# Progressive Rock and its ties to Western "art" music



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

What did "prog rock" try to do? For one thing, it severed the ties with blues, and therefore became an attempt at a different genre of rock. 

Rock and roll, in its early development phase, was basically a white version of Rhythm and Blues, a marketing effort to sell black music using white performers: Elvis Presley doing Big Mama Thornton's "Hound Dog" for a white teenage audience, Pat Boone doing Little Richard's "Tutti Frutti," Ricky Nelson, Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, all doing 'black' rhythm music.

Prog rock severed rock's ties with blues, and tried to make rock "respectable and authentic" by making sure the music was all original, not derivative, and had strong ties to the 'art' music of the Western classical tradition, ties which can be traced back to Procol Harum, The Nice, Emerson Lake and Palmer, and Deep Purple.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Millionrainbows, Excellent post; I really concur with all that you say. I would also add--from my own pov--that what prog rock attempted to do--more than any previous genre --was to establish the idea of a "concept" album {sorry for the repetition here, I am rather tired tonight}, wherein one album would be concerned with a single topic or theme. Maybe* Sgt. Pepper* was the harbinger of all this, especially since there was no break between different songs; the Beatles would of course use this unbroken motif again on side two of *Abbey Road* some years later.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Yes, in the late 60s 'prog' was about consciously shedding the usual rock & roll and blues influences whilst simultaneously avoiding the more indisciplined aspects of psychedelic-inspired improvisation. True, it was pretty much a British school of thought what with the Nice, Moody Blues, King Crimson etc but David Axelrod should also be given credit for mining a similar kind of seam in California - I suppose one difference is that he was a ringmaster/arranger rather than part of a band (the misleading use of the Electric Prunes' name on the Release of an Oath album notwithstanding).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

As I recall, The Electric Prunes' Mass in F Minor was produced by Axelrod....I've got it on CD. I never really considered it to be "prog," but I guess you're right.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

elgars ghost said:


> Yes, in the late 60s 'prog' was about consciously shedding the usual rock & roll and blues influences whilst simultaneously avoiding the more indisciplined aspects of psychedelic-inspired improvisation. True, it was pretty much a British school of thought what with the Nice, Moody Blues, King Crimson etc but David Axelrod should also be given credit for mining a similar kind of seam in California - I suppose one difference is that he was a ringmaster/arranger rather than part of a band (the misleading use of the Electric Prunes' name on the Release of an Oath album notwithstanding).


there was Frank Zappa too, an album like Absolutely free is certainly a forerunner of the progressive rock, altough Zappa had no problem with the blues tradition.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2013)

samurai said:


> @ Millionrainbows, Excellent post; I really concur with all that you say.


I would concur, though Million might credit the source...the same Cook book he has referenced in another thread


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

norman bates said:


> there was Frank Zappa too, an album like Absolutely free is certainly a forerunner of the progressive rock, altough Zappa had no problem with the blues tradition.


That's true about *Zappa.* His approach, I think, was a smorgasbord of all influences; there was jazz, doo-***, and extended "psychedelic" guitar improvisation as well.

*Deep Purple* and *Procol Harum* had lingering ties to blues, as well; there are exceptions to every generalization. But I'm speaking generally, in the sense that prog rock wanted to be "authentic" rather than "derivative," by composing their own music and shucking-off any connections to blues.

A good case in point is *Jethro Tull.* They started out as a blues-influenced band in their first album This Was with *Mick Abrahams,* a blues/jazz influenced guitarist who went on to form *Blodwyn Pig* after *Ian Anderson* and he disagreed on the direction of the band. *Anderson* wanted less of a blues influence, so *Abrahams* split.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I would concur, though Million might credit the source...the same Cook book he has referenced in another thread


Yes, MacLeod, I read books, I don't just skim them on-line. You're not interested in prog-rock anyway, you just want somebody to pick on.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, MacLeod, I read books, I don't just skim them on-line. You're not interested in prog-rock anyway, you just want somebody to pick on.


Perhaps I do. Sorry about that. Now, what about your faults?

No, I'm not interested in some of the bands you've mentioned, but why would you automatically conclude that I'm not interested in prog rock?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Perhaps I do. Sorry about that. Now, what about your faults?
> 
> No, I'm not interested in some of the bands you've mentioned, but why would you automatically conclude that I'm not interested in prog rock?


Because I think you are more interested in creating conflict.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Because I think you are more interested in creating conflict.


With you? Perhaps you invite it, though that doesn't mean I should engage in it. Of course, if the response you are looking for from your posts is mere agreement, you'll not get that from me. But I don't see that disagreement is conflict, nor that pointing out that you have 'borrowed' an idea from a book without due reference is picking on you.

By all means accuse me of not reading the book - but I did at least try to do some research to find out about it and posted a link so others might benefit: you could easily have done the same, had you wanted to provide additional help to your reader. When you did help me, I gave you credit. You disliked my 'like' as a consequence! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> With you? Perhaps you invite it, though that doesn't mean I should engage in it. Of course, if the response you are looking for from your posts is mere agreement, you'll not get that from me. But I don't see that disagreement is conflict, nor that pointing out that you have 'borrowed' an idea from a book without due reference is picking on you.
> 
> By all means accuse me of not reading the book - but I did at least try to do some research to find out about it and posted a link so others might benefit: you could easily have done the same, had you wanted to provide additional help to your reader. When you did help me, I gave you credit. You disliked my 'like' as a consequence! :lol:


That sounds like the BTK killer, when he told them where the bodies were: "Hey, how come y'all are mad at me? After all, I helped you find the bodies! This could have dragged on a lot longer. How come y'all don't appreciate how helpful I've been?" :lol:

But seriously, I really do appreciate your input, especially when it needs no explanation to reveal its positive nature.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> As I recall, The Electric Prunes' Mass in F Minor was produced by Axelrod....I've got it on CD. I never really considered it to be "prog," but I guess you're right.


