Roots of "Progressive Rock"?

[moom]

Yeah, i have it in a podcast

[nosaj]

Look here:

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp

[Idisaffect]

It's hard for some people to believe but Good Vibrations was actually the most progressive hit of 1966. I say "hit" because I think of stuff like Absolutely Free by the mothers that was also put out in '66. This is all before my time but I wouldn't doubt if Decca(?)records coined the phrase 'progressive' for marketing Days of fututre past by the Moody Blues.

[bpmolder]

It's hard for some people to believe but Good Vibrations was actually the most progressive hit of 1966.

The only reason this is true is because Smile wasn't finished. Otherwise, it would have defined the era.

[PublicImage]

'Progressive rock' is a horrible term. It is entirely subjective, and lots of people seem to think that what makes music progressive is innovative studio trickery rather than progressive song structures, which I completely disagree with. For instance, Pink Floyd's song structures very rarely moved from the typical ABABA (and perhaps the occasional C) style format, and only really have about five songs which I would consider progressive. For that reason, I do not think it would be fair to call them a progressive rock band, because, to put it simply, their music on the whole is not progressive. It was innovative, certainly, and there is little doubt that they influenced so many bands and producers, but their actual music was very rarely progressive. They did more cheesy-80s-production style songs than they did prog songs, but that doesn't make them primarily an '80s' band, does it?

If the actual music is not progressive (i. e. it does not have any modulation, rhythmic variations, different vocal melody in each verse, through-composed chord structure), then I think it is unjustified to class a band as progressive. Otherwise, Eminem would be classed as prog, as mossy said in that oversized "Are Pink Floyd a prog band?" thread, because he revolutionised his genre as much as Pink Floyd did to 'rock' music.

[oz1701]

'Progressive rock' is a horrible term. It is entirely subjective, and lots of people seem to think that what makes music progressive is innovative studio trickery rather than progressive song structures, which I completely disagree with. For instance, Pink Floyd's song structures very rarely moved from the typical ABABA (and perhaps the occasional C) style format, and only really have about five songs which I would consider progressive. For that reason, I do not think it would be fair to call them a progressive rock band, because, to put it simply, their music on the whole is not progressive. It was innovative, certainly, and there is little doubt that they influenced so many bands and producers, but their actual music was very rarely progressive. They did more cheesy-80s-production style songs than they did prog songs, but that doesn't make them primarily an '80s' band, does it?

If the actual music is not progressive (i. e. it does not have any modulation, rhythmic variations, different vocal melody in each verse, through-composed chord structure), then I think it is unjustified to class a band as progressive. Otherwise, Eminem would be classed as prog, as mossy said in that oversized "Are Pink Floyd a prog band?" thread, because he revolutionised his genre as much as Pink Floyd did to 'rock' music.

Yup - you are in rare form here PI - i agree with what you say about Pink Floyd here. at the end of the day labeling a band in this way is really just for marketing purposes.
its all about connotative versus denotative meanings though. Pink Floyd should be filed under pop, but most people wouldn't look for the band there in a cd store, and most people who buy what is referred to commonly as pop would be unlikely to buy Pink Floyd.

there is the status element too. "oh i listen to mostly pop music" just doesn't sound as cool as "oh i listen to progressive rock"

[danielcaux]

There is no definitive consensus on what is and what is not progressive rock... I guess Pink Floyd were Prog rockers at heart, but they lacked the technique to pull it off so they ended up writing and playing their own version of prog-rock, which was somekind of 'experimental-jamming oriented-psychadelic-pop' rock. So they were close to the "movement" but not quite part of it. I'm thinking of the pre-DSoTM years mainly. Just look at the live set they favoured, they focused on the spacy, trippy, multipart pieces and neglect the pop songs they had.

What would be the archetypical prog-rock band? Yes? King Crimson? ELP?

[Damn!t]

I guess Pink Floyd were Prog rockers at heart, but they lacked the technique to pull it off so they ended up writing and playing their own version of prog-rock, which was somekind of 'experimental-jamming oriented-psychadelic-pop' rock. So they were close to the "movement" but not quite part of it.

I really think that now is the time to awake the sleeping beauty.

[Idisaffect]

[quote="PublicImage"]. For instance, Pink Floyd's song structures very rarely moved from the typical ABABA

What about interstellar overdrive...saucerful of secrets...quicksilver...careful with that axe...narrow way...several species of small furry animals...grand viziers garden party...atom heart mother...echoes...psychedelic breakfast...on the run...dogs...shine on...sysyphus...point me at the sky...?

I agree Smile would have topped Good Vibrations if it came out in '66. The song Surfs Up was done in Oct.'66 and it was ahead of everything.
Cangarutopia, you still out there? I stand by my original reply. 1967. Labels are never quite right anyway. Just like rock critics.

[PublicImage]

What would be the archetypical prog-rock band? Yes? King Crimson? ELP?

Yes, I'd class those three and Genesis as the definitive prog-rock bands of the original wave. Their music was undeniably progressive in its structure for the most part, and of those, I'd probably have to say that Yes stuck to that definition more than the others. Albums like Tales From Topographic Oceans define the idea of the genre, to me.

