Prog vs. Punk: What was the nature of this?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=86209
Printed Date: May 19 2025 at 00:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Prog vs. Punk: What was the nature of this?
Posted By: progistoomainstream
Subject: Prog vs. Punk: What was the nature of this?
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 20:47
|
My question is simple. I was not around in the 70s and I would like to know. What was/is the nature of the Prog vs. Punk "conflict"? Did bands get involved in a hip-hop like rivalry? Was it just an fan based rivalry? Was this documented in the musical media of the time? Does anyone have any information on this "conflict"? ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 20:50
|
I'm pretty sure it was just a musical conflict, going from these over-the-top compositions and masterful playing to short, simplistic songs about rebellion (stereotype but yea). No expert though. ------------- Crushed like a rose in the riverflow. |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 21:13
|
In a way, prog bands and punk bands were competing for recording contracts, and as punk/new wave became in vogue, it was harder and harder for prog bands to catch a break. From a prog band's perspective the punk bands were quickly putting out trash and getting their stuff released, while the talented prog guys sat down and worked hard on their music, and now the rug was being pulled from underneath them.. So I can understand the resentment. This humorously sarcastic quote by Dave Stewart (National Health) from the liner notes of "National Health Complete (1990)" illustrates this: "......at the exact point when the British rock business and media were beginning to turn their backs on decent music and gearing themselves up to promote instead some of the most crass, simplistic, brutal, ugly and stupid music imaginable, in an atmosphere where an admitted inability to play one’s instrument was hailed as a sign of genius, my friend/fellow keyboardist Alan Gowen and I decided to form a large scale rock ensemble playing intricate, mainly instrumental music. You can be sure we weren’t doing it to be fashionable…" http://www.differentdrummusic.com/favorite_artists_and_mentors.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.differentdrummusic.com/favorite_artists_and_mentors.htm I actually was a punk fan before I was a prog fan, so I don't share this disdain, but I can understand how it threw a wrench in their livelihoods. Remember, they were people trying to make a living off music.
------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 21:31
|
Didn't Pete Townshend try to compromise with Punk in the last few Who albums? They came out sounding more proggy than punk, but the last album is a bit simplistic. I don't know a lot about punk, but I like New Wave (Punk's child) and Punk's rivals AOR and Prog. The Clash and Sex Pistols and Elvis Costello and stuff... never really listened to them. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 21:35
|
Frankly I don't think there was a real conflict, and if it did exist it was largely artificial brought about by a music press eager to pit the new purities of Punk rock against turgid Prog. As I recall, punk rockers were disinterested in just about everything, certainly everything that had any pretense or polish. Billy Idol once famously called Led Zeppelin "old farts"-- ironically we know what happened to Idol, a far worse fate than anything Zep ever approached. Dave Stewart's quote above is a good one (I use it myself in a review) but I don't know that it reflected any sociopolitical 'conflict', certainly nothing like the ones mentioned by the OP. |
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 21:38
|
Great thread, thanks to the OP for starting this!! Check this site out....
http://www.punk77.co.uk/punkhistory/whendinosaursromaedtheearth.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.punk77.co.uk/punkhistory/whendinosaursromaedtheearth.htm |
Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 21:52
|
Punk rock music, musicians and fans stuck their finger at anything smacking of culture or artistic endeavour, and since progressive rock music and musicians epitomised a marriage of artistic quality and rock, the punks would finger point and say "you suck" . Of course, they did that to almost everything. The thing is, musically speaking, prog was much more daring and unconventional music than punk, just compare a Yes epic to the Clash's "Should I Stay, Or Should I Go" and you can see what i mean. But deep down, there is an element of rebellion in progressive rock, just as there is a level of conformity in punk music. I don't remember there being a great bit of direct warfare in the media between punk and prog at the time in the seventies, but the differences and finger pointing were understood all the same, sort of "said but not said" Personally, i prefer something artistic over noise, and never bought a punk rock record (or for that matter, a new wave one) and i am certain i am not missing much |
Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 21:54
This article is very funny. -------------
|
cstack3 wrote:Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 22:59
Maybe you haven't bought a New Wave record, but have you heard one? Who knows, New Wave might do something for you.
