# Proto-Prog Rock -- the Early Start of Progressive Rock



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

This is an interesting topic. I'm talking mainly about the years from 1964 to 1966, where names like the Beach Boys, Baroque Pop bands, and even continental pop that was barely rock and roll play some part. A lot of people here have the musical chops to really analyze what's going on in these early years to say who was most influential.

I think by 1967 true Prog Rock was pretty much developed and by 1971 one could even say it got to its full blown state.

Sometimes I find it humorous to find the answer is not where real "rockers" want it to be. A song like The Lovers Concerto was a big hit in the UK and blended classical and rock in 1965.

France Gall did this song with orchestra in 1965. Robert Fripp was to follow in his own way in 1969.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Also, "As Tears Go By" with full orchestra definitely fits that classical influenced spectrum. Strange to think of the Rolling Stones as Proto-Prog.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

If the Beatles _Eleanor Rigby_ fits in with your thesis, then there is also The Left Banke's great _Pretty Ballerina_; both songs year 1966.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Frank Zappa - Brown shoes don't make it (1697)


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I wouldn't say prog rock was developed by '67. It was getting started with bands like Procol Harum, and The Nice. And maybe Soft Machine? But they were more psych, as was early Pink Floyd. I suppose Yes was at their peak in '72. I never cared for much of their music after that. Zappa and Crimson had more 20th century modern musical influences.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I can understand the point about Prog not really starting until after 1967 but I would say that one can distinguish between Psychedelic and other Proto-Prog music.....some Psychedelic music is very simple compared to 1967 Nice, for instance.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

starthrower said:


> I wouldn't say prog rock was developed by '67. It was getting started with bands like Procol Harum, and The Nice. And maybe Soft Machine? But they were more psych, as was early Pink Floyd. I suppose Yes was at their peak in '72. I never cared for much of their music after that. Zappa and Crimson had more 20th century modern musical influences.


sure, and in fact King Crimson are one of the most important progressive bands. I mean, if you look at progarchives you would find literally tons of bands that have 20th century musical influences (Holst, atonality, minimalism etc)


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Crimson made some good music but (in my mind) it was marred by inept lyrics. Fripp would've better served the band's legacy by going fully instrumental. Additionally, their catalogue is plagued by more than a few misfires.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

But there wasn't tons of bands in the early days. With the advent of the internet, I learned about dozens of bands that started up in the early 70s in Germany, Italy, and France, but there are very few that strike me as truly innovative, or that produced great material.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

regenmusic said:


> France Gall did this song with orchestra in 1965. Robert Fripp was to follow in his own way in 1969.


There was always an orchestra at the Eurovision Song Contest until 1998.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Morimur said:


> Crimson made some good music but (in my mind) it was marred by inept lyrics. Fripp would've better served the band's legacy by going fully instrumental. Additionally, their catalogue is plagued by more than a few misfires.


I believe it is arguable whether KC's lyrics are inept, either on the whole or in part.

But, for the most part, lyrics are pretty much inconsequential to me. If I cared, then I wouldn't have such a large percentage of prog sung in languages that I don't understand. I almost think of the vocals as another instrument. Great lyrics can raise the level of an album somewhat, but bad lyrics don't mare the album, for me.

I also don't care to much that they had some "misfires". Any band that is experimenting, is bound to have some things that don't work. I really don's care, as I tend to rate bands and musicians based on their best output, and tend not to downgrade them based on their worst.

As far as the subject of the OP goes, this is a subject that comes up often on Progresseiveears.org, without any real resolution. But I do find it an interesting conversation none the less.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Often things go totally under the radar, which is sad for the people who are the ones originating then. It seems one of the biggest differences is the harmonic structure and the length of the song. 1969's "Court of the Crimson King" had some symphonic harmonic feelings that were probably the most advanced, even if the baroque pop and others had the same amount of classical influence several years before. It could be argued that The Nice were doing side long and straight more advanced classical things before this. 1968 of course saw Mass in F Minor by the Electric Prunes which was like a collaborative effort with a composer but it still counts for me. I'm not sure where the Moody Blues fit in during 1966 to 1968 from a pure musical analysis.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Morimur said:


> Crimson made some good music but (in my mind) it was marred by inept lyrics. Fripp would've better served the band's legacy by going fully instrumental. Additionally, their catalogue is plagued by more than a few misfires.


Peter Sinfield's lyrics ('69 - '72) were hit and miss, quality varying from very good, when doing allegory ("Cirkus," "Indoor Games"), to pretentious crap ("Islands," "In the Wake of Poseidon") and overwrought melodrama ("The Letters").

Richard Palmer James' lyrics (Larks' Tongues in Aspic, Starless and Bible Black, Red) on the other hand, are universally excellent - clean, vivid, and sincere.

Adrian Belew's lyrics? (or whoever wrote the '80s through 2000s lyrics) All over the map. Brilliant and hilarious ("Neurotica," "Indiscipline"), warmed over Beatles ("Sex, Sleep, Eat, Drink Dream"), pointed and hard hitting ("Facts of Life"), tender and dark ("Inner Garden"). Quality quite variable as well.

As for misfires, the only studio albums that were less than excellent, IMO, were Three of a Perfect Pair and In the Wake of Poseidon.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

Interesting thread
It's debatable, but you could include Arthur Brown in this
He really started in '66 but became more prolific after 67


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

cwarchc said:


> Interesting thread
> It's debatable, but you could include Arthur Brown in this
> He really started in '66 but became more prolific after 67


I am glad to see Arthur Brown and _The Crazy World of Arthur Brown_ get some of the attention that I believe he deserves. I have long held the view that the Fire side of this disk is/was one of the best and most coherent "concept" works in rock history, and we have discussed at some length my contention that David Bowie very likely was influenced by Brown right at the beginning of his (Bowie's) career. Brown may have been a catalyst for Metal as well as Prog.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Edward Macan, in his _Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture_, cites The Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, Procol Harum, The Nice and Refugee as "proto-progressive bands." The Beatles/George Martin of Sergeant Pepper should not be overlooked - David Jackson of Van der Graaf Generator and Robert Fripp both specifically cited this album. Hendrix, Cream, and The Doors probably had an influence on early prog rock too.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

starthrower said:


> And maybe Soft Machine?


