The First Progressive Rock Album?
Ant
What album was the first true Progressive Rock album ever?
When looking at some of the earliest albums by the artists deemed
progressive you would have to start looking to the late 60's....
Bands like Yes, King Crimson and Floyd were around. Genesis released
their first album in 1969, but it wasn't their progressive sound yet.
Pink Floyd had a couple of albums out before 1969...but I'm not too
familiar with them and not sure if they were progressive or
psycdelic...or both!
However, I know that King Crimson's debut and Yes' debut (which both
came out the same month, Nov. 1969) were progressive, although I think
Crimson was more experimental from the beginning.
So, what do you think is the first true progessive album? Is "21st
Century Schizoid Man" the premiere progressive rock song?
Thanks
Ant
Aaron M Strickland
Gates of Dawn was not what I would consider prog, but I think that several
of their works prior to Dark Side (Meddle or Atom Heart Mother) might have
some prog leanings - still more psychedelic, though. I'll have to stick
with Sgt. Pepper - there's got to be something to the fact that when it came
out in 67 (think that's right) it was two years later that Yes, KC, Genesis,
and several other notables really hit big. I think all of them were feeling
the influence of Sgt. Pepper, and their arrival on the scene was a
culmination of how they shaped their styles after the Beatles changed
"popular" music so dramatically. IMHO.
Ant <ant...@webfeat-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3a553948.35519608@news...
Rojon Thod
>From: "Aaron M Strickland" amst...@mindspring.com
>Date: 1/4/01 10:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <933ftn$g1g$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>I would learn towards Sgt. Pepper for that one.
I would say Sgt. Pepper's also. The only thing that could even come close to
making the claim would be Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys.
tim gueguen
>
> What album was the first true Progressive Rock album ever?
Given that no one can really agree on a definition of progressive rock its
pretty hard to guess what the first example of the genre is.
tim gueguen 101867
Yes ELP kCrimson
<< I'll have to stick with Sgt. Pepper - there's got to be something to the
fact that when it came out in 67 (think that's right) it was two years later
that Yes, KC, Genesis, and several other notables really hit big. >>
_SPLHCB_ came out in 67 (yes, you were right; I was an impressionable 13 year
old bass player back then!), and while I certainly would never deny its
positive influences on other talented musicians as you note above (as well as
on music fans at large), my opinion of its prog-ness would differ.
Listening to it today, I just can't bring myself to lump it into the
progressive genre, having retrospective knowledge of how prog rock evolved
during the 70s. _SPLHCB_ still seems more psychedelic than progressive to me.
Very, very good psychedelia, but not prog as I came to know it.
Furthermore, if one *is* going to consider _SPLHCB_ the first prog album, then
how would you categorize their previous year's release, _Revolver_? To me, it
contains a good number of those stylistic advances that _SPLHCB_ is acclaimed
for, _Revolver_ primarily lacking the "concept album" approach that many
attribute to _SPLHCB_. (And as concept albums go, _SPLHCB_ is more than a bit
unfocused, IMHO; and not that being a more cohesive concept album would
necessarily make it prog either.)
For what it's worth: To me, prog rock didn't fully establish itself as a
recognizable genre until _In The Court Of The Crimson King_ in 1969.
--
'Yes ELP kCrimson'
Mfortfam <at> aol <dot> com
http://www.geocities.com/mfortfam/
[Mark Fortman]
Barbara and Barry Musmon
at the posts and very occasionally posting at other
more generic Progressive newsgroups. What we in
this newsgroup think of as progressive is quite different
from most of theirs.
As to the thread. It was a great time for experimentation
in music (late 60's early 70's). My very first thought was
Sgt. Peper but although it was progressive for its time
is it a progressive album? Not so sure. But the point
that you make, what is progressive rock anyway, can anyone
define it. We use to think of Yes, KC ....etc... as Alternative,
boy did I get a shock trying to get my mind around what
is called Alternative at places like Napster. One persons
alternative is another persons CRAP.