|
Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 23:46
|
I'd recommend Elivs Costello, especially his first few with the Attractions. Good stuff. On topic, I recall reading a few bits and pieces from punk artists having ago at anyone basically in front of them in terms of development or success, and who often paved the way for them, or even more amusingly, created the conditions for punk to happen. (ie: the 'overblown' rock scene) ------------- We are men of action. Lies do not become us. http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/" rel="nofollow - JazzMusicArchives. |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 23:50
The "overblown" rock scene? Wasn't it the establishment that pushed the punks?
|
Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: April 12 2012 at 23:56
|
Both I'd say. I should dig up a book with all the Clash and Sex Pistols rants at the rock groups, amusing stuff. And I do mean those inverted commas as they appear - in fact they should be actual quote marks as I'm supposed to be paraphrasing this or that punk group. ------------- We are men of action. Lies do not become us. http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/" rel="nofollow - JazzMusicArchives. |
Posted By: KingCrInuYasha
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 00:00
|
I probably wouldn't have a problem with it all if it weren't for the double standards presented in a lot of these arguments. For example, take this quote from this page: http://www.punk77.co.uk/punkhistory/thebirthofpunkpart3.htm "The thing they called rock - what used to be called rock 'n roll - it got decadent. An then there was a revival sparked by the English. That went very far. Then it became self-conscious, which I think is the death of any movement...it became incestuous. The energy is gone. There is no longer a belief". - Jim Morrison, 1969 Yet this very same movement has more or less been doing the same things over and over again ever since the Velvet Underground released their first record (a good one, BTW  ) in 1967. I would go on about the faults of his arguments - the guy blames the Beatles' White Album for Sharon Tate's death instead of the  who killed her? What next, is he gonna say that video games are responsible for all sorts of violence? - but instead, I'll let this line from Thick As A Brick conclude my thoughts:Your bread and waters going cold, your hair is short and neat I'll judge you all and make damn sure that no one judges me! ------------- He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball! |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 00:03
|
People are still linking to Punk77? I remember that site way back in 2005 being a thing. Maybe they think the same way of us... Anyway, is punk still a thing these days? I just literally have no idea. Every now and then I hear about hardcore bands like F**ked Up, but whatever. It's just totally off my radar. So is any prog, actually. I'm not sure I could even name 5 prog albums that came out this year.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 00:45
Punk is sort of a thing these days. It is what they call "pop-punk" bands like Marianna's Trench, Simple Plan, Stuff like that. It is certainly more "mainstream" than any prog that has been released lately. In my opinion, the stuff is down right awful. You could not pay me to listen to a Simple Plan album start to finnish. However, I am not a big fan of Punk in general (with quite a few exceptions). -------------
|
Posted By: progresssaurus
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 00:54
|
I agree. Dub "dinosaurs" for prog-rock groups was very close-fitting from point of view of radio producers (and recording companies consecutively), because prog-rock was presented by very long tracks and moreover required full concentrated reception from listeners (similary to classical music). It was "evolution handicap" in commercial environment, where ability survive simply arbitrates for variety expansion and retain in some niche. When punk occurs, I was fun for prog-rock already, but punk (with other genres like heavy metal and so) was akcepable for me like some consumable complement to "sacral listening" of prog in the time, which I cannot fully dedicate to music. For example like backround music during daily activity, when mind is busy with many problems, but I want to listen "something" for all that - time after time in this situation. Yes, it is cultural barbarism from me, but it is better than to listen holy prog sketchily only, without savour of creativity riches invested into music by authors and interprets. But I am prog fun and until now I feel bad, that logical adapting answer from prog-rock groups under that pressure was shortest tracks, despite many prog short tracks are uniquely beautiful gems too.