I'd say definitely Soft Machine.  I had the good fortune to see them warm up for Jimi Hendrix in August 1968. I'd never heard anything like them, especially Mike Ratledge's organ playing.

To this day I listen to _Fourth _from time to time. _Teeth _is easily my favorite composition by them. But by then they were venturing into jazz territory. Elton Dean was a great addition to the band.


----------



## seven four (Apr 2, 2016)

A friend gave me a ride yesterday and played The Crazy World of Arthur Brown for me. I'd never heard it before. I'll give it a closer listen this evening. Sounded pretty interesting.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Edward Macan, in his _Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture_, cites The Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, Procol Harum, The Nice and Refugee as "proto-progressive bands." The Beatles/George Martin of Sergeant Pepper should not be overlooked - David Jackson of Van der Graaf Generator and Robert Fripp both specifically cited this album. Hendrix, Cream, and The Doors probably had an influence on early prog rock too.


I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. Refugee came out in 1974. These bands should not be grouped together when talking about a stage of music, and especially not linking full prog bands with proto-prog bands. I think the Nice was a progressive rock band, but they did do as much proto prog as prog. I can see linking those bands together if you exclude Refugee. The Electric Prunes always get cut out of the equation, but they also did a Mass i 1968, even though someone else composed the bulk of the music, it still was arranged with their sound, which was very progressive as far as electronics. They did "Too Much to Dream."

The reason why I think I like this subject so much is that it raises some heated debates =)


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

seven four said:


> A friend gave me a ride yesterday and played The Crazy World of Arthur Brown for me. I'd never heard it before. I'll give it a closer listen this evening. Sounded pretty interesting.


He was certainly creative. 
I love his stuff
He's still going and touring this year
Enjoy


----------



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

If I had to go back to 1966 I'd nominate Pink Floyd's 'Interstellar Overdrive', The Doors' 'The End', Love's 'Revelation' and the Mothers' 'The Return of the Son of Monster Magnet' - all are lengthy and have abrupt twists and turns of one sort or another. The track by Love may be pushing it a bit as much of it is a fairly static blues groove but at least the jazzy section is worth waiting for.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Textbook proto:

Touch - "Seventy Five"
HP Lovecraft - "The White Ship"
Procol Harum - "In Held T'was In I"


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

elgars ghost said:


> The Doors' 'The End.


"The End" is a raga (or at least I've always heard it as a raga).


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

elgars ghost said:


> If I had to go back to 1966 I'd nominate Pink Floyd's 'Interstellar Overdrive', The Doors' 'The End', Love's 'Revelation' and the Mothers' 'The Return of the Son of Monster Magnet' - all are lengthy and have abrupt twists and turns of one sort or another. The track by Love may be pushing it a bit as much of it is a fairly static blues groove but at least the jazzy section is worth waiting for.


There is no surviving 1966 "Interstellar Overdrive' and in the Proto-Prog world, it could just be conjecture, the hype afford the giant bands. I am not sure what the source is about this song being in 1966. Not saying I know, but I've seen the subject come up before without much proof.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

This lot deserve a mention as proto-prog:










A taster:


----------



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

regenmusic said:


> There is no surviving 1966 "Interstellar Overdrive' and in the Proto-Prog world, it could just be conjecture, the hype afford the giant bands. I am not sure what the source is about this song being in 1966. Not saying I know, but I've seen the subject come up before without much proof.


I admit I cheated a little here. Although recorded in early 1967 it was written - and therefore presumably rehearsed and hammered into some sort of shape at the very least - the year before.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

elgars ghost said:


> I admit I cheated a little here. Although recorded in early 1967 it was written - and therefore presumably rehearsed and hammered into some sort of shape at the very least - the year before.


I believe the album it was on was released very late in 1967. Syd actually was known and mentioned in a Floyd/Syd bio to have been influenced by the Electric Prunes, whose single/album came out early in 1967. I recognize the genius of Pink Floyd, however who knows what obscure people they heard at that time.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Oh dearie, dearie me!
Lot of mis-information here.

People just don't WANT to know. It's all seeds scattered on standing ground.


First off lets get this clear.
Proto-prog:

"the term was genuinely invented by the British records-dealers in the middle 70s just to mark that sound /not a genre/ on their mail-order lists] the sound of a number of the late 60s / early 70s Progressive rock albums, i.e. "greasy" sound of Hammond organ, electric piano and without synths, soulful vocals, soaring guitar solos and riffs, with haunting flute here and there."

So then, #1 it is Hammond - dominated music. It is more "psych" than prog - which is to say it is not as structured as full-blown prog.

(Seemingly by chance, it is usually a trio.)


It was not a movement. It is a sound. When you know it.... YOU KNOW IT.


If any noobs are bothered, places like Prog Ears have made a list of 50 or so "proto" lps (which I can post here). Much came from UK on labels such as Vertigo, Nepentha,Harvest,Neon.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> If I had to go back to 1966 I'd nominate Pink Floyd's 'Interstellar Overdrive', The Doors' 'The End', Love's 'Revelation' and the Mothers' 'The Return of the Son of Monster Magnet' - all are lengthy and have abrupt twists and turns of one sort or another. The track by Love may be pushing it a bit as much of it is a fairly static blues groove but at least the jazzy section is worth waiting for.


Lets just go back to the source Zappa with Freak Out in 66, a double ablum of proto prog and general crazy genius with rock concept sarcasm thrown in


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Sorry. Its NOT proto. (Not prog either.) Its faux-doowop, pop,fratrock-type with a side's-worth of exptalrock.