What would make "In the court of the Crimson King" (a
masterpiece by anyones standards) be progressive and
"A day in a life" (Also a masterpiece) not. I am not sure
either but I guess I am going with King Crimson.
And now I have to hear both. However you may
classify them, they are both brilliant.
JHtalk
difference between art and prog rock. Bowie and Talking heads did abstract
art-rock things that are not prog rock as well as Kate bush
and others.
I bought a 2 cd Moody blues compilation recently and many of the mid 60's stuff
sounds somehwat like the first crimson.
One of the Rolling stone review books claims the First Crimson is the invention
of prog rock, while also mentioning that the first Yes hardly sounded like the
birth of a genre.
Ant
on prog rock...it was more influential on rock, pop, folk...everything
really.
Prog rock came from that influence...so the first Prog Rock album to
kinda, kick-off the genre would be...I'm guessing Crimson as well.
Rojon Thod
>From: jht...@aol.com (JHtalk)
>Date: 1/5/01 10:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20010105103018...@ng-cv1.aol.com>
>
>To me SGT. Pepper is more Art rock than Prog rock. I think there is a
>difference between art and prog rock. Bowie and Talking heads did abstract
>art-rock things that are not prog rock as well as Kate bush
>and others.
Strawberry Brick! This unnecessarily muddies the waters.
Once you could walk into the record store and actually find an act by it's
alphabetical listing. Now you have to figure out what category the store
manager would think the group fits into.
Symphonic rock, art rock and progressive were just are labels to help
categorize when in fact it is all just fancy rock and roll. Even under this
general category Yes and ELP didn't sound at all alike.This doesn't mean you
need a new catagory every time someone injects a new influence into rock.
Paul Hightower
that spawned the likes of Genesis, Yes, and ELP, I'd give the nod to In the Court
of the Crimson King.
Then again, Keith Emerson was doing stuff with the Nice a year before that is
very proggy. As was Soft Machine. And Floyd.
Paul
Don Eg
exactly Progressive Rock started, what first has to be determined is the
true definition of Progressive Rock. I’m not so sure there is a clear
and precise answer to that. I understand what you’re saying about Sgt
Pepper being more of an infuence on Prog as opposed bands like KC,Yes,
etc, being the earliest forms of Prog. But where do you draw the line of
separation between Sgt Pepper being an influence on Prog and it
‘being’ Prog? And then there is everythng in between Sgt Pepper and
the 1969 period. For example Pink Floyd, where do you separate exactly
when they became more Progressive than Psychedelic? Where do you draw
the line on where exactly the many sounds and styles that were crossing
over at the time became Progressive? Oh yeah, and to add further to the
question, where does Pet Sounds fit into all this?...........Don
Paul Goodwin
>
> Symphonic rock, art rock and progressive were just are labels to help
>categorize when in fact it is all just fancy rock and roll. Even under this
>general category Yes and ELP didn't sound at all alike.This doesn't mean
you
>need a new catagory every time someone injects a new influence into rock
>
I think "generally speaking", YES and ELP *do* sound alike. ELP sound a lot
more like YES than, say, The Ramones, or Black Sabbath, all bands that
belong in separate categories.... personally I prefer the way a record store
is set up today, New Age over here, Metal over there, Rock & Pop there,
etc..... what was once simply "rock and roll" has become so fragmented into
sub-genres and sub-sub-genres that wading through a single category of
"Rock" would make CD shopping an intolerable and unpleasant excursion, at
least to me---- I'm not familiar with a lot of todays *cough* "music", so I
wouldn't really know what was what in terms of style--- In Dundas Ontario
there is a Records On Wheels store that has "Progressive Rock" as a separate
section, and it's fantastic, I have no need to look elsewhere in the store,
and it improves my chances of buying new prog because even if I've never
heard of the band, I may buy it becuase I *know* it's progressive.....
Meng
> From: jht...@aol.com (JHtalk)
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: alt.music.yes
> Date: 05 Jan 2001 15:30:18 GMT
> Subject: Re: The First Progressive Rock Album?(Moodies?)