Well, what happened with that album was that Axelrod's ideas outstripped the E.P.'s musical ability to the degree that they were replaced with West Coast session heavies while the band allegedly only ended up contributing vocals. The following Release of an Oath album was written while the band were splitting up but the powers-that-be thought that the name Electric Prunes still had marketability. I agree that the Mass album wasn't really a precursor to prog - I'd consider it more of a stand-alone curiosity if anything. I was thinking more of Release of an Oath (which also had a religious theme running through it) and the subsequent two or three albums that Axelrod released under his own name.


----------



## Jord (Aug 13, 2012)

From my own listening i thought the main things about prog are, concept albums/eccentric song ideas, often quite psychedelic, and the other thing is that it seems the musicians from rock and metal bands that are actually decent musicians tend to be in prog bands as the music isn't always generic 4/4 beats with 5ths, pentatonic scales and the same verse chorus structure that almost every band has used at some point, don't know how it ties to western art music, but that's my view on prog anyway


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> What did "prog rock" try to do? For one thing, it severed the ties with blues, and therefore became an attempt at a different genre of rock.
> 
> Rock and roll, in its early development phase, was basically a white version of Rhythm and Blues, a marketing effort to sell black music using white performers: Elvis Presley doing Big Mama Thornton's "Hound Dog" for a white teenage audience, Pat Boone doing Little Richard's "Tutti Frutti," Ricky Nelson, Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, all doing 'black' rhythm music.
> 
> Prog rock severed rock's ties with blues, and tried to make rock "respectable and authentic" by making sure the music was all original, not derivative, and had strong ties to the 'art' music of the Western classical tradition, ties which can be traced back to Procol Harum, The Nice, Emerson Lake and Palmer, and Deep Purple.


R&R in it's "early development stage" was Chuck Berry. He's the original guy. The real deal. He invented the guitar riffs, wrote great songs and lyrics. A great black musical talent who could play authentic blues, but was creating a new kind of music.

I'm not so sure about "prog rock making sure all the songs were original." All of the bands were different, and the term progressive rock didn't exist. The very first track on ELP's self titled debut is lifted directly from Bartok's Allegro Barbaro. And they also covered a couple of Aaron Copland pieces. And they did an entire album of Mussorgsky.

I think Yes's approach was more original, and they had a great, innovative rhythm section. Bruford and Squire sounded like nobody else at the time. But for me, the band peaked in '72 with Close To The Edge, and the subsequent tour resulting in the three record set, Yessongs.

To my ears, Gentle Giant was the most classical sounding of the original "prog rock" bands. And interestingly, they had a very bluesy guitarist in Gary Green. It actually made for a fascinating sound and contrast to the classical song structures and baroque influenced compositions and vocal arrangements of keyboardist Kerry Minnear.

And for the long haul, King Crimson has created a great catalog of innovative, original music from the early days of their very English sounding records to the dark improv of the 73-74 quartet, and the revamped 80s-90s band with Adrian Belew and Tony Levin.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> R&R in it's "early development stage" was Chuck Berry. *He's the original guy. The real deal. *He invented the guitar riffs, wrote great songs and lyrics. A great black musical talent who could play authentic blues, but was creating a new kind of music.


Because the development of rock and roll was an evolutionary process, and because of its wide cultural impact across society in the US and elsewhere, no single artist or record can be identified as unambiguously "the first" in rock and roll,

But since your post seems to say otherwise, here are the stats:

•*"That's All Right" is the name of the first commercial single released by Elvis Presley*, written and originally performed by blues singer Arthur Crudup. *Presley's version was recorded on 5 July 1954,* and released on 19 July 1954 with "Blue Moon of Kentucky" as the B-side. It is #112 on the 2004 Rolling Stone magazine list of the "500 Greatest Songs of All Time".

•*Chuck Berry, with "Maybellene, "recorded on May 21, 1955, *and which reached # 1 on the R&B chart and # 5 on the US pop chart, refined and developed the major elements that made rock and roll distinctive, focusing on teen life and introducing guitar intros and lead breaks that would be a major influence on subsequent rock music.

    :lol:


----------



## MJongo (Aug 6, 2011)

Presley's version of "That's All Right" is a rock & roll tune? News to me. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MJongo said:


> Presley's version of "That's All Right" is a rock & roll tune? News to me. :lol:


That's a pretty desperate strategy, especially in a "prog rock" thread. Is Rick Wakeman's "Cans 'n Brahms" a rock & roll tune? Or Keith Emerson's Piano Concerto? Or "The Clap" by Steve Howe? News to me. :lol:


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Because the development of rock and roll was an evolutionary process, and because of its wide cultural impact across society in the US and elsewhere, no single artist or record can be identified as unambiguously "the first" in rock and roll,
> 
> But since your post seems to say otherwise, here are the stats:
> 
> ...


Like I said. Berry is the real deal. Elvis was a white boy covering black music. Howlin' Wolf was already rocking before both of them, they just didn't call it R&R.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

But if I'm not mistaken Fats Waller was playing rock and roll progressions even before Chuck Berry and Howlin Wolf. Was he not?

Kevin


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Probably. Robert Johnson definitely was. He just didn't have a Gibson guitar and a Marshall amp.


----------



## MJongo (Aug 6, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> That's a pretty desperate strategy, especially in a "prog rock" thread. Is Rick Wakeman's "Cans 'n Brahms" a rock & roll tune? Or Keith Emerson's Piano Concerto? Or "The Clap" by Steve Howe? News to me. :lol:


It was a joke. Personally, I couldn't care less about this debate.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kevin Pearson said:


> But if I'm not mistaken Fats Waller was playing rock and roll progressions even before Chuck Berry and Howlin Wolf. Was he not?
> 
> Kevin


Because the development of rock and roll was an evolutionary process, and because of its wide cultural impact across society in the US and elsewhere, no single artist or record can be identified as unambiguously "the first" in rock and roll.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MJongo said:


> It was a joke. Personally, I couldn't care less about this debate.


My answer was a joke as well, and I don't care either.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> Probably. Robert Johnson definitely was. He just didn't have a Gibson guitar and a Marshall amp.


