "Blue Rondo a la Turk." I don't think it's very prog to be so reliant on classical covers, but I have admittedly overlooked it with like Devil's Triangle, Toccata, Cans and Brahms, Horizons, etc. I guess I just feel those bands have justified their covers with BETTER original material, whereas with the Nice the original works aren't that special imo. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 15:18
|
The Nice never floated my boat either but technically....ah, you know what I mean.
|
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 15:31
|
I have the 2 cd Nice 'box set' and several pieces of vinyl from the old days but they never impressed me all that much either. I actually like their early album Emerlist Davjack the best and it was more psych than anything else...imo. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 16:24
The Nice were, as someone mentioned, nice; however, both The Moody Blues and Procol Harum offered rock with orchestral movements and themes during the same time period. The only difference was The Moodies and Procol actually sold albums.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 16:31
| ^I don't think people took the Moody's and Procol as seriously as the Nice because I have a feeling that the Nice took themselves very seriously and offered little in the way of a top ten pop song. You could only hit the charts if you had that pop thing going on and the Nice didn't. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 17:19
|
The Nice kicked ass all over the place-- they were magnificent, mistakes and Davy O'List not withstanding. They were the first group to sound like a prog band when everyone else was looking at pretty colors in the sky. Micky's right. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: emigre80
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 18:00
Hey! I own a toaster! nice to know who should get the credit.
|
Posted By: miamiscot
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 18:38
| The Beatles certainly did not invent Prog. Rather they were part of the primordial stew from which Prog sprung. |
Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 18:41
|
When there wasn't much competition (1963-1964) The Beatles were playing pop music like Please Please Me. When the Beatles eventually evolved into something better other bands had come around. Beatles were influential to all genres but other bands defined prog as well. That's all, no offense meant towards them. ------------- http://fryingpanmedia.com |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 19:00
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 19:11
|
Fishbowl or not, if you really listen to the first three and Five Bridges, you hear essentially the ELP model. Keith knew enough to drop a band going nowhere and get with some quality players, but in their time the Nice were fleshing out the common blueprint for English symph and in that context there was no one doing anything like it. One may cringe at the band's juvenile attitude and rough sound, but the compositions themselves set the stage for keyboard-oriented Prog. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 19:12
Yes, but the French also gave Jerry Lewis the Legion of Honor for his "comedic genius". So there's that to consider as well. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 19:14
|
^ Jerry Lewis was a genius, I don't care what anyone says; most haven't even watched his solo films from the early '60s. Absolutely brilliant. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 19:14
| ^I've said previously that they were the first truly fully formed prog band. They just didn't invent prog. Or kick ass all over place. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 19:15
Okay-- but no, they certainly did kick some butt, they just really sounded awful while doing it ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 19:19
|
^Agreed. And the original Nutty Professor did kick but too!
Great movie.
|
Posted By: Komandant Shamal
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 19:39
|
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 20:16
| I'd take Family over The Nice for sure! Music in a Doll's House is brilliant, if still a bit bluesy and psychedelic to be called the first prog album I think. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 20:26
I don't believe it is revisionist in the least. There were plenty of albums prior to In the Court of the Crimson King that had prog characteristics - some more, some less, but all open for debate (and isn't this thread itself representative of that argument?) - but In the Court of the Crimson King represents the first album that is inarguably and without a doubt prog-rock. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Friday13th
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 20:31
|
Any revisionists have already pledged their allegiance to the fab four
|
Posted By: LearsFool
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 20:53
|
I'd say that In The Court wasn't the first prog album, but it was the first quintessential one - and to more than one path prog would go down in its wake. -------------
|
Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: July 07 2015 at 22:34
|
I thought a lot of people thought Piper was the first.... ------------- http://fryingpanmedia.com |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 08 2015 at 02:41
No it wasn't. It was called psychedelic pop "at that time". "Freakbeat" was coined in the 1980s and that's like erm, ten years after the 60s were finished so certainly not "at that time" maaaaan. It describes a transitional style of music that didn't actually exist, at that time or any other, and is only used by people who weren't actually there maaaaan.
No, that is, was and always has been, considered to be psychedelic rock/pop album. Saucerful too, albeit with some proto-Prog moments. Floyd's first true Prog album would have been Ummagumma if it had been a single studio album. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Gentle Yes
Date Posted: July 08 2015 at 03:13
|
It's true, not only are they under-appreciated, but there are few live videos, i mean the only decent one on youtube is that live in Germany (i don't remember the name) in '73 i think and the audio quality sucks. The big dissapointment for me though is that they have completely dissapeared, not only as ''Gentle Giant'' but as individual artists as well... I think that they had much more to give , even if they released more than 10 albums, we needed more.. The sound they had, the music they wrote, the subjects of the lyrics, John Weathers face...