The Moodies' In Search of the Lost Chord is definitely prog IMO, and it
dates from 1968 - I think Crimson's first was '69 (??).
Ben Mabry
but not self-consciously a concept album as a whole--the new Beatles book
reveals that the group did consider it basically a collection of disparate songs
with the sandwich-bread of the two Sgt. Pepper songs being the only concept
part.
If we want to consider the first progressive rock album to be whichever rock
album was the first *concept album* greatly inspired by Sgt. Pepper, I offhand
would point to _Days of Future Past_ by The Moody Blues, released in April of
1968.
Ben Mabry
to pre-Sgt. albums such as Donovan's _Sunshine Superman_, released in August of
1966. Note the excellent session work on that album such as the sitar playing of
Shawn Phillips.
Ben Mabry
Stephen Bruun
news:3A563CA1...@home.com...
> Anyone know which month of 1966 _Pet Sounds_ was released?
According to the CD liner notes, May 16, 1966, nearly three months before
"Revolver" (the "Revolver" sessions were April-June 1966).
What about Zappa's "Freak Out?"
Zappa's not exactly prog, but he certainly was among the first to shatter
formulas.
Steven Gross
or Black Sabbath. At the same time Yes is much more guitar driven and ELP
is dominated by keyboards and are much less guitar driven. You're right
about the labels generally making it easier to find music. Although
sometimes you don't know whether to look for certain artists in the folk or
the rock section.
"Paul Goodwin" <pgoo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:9358bl$925of$1...@ID-46095.news.dfncis.de...
Robert Seeberger
"Ant" <ant...@webfeat-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3a553948.35519608@news...
Progginess has been a guiding element in rock"n"roll from the beginning.
Listen to a bit of Pat Boone, then some Doo Wop, and the listen to Little
Richard and Chuck Berry. Amazing contrast and the innovations stand out.
--
Xponent
rob
Yeah, and I can't wait for the day when those creationists are *finally
proven wrong*.
Christ.
Henry Potts
>What album was the first true Progressive Rock album ever?
>Bands like Yes, King Crimson and Floyd were around. Genesis released
>their first album in 1969, but it wasn't their progressive sound yet.
>
>Pink Floyd had a couple of albums out before 1969...but I'm not too
>familiar with them and not sure if they were progressive or
>psycdelic...or both!
>
>However, I know that King Crimson's debut and Yes' debut (which both
>came out the same month, Nov. 1969) were progressive, although I think
>Crimson was more experimental from the beginning.
>
>So, what do you think is the first true progessive album? Is "21st
>Century Schizoid Man" the premiere progressive rock song?
_In the Court of the Crimson King_ was a very important early prog
release, but it was far from the first. Caravan's eponymous debut was
perhaps somewhat primitive, but came out in 1968, as did the first Soft
Machine album. However, it's the Nice who seem to me to be the most
important band right at the beginning, with their first album out in
1967. 1967 also saw Zappa's _Freak Out_ and Pink Floyd's _Pipers..._.
I think it is also worth considering what bands were doing live too.
Yes's 1968 live material seems to have been more 'progressive' than
their debut album, while Daevid Allen was making music with rock, jazz
and contemporary classical influences at the *beginning* of the '60s.
--
Henry
Yes ELP kCrimson
<< _In the Court of the Crimson King_ was a very important early prog release,
but it was far from the first. Caravan's eponymous debut was perhaps somewhat
primitive, but came out in 1968, as did the first Soft Machine album. However,
it's the Nice who seem to me to be the most important band right at the
beginning, with their first album out in 1967. 1967 also saw Zappa's _Freak
Out_ and Pink Floyd's _Pipers..._.
>>
I guess I've always considered the early albums of The Nice, Zappa, and Floyd
to be late-Psychedelic rather than early-Progressive. There seems to be
'something' missing for me in all of those titles that you cite that puts me
off from categorizing them as prog.