 And Elvis wasn't because he was white?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kevin Pearson said:


> But if I'm not mistaken Fats Waller was playing rock and roll progressions even before Chuck Berry and Howlin Wolf. Was he not?
> 
> Kevin


There was a country and western infuence in rock and roll as well. Does that mean Ernest Tubb was rock and roll?

Oops, I forgot, he was white.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> And Elvis wasn't because he was white?


You know the reason, despite your disingenuous remarks. Elvis was making re-recordings of already existing material created by black artists who were never going to get mass exposure in a racist society. I'm not saying he was not part of the history, but he wasn't exactly laying down the blueprint. And we've strayed far from the original topic of progressive rock's ties to western art music. A friend of mine calls it middle brow music. I think there's some truth to that.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> You know the reason, despite your disingenuous remarks. Elvis was making re-recordings of already existing material created by black artists who were never going to get mass exposure in a racist society. I'm not saying he was not part of the history, but he wasn't exactly laying down the blueprint. And we've strayed far from the original topic of progressive rock's ties to western art music. A friend of mine calls it middle brow music. I think there's some truth to that.


I'm already aware of all those facts. I mentioned Elvis in the OP to support the idea that prog-rock placed a premium on authenticity, but everyone seems to be more interested in proving their unrelated assertions about rock and roll and who came first, who is most authentic, etc...So this does prove that "authenticity" is a large concern in music, and in prog-rock.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Ultimately, I don't like to spend a lot of time attaching baggage and critiques to anybody's music. I think it's best to not think to much and just enjoy the indescribable feeling and effect that music has on us as human beings.

If Elvis does it for you, that's great. I like some of his stuff too. Progressive rock had a huge effect on me as a young teenager. I didn't analyze it too much. I just knew that the musicians involved were more accomplished than a lot of the other stuff I was hearing on the radio, which gave them the power to manifest their musical imagination. I had already been playing drums and guitar by my early teens, so when I heard Yes-Fagile; Chicago VII; Stevie's Songs In The Key Of Life, there was no doubt in my mind that these people were very talented and creating some serious music, no matter what labels you want to attach to it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> Ultimately, I don't like to spend a lot of time attaching baggage and critiques to anybody's music. I think it's best to not think to much and just enjoy the indescribable feeling and effect that music has on us as human beings.
> 
> If Elvis does it for you, that's great. I like some of his stuff too. Progressive rock had a huge effect on me as a young teenager. I didn't analyze it too much. I just knew that the musicians involved were more accomplished than a lot of the other stuff I was hearing on the radio, which gave them the power to manifest their musical imagination. I had already been playing drums and guitar by my early teens, so when I heard Yes-Fagile; Chicago VII; Stevie's Songs In The Key Of Life, there was no doubt in my mind that these people were very talented and creating some serious music, no matter what labels you want to attach to it.


I do like to discuss, and analyze music; that's mainly why I come to this forum, not for the lo-fi YouTube clips.

Yes, I like all those groups as well; I saw Chicago's first 3 tours. Still, I don't think it is "labelling" to assert that prog-rock was concerned with authenticity and originality.

It seems "labelling" is more important to the others here:

• Mjongo ("Presley's version of "That's All Right" is a rock & roll tune? News to me.")

• starthrower ("Like I said. Berry is the real deal. Elvis was a white boy covering black music. Howlin' Wolf was already rocking before both of them, they just didn't call it R&R.")

• Kevin Pearson ("But if I'm not mistaken Fats Waller was playing rock and roll progressions even before Chuck Berry and Howlin Wolf. Was he not?")

• starthrower again ("Probably. Robert Johnson definitely was. He just didn't have a Gibson guitar and a Marshall amp.")

• and starthrower again: ("You know the reason, despite your disingenuous remarks. Elvis was making re-recordings of already existing material created by black artists who were never going to get mass exposure in a racist society. I'm not saying he was not part of the history, but he wasn't exactly laying down the blueprint. And we've strayed far from the original topic of progressive rock's ties to western art music. A friend of mine calls it middle brow music. I think there's some truth to that."

I'm not the one who de-railed this thread with negative responses.

Mjonga's comment sums it up: ("It was a joke. Personally, I couldn't care less about this debate.")

So, if anyone would care to continue the discussion, I'm all for it. :lol:

I still stand by my original post:



> What did "prog rock" try to do? For one thing, it severed the ties with blues, and therefore became an attempt at a different genre of rock.
> 
> Rock and roll, in its early development phase, was basically a white version of Rhythm and Blues, a marketing effort to sell black music using white performers: Elvis Presley doing Big Mama Thornton's "Hound Dog" for a white teenage audience, Pat Boone doing Little Richard's "Tutti Frutti," Ricky Nelson, Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, all doing 'black' rhythm music.
> 
> Prog rock severed rock's ties with blues, and tried to make rock "respectable and authentic" by making sure the music was all original, not derivative, and had strong ties to the 'art' music of the Western classical tradition, ties which can be traced back to Procol Harum, The Nice, Emerson Lake and Palmer, and Deep Purple.





starthrower said:


> R&R in it's "early development stage" was Chuck Berry. He's the original guy. The real deal. He invented the guitar riffs, wrote great songs and lyrics. A great black musical talent who could play authentic blues, but was creating a new kind of music.
> 
> I'm not so sure about "prog rock making sure all the songs were original." All of the bands were different, and the term progressive rock didn't exist. The very first track on ELP's self titled debut is lifted directly from Bartok's Allegro Barbaro. And they also covered a couple of Aaron Copland pieces. And they did an entire album of Mussorgsky.


As to starthrower's response, there are of course exceptions to everything, but at least, unlike Elvis and other white early rock performers, prog-rock was not trying to cash-in on black music covers, which is the "non-authentic" aspect of early rock and later, of the British Blues assimilation of blues by The Rolling Stones, John Mayall, Cream, Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac, The Animals, and countless other blues-based British groups that prog-rock sought to reject as "inauthentic."

