What would music be like if PROG never happened?

The generalisation "UK prog rock" is poorly formed, in terms of attitude, technique, style, form, content, etc: I'd still say it remains a far LAZIER demon than the counter-demon Clarke is irritably picking up. Norman's point is pretty good, I think. Citing Yes's allegedly vomit-worthiness (I kinda like em sometimes, but I like Neu! more) as a reason for pre-judging and excluding a whole currently functioning worldlet of music totally out of sight and mind is just rubbish. And Josh's classical harmonies and forms won't solve the problem either. The who-can-play-who-can't- hostility is still very live and complex in Brit Free improv: and I stick to my not- always-well-argued belief that some of punk's anti-prog power came from a populist reactionary fear of the radical world of free improv.

Japanoise — for example — casually combines prog AND stooges heritage...

There are several people I know who would think of vomiting upon hearing Yes because they know that any sense of pleasure derived from their music would result in snickering from their peer group. I would never attempt to intimate that this is your situation, Clarke, because I do not know you. However, I do find that the mentality is quite common.

(I happen to like Neu! and Can a hell of a lot more than Yes myself, but I do not find prog bands to be inherently evil. Making Roger Dean haha-funny remarks about the artwork on Kid A is liable to result in squirming from a Radiohead fan. I find this funny.)

Just to clarify, I didn't even know it was Yes until I asked the girl at the counter. ;-)

I do not think prog tendencies are something to be afraid of, something to put down at every possible moment. That sort of thinking is what makes a lot of indie bands afraid to experiment, what makes them bull-headedly "simple" and unambitious. I guess I think that some bands - bands like Yes - are just terrible at executing those "progressive" ideas. Their music comes off as clinical, asexual, muso wanking. Bands like Henry Cow, (some) King Crimson, etc. sound completely different - they truly sound like they're (warning: cliche ahead) "pushing the limits of rock," instead of just demonstrating their technical prowess.

Yes it is.

Though, I can't believe you haven't already started, be it listening to Queen, 10cc or other bands that were more conventionally pop / rock but were heavily influenced by Prog rock. I think that the Prog Rock that most influenced to OK Conmputer era Radiohead was 10cc's 'How Dare You' album.

But to narrow in the definition of Prog Rock (lets call it 'Classic Prog Rock', or 'High Prog') then you cant really start at a better place than 'Least...' to find the /best and the worst of the genre.

Its very early on in the History of Prog Rock and the contenmporary albums by the other prog rockers are much less anmbitious - this and the next two VDGG albums (H to He and Pawn Hearts) - its a great way to see if you can get past the bombast and ponderousness.

Me, I like it. With the lush ballad of Refugees and the stunningly over blown White Hammer (how awesome must the ending of White Hammer been live?) you get a pretty good idea of the full range of VDGGs power - and not too much of the bloat and tedium of prog. When at the height of Punk Johnny Rotten was given a GLR radio show he turned up with Peter Hammil albums. Most prog is hopelessly pastoral burblings vbut there is an incredible feeling of violence in VDGG (esp Killer) that maybe only the Larks / Starless / Red period if KC also captured.

Who on the board will defend the Harvest? Or Nursery Crymes era Genesis?

Blimey Dave Q's question is a hard one to get a grip on: you know that Mark Perry has argued that anyone listening hard at the time could instantly tell that the Clash were ELP fans?! Poss.a malicious joke, but in context I don't think it was. Another strike against the "influence" theory as standardly used hurrah!

Comparatively, Henry Cow, at least to me...there's something missing. Mostly sounds too clinical, technically flashy, and not much beyond that for the most part. I don't find Leg End to be exciting listening so much as a group of musicians trying to impress me with their musical influences and the number of sticky, intricate passages they can play.

As an aside, one other thing I feel Yes had an advantage versus other bands mentioned (including Genesis and ELP) is that they for the most part eschewed any self-conscious need for humor/irony in their music, titles, etc; the "We WILL prove to you that we don't take ourselves too seriously, dammit" Syndrome. I was listening to Slapp Happy (related to the RIO/Canterbury scene of prog)'s "Me and Parvati", which I think is a practically flawless pop song otherwise, but the one tarnish for me is those idiotic male vocals, which a) aren't very funny and b) certainly aren't necessary to the effectiveness of the song; they seem to have been inserted primarily just to let the band say 'See? We have a sense of humor! HAH!'. Bah, humbug. I'm glad Yes mostly said fuck it to that; as a result, they come off as one of the more 'out in the open' bands for that genre. I would say the same thing about my other favorite prog band, Magma [another great choice, DG, is Magma's "Live: Hhai"].