|
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 02:58
|
Without having read other's comments, this is what I remember. Punk arrived in my country with some delay and a lot of confusion. Nobody in the press had an idea of what it was about and the mixture of skin jackets which was actually a sort of fascist symbol (at least in my country) with anarchy was misleading. Somebody was trying to give it a philosophical connotation fishing concept form Nietszche and Nihilism. Reagan and Thatcher were close to come, the times were changing and the flower-power utopy was already dead. I personally saw the coming of punk as one of the many tools like trash-tv used by tories all around the world to restore the status-quo to before the 60s. In all the western world everything got standardized: look, tastes and most of all thoughts. Punk was just one of the side-projects of something bigger. I'm not speaking of conspiracy. It was all extremely clear. That's why I think that mr Lydon & co. while they were thinking to be revolutionaries were used by their "enemies". Very stupid. Btw, from a musical point of view I still love the Clash and from the punk many good bands like Cardiacs emerged later. Punk was not a movement and was not spontaneous but not all crap. ------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution |
Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 09:55
Yes Punk always seemed to me to be more reactionary and about "getting back to basics" than revolutionary. It certainly wasn't revolutionary in music terms since it had been done years before - and better in my view - by the MC5 and the Stooges. I think it did have some political significance in the UK as it signposted the rise of Margaret Thatcher a few years later. Britain had become known as "The Sick Man of Europe" and there was a sense by the mid-70s that the country was decaying after the idealistic, upbeat years of the 60s (of which Prog had been an offshoot). As the Punks claimed to be sweeping away the "deadwood" of Prog, so Thatcher targeted what she saw as the tired old Tory Wets, the doctrine of Old Labour, and left-wing unions. So basically the Punks were a bunch of Thatcherites, though I'm sure they'd hate to be called that (heh heh). ------------- "And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!" "He's up the pub" |
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 10:02
|
A trivia: Margaret Thatcher's nephew, some John Thatcher (If I remember) is the punk who is sent to sleep by Mr Spock on a bus in Star Trek IV and is also the author of the song entitled "I hate you" played on his stereo.
The connection between Thatcher and Punk is real.  ------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution |
Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 10:08
Yes I've always thought the connection between Punk and Thatcher is an under-explored area. Someone smarter than me really should write a theory about it! ------------- "And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!" "He's up the pub" |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 10:23
|
It never was Prog v Punk. It was Punk against the establishment and against all huge rock acts of the time. Led Zep, Purple..all of them. But there were no groups fighting about it. It wasn't mods and rockers fer chrisake. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 10:25
The true impact of punk is more evident in its offshoots than its bare, basic essence which I generally find rather boring. Punk paved the way for rock to embrace a whole new level of anger, dirt and violence. It got back some of the nastiness that had got buried as the early torchbearers like LZ or DP stagnated and the mainstream unleashed corporate 'rock' on unsuspecting audiences. Eventually, the offshoots of punk, especially metal, became just as over the top as prog was claimed to be when punk supposedly brought it down but it was an important step in reconnecting rock with the very essence of what makes it a worthwhile music genre. I don't think punk had much of a role to play in standardizing tastes though it brought on a rather undesirable level of image-consciousness to rock music. Punk spawned a vibrant, well connected underground so it pulled in the opposite direction. But it was even more incompatible with plain vanilla mainstream music requirements so even punk was not enough to ward off the assault of big pop in the 80s, which was the real game changer. Via Michael Jackson, the industry gained complete control of the mainstream once again and a whole roster of successful artists who were willing to do anything to get famous followed to seal the deal. |
Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 10:41
|
Punk to me is the proof that you can take untalented music and attach an image to it and it becomes something. Then the Cardiacs showed up and proved to me that punk can be interesting. They made every single punk band completely obsolete to me.
And if you look at the Italian scene it was not punk vs prog it was disco vs prog.