I'm talking about the larger picture, not the exceptions of ELP.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Well, I would hate to be that cynical about the whole British blues movement. American blues was obviously a huge inspiration to young English, Irish, and Scottish musicians in the 1960s. And with bands like Cream, and Fleetwood Mac, there were other elements and influences driving their music. I mean Jack Bruce is a one of a kind musician. He absorbed everything and incorporated into the Cream thing, and to a greater extend on his first solo album in a fresh and interesting way.

And Robert Fripp did the same thing without the blues influence. Some of the stuff on Lizard strikes me as the most seamless and cohesive blend of musical styles. It just sounds good. Not half baked at all.

And of course Zappa was equally adept at this kind of thing. Lumpy Gravy is not everyone's cup of tea due to the insertion of the dialogue, but musically it's terrific, imo.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

One of the pitfalls of _bad_ progressive music is that it can sound like it is just aiming for the length and big sound of classical music to try and get some of the perceived more elitest reputation of that style but all the while still managing to fail badly at it. That's probably what hurt it's reputation in the end, some of the more hyped musicians could end up sounding bloated and full of empty romantic rhetoric. Maybe even more progressive musicans put other things into the mix apart from just classical, from folk, to electronic, to jazzy influences.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

starry said:


> One of the pitfalls of _bad_ progressive music is that it can sound like it is just aiming for the length and big sound of classical music to try and get some of the perceived more elitest reputation of that style but all the while still managing to fail badly at it. That's probably what hurt it's reputation in the end, some of the more hyped musicians could end up sounding bloated and full of empty romantic rhetoric.


yes I think it's like this. It must to be added that with the reject of the rock'n'roll roots, prog rock lose one of the (if not the) most interesting part of rock music, the dionysiac aspect of it if I can call it this way, while the formal complexity is certainly not on par with classical music, even in the best cases.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starthrower said:


> Well, I would hate to be that cynical about the whole British blues movement. American blues was obviously a huge inspiration to young English, Irish, and Scottish musicians in the 1960s. And with bands like Cream, and Fleetwood Mac, there were other elements and influences driving their music.


An interesting observation, and food for thought. There's an old saying, "The blues had a baby and they named it rock and roll." So if you take the blues element out of rock, is it still rock?

Ironically, the man responsible for many of rock's early harmonic innovations (pentatonic lead guitar riffs, solid rhythm guitar), Chuck Berry, made the first rhythmic departure from blues, playing a "straight-eight" guitar rhythm pattern over the blues "shuffle" and thus creating a new hybrid form.

I seriously suggest you get out a CD copy of _The Great Twenty-Eight_ and listen to the December 1957 recording of_ Johnny B. Goode. _In particular, listen carefully to the drummer, Fred Below, who is playing a shuffle beat, while Willie Dixon is doing a "walking bass" on the main 1-2-3-4 beats. Chuck is playing an evenly-spaced "straight-8" beat on top of this. It is not audible on YouTube clips. Later on, drummers began to also play a straight-eight 4/4 beat, so later versions will not reveal this. Fred Below and Willie Dixon were the studio rhythm section at Chess Records, and were primarily blues players who appeared on Little Walter's and Muddy Waters' records and many others.

So, by removing the "blues" from rock, what are we left with? Bad Prog rock?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starry said:


> One of the pitfalls of _bad_ progressive music is that it can sound like it is just aiming for the length and big sound of classical music to try and get some of the perceived more elitest reputation of that style but all the while still managing to fail badly at it. That's probably what hurt it's reputation in the end, some of the more hyped musicians could end up sounding bloated and full of empty romantic rhetoric. Maybe even more progressive musicans but other things into the mix apart from just classical, from folk, to electronic, to jazzy influences.





norman bates said:


> yes I think it's like this. It must to be added that with the reject of the rock'n'roll roots, prog rock lose one of the (if not the) most interesting part of rock music, the dionysiac aspect of it if I can call it this way, while the formal complexity is certainly not on par with classical music, even in the best cases.


It sounds like you guys are talking about the same thing I am...the removal of "blues."

If it's gonna be _good _prog-rock, it better be _damn good. _Like...Crimson, Gentle Giant...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I do like to discuss, and analyze music; that's mainly why I come to this forum, not for the lo-fi YouTube clips.
> 
> Yes, I like all those groups as well; I saw Chicago's first 3 tours. Still, I don't think it is "labelling" to assert that prog-rock was concerned with authenticity and originality.
> 
> ...


I dont believe you can compare Prog rock to blues based music like that.

Inauthentic could also be used to describe classical music played at any time past the classical period, in the same way you have described the late 60's reintrepretation of 30's/40's american african blues based music. What the blue reinterpretation did, as we all know was bring artists such as BB King and Howling Wolf to promenence which would not have happened otherwise as it did. 
Prog is not removed from blues, so I'm not sure why you consider Prog as a totally separate musical developmentand not "inauthentic", as is also Rock and Roll a development of Blues based music.

Prog music was/ is mearly an attempt to fuse Classical and Jazz motifs into a blues based music form.............


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> It sounds like you guys are talking about the same thing I am...the removal of "blues."


I don't think that the problem is the removal of the blues (and rock and roll was a cross of blues and country), I mean there's a lot of good rock music that is not based on blues progressions. New wave, post punk, heavy metal, kraut rock.
But what's the big difference between classical music and rock? That in the first you have great structures, complex harmonies, in the other there was a triumph of the instinct. There's no classical music with the same visceral impact that you can find in certain rock music. So if you replace it with more formal stuff and you compare it with the music of the great classical composers it's obvious that there's not the same level of complexity, you can take even King crimson, they're not Stravinsky.
(Having said that: I like prog music, especially the jazzy canterbury groups)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Prog is not removed from blues, so I'm not sure why you consider Prog as a totally separate musical developmentand not "inauthentic", as is also Rock and Roll a development of Blues based music.


Ian Anderson got rid of Mick Abrahams because he didn't want to be so "bluesy."

In retrospect, with "roots" blues bands like the Fabulous Thunderbirds, figures like John Mayall and Alvin Lee are coming under more critical scrutiny as "British blues" or "anglo blues."



EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Prog music was/ is mearly an attempt to fuse Classical and Jazz motifs into a blues based music form.............


Well, fuse it into the trappings of rock: (distorted guitars, "front man" vocals, big drums), but it also seemed to shed a lot of the previous baggage of rock.

I still see prog rock as a significant departure from the black elements which originally comprised rock. The ultimate departure was when it became totally classical, with Keith Emerson's _Piano Concerto _from *Works.*


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I don't think that the problem is the removal of the blues (and rock and roll was a cross of blues and country), I mean there's a lot of good rock music that is not based on blues progressions. New wave, post punk, heavy metal, kraut rock.


You forgot The Beatles. And that's a good example of the "non-blues" elements that eventually started creeping into rock music by 1964, which began to create two streams of thought: one direction is blues, the other is Pop and folk.

Early rock: blues and country influenced, with blues-forms, using the pentatonic blues scale. 
Groups: The Rolling Stones, Chuck Berry, early Elvis, The Animals, John Mayall, Cream, Hendrix.

Later rock: "Pop" influences, and "folk" song-forms, using traditional song chords & scales, less bluesy, more emphasis on vocal harmony
Groups: The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Byrds, Dylan

Of course, this is general; there are always exceptions.



norman bates said:


> But what's the big difference between classical music and rock? That in the first you have great structures, complex harmonies, in the other there was a triumph of the instinct. There's no classical music with the same visceral impact that you can find in certain rock music. So if you replace it with more formal stuff and you compare it with the music of the great classical composers it's obvious that there's not the same level of complexity, you can take even King crimson, they're not Stravinsky.
> (Having said that: I like prog music, especially the jazzy canterbury groups)


Also, as I note above, prog rock belongs to the second camp, which used pentatonic blues scales much less.

The use of pentatonic scales is a major difference with Western art music.

Folk song forms are closer to classical than blues scales and progressions. The Beatles _Rubber Soul_ is a good example. Probably the "least bluesy" album the Stones ever did was _Their Satanic Majesty's Request. _:lol:


----------



## Pantheon (Jun 9, 2013)

The links between Progressive Rock and Classical Music was one of the themes I had to study for a music exam.
We happened to study Pink Floyd (technically relating to Psychedelic Rock, but I won't go there) and the epic suite "Atom Heart Mother". The introduction named "Father's Shout" was completely written by a colleague of PF, Ron Geesin, who was inspired by Richard Wagner for example. The intro begins with a pedal from a jazz organ and then proceeds to expand with the entry of a brass orchestra along with PF's electric guitar, drums and man-made noise. 
The end of Atom Heart Mother is pretty much the same as the beginning, with a choir on the top.
However, the middle parts of AHM - "Breast Milky", "Mother Fore", "Funky Dung" and "Mind Your Throats Please" - are more experimental, combining cello and mellotron, followed by funky riffs and a completely electro-acoustic collage, often left out in the live concerts.
Pink Floyd often thought of this work as being a theme to an imaginary Western movie, attempting to mix everything together!
I was often asked to compare Father's Shout with Wagner's Overture to the Rheingold and Breast Milky with Rachmaninov's Cello Sonata n.1 !

I personally love it


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

^
^

Nice one, Pantheon - Atom Heart Mother is an album I've always liked. Most Floyd fans prefer the follow-up Meddle, but I think it blots its copybook a bit with 'St. Tropez' and 'Seamus'. Meddle, especially 'Echoes', may be a musical step forward but Atom Heart Mother is the one I prefer - it has a nice, hazy summer vibe running all the way through it.


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> It sounds like you guys are talking about the same thing I am...the removal of "blues."
> 
> If it's gonna be _good _prog-rock, it better be _damn good. _Like...Crimson, Gentle Giant...











Giant represent!


----------



## Pantheon (Jun 9, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> ^
> ^
> 
> Nice one, Pantheon - Atom Heart Mother is an album I've always liked. Most Floyd fans prefer the follow-up Meddle, but I think it blots its copybook a bit with 'St. Tropez' and 'Seamus'. Meddle, especially 'Echoes', may be a musical step forward but Atom Heart Mother is the one I prefer - it has a nice, hazy summer vibe running all the way through it.


Thanks elgars ghost! For the exam I actually ended up having to analyse AHM along with some 50s-early 60s country/folk music, which seems to be mentioned quite a lot in this thread. PF's later works tended to go towards that kind of music, with acoustic guitar and simple riffs like "Wish you were here" and "Mother" in the Wall. Even the rest of the Atom Heart Mother album is relatively calm ("If" for example). I think the real Pink Floyd truly resides in the Psychedelic experimental music they started off with. AHM being one of my favourites, and a Saucerful of Secrets and Sysyphus not far behind...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Ian Anderson got rid of Mick Abrahams because he didn't want to be so "bluesy."
> 
> In retrospect, with "roots" blues bands like the Fabulous Thunderbirds, figures like John Mayall and Alvin Lee are coming under more critical scrutiny as "British blues" or "anglo blues."
> 
> ...


Agree largely- however Ian Anderson came from a blues background but did tend towards a more folk and jazz style of rock. I think the movement away from blues with bands such as Jethro Tull and others Fleetwood Mac - was a response to a shift at the time that was more general than just Prog Rock.

Personally I never liked ELP and Keith Emerson, way to pretentious particularly their rehash of classic's was always bordering on rip off rather than innovation. I think there were better examples of that kind of prog rock. ie King Crimson and MOI.

If anyone needs some ELP rehab - check out this site- http://jeffoneonone.wordpress.com/tag/elp/


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Take a song like The Beatles' "I Am the Walrus." Its only residual trace of blues is in the vocal; Lennon hits "bluesey" notes and bends them, in phrases like "drippin' from a dead dog's eye" and "don't you think the joker laughs at you," where he ends the phrases on a minor third; traces of pentatonic scale. 

