"Progressive" was certainly in use in 1973, because I wrote an article in Imperial College's student mag on progressive rock when I was doing my PhD there, which was from 1972-3, and I didn't coin the term so I had to have heard it well prior to that.

 

When I was at school we used Progressive Rock and Prog Rock to describe our favourite bands, and I left school in 1973 so that predates the article on Virgin Records by some time.

 

Previously I have posted a dated flyer/newsletter from The Friars Club Alyesbury that used the term Progressive Rock as a name back in 1969. I do not have time to find it today, but here is David Stopps business card from that time:

 

Which, while it isn't dated does give a Princes Risborough telephone number, later they used different phone numbers. Also, another undated reference is a local newspaper cutting announcing the first closure of the club in late 1970 (so it had to be contemporary with the closure and therefore dates from 1970), where Friars is described as a "progressive rock club" and "one of the best progrssive clubs in the country" (which implies there were others):

 

 

I remember from Armando Gallo's book that Genesis did a few gigs there (first as a support act to Mott the Hoople, afterwards as the main act supported by Mott the Hoople) about the time Trespass wass released (or shortly before).

 

 

*waits for someone to say Fripp overheard Billy Ritchie saying it in the Marquee in 1956*

 (<- that's me being very surprised) I'm very surprised (see, told you), in 1976 when the punks were rebelling against the Prog Rock dinosaurs the name "Prog Rock" was established well enough to the "right-on" music press to warrant them calling it a "dinosaur" - journalists are not the brightest of people, rock journo's doubly so - therefore tagging Prog Rock as a dinosaur wasn't some surreal hard-to-understand metaphor - they picked dinosaur because they are big and ponderous and very old, and they called it Prog Rock because that's what it was called at the time. The fact that since then the received wisdom perpetrated through-out the whole of the media industry and with much of the elder generation of "the public" that Prog Rock was pretentious and grandiose adds weight to the argument that the term existed before that date.

 

Pop and rock music is a transitory and fashion driven, musical styles adopt a name very soon after they emerge because next week they will be history and they often take-on the adjective word that was originally used to describe it, (eg Rock and Roll, Beat, Punk, Indie, Synth-pop, Gothic Rock, Shoe-gazing, Grunge, etc...). It is very rare for a style of music to be named long after it has passed from the public consciousness, rarer still for ordinary members of the public who have no direct interest in music to then not only know that revisionist name, but to also know which bands it refers to, yet in the UK at least, Joe Public of a certain age knows that Yes, Genesis, Floyd et al are Prog bands. It is true that those bands had other descriptions at the time - I remember Yes being called "technoflash", ELP and Queen were called "pomp rock" and Hawkwind and Gong was "head music" because to some the diversity in musical styles of Prog was too generic, every rock journalist wants to be credited with coining a name of a style of music (just as we sub-subgenre-ise Prog), but none of those other names stuck.

 

I do not doubt that you and your mates did not call it Prog, but we did.

 

Symphonic Prog as such was not yet established in Spain and the term referred more to experimental psychedelic and rock music, the style which here in PA is mostly classified as Proto-Prog. Notice that the only non-Spanish band in the set was Family, quoted as "the outstanding band from the Isle of Wight festival".

(and the Spanish band Fusioon was wrongly spelled as Fusion).

 

Spain was much behind most of Europe and the UK in particular regarding music, so if the term started being used in Spain around 1970 I have no doubt that it was being used already in the UK and Spain just borrowed it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prog Rock is an omelet made without eggs!

And I can vouch for that as well, clearly and often using the term "progressive rock" in Montreal 1974 as I wrote a philosophy course related essay on "Le Rock  Progressif" , nailing my Baccalaureat in 1975. The term "prog-rock" must have come immediately after , as its only a diminutive. 

By 1971, the standard vocal based Rock'n roll was PROGRESSING into , at first psychedelic symphonics and soon thereafter into a plethora of exploding sub-genres(all nicely indexed for you on PA) . 

 

Yup........Pink Floyd to me have always been psychadelic-drug infused-space-rock

 

Though “progressive jazz” had been used as a term of approbation for non-trendy, non-danceable jazz since the 1920s, the term “progressive rock” saw print for the first time in the English language only in 1968, in the Chicago Tribune. The mention carried no deep disgust or praise, just a recognition that this was not regular pop or rock. In the summer of the same year, the New York Times lamented that by making “the leap from sewer to salon, pop music has ceased to be an adventure.” Though “musicially advanced,” progressive rock had made its art “emotionally barren.” Even the most intellectual of critics, the paper continued, could see that the “new, cerebral audience has endangered that raw vitality” of rock. A few months later, the Times again proclaimed that the “rock hero (who is almost always a social outcast) is a liberator in musician’s drag. His sexual display in the face of institutionalized repression becomes an act of rebellion.” It’s hard to imagine Peter Gabriel, Robert Fripp, or Geddy Lee flaunting phallic sexuality.