|
Posted By: KingCrInuYasha
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 11:17
Forgive me for playing devil's advocate, but couldn't that apply to any form of music? The only difference I see is that it's easier for a punk band to get away with it than most other genres. ------------- He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball! |
Posted By: timburlane
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 13:06
|
I was thirteen years old in 1977 and although i was a fan of Floyd, Yes and Genesis I didn't really know what prog was. You have to remember that these genre tags are mainly marketing things and were far less prevalent in the 70's. I also liked Queen, Bowie, Led Zep - it was all just rock music. When Punk came along, and it was a pretty big thing. From a personal point of view it was fantastic to hear something other than disco music on the radio, (don't forget this was in the UK where there was only really one pop music station plus a bit of pirate radio with very poor reception), and I loved it. Being a callow youth and not yet terribly tribal about music I had no problem with enjoying the Pistols, Clash and Stranglers amongst many others alongside the "dinosaur" bands but many subscribed to a "Year Zero" mindset. You were either for or against and that was that. The Pistols in particular, especially Johnny Rotten were at the forefront of this but their whole thing, indeed the whole thing of the punk movement was rebellion. Not necessarily fighting in the streets stuff but definitely the sort that involved pissing-off anyone older than you who thought they knew better. Consequently older siblings and their Hawkwind albums were targets for public ridicule even if privately you thought they were quite good. My mumactually forbade me to buy Never Mind The Bollocks having never had any interest in what i was listening to; I can't think of a bigger incentive to buy a record! I look back on it now and find it extraordinary that people actually protested outside venues showing punk gigs, I simply can't imagine that happening now! And many punk artists were secret prog fans; Rotten/Lydon was a fan of Can and Van Der Graaf and later Kate Bush but they didn't talk about it because of the year zero thing. In the end ultimately punk was good for prog rock and rock music in general; ELP had already lost it, Yes recorded the excellent Going For The One (I know it's hardly punk but it's certainly more focussed), Fripp totally got it and consequently laid the groundwork in his solo stuff for latter day Crimson... many bands adapted to survive. What I'm saying is that the seventies strand of prog had really run it's course in many ways. ------------- never eat anything bigger than your head |
Posted By: progistoomainstream
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 14:23
Where did you hear this? This a very good bit of trivia. -------------
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 14:32
|
Check from 5:36 up to 7:25: |
Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 15:55
| When the Sex Pistols got one of their early big breaks into stardom, they played the 100 Club in London, where they supported UK prog band Strange Days. |
Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: April 13 2012 at 16:03
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 02:34
|
I was a fan of early punk but hated 'New Wave' which was just a commercially bland equivalent in my eyes. I loved the Sex Pistols and their energy. The Stranglers were a very inventive band as were Siouxsie and The Banshees . Used to listen to John Peels show a lot and enjoyed. By complete coincidence I stumbled across ELP at the same time and found their music entralling and had much more broadness and depth. Punk was always dealing with small things. My mind and ears wanted bigger things.
Anyway to the discussion at hand. Was their a conflct? Not really. Punk needed Prog . It needed something to rebel against. Johnny Rotten and his 'I hate Pink Floyd T- Shirt'. Yep really rebellious.
Two amusing asides:
A few years ago Johnny Rotten and Keith Emerson 'did lunch' and they didn't try to throttle each other
Phil Collins was in an airport (not sure how many years ago) . A certain punk drummer delightfully called 'Rat Scabies' came up to him. Collins was a bit concerned for his well being as Scabies put his hand out to him. He just wanted to shake the hand of a drum legend.
Its all 'Showbiz' folks. Don't take it too seriously!
|
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 02:39
No. It was more than this. It was shobiz in Rotten's head maybe. At the end of the 70s every sector of culture, popular and not was attacked by a wave of restoration. Punk was just a tool. One of the many. The outcomes were the yuppies. ------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 02:41
change always happens .Its the nature of things
|
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 03:33
I agree with this. As well as flower-power, Maoists, and newagers have blown themselves out in the same way. What I say is that as soon as the first weaknesses appeared somebody was ready to cancel all the freedoms conquered by the previous generation. Punk was a weak tool, heroin was a powerful one. ------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 07:46
On the wider point of society isn't there part of a quotation along the lines of 'freedom is something that cannot be taken for granted'. We make the world we live in. Its never been perfect has it?
|
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 07:54
The problem is in the word "we". I've never been in the "majority", but I think it's a common destiny for proggers. Kate Bush was and is still great  ------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution |
Posted By: OT Räihälä
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 08:49
|
I started my first band in 1979, and in Finland punk movement was going through its strongest period. For a youngster (I was 15), it was natural to start a punk band, because that was the only way we could really do things our own way. Not for a moment did I think it would be to protest against prog bands (I kind a liked all kinds of music, including jazz and classical), but to just to do our own thing. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/osmotapioraihala/sets" rel="nofollow - Composer - Click to listen to my works! |
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 16:41
|
I think it is childish to claim that punk killed prog. Prog, similarly to jazz-rock, killed itself by showing-off too much and lacking a melodic approach to their music. Prog and jazz-rock tried to re-surface in the eighties by providing a more melodic dimension to the music (cf Mike Stern, Steps Ahead, Marillion...).