(As to concept - What exactly is the concept here anyways?)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

The Deacon said:


> Sorry. Its NOT proto. (Not prog either.) Its faux-doowop, pop,fratrock-type with a side's-worth of exptalrock.
> 
> (As to concept - What exactly is the concept here anyways?)


Wrong worng wrong- Prog heads often say thing but provide no reasons why- Prog is not exclusively English and Progressive rock it is


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Prog is not exclusively English and Progressive rock it is


I am not sure what you are saying here.

At end of '69 prog WAS mainly UK bands.

It STARTED with English bands - King Crimson "In The Court of Crimson King" being generally agreed as the first prog lp.

It was not exclusively UK. Some argue that the US band , Touch, with their sole lp predated ITCOCK. But the US bands then were very few.

But we digress. You were saying Mothers of Invention "Freak Out" was protoprog. Zappa himself stated it is not progressive rock.(And there are only two tracks there that can be distantly-regarded as being psych).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

The Deacon said:


> I am not sure what you are saying here.
> 
> At end of '69 prog WAS mainly UK bands.
> 
> ...


Many would disagree with you - refer below
http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=5283

https://rateyourmusic.com/list/Zinnser/greatest_proto_prog_rock_albums/


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

You say I provide no reasons. Fair enough. Let us then dissect "Freak Out" track by track:

First I start with those tracks TOTALLY removed from proto,prog or psych. (Well, in all honesty, not TOTALLY removed because something like country music or monastic chants would be totally removed

"I ain't got no heart"
"you didn't try to call me"
"how could I be such a fool?"
"go cry on someone elses shoulder"

The above 4 are clearly silly 50's doo-***/bebop-****. Something Frank was fond of. (Yeah -he was fond of **** too: in his dirty Joe's Garage-period.)

"anyway the wind blows"
"I'm not satisfied" 

These 2 are 60s pop. Can anyone arguer otherwise?

"wowie zowie"
Well, what the **** IS this? I can only call it novelty-jockrock, as so much of Frank's early output was.


"hungry freaks ,daddy"
"trouble coming every day"
These two are 50's r& b and straight bluesrock. Got it?

"who are the brain police?" 
Okay. Granted, here we start to get interesting. The queer, unsettling angular movement here makes this closest to psych (in a Spirit "12 dreams of Mr Sardonicus-type of way.)

"it can't happen here" 
This is just acapella nothingness.


"help, I'm a rock" 
Again, utterly disposable. This is merely reiteration. Improv. with chanting. Not all-out tautology, but near as uninteresting.

Now we get to "Monster Magnet", THE track that has fooled you all into believing it somehow approximates prog.
"Magnet" is repetitive percussion-drivel ,sound collage with ocassional tape-effects (sped-up voices). If you want to honour it with a name, call it avant-rock, or sort-of rockbeat musique concrete (Frank admired those composers, as you well know.)
You would not call "Revolution No. 9" prog, now would you? Nor should you pidgeon-hole this.


So then, what do we have here?:
Out of 12 or so tracks, only two can be REMOTELY,REMOTELY considered proto , or anything approaching prog.


Varese, you would be much better off shilling some Mothers lp like "Burnt Weenie Sandwich" or "Absolutely Free" as being prog, than this disjointed pile of rubbish hight, "Freak Out".


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

The Deacon said:


> You say I provide no reasons. Fair enough. Let us then dissect "Freak Out" track by track:
> 
> First I start with those tracks TOTALLY removed from proto,prog or psych. (Well, in all honesty, not TOTALLY removed because something like country music or monastic chants would be totally removed
> 
> ...


You seem to miss the point of Zappa entirely- take one track you mention 
"It Can't Happen Here" the title is a take on the semi-satirical political novel by Sinclair Lewis - as much of Zappa's work had social commentary theme
It Can't Happen Here- 
"evokes the panic in 1960s middle America at the prospect that their children, especially daughters, might morph into free-thinking, free-being freaks!"
http://happening-here.blogspot.com.au/2005/02/who-was-frank-zappa.html
http://www.arf.ru/Notes/Freak/itcan.html

- also if you listen to album in order you will see the tracks go from a pisstake on common musical types of the late fifties thru to early mid sixties - then at the halfway point Zappa says"your probably wondering why I'm here" then proceeds to move thru dada into move and move wayout musical forms..........

read more here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak_Out!


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Yes and what does this all have to do with prog?


If you want a 2 lp set with diverse musical genres (& a concept) - which, unlike "Freak Out", actually works and has interest - go for Rigoni-Schoenhertz (probably spelt wrong, but i'm too lazy to look it up) "Victor".


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

The Deacon said:


> Yes and what does this all have to do with prog?
> 
> If you want a 2 lp set with diverse musical genres (& a concept) - which, unlike "Freak Out", actually works and has interest - go for Rigoni-Schoenhertz (probably spelt wrong, but i'm too lazy to look it up) "Victor".


Face it - its proto Prog


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

So, I have given you my proof.
I am waiting for YOURS.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

You quote me a post from Progarchives forum.
They have a special discussion section for protoprog.
Wonder of wonders - there we find out from The Beyond-Clueless that The Beatles, Kate Bush,Beach Boys, amongst others are proto.

You needs must bring up better backup material, my friend.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

The Deacon said:


> You quote me a post from Progarchives forum.
> They have a special discussion section for protoprog.
> Wonder of wonders - there we find out from The Beyond-Clueless that The Beatles, Kate Bush,Beach Boys, amongst others are proto.
> 
> You needs must bring up better backup material, my friend.


Your not worth the effort, the term Prog Snob comes to mind


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Look to Progressive Ears forum instead.