 

 

What OP?

 

I meant the eaerly seventies which is  when i thought this guy was talking about. By the time of Punk yes I agree. the teerm had stuck. Should have made that clear I suppose.

You are looking at it the other way around simply because apparently you discovered Prog Metal first.

 

BTW, "Prog Rock" is in my book an all-encompassing term including Prog Metal as well as the other sub-genres. Maybe some like JRF or Zeuhl might be considered as not belonging strictly to "Prog Rock", but certainly that's not the case with Prog Metal.

 

And (early) Genesis ticked all the boxes to be considered Art Rock.

This is a bit silly to say the least.

Yeah, that's my recollection as well!  Yes, ELP and others were labeled with a variety of terms = art rock, theater rock, classical rock, etc., but never "progressive rock" or "prog." 

Honestly, I don't think I heard the term "prog" until well after Y2K!   Brand X, Mahavishnu Orchestra etc. were always "jazz rock" or "fusion" from everything I saw/read. 

At a Brand X gig about 1980, I met one of the roadies (a Brit, I'm a Yank) and he asked me "So, are you Yanks really into jazz-rock then?"  Good enough for me.  

Many of the old artists object to the term "prog," Peter Banks coming to mind.  He said he'd prefer if the genre were called "Dave" or anything else besides "prog."  

.

And early Porcupine Tree was pretty weird......I thought. I agree, denying his roots is a tad off-base.

You are one old Turkey dude!

Wish I was around when prog came to be...

 

Previously you posted an advert for a progressive music concert, somewhere, that also included the Edgar Broughton Band ... I think that one stated "progressive" and not "prog rock" which I had never heard up until the 90's when some of the metal stuff really took off.

I definitely learnt a lot.

Thanks to the users for some useful info!

 

Love it ... absolutely love it!

 

It's quite alright with me! The English did not discover the world ... they made sure the world knew the English were the first to make sure everyone around the woprld knew they existed! ... and that includes progressive and prog-rock!

 

In the end, the English did what Americans can't do and won't do because of the "fame game" ... you had magazines that talked about the music! Here we didn't, and it all died with Mr. Graham and his Fillmore's! He became a jerk looking for fame and spending money on the Rolling Stones, but his 10 years in the boondocks is one of the finest histories of music that no one will EVER duplicate, or write, or mention anywhere! It was in his clubs, and the likes of UFO over there, that this whole thing got started, although it's hard for you and I not to include a Miles and his well known 30 minute jaunts every night ... most of which are sill not shared with the public!

In my country PFM and Banco signed a contract with Virgin in 1973 if I'm not wrong, together with Oldfield and Henry Cow.

I don't think it really matters. Giving something a name doesn't mean knowing it. In science as in life.

I was showing to a friend which kind of music and bands I like and he told me, "that's progressive".

 

The "context" that it was used for, however, was quite different than the way we discuss things today -- for my tastes anyway.

 

In those days, it was OK to do something different and some of it was considered "progressive" or "art rock" or whatever else, because it did not fit the top ten pop thing ... and definitly did not fit the AM radio in America, because those cuts were too long! And this was one of the things that both the Beatles and Rolling Stones had a real hard time getting around, and finally did ... getting past that radio "law".

 

In America (can't speak for England), it was the beginning of FM radio (actually started in 1923!) but never took to the "stereo" until the late 60's, and at that time it was an experimental format that most radio morons and fat cats, did not believe that would ever reach the fame and fortune that it did. Are you surprised? ... go look at the 10 worst business decisions ever made!!!!!! Beatles and Rolling Stones, and the words used were insults ... typical fat cat rich fart insulting their children as stupid!  BUT, it would not be too far off to state that what defined this music better than anything else out there was ... STEREO ... because the regular radio was NOT, and the fidelity simply was not there! As the Beatles, the Stones and others got better, and the music improved, the radio process was not helping show the band's in their best light! FM radio in America WAS the answer!

 

Progressive, in America, as a term, did not take. I surmise that it didn't because this country is 10 Englands and then some! NY had its own term, and it was centered around Andy Warhol. SF had its own centered around the Fillmore. LA had its own but it was controlled by the movie studios, the folks of which also owned the music clubs. Later the likes of Adler and such ripped off various productions so they could become millionaires ripping off the musicians in the "greed is good" generation! No secret there, and that guy with the balls over there did the same thing and still owes Gong, Ash Ra, Tangerine Dream and many others some money for steaking sales' commissions.