Don't listen to Nursery Cryme so much nowadays (played it a billion times growing up, rite of passage), but certainly the height of their pastoral-ness, Trespass, is still one of my favorites. "Stagnation" is perhaps my favorite Genesis song.

VdGG: I'd say consider Godbluff, for the first side of the album alone; agreed that "Least We Can Do" is pretty good, and strangely never talked about with them. Pawn Hearts has a great first side; the second side is rather messy. "H to He" I find comparatively lackluster. "Killers" is a silly, silly song by any stretch of the imagination (though it has a great riff). The big VdGG Achilles Heel is Hammill's overwrought vocal performances.

However, when you try to apply these stereotypes to bands like Kenso, Crucis, Alphataurus, Djam Karet, Birdsongs of the Mesozoic, DFA, etc., it doesn't fit. Yet rather than re-assess the stereotype, most have found it easier to just ignore everything that doesn't fit the stereotypical mold.

Someone raised the question of how Krautrock and prog can be related when Can and Yes seem so far away. The answer is quite simple: everything in the middle that links the two has been eternally ignored. Banished to small independant labels (often outside of the US/UK), the music that makes up the meat of the genre is something that one has to intentionally pursue to ever be exposed to it.

As such, it seems that these bands are destined to never be known outside of progressive rock circles. If you were wondering why these circles seem to have such a different view of "prog" than those on the outside... well, that's why. It's more than mere fandom.

Attitude and perception is everything. Some have pointed out: "how can some people worship the "post-rock" bands, yet see nothing of value at all in the "prog" bands?". Current gigging prog bands often have a mantra: "whatever you do, do *not* call yourself prog". The stigma is so thick that music that would otherwise be loved can be hated when the "prog" label is affixed to it.

Unfortunately, some rather vocal prog fans often lash out at everything else, acquire a superiority complex, and take a snobbish outlook on music. Sadly, these fans only add to the stereotype. They do not represent the majority, but they're the ones that get seen.

With luck, perhaps at some point, music will be judged solely on terms of quality. Progressive rock is far from a faultless music. However, it's faults in no way outnumber those of any other genre of music - rather, they are simply scrutinized on a merciless level. Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") applies to prog as well as every other type of music. Unfortunately, when critics take an approach to a type of music where they ignore the other 10% entirely, that type of music simply doesn't have a fighting chance.

Anyway!! If it hadn't existed someone would have had to invent it. And with my love of capes, it would probably have to have been me. It was fantastic! Apart from the music, and the hippy bollocks they talked all the time. I reckon Rick Wakeman was right on. And you lot who don't agree are hoary old "poonks" who nicked all your ideas of Julie Burchill, of all people.

Posting on ILM is scary, innit. I'm going back to ILE.

I first realized that Genesis might in fact have something thanks to Human Drama's cover of "The Carpet Crawlers," and while I haven't really taken any huge plunges, I do have a couple of things kicking around. The truly obscure (and to my mind potentially very interesting) English prog stuff I haven't properly explored yet, but what I've heard from the Slapp Happy family tree raised some smiles.

When it comes to modern stuff, the various No-Man spinoffs and projects unsurprisingly catch my ear -- Porcupine Tree, sure, but I'm very intrigued by the upcoming Henry Fool album, which features, oddly enough, a guy who's a member of Pendragon, mentioned up above. But then again anything with Tim Bowness singing automatically gets my vote. ;-)

x0x0

http:/www.organart.com

I say this because I recently bought 'Red' by King Crimson and I love it to death. And I also realized that 'Deceit' by This Heat is utterly prog, and I love that as well.

Is any of the Canterbury stuff any good? What's a good entry point?

important: pink floyd, cream, tomorrow, amm (!!), soft machine, king crimson, graham bond organisation (?anyweay the wierdy end of the r&b crowd: this is what marcello and i were discussing... ) the moody blues, procol harum, savoy brown (who i haf nevah heard a NOTE by), maybe the nice

and of course hendrix in his first london manifestation

Oh bugger. I'm sorry I missed that - that's definitely one of *my* areas - we'll have to revive it another time. Timebox/Bo Street Runners/Patto sort of encapsulate this transition from r+b/soul thru to (pop)prog - they probably come into this somewhere. Tomorrow - interesting thru Keith West connection ('Theme from a Teenage Opera' - best recd ever), but a bit crap.

Agree with the 'selective hindsight' idea - Nuggets/Rubble et al probably doesn't help, no matter how nice those comps are, as they do package and select along predictable lines. A great idea for a box- set would be one which somehow shows the transition from 1963 beat pop to full-on prog and explains WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON!