The posters are a bit older there and lived thru those 80s mailorder magazines.
Know what "proto" really means.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I don't think Freak out could be considered protoprog, at least formally, but I would say that Absolutely free is definitely something I would consider, especially on tracks like Brown shoes don't make it. Songs divided in many movements, change of rhyhtms, classical influences. Actually it's much more progressive than a lot of a lot of so called progressive stuff, in the sense that it's much more daring and original than someone putting just a mellotron to have a symphonic sound to imitate a classical orchestra of the 18th or 19th century.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2018)

I'm not sure that I see the value in debating over the meaning of a word (proto-prog). Whatever the definition, it doesn't cause the music to change by one note. All that is being discussed is a filing system.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

I would much rather this confusion with "proto" be EASILY swept away by simply using the term "EARLY prog" instead.

This encompasses a much wider spectrum and is more in tune with what you guys are thinking of.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Your not worth the effort, the term Prog Snob comes to mind












How come on the discussion forums , it is always the trope Prog Snob but never Classical Snob?

I have a theory: it is ProgSnob because progrock is highly evolved over R&B or straight stadium rock. (There is something to compare against.)
If you used the pose, "ClassicalSnob" what low classical form are you defending? Marching music? Andrew Lloyd-Weber?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

with a name like EddieRUKiddingVarese what do you think


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2018)

Everyone knows that "Progressive Rock" is an oxymoron, right?

"Balls and brains..."...What a hoot, eh?

Just catching my breath from the last power skating/strength and conditioning session... flying tomorrow from Winnipeg to Saskatoon and then to Prince Albert SK and Red Deer AB before finally returning to Winnipeg to begin playing games for real...

Best wishes to all!

And around these parts we call him "*Mister*" Varese, punk...well... maybe the others do...Me? I just call him "Eddie"... Some people call him "The Space Cowboy"... some people call him "The Gangster of Love"...while others call him "Maurice"...when he speaks of "the pompitous of love..."

"Pompitous of love"...geez, those Aussies, eh?


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)




----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2018)

Am I the only person getting an empty white space for some of The Deacon's post, like the preceding one?


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)




----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2018)

This one too. ↑↑↑


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Out of my control, buddy.

...............
Okay then, let us talk more proto:

Another "distinctor" separating prog from proto-prog is that proto has a unsmoothness to it; an unpolished quality.


....


For countries so relatively small, Denmark & Belgium had a surprizingly rich 69-70 proto output. But then again this could be put down to interbreeding - band members would go from one group to another, or start their own group (following similar template to the last).


Countries that were proto-poor?
France & Spain.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2018)

↑↑↑

I see this one. Did you do anything different?


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Which one?
Wot?


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2018)

I can see your posts #52 and #54, but I cannot see #48 and #50, just a white space where I'd expect to see content.

Is there any difference between the two pairs in terms of how you created the posts?


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

#48 and 50 have piccy imported from Imgur.
#52 & 54 are just text.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Tulse: Im on the local library computer now and those pictures ARE coming through fine.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The Deacon said:


> Yes and what does this all have to do with prog?
> 
> If you want a 2 lp set with diverse musical genres (& a concept) - which, unlike "Freak Out", actually works and has interest - go for Rigoni-Schoenhertz (probably spelt wrong, but i'm too lazy to look it up) "Victor".


If it were up to me, I would call Zappa's Freak Out Proto-proto-prog (or what should be known as Proto- Squared- Prog)


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2018)

The Deacon said:


> Tulse: Im on the local library computer now and those pictures ARE coming through fine.


Thanks for that. It narrows down the problem to being at my end.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Get, get.....Get it on!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Spectrum were a good band from OZ.
Later they changed name of band - I forget wot just now - and the music was still well good.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

My friend has this lp.
It rather sucks. But nice coverart.

(Was also a Russian proggish band called Ariel. Also sucked.)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)




----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2018)

How about Billy Ritchie's 1-2-3 as first prog organist?

(if it hasn't already been mentioned in Deac's white boxes.)


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Cant really agree on the ARIEL "A STRANGE FANTASTIC DREAM" . The band 
is not only ex-Spectrum, but also ex-Taman Shud and it shows on the 
latter.
The vast majority on this lp is NOT what The Deacon would deem prog 
(even though there is organ and some synth). "Chicken ****" 
and "Garden of Frenzied Cortinas" are stronger tracks. But then you 
have things like the (thankfully short) "Worm-turning Blues" 
and "Confessions of a Psychopathic Cowpoke" (curious merge of country 
with slight prog). A few utterly -forgettable tracks like the title 
track "And if it wasnt for you."
Probably just a Deacon-type thing, but I dont like the vocalist 
either. Reminds of some 70s AM singer-songwriter (cant rightly put my 
finger on it -maybe Harry Chapin??).


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Soft Machine At The Beginning (1967). It has some nice parts though I like later stuff better.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> Soft Machine At The Beginning (1967). It has some nice parts though I like later stuff better.


Interesting. I liked proto prog better than prog itself. Although I thought of prog only starting in around '69. I have Soft Machine 1 and 2 only, Pink Floyd's first album only. As in the other thread the furthest I got was Crimson's first album in terms of owning the albums. I sold my Dark Side of Moon ages ago.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Interesting. I liked proto prog better than prog itself. Although I thought of prog only starting in around '69. I have Soft Machine 1 and 2 only, Pink Floyd's first album only. As in the other thread the furthest I got was Crimson's first album in terms of owning the albums. I sold my Dark Side of Moon ages ago.


Maybe you're a few years older than I am and it's an age thing. I agree proto prog certainly has it's own charm.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2018)

THE PRETTY THINGS - S. F. Sorrow


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

*early start*

Aye, cocker.

The Deacon will ride for Billy Ritchie. (Actually I just wrote about him on another forum just yesterday.)

1-2-3 (pre-Clouds) covered Paul Simon's "America" way before YES did and even TWO years before "Bookends" lp was released.