I guess it's where one draws the line, but just because bands eventually
developed a prog style doesn't necessitate that the very first things they put
on record qualify as their progressive debuts. OTOH _In the Court of the
Crimson King_ was fully-formed prog right from the opening riff.
(As I am not familiar enough with the catalogs of Caravan and Soft Machine, I
can't really comment on their early releases.)
YESWOLF1
'66.
YESWOLF
PS And don't forget The Vanilla Fudge
Henry Potts
>Henry wrote:
><< _In the Court of the Crimson King_ was a very important early prog
>me to be the most important band right at the beginning, with their
>first album out in 1967. 1967 also saw Zappa's _Freak Out_ and Pink
>Floyd's _Pipers..._.
> >>
>
>I guess I've always considered the early albums of The Nice, Zappa, and
>Floyd to be late-Psychedelic rather than early-Progressive. There seems
>to be 'something' missing for me in all of those titles that you cite
I'd accept that argument for early Floyd and Zappa, but the Nice sound
quintessentially prog to me from very early on. They were hardly
psychedelic: you could say their 1967 debut, _Thoughts of Emerlist
Davjack_, was simply more mainstream, but 1968's _Ars Longa Vita Brevis_
is prog through and through.
--
Henry
Yes ELP kCrimson
<< [...] the Nice sound quintessentially prog to me from very early on. They
were hardly psychedelic [...]
>>
Hardly?! Quoting Keith Emerson, circa late 1960s: "For want of a better word, I
suppose you could describe us as a psychedelic group -- [...]"
(Now, of course, I'm editing Emo's remark to corroborate my own previously
stated categorization, and no doubt you may rightfully accuse that I
purposefully chopped the 'coda' from Emerson's statement: "[...] but we'd
rather you didn't.")
I've been re-listening to the tracks from _The Thoughts of Emerlist Davjack_
just now... The only pieces that stand out as even 'proto-prog' to me are
"Rondo" and "War And Peace", comprising just 25% of the titles. The rest sound
like Spinal Tap's "Cups And Cakes" or "(Listen To The) Flower People" to me!
:-o
<< [...] 1968's _Ars Longa Vita Brevis_ is prog through and through. >>
On _ALVB_, I'll admit they're getting much, much closer with the lengthy title
suite, along with "America", and "Intermezzo". But "Daddy Where Did I Come
From", "Little Arabella", and "Happy Freuds" hardly represent quintessential
prog for me (that "Cups & Cakes" syndrome again), and that's a pretty healthy
chunk of _AVLB_ for me to dismiss. That's why I lean toward Crimson's first
album as my answer to the subject line here. That's the first 'prog through and
through' for me.
Well, I guess I've discovered +my+ personal criterion for distinguishing
between late-psychedelia versus early-prog:
If it sounds more like "Cups And Cakes", I'd call it psych; if it sounds more
like "Stonehenge", it's prog... :-)
**Important footnote**:
I just noticed that the 6 pages of well-crafted liner notes for The Nice's 2CD
compilation set _The Immediate Collection_ are attributed to "Hugh G.
Rection"... Sorry... That made me laugh...
Bill Challenger
as genius!!! No, no, no, please NO! A couple good songs from a stupid
band ... ecchhh!!
-Help Me Rhonda yeeeeaaahhh
git her owt uh mie hort
good nightnurse!
Paul Goodwin
on them...
>
Bill Challenger wrote in message <080120010040508810%ba...@bomb.com>...
>...certainly not the Beach boys piece of shite that everyone refers to
>as genius!!! No, no, no, please NO! A couple good songs from a stupid
>band ... ecchhh!!
>
>-Help Me Rhonda yeeeeaaahhh
>
>
>
>good nightnurse!
>
JHtalk
Bill Challenger
of work, as were a couple of the others, but if that is prog, I'll eat
my TTO...
Zombies Odessey And Oracle, maybe closer?