Another urgent and key question is "Are the Graham Bond Organisation" the ugliest band evah?" Their photos in 'In-Crowd' box would scare horses.

The Sensational Alex Harvey Band must give The Graham Bond Organisation a run for their money in the pug ug stakes.

Inspired by this thread - true! - I risked a whole pound on a Magma CD at lunchtime...

I note that this new "Mojo" I bought has a big feature on van der graaf generator. I notice also that in order to prop the band, the writer does the whole "they're not like the others" schtick re other prog bands. Oh well.....

The 'touchstone' prog album (a la "Bitches Brew" is the touchstone fusion album) is usually considered King Crimson's "In the Court of the Crimson King", though there are also various influential bands/albums often cited as leading up to prog (these are often referred to as 'proto-prog' albums/bands): Sgt. Pepper's (pretty obviously), Moody Blues' Days of Future Passed, Procol Harum's "A Whiter Shade of Pale", etc.

I ask because I came across a vinyl copy of their 1972 LP "All Together Now" at the weekend, and promptly snapped it up since it's got extended versions of their their two 'pop' hits on it: Rod Argent & Chris White's "Hold Your Head Up" and Russ Ballard's "Tragedy" (actually, "Tragedy" might not have been a hit tho' it was a single) both of which are fantastic. The rest of the LP on first listen is not as good, but there's a wonderful blues number at the end called "Pure Love" (only problem - it's got loads of prog frippery appended to it: an instrumental intro and 'finale', and then before the intro a 5-minute organ fantasia by Rod Argent!!! Yikes.)

Fans/Haters of Prog/Trance/Ambient/New Age might like to try out this thread I just posted Here

One of the things
I like most about listening to tiny subgenres - you can
listen to a beautiful piece of music and suddenly realize
that you are 1 of only thousands of people who have ever
heard this before. It's a curious feeling of discovery -
like finding a perfect unique diamond nugget floating
down a muddy river.

There would have been no Tortoise, Spiritualized nor Yo La Tengo though.

"As for Japanese musicians, well I've yet to hear a Japanese
artist who was any good"

I couldn't devise a better rebuttal.

Without prog, Radiohead would have continued to build on the musical approach of "The Bends", which was hardly proggy at all.

maybe it's unfair or misleading to group Hammill and VdGG as 'progressive' anyway -- they were on the same label and tour bus as prog bands, but they were the band that rocked out on the triple bill 'prog' evenings and bought them to evenings climax -- they were also a bit more 'leave nothing to the imagination'/ full on/ loud/ scare your relatives -- if they were heavy, they were cathartic in that aggressive rock way that we saw with the pistols and the stones rather than bombastic in the pseudo-operatic style of queen

if Lydon hadn't heard Hammil/VdGG (Nadir's Big Chance was even 'stripped down rock') he wouldn't have sounded the same at all -- the vocal histrionics as visceral drama/content and the cynical/ contemptuous appraisal of "establishment" practises seem comparable to Hammill to me -- and this 'punk' Rotten admitted to 'influences' -- so i think Hammill/VdGG might be better called 'alternative' -- 'singer/songwriter', 'jazz-rock', 'sci-fi', 'fantasy/horror' w/out falling into all of the traps that are the hallmarks of metal bands, glam bands, peaceful hippy bands and andrew-lloyd webber sounding bands, as well as so many of the prog or art-rock bands that were so easy listening -- they were punk-art rock

o.k. Hammil's dramatic over-blow vocals are initially off-putting, but certainly no less fun and artful than Johhny Rotten qua Richard III

In the case of Pink Floyd, the answer that I would think 9 out of 10 would answer "to a very high degree", high enough to indeed classify them functionally as a prog band. Pink Floyd is on all the major prog reference sites (except those to lazy to bother to list them, because they want to be devoted to more obscure stuff), they are viewed as a major influence not only on Krautrock (again perceived by many as falling under a general rubric of 'prog rock') but also other, lesser-known prog rock bands from the 70s, particularly out of France (e.g., Pollen). More importantly, they arose out of the same cultural period/context of the other British prog bands during that time, and had many of the same surface qualities: the instruments (e.g., Moog, mellotron in the early days), the electronic versus acoustic shifts, the song dynamics shifts, the extended length of the songs and multi-part suites, the studio experimentation, the sci-fi (and in the Syd years) and fantasy imagery, the cover art/music/concept album feel, etc. Most fans (at least the ones in America) who were around during the time considered them as belonging to the prog classification (same with Jethro Tull).