They played live at Marquee when Emerson was backup in some band. (Fripp was in audience as well). Emerson learned the reverb-spring thing as well as other showman things like playing standing up, knive nailing down the organ key,fiddling with screwdriver at back of Hammond...from Ritchie and Don Shinn.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Currently listening to Soft Machine _Third.

_


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

The one thing that always strikes me is how limited some "proto prog rock" is as far as beautiful melody. Someone may have done something similar to someone else and he's hailed as a god, but if taste in melody is close to universal, I have no problem not liking that music or really mentioning it. Some just look at the person as superior to someone who might have been a little younger and had it all together as far as style and ability to write great melodies.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

To go back to the initial post:

To claim proto as being started '64-'66 is ludicrous. I'm not even going to argue it.

By far most British (and Euro) protoprog bands were this: 

1/completely Hammond organ-centered

2/usually a trio

3/ its psych morphing to prog.This means the compositions were simpler/more direct. Unlike prog, there was less structure and more free-form rambles. You would have a simple vocal part,then an extended instrumental organ-guitar meander. Much use of the blues scale.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

The Deacon said:


> To go back to the initial post:
> 
> To claim proto as being started '64-'66 is ludicrous. I'm not even going to argue it.
> 
> ...


But he's mentioning the Beach boys, an american band making very structured compositions influenced by baroque music that were already as complex (and harmonically often more complex) than a lot of classic prog.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

You are basically thinking of "Good Vibrations",right?


Beach Boys were NEVER considered protoprog, period.

The Deacon is not going there.

End of.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

The Deacon said:


> You are basically thinking of "Good Vibrations",right?


I'm thinking of a lot of their songs actually. Wouldn't it be nice, God only knows, Girls on the beach, Don't worry baby.
Considering progressive rock the problem with them would be the rock part, not the progressive one.

They certainly weren't very rock, they didn't use a lot of distortion in that period and their lyrics and themes were very different from 
the ones of bands like King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, Van der graaf etc.
Brian Wilson was deeply influenced by classical music, he used counterpoint and in terms of harmonic sophistication they were way ahead of their time. Their music was definitely progressive. Mike Godette, a member of this board, has a youtube channel where he makes covers of their song with the guitar and without all the layers of the arrangement the complexity of their songs is even more evident.
Progressive pop would be a better definition for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_pop

and in any case, here's the proto-prog wiki page where they are mentioned many times by many critics and writers, your "NEVER" seems to be a bit strong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-prog


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Most importantly - and I've brought this up already two times, so _if you get anything into your head, get this_:
proto is *psych mutating into prog.

So the question is: was Beach Boys ever psych?

Clear answer, NO.

Beach Boys is basically the definition of "happy happy". (Well, I guess Archies bubblegum is moreso, haha.)
Its POP.

True psych music is out to aurally replicate a LSD trip - not to happily driftoff on marijuana-buzz. It is out to trip you up, confuse.
Also, most true psych - I'm not talking Strawberry Alarmclock - is dark, oninous.

Not jingly pop.

*


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

The Deacon said:


> Most importantly - and I've brought this up already two times, so _if you get anything into your head, get this_:
> proto is *psych mutating into prog.
> 
> So the question is: was Beach Boys ever psych?
> ...


*

"psych mutating into prog" is your personal definition.
That works for certain bands. But proto-prog doesn't mean just that. Using the term "proto-" implies that a certain thing has already certain aspects that it's possible to find in the mature genre. And The Beach boys had already certain aspects of progressive rock music. It doesn't matter at all if they weren't a psych band, because the psych part is not what makes even the "psych mutating into prog" bands proto-progressive.



The Deacon said:



Beach Boys is basically the definition of "happy happy".

Click to expand...

Not that it matters particularly, but especially in that period considered (1964-1966) and after they were often making quite melancholic music, especially from Pet Sounds and later albums (but even before, in songs like "In the back of my mind")*


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

You are fond of throwing Wiki at me.

My advice: look outside of Wiki. Specifically, when it comes to this topic, look for people who have spent part-lifetimes on the subject - not quotes from books where the author knows, at best, 5% of what he is talking about.

Look to Patrick Lundborg's TWO books:

THE ACID ARCHIVES, The Ultimate Guide To Underground Sounds 1965-82 -- Published 2010. (psych,garage & folk)

PSYCHEDELIA - An Ancient Culture, A Modern Lifestyle. Published 2012. (not about specific bands but about the movement/ the sub-culture /origions/the drugs)

Look to Richard Morton Jack's books: Galactic Ramble and Endless Trip.

(My friend just got Galactic Ramble. Its so heavy that it cost him $80 postage from England. And ITS NOT A frikken PICTURE BOOK.)

There is a partial-lifetime's worth of info in books like these. As opposed to noobs like Jerry Wotsit being quoted on Wiki.


I wager you YOURSELF are a noob when it comes to the subject of psychedelic rock. What exactly do you have AT YOUR BACK to support your view of psych? How much time have you put into it?




Here is a list of some of Patrick's favorite psychedelic lps (US only - but there is also ,of course, a list for Euro/UK).
How many have YOU actually heard the music of? - nevermind heard EVEN THE NAME OF:

BEAT OF THE EARTH: Beat Of The Earth (Radish 1967) Los Angeles

C A QUINTET: Trip thru Hell (Candy Floss 1969) Minneapolis

COLD SUN: Dark Shadows (Rockadelic 1970/1991) Austin

CREATION OF SUNLIGHT: Creation Of Sunlight (Windi 1969) Los Angeles

FRACTION: Moon Blood (Angelus 1971) Los Angeles

D R HOOKER: The Truth (On 1972) Connecticut 

PLASTIC CLOUD: Plastic Cloud (Allied 1968) Canada

THIRD ESTATE: Years Before the Wine (TTE 1976) Baton Rouge

BOBB TRIMBLE: Harvest of Dreams (Bobb 1982) Massachusetts

FATHER YOD & YA HO WA 13: Contraction (Higherkey 1973) Los Angeles

ZERFAS -Zerfas (700 West 1973) Indianapolis


I want to know if I am dealing with a child here or someone of weight. Do you possess a palette with varied colours, or is it just Doors,Iron Butterfly.....? (Speaking of: I'm just now listening to Children of the Mushroom self-titled late 60's??? lp. Its not easy to parse music as if it were a sentence but I believe I got this sound here right - It sounds like cheesy (non-Hammond) organ with very much alla Iron Butterfly moves with Butterfly gloom countering some Doors-y melodies.)