But it is rock — the beat is extremely heavy and driving. But harmonically, it is a rather sophisticated Western tonal progression: G-G7-C-Eb-F-G-G7-Bb-C-G....on the verses, then G-G7-C-Eb-F-G-G7-Bb-Bb-C-C-G.....C-C-C-C-G-D-D-C-C...with a sophisticated scalewise rising line in violins, with a descending progression in the chords to end it, in a seemingly never-ending circular progression: G-G-G-G-F-F-F-F-Eb-Eb-Eb-Eb-Eb-D-D-D-D-C-C-C-C-Bb-Bb-Bb-Bb-A-A-A-A-G-G-G-G ad infinitum, as it fades out..."O, untimely death!"


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> What did "prog rock" try to do? For one thing, it severed the ties with blues, and therefore became an attempt at a different genre of rock.
> 
> Rock and roll, in its early development phase, was basically a white version of Rhythm and Blues, a marketing effort to sell black music using white performers: Elvis Presley doing Big Mama Thornton's "Hound Dog" for a white teenage audience, Pat Boone doing Little Richard's "Tutti Frutti," Ricky Nelson, Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, all doing 'black' rhythm music.
> 
> Prog rock severed rock's ties with blues, and tried to make rock "respectable and authentic" by making sure the music was all original, not derivative, and had strong ties to the 'art' music of the Western classical tradition, ties which can be traced back to Procol Harum, The Nice, Emerson Lake and Palmer, and Deep Purple.





millionrainbows said:


> You forgotThe Beatles. And that's a good example of the "non-blues" elements that eventually started creeping into rock music by 1964, which began to create two streams of thought: one direction is blues, the other is Pop and folk.
> 
> Early rock: blues and country influenced, with blues-forms, using the pentatonic blues scale.
> Groups: The Rolling Stones, Chuck Berry, early Elvis, The Animals, John Mayall, Cream, Hendrix.
> ...


I'm not sure I see the progression in quite the same way. In the first post, the jump from rock n roll to prog is quite big, without acknowledging the developments between. In the second, it seems simplistic to suggest only two streams, and that the 'line-ups' went separate ways.

What became known as 'prog-rock' was not something that had a discrete manifesto. I doubt that any of the personalities at the time jumped out of bed and decided that they were going to be prog-rockers. (Though in a druggy haze, they might have fallen into bed and imagined what they might do with giant axe!) I would have thought it more likely that as they fed incestuously off each others' product, the crossover was much more gradual, more subtle. It might be truer to say that what emerged was a number of musicians that wanted to explore the possibilities of their instruments and they looked around for more extended (not necessarily more complex) sources. Once rock n roll had given musicians a new vocabulary, it was easy to take Beethoven apart with an electric guitar.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I see the progression in quite the same way. In the first post, the jump from rock n roll to prog is quite big, without acknowledging the developments between. In the second, it seems simplistic to suggest only two streams, and that the 'line-ups' went separate ways.


I'm speaking generally. How else do you describe the Beach Boys' "rock," as bluesy? I'm not saying it happened all at once, either, or that it was a conscious decision. Come on! Let's discuss this in a substantive way.



MacLeod said:


> What became known as 'prog-rock' was not something that had a discrete manifesto. I doubt that any of the personalities at the time jumped out of bed and decided that they were going to be prog-rockers. (Though in a druggy haze, they might have fallen into bed and imagined what they might do with giant axe!) I would have thought it more likely that as they fed incestuously off each others' product, the crossover was much more gradual, more subtle. It might be truer to say that what emerged was a number of musicians that wanted to explore the possibilities of their instruments and they looked around for more extended (not necessarily more complex) sources. Once rock n roll had given musicians a new vocabulary, it was easy to take Beethoven apart with an electric guitar.


It seems obvious that there are two separate streams of influence in rock music: the blues and rhythm and blues (black music) and popular & folk influences (white).

The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are a prime example of this "split." Remember when The Stones were trying to "get hits" after "Satisfaction" and "The Last Time" with neo-Elizabethan songs like _Ruby Tuesday, Lady Jane, Play With Fire, She's a Rainbow, _and later with _Angie? _They were trying to show that they had a folky side, and were influenced by British minstrel music being revived by the Brit folkies, Reanaissance, Bert Jansch, John Renbourn, etc.

Led Zeppelin also exhibited this dual nature via their "acoustic" side.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Come on! Let's discuss this *in a substantive way*.


Sorry - I'm not sure what/how it is you are urging me to discuss?



millionrainbows said:


> It seems obvious that there are two separate streams of influence in rock music: the blues and rhythm and blues (black music) and popular & folk influences (white).
> 
> The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are a prime example of this "split." Remember when The Stones were trying to "get hits" after "Satisfaction" and "The Last Time" with neo-Elizabethan songs like _Ruby Tuesday, Lady Jane, Play With Fire, She's a Rainbow, _and later with _Angie? _They were trying to show that they had a folky side, and were influenced by British minstrel music being revived by the Brit folkies, Reanaissance, Bert Jansch, John Renbourn, etc.
> 
> Led Zeppelin also exhibited this dual nature via their "acoustic" side.


You seem keen to make a division - literally black and white - which is too simplistic. The development of rock, blues, pop, progressive can't really be narrowed down to two lines - just blues/RnB and pop/folk. Not only did they intertwine, but development here and in the US was not the same, local geography played a part in the UK, with Liverpool's emergence a significant departure from the pop of Tin Pan Alley; and the cultural contexts surely having an impact too.

The Beatles and Rolling Stones may not have evolved in the same direction, but both evolved from rock n roll and made more evident a wider range of influences that they drew on. I'm less familiar with The Stones, but follow Please Please Me through to The Beatles (White Album) and you hear all kinds of genre explored.

In the meantime, while they made the headlines, lesser celebrities made their own paths which, as you say crossed over each other at various points. Nevertheless, some made a case for the blues as the superior form, (Yardbirds became the god Zeppelin) even though it became increasingly diluted by self-indulgence (all that ghastly emoting by Bob Plant).

And in the US, Zappa followed his own path and parodied the psychedelia of flower power. This wasn't merely black and white, but multi-colored and grey.