Van der Graaf Generator to an even greater extent then Pink Floyd would get a "to a high degree" answer, and if you posted on a prog rock forum, "Wait...what is VdGG doing on here? They're not a prog band!!" I doubt you would be taken seriously. They arose from the Charisma record label (same label as Genesis), Hammill translated the lyrics of Italian prog rock bands in the 70s, and again their music has all the trappings: again, odd-time signatures, the instrumentation, the extended songs and multi-part suites, the huge dynamic shifts (sure, they had very aggressive moments--they also had very soft moments, too--and also other prog rock bands had very aggressive moments as well), and yes the bombastic quality.

* the exceptions to this are Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, and ELP, who for better or for worse, fair or unfair, like it or not, are pretty indisputably 'prog rock' as they are the 'archetype bands' of the genre...

Hammill played so many Richard III/ sicko get under your skin games in his lyrics, like Lydon and Devoto (and Kevin Rowland anyone ?)

i think it was nice that people had the time to allow that much tomfoolery in their art-rock music back then

I prefer to use the term "symphonic rock" for all the music I love from this period. That is, particularly Yes and Genesis.

Anyway, this is why those (usually new) people who ask "What is prog?" on a prog rock forum get readily ignored, because it's a question that has already been played out on those venues a hundred times over, and the answer is, basically, as above.

I disagree with the "most bands" thing.
When Yes, Genesis, and King Crimson released their
best albums, they were completely new sounding.
Not to mention the early RIO and Zeuhl bands, who
were definitely blazing their own trails.

Not that there weren't some bands who took classical
music and rephrased it. ELP, Los Canarios and Fireballet
did this to varying degrees of success. ELP have their
moments, but ultimately suck. I'd agree that they weren't
very progressive, after the first album.

PS. the phrase "ancient classical" does not ring well.
Classical music is 18th century, not ancient, and
there's far more of 20th century composers in prog.
Not to mention jazz.

and the music is more often than not pretty harsh, or at least brash -- it's the attitude, incomparable to Yes, Genesis, ELP and Crimson -- VdGG, a band that didn't make it past 5 years on and off, and a white-knuckled 'tell it like it is' intent -- menacingly convincing whether 16th century papel logic or psychologically haunted houses or lighthouses, or compulsive gardening -- always coming back to a message he seems unconcerned people might find too bleak -- grotesque rather than grand

i can't see Hammill's lyrics as fanciful except to the extent that you can ignore the metaphorical foundations (in the same way that you might have thought Peter Greenaway's films as merely decorative)

i find it hard to connect this band to many others because of Hammell's unique lyrical urgency, and the 'big' 'prog' bands seem frankly amoungst the most superficially related of all music, except if you ignore the overall dramatic effect and restrict yourself to musically technical lists of indicia of marginal artistic import

Which was something rock needed. Rock needed to be more similar to 18th century classical music. Too bad the punk, disco and funk fans didn't get that point.

Depends. You don't hear a lot of 20th century composers in the music of melody-oriented prog acts such as Yes and Genesis. But there is definitely a lot of 20th century "avante garde" in krautrock and even a symphonic rock act like ELP did a lot of Copland and Bartok.

Which was...?

Not by me or most Krautrock fans or, indeed, by most Krautrock musicians of any note, most of whom considered themselves to be working in opposition to the "canonical" prog rock bands of the time.

In "Mojo" a coupla month ago (poss "Ucunt" but I'm pretty sure it was Mojo), Howard Devoto made some comments re prog and Magazine's 2nd album, mentioning that they were all into yes, but they couldn't mention it at the time

Plus I don't think many prog bands were "bombastic in the same way as queen", i mean this is the same queen that only made it b/c led zep didn't tour often enough, right?

I fucking love good progressive music, me.

The names you mention, but especially Can and Neu and (to a lesser extent) Faust, are not Krautrock merely because they are the "correct" names but because they are the German bands which have the least resemblance to Anglo-American rock and Anglo-American prog rock in particular. The thing to remember is about these bands (and Kraftwerk) is that not only did they not regard themselves as "prog rock" but they were actively hostile to the term and dismissive of most of the music produced by "prog" bands. Wallenstein, Grobschnit, Eloy - they are all terrible and they are all pretty much prog rock. Terribleness being a major sign of whether or not band is prog or not, in my experience. Actually very few German bands in the 70s actually deserve to be described as "Krautrock" becuase theere is more to Krautrock than simply being German and playing rock music.