By the way, most of these ten ARE dark and certainly not "popsike" or "sunshine pop/sunshine psych". (Zerfas is more on the light side; an American group trying to sound UK-Carnaby, loikes. Very good lp though!)
.................

I would put this asinine question of "are Beach Boys ever considered "psych"?" to a vote on Talkclassical forum were it not for the fact that low minds always hunt in packs...they always bark the loudest.

The Deacon is sad to say that on THIS forum, at least, The Deacon would lose this "debate". Or, worse yet, the vote would get the lackluster response (as is the way of noobdom.)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

The Deacon said:


> You are fond of throwing Wiki at me.
> 
> My advice: look outside of Wiki. Specifically, when it comes to this topic, look for people who have spent part-lifetimes on the subject - not quotes from books where the author knows, at best, 5% of what he is talking about.


Actually I had never read those pages before. It's just that when I said that Beach boys could be considered progressive pop, I've thought "hey, let's see if there's something about progressive pop", and there was indeed a wiki page where they talked of the Beach boys. And in that page it said that the Beach boys were considered also protoprog, a thing I had said without watching wikipedia and knowing that a lot of critics had already said that.
I've put the link just because you were talking as nobody in the world had ever had the ridiculous idea that the Beach boys could be considered a band that predated the prog rock genre, a thing that looking at those pages it's simply not true.



The Deacon said:


> I wager you YOURSELF are a noob when it comes to the subject of psychedelic rock. What exactly do you have AT YOUR BACK to support your view of psych? How much time have you put into it?


actually psych rock is one of my favorite rock genres, but I don't know why you're talking of psychedelic music (and I don't think I've said anything about psych rock here, so I don't know what view I should support)



The Deacon said:


> I would put this asinine question of "are Beach Boys ever considered "psych"?" to a vote on Talkclassical forum were it not for the fact that low minds always hunt in packs...they always bark the loudest.


I think I'm missing something... who has asked that question? Because I've said "It doesn't matter at all if they weren't a psych band". About the "dealing with a child", well it's not me who act like that on this board.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

So, if I get you right, you're maintaining that to get to prog you don't have to go thru psych? You can just jump from pop direct to prog?
Example please.

General consensus is that if it didn't go through psych then bluesrock took you to prog, even certain free jazz (but I debate this). 

This thread is about the moniker, protoprog.

Again - let's get this straight: you think Beach Boys are one of the protoprog bands that lead direct to prog. That pop went straight to prog in a single quantum leap.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

norman bates said:


> "psych mutating into prog" is your personal definition.
> That works for certain bands. But proto-prog doesn't mean just that. Using the term "proto-" implies that a certain thing has already certain aspects that it's possible to find in the mature genre.
> 
> It is not my personal definition. It is the accepted definition of progHeads. Go to one of the biggest prog forums, ProgressiveEars. This site is populated from the start (not so much now) by SEASONED COLLECTORS, not kids. Put 'proto" into the search and you should get a long series of posts on the subject and a whittled-down list of 100 bands deemed sufficient to be included in the protoprog canon. Bands that VERY QUICKLY evolved out of psych or bluesrock. Invest time going thru that long thread there.This should give you a good idea.
> ...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

The Deacon said:


> It is not my personal definition. It is the accepted definition of progHeads.


a definition that actually is not shared by other prog fans (like myself) and critics. 
I've listened to prog music for decades, I know the genre and I don't need to go to a specific board to have an idea of what the genre is.
And using the same argument a simple google search with "beach boys" and "progressive" will show you a lot of people talking about the connection between the band and the progressive genre.



The Deacon said:


> More importantly - and maybe this is the crux of the problem of your understanding - you are taking the word proto EXCLUSIVELY LITERALY. Proto was a term dreamt-up,before the internet, by record dealers putting out their own paper mailorder catalogues. It was a term of categorization, to lump together a _CERTAIN SOUND_; to aid noobs to go in a certain direction that they are gaining interest in. iT IS NOT A GENRE.


and exactly where have I said it's a genre? I wonder if you read that same line you've quoted. 


> "proto-" implies that a certain thing has already certain aspects that it's possible to find in the mature genre.


this doesn't mean that I think it's a genre. It means exactly that it's something that has already certain characteristics of a still not well formed genre. 
But you wanted an example. Take one their more famous songs, God only knows. Elaborate arrangement, clearly with a baroque influence (and use of instruments like the harpsichord. Sophisticated harmony. Change of rhythm. Brief instrumental interlude. The end is a canon. It clearly doesn't sound as classic prog, but there's a spirit that is definitely that of progressive to go beyond the simple format of the pop songs of the time with much more refinement, elaborate songwriting and a influence of classical music.
Of course it's not a twenty minute suite with powerful drumming, distorted guitar solos, signature changes every ten seconds, mellotron everywhere and fantasy themes, but still one can also see similarities.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Give me an example other than Beach Boys.

(and try not to include baroque rock like New York Rock Ensemble).


The only one I can think of now which maybe pop going to prog is Neon Philharmonic first lp, or maybe Nilsson "the Point". But Im not sure of the dates here...anyuways, its shady.

Maybe Van **** Parks "Song Cycle".