(I was too young to 'remember' what The Stones were trying to do at the time, though our household was full of pop music and I watched Top of the Pops and Ready Steady Go with brothers and sisters, and listened to Alan Freeman on a Sunday.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Come on! Let's discuss this *in a substantive way*.


MacLeod said:


> Sorry - I'm not sure what/how it is you are urging me to discuss?


You're spending too much time invalidating my premise, and not enough time on the subject.



MacLeod said:


> You seem keen to make a division


Yep, and I did not reproduce the remainder of your post because it contains no real illuminating information. Let's talk rock.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Yep, and I did not reproduce the remainder of your post because it contains no real illuminating information. Let's talk rock.


Well, there's an irresistible invitation. You complain that I spend too much time 'invalidating your premise' and not talking about the subject, yet, without a hint of irony, merely reject my 'premise' out of hand without talking about the subject at all.

My only regret is that I wasted so much time 'invalidating your premise' instead of just saying that you talk baloney.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Well, there's an irresistible invitation. You complain that I spend too much time 'invalidating your premise' and not talking about the subject, yet, without a hint of irony, merely reject my 'premise' out of hand without talking about the subject at all.
> 
> My only regret is that I wasted so much time 'invalidating your premise' instead of just saying that you talk baloney.


You're skating on thin ice, MacLeod.

You can't just say "I talk baloney;" you have to do it under the premise that you are actually involved with the subject matter of my "baloney,"


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2013)

So, reviewing the OP, and the directions of the subsequent posts, what can be seen is an acknowledgement that as each artist sought to establish himself (usually male) as more than just a cover act, they cast around for an influence that would make them distinct.

For some artists, perhaps guided by a manager or producer, this might be a commercial decision. For others, it was a more natural creative decision, perhaps less conscious.

It was surely inevitable that the blues and RnB that had inspired the development of RnR would lose its influence as young pretenders jumped on the bandwagon with the new rock n roll and left the blues roots behind. Once everybody had played a Chuck Berry cover, they all got bored and wanted to move on or, in the case of British Blues, backwards, to the source material for rock n roll.

It wasn't long before almost the entire UK scene had moved significantly away from both rock n roll and blues towards the more elaborate - prog and psychedelia - or the simple - pop. Whilst there were always diehards who remained true to their blues or rock n roll preferences, as well as irritating revivals and (l)imitations (Status Quo springs to mind) most moved on to writing their own material. The search for 'authenticity' was a pose for some, a genuine desire to be different for others.

It was inevitable that Classical would be plundered for ideas.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> It was surely inevitable that the blues and RnB that had inspired the development of RnR would lose its influence as young pretenders jumped on the bandwagon with the new rock n roll and left the blues roots behind. Once everybody had played a Chuck Berry cover, they all got bored and wanted to move on or, in the case of British Blues, backwards, to the source material for rock n roll.


I don't think it's that simple Or "black and white"...ha ha. The blues left its mark most strongly on guitarists; and the rise of Cream and Jimi Hendrix, although blues/pentatonic based, gave rise to a new hybrid form: hard rock, and later, metal. These are guitar-oriented forms which rely heavily (no pun intended) on pentatonic scales, pentatonic root-movements, and fifths. Was this "moving on" or simply morphing the simplicity of blues forms? Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep, Wishbone Ash, etc.



MacLeod said:


> It wasn't long before almost the entire UK scene had moved significantly away from both rock n roll and blues towards the more elaborate - prog and psychedelia - or the simple - pop.


I'm not sure where you fit the emerging *hard rock* into there.

Also, I associate "psychedelia" with pop, as in Traffic/Dave Mason's pop/psych songs _Hole In My Shoe _and _House For Everyone _(he was ejected from traffic for being too "pop"), The Small Faces (pop or psych?), Beatles (Strawberry, Walrus),



MacLeod said:


> Whilst there were always diehards who remained true to their blues or rock n roll preferences, as well as irritating revivals and (l)imitations (Status Quo springs to mind) most moved on to writing their own material. The search for 'authenticity' was a pose for some, a genuine desire to be different for others. It was inevitable that Classical would be plundered for ideas.


For me, it was inevitable that Classical would be plundered because of its anglo-saxon associations. Prog-rock would use Western progressions, derived from both classical and popular/folk idioms; I see them as being essentially the same harmonically. Pop would continue to be "Western," not blues.

Jethro Tull is a good example of the "Western folk minstrel" influence in prog. In a way, I still see the whole thing as having racial overtones. The "authenticity" being sought by Ian Anderson was in "getting back to his Anglo-Saxon roots" of whiteness, and rejecting the "pretense" of white boys singing the blues.

In America, I think things were much more vague, undefined, and confused, because white Americans did not have as strong an ethnic identity-awareness as Brits did. Country and Western music, and to a degree folk, was the true American white identity: "the white man's blues" as country was called. With bluegrass, this became a major element in shaping what we see now in the American musical landscape.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

*ARSAKES STRIKES AGAIN*:

Progressive Rock is nothing but a pretender genre trying hopelessly to be considered better than classical!

The only good Rock subgenres are Rockabilly, Southern Rock and Country-Rock!


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think it's that simple


Well, yes, and no. It's that simple, inasmuch as some groups moved in one direction, some in another, and for a variety of reasons. You seem to be implying (put me right if I infer incorrectly) that there was something resembling a convention of artists who got together and collectively articulated a purposeful move from one place (genre/sub-genre) to another. It was simply less than that.



millionrainbows said:


> Also, I associate "psychedelia" with pop, as in Traffic/Dave Mason's pop/psych songs _Hole In My Shoe _and _House For Everyone _(he was ejected from traffic for being too "pop"), The Small Faces (pop or psych?), Beatles (Strawberry, Walrus),


Wiki describes psychedelia as having a more significant influence on some of those who went on to prog - Hendrix, Grateful Dead for example.



millionrainbows said:


> For me, it was inevitable that Classical would be plundered because of its anglo-saxon associations. Prog-rock would use Western progressions, derived from both classical and popular/folk idioms; I see them as being essentially the same harmonically. Pop would continue to be "Western," not blues.
> 
> Jethro Tull is a good example of the "Western folk minstrel" influence in prog. In a way, I still see the whole thing as having racial overtones. The "authenticity" being sought by Ian Anderson was in "getting back to his Anglo-Saxon roots" of whiteness, and rejecting the "pretense" of white boys singing the blues.