ELP was at their best when they didn't try to copy 20th century "free tonal" music and instead kept to melodic stuff. "Karn Evil" was great.

I think we may be talking about two different things? I am talking more about the reception of the music by the listeners, not what the artists themselves think about their music or other bands. Robert Fripp, for example, doesn't consider King Crimson a prog band, is generally hostile to the term, and also seems generally dismissive of other British prog bands (actually, one doesn't even have to venture outside of Great Britain to see prog bands dismissive of one another). Yet at the end of the day King Crimson is still considered to be a prog rock band nonetheless by almost everyone (except the extremely silly or utmost Fripp-fanboys, IMO), because of the qualities and context of their music.

Now, granted, Krautrock bands, obviously, are more disputable than King Crimson is (Crimson is a special case as an "archetypal" prog rock band; that is, they are one of those bands viewed as practically synonymous with the genre)--these things are largely relative and individualistically determined, and guided over time by the consensus of fans. I recognize that there are those who consider Krautrock entirely separate from the 'prog rock' rubric, even though I personally disagree with that position (I am more liberally-minded in my conception of 'prog', tending more to see the similarities than differences between the bands). Like Pashimina said, it IS kind of like a Wenn diagram. They are not entirely independent (relatively speaking) from each other in a categorization kind of way. Most prog rock forums feel free to discuss Kruatrock bands...why? well, obviously, because on a grand scale (which is what the labeling/categorization is addressing), the qualities of, say, Yes and Can are on the whole are much more similar than comparing either one of them to, say, Britney Spears or The Flying Burrito Brothers or Bruce Springsteen or Run D.M.C. On a more specific scale, of course, there is a recognition that these bands are not entirely overlapping or necessarily closely related either--that is, it would be utterly ridiculous to expect someone to like Yes just because they like Can (or vice-versa), and indeed not everybody does. There are differences in the two bands' stylizations, musical influences, etc. Again, one doesn't even have to make it Krautrock versus British prog rock distinction. I love Yes but dislike the Henry Cow I've heard. I love mid 70s Popol Vuh but was not at all into the first two Kraftwerk albums (or the first Popol Vuh album! :) ).

Wallenstein, Grobschnit, Eloy - they are all terrible and they are all pretty much prog rock. Terribleness being a major sign of whether or not band is prog or not, in my experience.

I don't agree with this--I think it is limited to define or characterize a genre, label, or other similar concept (i.e., a way of categorizing the surface qualities of music in a way that is reasonable) based primarily on personal taste. Note that this is what a lot of zealous prog rock fans do, except they do exactly the opposite: "This music is good, therefore I like it, therefore...it's Prog!" or along similar lines "This music sucks." Why? "Because it's rap." (i.e., Rap as an entire genre is defined/recognized as "bad music" or "not REAL music" or "music I don't like"). [Sorry, Geir! :) ]

Camel.

personally, Pink Floyd always transcended the prog mantle, for me. not just because of where they went but how they came to it- Syd era(pop oriented, sometimes insane, sometimes boring jams)- intro Gilmour- delving into the song structures(MORE structure)- Waters comandeers- we get Dark Side of the Moon. and the rest just falls into place so neatly.
where as bands like Genesis just don't hold up quite as well. ELP, KC, Yes, and the lot have a song here, a song there but never live up to thier ideals. but, that's my opinion and i'm apt to being wrong.

and yes, prog fans are almost worse than Dave Mathews band/Phish fans.
they'll lap it up, not matter what and call it divine.

Wow, what a generalisation. I must have imagined all those arguments on prog internet forums.

hey, i do what i can with what i have...hehe!

like it was stated above, prog fans tend to be as uber-elitist as the next subgenre. it's the willingness to enjoy vast wankery, meandering bilppy bloops, and 10 minute synth solos, and twirling drum kit antics that made me generalize so.

note- i did say ALMOST.

and yes, i'm not excluded.
it's just hard to debate someone with a straight face when they keep using early Genesis, or Yes as a reference point of any kind.
and Peter Gabriel. for the love of gawd, he's worse than Don Henley!

that wouldn't be all bad...
i could learn to live with that.

No industrial dance beats-
nah! somebody would've come up with it...
hmmm, this begets the question-
How would the mid 90's Nu-Metal have come about without Faith No More or Ministry?

and...
Did cocaine inspire all 80's mainstream music/movies?
i say- YES.

Ryuchi Sakamoto to thread!

and they should all bring samurai swords.

Marshal Jefferson's favorite band was (is?) YES. And Larry Heard dug them, too. The connections between YES + Chicago house are there. Somewhere.