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Proto was used to describe the ProtoSurrealists (Jarry, Rimbaud, etc. etc. ) by literary critics. I'm sure it's used all over academia.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

I am oft surprised at the utter lack of recognition for Aphrodite's Child's album "666" in prog rock discussions. Surely it is one of the strangest and most ambitions albums ever recorded. It was released in 1972 (47 years ago) and still nothing else sounds like it. Unfortunately, the album seems confined to the dustbin of rock history.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

The Deacon said:


> Give me an example other than Beach Boys.
> 
> (and try not to include baroque rock like New York Rock Ensemble).
> 
> ...


I don't know, at least for that period. To a certain degree The free design maybe, another band that even with childish lyrics was known for their great musical sophistication and classical influences.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Perhaps you have confused Free Design with Free Spirit? The later were ground-breaking. Free Design were not : they did MOR, sunshine pop. I think 3 lps were released .Covers of The Turtles,Burt Bacharach,Duke Ellington,Mama's & Papas..... for fox sake.
The only good thing was the intricate, inter-twining vocals in places (and the crystal clear production provided by Enoch Light.) Parts were rather heavily orchestrated. And I hope this is NOT the reason you see them as moving into prog realms. This is why I discount baroque rock examples: strings do not make prog, just as sitar does not make psych. Otherwise you'd be calling something like "Yesterday" embryonic prog. Heaven defend us!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

The Deacon said:


> Perhaps you have confused Free Design with Free Spirit? The later were ground-breaking. Free Design were not : they did MOR, sunshine pop. I think 3 lps were released .Covers of The Turtles,Burt Bacharach,Duke Ellington,Mama's & Papas..... for fox sake.


sure, they made a lot of covers, but I think it's important to see also how a band makes a cover, since it could change a song completely (for instance their cover of Light my fire while not prog is extremely different from the original). In any case I'm not sure I would consider them protoprog. I was just trying to think of another band in that period that could fit, but it's much more a stretch than with the Beach boys.



The Deacon said:


> The only good thing was the intricate, inter-twining vocals in places (and the crystal clear production provided by Enoch Light.) Parts were rather heavily orchestrated. And I hope this is NOT the reason you see them as moving into prog realms. This is why I discount baroque rock examples: strings do not make prog, just as sitar does not make psych. Otherwise you'd be calling something like "Yesterday" embryonic prog. Heaven defend us!


Strings don't make prog necessarily, but certainly the use of keyboards, strings (or mellotron) and other instruments (especially from the classical tradition) are often a component of progressive rock. In any case as I've said, I was just trying to think of a band that could fit since you asked, but I'm not sure is a good example. 
I'm not sure if besides the Beach boys or maybe some Beatles songs there are many other examples in that period of time (after, it's probably a different story).


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Aphrodite's Child "666" is a monster.










you should look into the (related) AXIS self-titled first lp.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Reflection ‎- The Present Tense (Songs Of Sydney Carter) (UK) 1968

This is all over the map. You have to skip around to hear the parts that aren't rock nor folk. After the short introduction, there's a piece that is proto-punk with proto-prog mixed in. Clearly it's an aesthetic on the lp that cares little to be straight pop.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)




----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Back to this absurd contention regards Beach Boys:

Beyond and Before
Progressive Rock since the 1960s
By: Paul Hegarty, Martin Halliwell

A good example of neophytes taking on material they should well steer clear of.
There is a section here on beginnings of prog and - yes - Beach Boys are touted.


Prog is plagued with BAD books on the subject. 
You KNOW these books are plain ignorant (when Kate Bush miraculously becomes part of the canon) or have an agenda ( go to the back of the book and when Porcupine Tree,Mars Volta and Radiohead are heavily-pushed...well, you know wot the feck you're dealing with, don't you.)

I don't know if you will find Beach Boys referenced in these two books, but the Stump and Macan books ARE the few good'uns.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

"Proto" is a kind of _ur_-Prog, a music still in a state of _becoming_ rather than _being_. At the "proto" stage of evolution the music is not quite walking upright yet; that development occurs with the arrival of a fully . . . er . . . _erect_ "Progressive rock" as exhibited by, for example, _ItCotKC_, an example of _early_ Prog.

Is "proto"-Prog a distinct musical _style_, the qualities of which can be reasonably ascertained? Or is it an intermediate, transitional stage to something else ("Prog"), a chrysalis morphing into a butterfly, as it were? If the former, then, say, Kestral--1975--qualifies because, presumably, once developed a style can be reproduced at any later point (why one would do so is another question). If the latter, then Kestral comes too late in the game. But I'm unconvinced that Kestral qualifies; I wonder whether perhaps it's ontologically impossible for "proto" to occur _after_ the emergence of fully-mature Prog.

It does seem to me, though, that there _is_ an aurally discernable musical trend between psych and full-blown Prog that exhibits and predicts elements of both, respectively, but is neither fully one nor the other. But, determining the qualities that define it is up for grabs.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)




----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

regenmusic said:


> I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. Refugee came out in 1974. These bands should not be grouped together when talking about a stage of music, and especially not linking full prog bands with proto-prog bands. I think the Nice was a progressive rock band, but they did do as much proto prog as prog. I can see linking those bands together if you exclude Refugee. The Electric Prunes always get cut out of the equation, but they also did a Mass i 1968, even though someone else composed the bulk of the music, it still was arranged with their sound, which was very progressive as far as electronics. They did "Too Much to Dream."
> 
> The reason why I think I like this subject so much is that it raises some heated debates =)


*Refugee* (1973-1974) was simply *The Nice* (1967-1970) with a member change: Pat Moraz replaced Keith Emerson on keyboards, and the band continued on in the tradition of The Nice.

Unlike other bands with multiple members over the years, Drummer Davison and Bassist/Vocalist Jackson decided on a name change. My guess is there may have been a legal issue.