------------- "Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood) |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 16:54
I was around back then and I think we were united in our disdain fo de disco. 
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 14 2012 at 17:43
Punk didn't have the strength to kill anything. What I claim is that in that period every sector of the culture have been manouvred so to give birth to the 80s as we know them. Do you remember the TV trash of that time? Do you remember how all the media tried and achieved to manipulate our minds? Why every singer in the 80s was mimic of Bowie and every keyboardist was using the fairlight? Do you remember all the hair gel and how all the "artists" were dressing? Prog has the demerit of committing suicide by becoming elitarist once the initial wave was exhausted. The 80s didn't come because of prog or punk. ------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 02:27
The most successfull prog bands that propped up the genre simply ran out of steam and there were few new bands good enough to replace them (excepting perhaps UK who had a decent stab at changing the genre into the more melodic approach that you mention but they were alone). Some bands just imploded (like ELP) or decided it was easier to bend to the changing times and do more commericial stuff (Genesis,Yes and Kansas). Some like VDGG and PFM just stopped. There was vacuum that had to be filled and punk bands took their chance.
|
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 02:36
A good analisys.  There's only one error: PFM didn't stop but released its own "Love Beach"es during the 80s but if you don't know those albums I'm happy for you.  ------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: April 15 2012 at 09:45
Should have checked
 . I assume they stopped sometime around 1978 , its seems unthinkable they could do Love Beach style music (in ELP's case at least it made some twisted sense ) |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: April 17 2012 at 19:13
|
Punk rock and prog rock - and any subgenre for that matter - are essentially the same. Both early ELP and Pistols on Never Mind The Bollocks were young, furious, biting and clutching, wanted to change something and move forward. I don't care if music is simple or complex - I appreciate honesty. I don't care for "prog for the sake of being prog" and modern, diluted pop-punk. There was a time when jazz was excellent, furious and daring. These days, God save me from the another boring combo of Berklee Scholars. ------------- |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 17 2012 at 19:54
|
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: April 17 2012 at 21:46
| Most working original/cover prog or rock bands touring small theatres in the 70's were pressured by managers, agents, and corporate staff to mend their ways,,,,(so to speak), at least that was the experience I had being part of that scene. That was in the United States and closer to the end of 79' when this all came about. Great musicians that had been playing the music scenes since the 60's....the ones I knew who had worked in higher corporate circles were angered, depressed, and took their own lives over this crap. It seems farce and too extreme for a majority of people in society to comprehend....so you had to be there like I was to understand exactly how and why on earth this could have happened in high numbers. I survived because I settled for playing good rock music and good prog in my chambers and remaining in the fast pace music business towing the line and selling out to what was relevant then. That was in the 80's when progressive rock bands were still performing in small theatres as I toured, but it sizzled out by the late 80's and sunk further to the underground when punk changed into "New Wave". |
Posted By: OT Räihälä
Date Posted: April 18 2012 at 01:50
Forget about the Berklee, have you checked out the contemporary Nordic jazz scene? That's where it happens ATM. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/osmotapioraihala/sets" rel="nofollow - Composer - Click to listen to my works! |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: April 18 2012 at 10:29
Depressed? Took their own what?
|
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: April 18 2012 at 10:47
 arctic jazz, and pinguine jazz -------------  
|
Posted By: bucka001
Date Posted: April 22 2012 at 01:58
Great post, you've pretty much nailed it. So many books on the subject rely on a Marxist analysis blah blah blah, etc, and really... that can all be tossed, it just comes down to honesty in the music and doing it for the right reasons.
I enjoyed your post as well and agree with just about everything you say. To be clear, though, Johnny Rotten did talk about his love of Can and VdGG as early as '77 on a legendary Capitol Radio broadcast interview. The fact that Rotten loved VdGG, Can, & Beefheart and played their music during the broadcast was as shocking as anything (and mortifying to Malcolm McClaren, who didn't want Rotten to 'expose' himself as a lover of this sort of music). Of all the classic-era major prog bands, VdGG is probably the one that has the most 'punk cred', with members of The Fall, The Dead Kennedys, The Germs, The Sex Pistols, and others, coming out of the closet as major PH/VdGG admirers (but, as you say, many didn't do so at the time, it was only years later that they acknowledged it). ------------- jc |