|
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: July 08 2015 at 04:05
This! Also, your avatar is awesome, Pastmaster! ------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 08 2015 at 06:04
|
A Fable: There is this
thing called The Pond. The Pond is a vast body of saline water that covers one
fifth of the surface of the World, thus it is the Sea of Atlas and it separates The Old World from The New World physically,
culturally and poetically in a metaphoric sense. Sited in the north-eastern low
water margins of The Pond is an archipelago of
over 6,000 islands, of which all but a few of the larger ones are uninhabited
save for colonies of ocean going sea birds and the occasional seal. The largest
and most populous of these islands was logically termed The Great Island by the peoples who lived there and they adopted the name of The Great Island as their
own and took its name to heart,
and they saw themselves as separate from The Mainland of The Old World as the Great
Island itself is. Now, geologically the rock
that forms The Isles are a fusion of two continental plates, being the melding
of The Old World with The New World that are now separated by the 7,000 mile
expanse of The Pond. This confluence yielded a Whole that was more than the sum
of the two Worlds and because formation of The Isles brought forth minerals and
riches that were buried deep within the continental plates of both The Old World
and the New World such that they were in easy reach of the inhabitants of those
larger islands, and attractive they were to those who saw to conquer and occupy
them. So wars were waged and battles fought for control of The Isles, from
lands far away on The Mainland of The Old Word, from North and South and East
they came to gain access to the mineral deposits, and over time the victors
integrated with the peoples of The Great Island and became the peoples of the
Great Island and the minerals gave them the wealth they sort; and with great
wealth came great power and influence in The Old World, and through that, Independence
from it. Though many more subsequent wars and battles would be fought to keep
their Independence from The Mainland of The Old World, alas there is no celebratory
calendar date for this Independence to be commemorated with flags and bunting
and great feasting for it was a miasmic war of attrition fought over many decades
and centuries by Kings and Emperors and would be Kings and Pretenders. With
this Independence came a separation of The Culture of The Great Island from
that of The Mainland, where that Culture encompassed Thought and Idea, of Art and
Science and Religion and of Freedom, and that too gave power and influence to
the peoples of The Great Island and the separation of The Culture brought forth
Ideas and Thoughts that would change both Worlds that would ultimately lead to
the formation and formulation of The Culture of The New World, and even of The
New World itself. For the hard-won power and influence that Independence granted
in turn gave them dominion over the northern reaches of new found lands of The
New World across The Pond, so into that New World the peoples of the Old World
expanded. However, the battles and wars of The Old World spilled into The New
World, for it too had riches to be sort, to be fought over and won. Until, like
The Great Island before it, the peoples that occupied The New World also
achieved their Independence from The Old World. And again, like Independence of
The Great Island, the Independence of The New World created a separation of The
Culture of The New World from that of The Great Island and The Mainland of The
Old World. Yet Ideas can cross The Pond at two-thirds the speed of light so a tenuous
connection persists creating a synergy between Cultures that takes the germs of
Ideas and develops them tangentially and in parallel. The flow of Ideas crossed
physical and Cultural boundaries of The Pond, and the closest synergy existed
between The New World and The Great Island in spite of their differences, and
in spite of those differences the Great Island peoples looked not to The
Mainland but to the West, to The New World. [As poet of the Great Island later wrote:
“North was somewhere years ago and cold:
Ice locked the people's hearts and made them old. South was birth to pleasant
lands, but dry: I walked the waters' depths and played my mind. East was dawn,
coming alive in the golden sun: The winds came, gently, several heads became
one. West is where all days will someday end; Where the colours turn from grey
to gold, And you can be with the friends.”]. The unexpected consequence of
this tale is Progressive Rock; this was not an invention, (because it isn’t a
single identifiable thing that can be neatly defined, classified, categorised
and compartmentalised), but a confluence of contradictory tangential and
parallel developments of shared Ideas drawn together by some metaphorical Great
Attractor (metaphorically) buried deep within The Pond. The precursors to this
are as separate and distinct as the distance between the land-masses that
separate the peoples that created and developed those Ideas, they share little
but a name, whether that name be Jazz Rock Fusion or Psychedelic Rock or just
Pop Music in all its forms and guises, such as Baroque Pop to name but one. And
since those were developments born out of flux rather than a single invention they
have disjointed chronologies and, once again like the Independence of The Great
Island, the Birth of Progressive Rock cannot have a celebratory calendar mark to
be commemorated with flags and bunting and great feasting, for it too is a
miasma of developments forged by disparate Ideas, albeit enacted over a few
brief years rather than many decades and centuries created by Artistes rather
than Kings and Emperors. No one artist created the archetype from which all
else was created for there is no archetype that can be categorically
identified. We can locate and identify the oldest rock that formed The Isles
and state with Scientific confidence that it was formed eons ago on the
continental plate that is now The New World, what that lump of rock is not, is
the Whole of The Isle, nor is it the archetype from which The Isles were formed.
Just as that lump of rock does not make The Isles part of The New Word nor does
it make The Isles as old as that lump of rock, identifying the earliest rock precursor
of what was later categorised as Progressive Rock does not make that lump of rock
Progressive Rock or even the initial Idea that solely lead to its development.
tl;dr
Squabbling over who was the
first will never yield an answer because there wasn’t one single identifiable first.
All we can say with any certainty is that it was first identified as being a
distinct category of Rock music in The Great Island being performed by Artistes
from The Great Island, that we later recognised likeminded Artistes performing
likeminded Rock music in The New World and on The Mainland of The Old World and
categorised them into the same canon merely indicates that the genre is considerably
broader than first imagined and that tangential and parallel developments yield
similar results.
------------- What? |