 

Today, the term is meaningless. The definition is screwed up, and while we need it, the definition is intentionally only open to what happened in one location, not the world over and the tendency is for folks to think that the rest of the world was not "progressive" which is out of line and ignorant in the very least. So it's ok for one group in England to quote this writer and be called progressive, but not Laurie Anderson using Burroughs live on stage and creating music with his words! ... see the weirdness and the hippocrisy? ... it becomes favoritism and fan'aticism!

 

This is the reason why I request, and have done so many times, a more "clear and concise" description, so we can better evaluate music. We can not help bring it back to a few musical ideas and notations ... we do that about Baroque, Romantic, and what not ... but it is defined by ITS TIME AND PLACE ... which our work is avoiding doing ... because many of us knew London, but never heard LA, or knew LA and never heard Tokyo, and so on!

 

But yes ... we do need the designation and it was around way before ... in many different forms. Specially folk music, btw, which never gets the credit for its very obvious healthy dis-respect for convention and definition!

Many of the examples Fitz gave are in context and unambiguous - I'm impressed that he's found so many but that's exactly how I recall the phrase being used at the time - as a noun decribing a style or movement in music, not as an adjective.

 

I never thought I was disagreeing with the wording itself.

 

In general, my only concern is that the word itself was not used in America, probably because there were 3 or 4 different scenes and they did not have a whole lot in common ... when compared to what became the London scene, the German scene and then also Italy, France and Spain.

 

In Spain for example, Granada, Triana and several other bands were getting the exposure with descriptions that stated "progressive" and their inspirations were often very clear. But in America, on the other side of the pond ... the term did not take, and I like to joke because Jenn Wenner (Rolling Stone publisher and founder) was too stoned and rich with high class coke to know the difference!

 

Again ... in America, the "progressive" became the realm of the new FM radio for a few years, until it became just another top ten station, which it has been since the very early 80's. But I never heard anyone at any of the LA stations, or KNAC, or KROQ in those early days, EVER, use the term, and specially Pink Floyd whose term, specially by Jim Ladd in his early days ... was "trippy" and "far out" ... he never used the term then! He might have later.

 

This is important, and it helps the English scene define "progressive" ... but (again!) it has a tendency to think that other places are not and didn't ... and in Germany they did not use the term, because they were more concerned with the artistic development, than they were with a definition. Sort of like saying that CAN is not progressive because they weren't in London, or Amon Duul 2 ... is my only point.

 

But yes, those articles make very clear the definition of the music ... which is very good, and I agree with it.

 

Sorry Pedro, there is no such tendency. Progressive Rock and Progressive Rock fans were never that myopic.

From the relatively simple rock of Chuck Berry, guitar music progressed rapidly to the Stones, Beatles, Hendrix and then King Crimson etc.  Many similarities tie them all together, but as new devices & allsorts were brought onto the scene, guitarists had newer tools available to compose and perform.  

How do we define "progressive"?  As using synthesizers?  Well, Madonna, Justin Bieber etc. all use synths.  Perhaps unusual time signatures?  Again, these are found throughout all types of music, not just "prog." 

Subcategories such as "symphonic" and "eclectic" seem a bit more useful to me, but I never considered Rush nor Pink Floyd to fit into the same category of music as Yes or King Crimson.  In the USA, Rush was always lumped into "album oriented rock" (AOR) which included other touring behemoths such as Journey, REO Speedwagon etc.

http://www.popcultmag.com/obsessions/musicfeatures/albumrock/albumrock1.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.popcultmag.com/obsessions/musicfeatures/albumrock/albumrock1.html

What's in a label?

 

That's about how it was for me also......no one really called Yes, ELp, Crimson, 'progressive rock' in 69 or the early 70's at college...they just listened to whatever they liked and that was that. Terms didn't seem all that important to us then. No one used the terms folk rock ,classic rock, pop rock whatever.....it was all just rock music.

I don't recall hearing it used until several years later.

Once before, a friend of mine had some sort of English language rock encyclopedia which used the tag "progressive rock" for Genesis and Yes (amongst others).

I thought that the person who used that term was incredibly misinformed.

Years later I was genuinely surprised to see that I turned out that that encyclopedia collaborator was right .

Interesting since all the Brits stole their ideas from early American blues and pop artists............

Good artists copy, great artists steal ~ Pablo Picasso

 

Amercian Blues  

 

I'm dyslexic - thanks for noticing.