-BC
In article <20010108094641...@ng-mk1.aol.com>, JHtalk
Rojon Thod
>
>...certainly not the Beach boys piece of shite that everyone refers to
>as genius!!! No, no, no, please NO! A couple good songs from a stupid
>band ... ecchhh!
So now we are to determine the first in a line by whether or not we like it?
This is gonna have serious consequences on history.
Theus
"Bill Challenger" <ba...@bomb.com> wrote in message
news:080120010040508810%ba...@bomb.com...
> ...certainly not the Beach boys piece of shite that everyone refers to
> as genius!!! No, no, no, please NO! A couple good songs from a stupid
> band ... ecchhh!!
>
band, at one point. Of course, they eventually became a parody of
themselves, but that took several years to happen.
John Collis
> Yeah, this is what I was thinking. While Sgt. Pepper was influential
> on prog rock...it was more influential on rock, pop, folk...everything
> really.
>
> Prog rock came from that influence...so the first Prog Rock album to
> kinda, kick-off the genre would be...I'm guessing Crimson as well.
How about the Nice, or for that matter Vanilla Fudge?
Cheers,
--
| John Collis (at home)
| jo...@albemuth.dhs.org
John Collis
> I would learn towards Sgt. Pepper for that one. Pink Floyd's Piper at the
> Gates of Dawn was not what I would consider prog, but I think that several
> of their works prior to Dark Side (Meddle or Atom Heart Mother) might have
> some prog leanings - still more psychedelic, though.
Well, really I would say that Sgt. Pepper is more psycedelic than for
instance "Echoes" from Meddle or Atom Heart Mother (the track). Also
notable is that apparantly the Beatles were influenced to do Sgt. Pepper
because they had heard Pink Floyd performing around London.
kosmi...@my-deja.com
ant...@webfeat-inc.com wrote:
> Here's a question...
>
> What album was the first true Progressive Rock album ever?
>
> progressive you would have to start looking to the late 60's....
>
> their first album in 1969, but it wasn't their progressive sound yet.
>
> Pink Floyd had a couple of albums out before 1969...but I'm not too
> familiar with them and not sure if they were progressive or
> psycdelic...or both!
>
> However, I know that King Crimson's debut and Yes' debut (which both
> came out the same month, Nov. 1969) were progressive, although I think
> Crimson was more experimental from the beginning.
>
> So, what do you think is the first true progessive album? Is "21st
> Century Schizoid Man" the premiere progressive rock song?
>
> Ant
> @#@#
> Maybe The Crazy World of Arther Brown?-
Dave
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Steven Sullivan
Sgt. Pepper's and Piper at the Gates of Dawn were recorded at the same
time -- IIRC, one or more of the Beatles even dropped in on the Piper
sessions.
--
-S.
'BTW, please keep the "stupid" signatures coming on your posts, a day
doesn't go by that they don't annoy me, and most likely the rest of the
used to be stupid" NG.' -- YESDAD
John Collis
> John Collis <john+...@albemuth.dhs.org> wrote:
> : "Aaron M Strickland" <amst...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> :> I would learn towards Sgt. Pepper for that one. Pink Floyd's Piper at the
> :> Gates of Dawn was not what I would consider prog, but I think that several
> :> of their works prior to Dark Side (Meddle or Atom Heart Mother) might have
> :> some prog leanings - still more psychedelic, though.
>
> : Well, really I would say that Sgt. Pepper is more psycedelic than for
> : instance "Echoes" from Meddle or Atom Heart Mother (the track). Also
> : notable is that apparantly the Beatles were influenced to do Sgt. Pepper
> : because they had heard Pink Floyd performing around London.
>
>
> Sgt. Pepper's and Piper at the Gates of Dawn were recorded at the same
> time -- IIRC, one or more of the Beatles even dropped in on the Piper
> sessions.
Yep, that's what I have heard too. However, apparantly Pink Floyd had
already spent an amount of time playing live around London doing there
more extended improvisational stuff. Apparantly Paul and John had both
heard some of this stuff and were supposed to have been impressed.