Well, yes, and why not? As I said in my earlier post, geography and culture inevitably played a part in influencing direction. You'd hardly expect Genesis - lovely middle-class boys at public-school - to embrace a culture that wasn't theirs. Besides, with Clapton remaining resolutely bluesy (until he went cheesy-ballady) why would Tull, BJH, Wishbone, etc etc want to go there?



millionrainbows said:


> In America, I think things were much more vague, undefined, and confused, because white Americans did not have as strong an ethnic identity-awareness as Brits did. Country and Western music, and to a degree folk, was the true American white identity: "the white man's blues" as country was called. With bluegrass, this became a major element in shaping what we see now in the American musical landscape.


I don't feel qualified to comment on America. By the time I was 19, I could see that punk and new wave had more vitality than anything coming out of the States (The Eagles, Chicago, ToTo I ask you!) so I paid little attention and doubtless developed prejudices that didn't yield until the more recent emergence of so called 'Americana' (DeVotchka, Fleet Foxes etc).

I'm sure that one or two of the prog rock bands of the 60s and 70s did act in accordance with some manifesto, and you could point to 'prog' and say that one of its defining features was...x...or y. But given that prog didn't stand still any more than blues before or punk since, I would argue that definition was not easy. Music is not static.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'racial overtones'. If you mean that the kind of cultural diversity we see now (British pop embracing Bhangra, for example) was less evident then, I'd disagree. Plainly, black music (blues, soul, disco, RnB, rap, ska, reggae) has had, and continues to have a profound influence.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Wiki describes psychedelia as having a more significant influence on some of those who went on to prog - Hendrix, Grateful Dead for example.


I see that as the emergence of hard rock; after all, Hendrix was basically a blues man. Hard rock took the pentatonic trappings of blues and expanded them, so it's kind of a "progressive blues."



> millions: In a way, I still see the whole thing as having racial overtones. The "authenticity" being sought by Ian Anderson was in "getting back to his Anglo-Saxon roots" of whiteness, and rejecting the "pretense" of white boys singing the blues.





MacLeod said:


> Well, yes, and why not? As I said in my earlier post, geography and culture inevitably played a part in influencing direction. You'd hardly expect Genesis - lovely middle-class boys at public-school - to embrace a culture that wasn't theirs. Besides, with Clapton remaining resolutely bluesy (until he went cheesy-ballady) why would Tull, BJH, Wishbone, etc etc want to go there?





MacLeod said:


> ...you could point to 'prog' and say that one of its defining features was...x...or y. But given that prog didn't stand still any more than blues before or punk since, I would argue that definition was not easy. Music is not static.


You seem to not want to generalize, but I do. I like a "bird's eye view" of popular music. I want to talk generally, and see the larger streams of music as they converge, and diverge. I like this because it seems to be tied-in to people's identities, both cultural and personal.



MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by 'racial overtones'. If you mean that the kind of cultural diversity we see now (British pop embracing Bhangra, for example) was less evident then, I'd disagree. Plainly, black music (blues, soul, disco, RnB, rap, ska, reggae) has had, and continues to have a profound influence.


I see all the diversity now as being more complex, as being "world" oriented. When I was discussing American rock in the 1950's, things were different, so give me some slack.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> *ARSAKES STRIKES AGAIN*:
> The only good Rock subgenres are Rockabilly, Southern Rock and Country-Rock!


wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

no


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Arsakes said:


> *ARSAKES STRIKES AGAIN*:
> 
> Progressive Rock is nothing but a pretender genre trying hopelessly to be considered better than classical!
> 
> The only good Rock subgenres are Rockabilly, Southern Rock and Country-Rock!


You forgot Psychedelic Boogie Swamp Rock


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

There are other "mixtures" as well, in the rich cultural compost of American music.

http://amzn.com/B000066DX1


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> There are other "mixtures" as well, in the rich cultural compost of American music.
> 
> http://amzn.com/B000066DX1


Ah but Swamp Salad were Ausssie........... not Yankie!

Electric Toilet - in the hands of Karma, I know it well...........


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Goo goo goo joob is scat, isn't it? Does that make it jazz?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Electric scat what an inspired idea! A new form of Jazz or is that Rap..........


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Goo goo goo joob is scat, isn't it? Does that make it jazz?


Who cares? Let's rock and roll! Wooooo!!


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Electric Toilet - in the hands of Karma, I know it well...........


I know it well also.

Nah...I lie: I KNEW it well enough. Had a copy. Got shed of it as quick as possible..
Truely rubbish...as I recall.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Who cares what The Deacon thinks. He should be busy serving the poor.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

I serve those poor of prog knowledge.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

You are an iconic representative of the ways of the church.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

I labour for the Church of Prog.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Prog is gorp spelled in reverse.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Yes, it Just takes Time and a Word


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

The Deacon said:


> I labour for the Church of Prog.


I wasn't talking about the good cause. I was talking about the ineffective and nasty ways of the church.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2018)

Burning heretics, subjugating females, making the poor suffer so they're closer to God?

He's not that bad!


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)




----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm speaking generally. How else do you describe the Beach Boys' "rock," as bluesy? I'm not saying it happened all at once, either, or that it was a conscious decision. Come on! Let's discuss this in a substantive way.
> 
> It seems obvious that there are two separate streams of influence in rock music: the blues and rhythm and blues (black music) and popular & folk influences (white).
> 
> ...


"Play With Fire" was recorded and released before "Satisfaction". It was the B-side of a single on which the A-side was "Last Time".


----------



## St Matthew (Aug 26, 2017)

At least it isn't "socially conscious" prog rock :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

What ever happened to the Deacon- did he get religion?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

He is perhaps in A Better Place (and getting acquainted) .


----------