What about interstellar overdrive...saucerful of secrets...quicksilver...careful with that axe...narrow way...several species of small furry animals...grand viziers garden party...atom heart mother...echoes...psychedelic breakfast...on the run...dogs...shine on...sysyphus...point me at the sky...?

Interstellar Overdrive - It is hard to give this any classification, because every performance of the song was spontaneous, and it is not even a composition as such. The only thematic material is the main riff that opens and closes the piece, which makes me think that the only reasonable classification for it would be free-jazz. As with all other subgenres of jazz, free-jazz pieces tend to open and close with the 'head', with lots of improvisation between. It fits the description perfectly, the only difference being that there is not a specific soloist and the instrumentation is very different to typical free-jazz. I don't know if it is progressive, though, because improvisation and composition are two very different things.

A Saucerful of Secrets - Yes, it is progressive. It is one of the few tracks of theirs that I would consider to be.

Quicksilver - No. It is just a collection of ambient noises, and has no structure at all. If this is prog, then so is Aphex Twin's first album.

Careful With That Axe, Eugene - This is definitely not prog. The entire track consists of four chords being repeated all the way throughout, and doesn't have any variation except for the part with the scream. It is certainly psychedelic rock, but there is not much musical progression in this piece.

The Narrow Way - I will have to listen to this again before making a judgement. I hate it and never listen to it, so I cannot even remember what it sounds like. But it is a David Gilmour solo track, not a Pink Floyd track.

SSOSFAGTIACAGWAP - Definitely not prog. It is just a sound collage, and cannot really be classed as music, in my opinion. It isn't a composition and has no form whatsoever. It is probably "avant-garde", but it certainly is not progressive.

The Grand Vizier's Garden Party - Isn't this just a boring drum solo with a flute at the start and end? I have only heard it all the way through once.

Atom Heart Mother - Yes, it is prog.

Echoes - I haven't really decided if this one is prog, to be honest. It is extremely repetitive and contains almost ten minutes of pointless noises. If those tend minutes had actually been musical, then I wouldn't have any doubt in my mind, but the harmonic progression remains the same from the start until the 'funky' section, which is certainly NOT a progressive feature. And when it does change, it just becomes pointless noise. It is an interesting one to try and classify.

Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast - This track is just spoken junk with improvised sections in between. There is nothing progressive about that. If the sections had flowed into each other and the dialogue was not present, then it could have been progressive. But in its state on the album, it definitely is not.

On The Run - No way. It has an eight note sequence repeated throughout, and the drum part does not change once, if I remember correctly. It is anything put progressive. Minimalist, perhaps, but even that has development on themes.

Dogs - Yes, undoubtedly.

Shine On You Crazy Diamond - Yes. Of course.

Sysyphus - As with the other mentioned Ummagumma tracks, I cannot really remember this one. I only have vague memories of poorly produced keyboard sounds, so I would have to listen to it again to comment on its genre.

Point Me At The Sky - This is just a pop song. It has a typical verse-chorus-verse structure, which is not at all progressive.

[Idisaffect]

Just to clarify, PI. I did not claim these songs were prog. I pointed out that they were not ABABA. Good post, though.

[cangurutopia]

.
Cangarutopia, you still out there? I stand by my original reply. 1967. Labels are never quite right anyway. Just like rock critics.

Thank you for all messages for my question. I think I've got quite good comments about the begining of the term 'Progressive Rock'. My understanding is now that the term 'progressive' was used to describe experimental rock or pop music in the late '60, maybe 1967. They were literally progressve. The term 'progressive rock' and 'Prog-Rock' have been, however, lost an original meaning in time and used as a genre in following years. It may be difficult or impossible to know when the term was begun to use as a genre.

I don't want to discuss about what is Prog-Rock or Pink Foyd is Prog-Rock or not.

Thank you.

[PublicImage]

I don't want to discuss about what is Prog-Rock or Pink Foyd is Prog-Rock or not.

If you do not want to discuss what the actual genre is, then why do you want to know about its origins? That is like asking when the term 'pop' was first conceived without having any idea what it means.

[J Ed]

What would be the archetypical prog-rock band? Yes? King Crimson? ELP?

Fripp in his neverending liner notes to Epitaph seems to assume Court of the Crimson King was the template for a generation of Progressive Rock acts that quickly followed, some of whom got very rich repeating cliches found in that album
dont know if thats true or not in the shared objective reality beyond Fripps ego, but it sounds about right

[Idisaffect]

Gentle Giant had some good tunes........and some not so good.


I gotta hand it to Bill Bruford. Bailing out on Yes mid-tour to join Crimson. Good move. He probably hates Jon Andersons' lyrics and vocals as much as I do. (I know they've reunited since!) The intro to Heart of the Sunrise kicks ass, though. Written by Bruford. The movie Buffalo '66 has this intro during a key scene and also Christina Ricci dances to Moonchild by Crimson in a bowling alley.