Of course, *Emerson, Lake & Palmer* (1970-1979, 1991-1998, 2010) were simply a re-membered The Nice as well . . . same type of music genres, same sort of line-up (although Lake's vocals were several floors up from Jackson's).

And then *Emerson, Lake & Powell* (1985-1986) were the same band as well, and you can certainly understand why they couldn't keep the same name. And when Emerson and Palmer recorded an album with Robert Berry as vocalist/bassist/guitarist as the group "*3*" (1988-1989), it was still the same group with a member change.

So *The Nice/Refugee* is simply the same group.

Like *Jefferson Airplane/Jefferson Starship/Starship*, or *CSN/CSNY*


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

The Deacon said:


> To go back to the initial post:
> 
> To claim proto as being started '64-'66 is ludicrous. I'm not even going to argue it.
> 
> ...


You've mentioned this POV several times now, and I think that your view of both Prog and Proto-Prog is far too narrow.

Prog derived from several different types of rock.

Certainly there's the Hammond-organ centered rock, and the psychedelic rock.

There were certainly NOT only "trios" in Prog's ancestry, though.

Prog also had its roots in Concept albums, and Orchestral/Symphonic Rock and Classical Rock, Art Rock, the Canterbury scene, virtuosity, inclusion of non-rock instruments, as well as advanced lyrics beyond boy/girl love cars and sock hops.

So . . . in this sense, the *Beatles* are proto-Prog, although that was never really their intention. And while many of their forays into new musical territory seemed like they invented or pioneered changes, they were rarely the very first - they were simply the first mainstream musical entity to do it (*Zappa* notwithstanding: If you analyze *Freak Out *track-by-track, it isn't Prog, but _overall_ it _*IS*_).

*The Beatles*:
new instruments
lyrical advancement
orchestral
concept album
psychedelia
art rock
epic tracks 
electronic instruments and electronics
The studio as an instrument

. . . and they were doing this in 1965 (*Rubber Soul*) and 1966 (*Revolver*), the experimental timbres, rhythms, tonal structures, and poetic texts. And then the concept album/faux persona album *Sgt. Pepper's*. Were they the first with a concept album? Of course not. But they introduced all of these concepts to a far wider audience than ever before.

So, yes, The Doors, with _*The End*_ and *When the Music's Over*, and even *Light My Fire* were more than just Raga-rock. It was long-form virtuosity and tracks with Classical elements, such as _development_.

Symphonic Rock can be traced to examples of *The Moody Blues* and *Procol Harum* as early as 1967, and *Caravan* in 1968, but, of course, The Beatles were first here using the orchestra as a vital part of the recording alongside the rock instruments (or in the case of _*Eleanor Rigby*_ and _*She's Leaving Home*_ instead of them). There's also the non-Western instruments: and while the Beatles weren't the first to attempt to put a sitar on a pop/rock track, they were the first to succeed (*The Yardbirds* had to settle on electric guitar imitating a sitar). And Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) was released with a sitar, played by a member of the band. Harrison followed that sound into tracks like *Love You To* and *Within You Without You*, and Lennon with *Tomorrow Never Knows*.

And I'll also include Jazz/Rock in this conversation, with *Chicago* and *Blood Sweat & Tears*


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

*Proto prog rock.....*



pianozach said:


> So, yes, The Doors, with _*The End*_ and *When the Music's Over*, and even *Light My Fire* were more than just Raga-rock.


Doors Ragarock???

Sorry, I'm just not feeling it.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

pianozach said:


> So, yes, The Doors, with _*The End*_ and *When the Music's Over*, and even *Light My Fire* were more than just Raga-rock. It was long-form virtuosity and tracks with Classical elements, such as _development_.





The Deacon said:


> Doors Ragarock???
> 
> Sorry, I'm just not feeling it.


Yeah, someone _*else*_ said it here first. It's a decent moniker. I'd also throw in *Iron Butterfly* with *In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida* (long form, virtuosos solos, baroque noodling, organ as an equal instrument, jamming, vague/obtuse lyrics, drone, etc.) into this Raga-rock sub-sub-sub genre.

There's also _*proto-raga-rock*_ . . . while it's primary influence was *Ravi Shankar* and the sitar, drone, modal melodies, additive rhythms, lead instruments mirroring the vocal line, etc, there's also a minor thread from folk guitar drone tunings from *folk rock*, going back to 1963:






And, again, we can go back to *The Beatles* for bringing it all mainstream in 1965 with the drone in the #1 hit song *Ticket to Ride* (April 1965) and the actual sitar in the very popular _*Norwegian Wood*_ (December 1965). Yeah, of course the *Yardbirds*, or maybe even *The Kinks*, tried to incorporate drone and sitar, and maybe they're the first mainstream pop/rock band to do it. I can't really decide.

These forays into the incorporation of Indian sounds and stylings led to _*"The Great Sitar Explosion"*_:

*The Yardbirds
Heart Full of Soul*
June 1965






.

*The Kinks
See My Friends*
July 1965






.

*The Byrds
Eight Miles High*
March 1966






.

And the *Beatles* went all in on it with *Tomorrow Never Knows* and _*I'm Only Sleeping*_ (with backwards guitar licks), recorded April 1966, released in on *Revolver* in August 1966, foreshadowing not only full-blown *Raga Rock*, but *psychedelic rock, electronica, avant-pop* and *hard rock* as well. And also on the same album is the often overlooked Harrison song *Love You To* and his album opener *Taxman*, *all* recorded in April 1966.

The *Rolling Stones* climbed on board the sitar bandwagon in May 1966 with _*Paint it Black*_.

And before you knew it everyone else was on board: *Donovan, the Moody Blues, Them*, the *Doors*, the *Pretty Things*, *Country Joe and the Fish*, and *Traffic*. And . . . *The Grateful Dead*.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

Good to hear you mention Sandy Bull.
Deacon Beaker has two of his earliest lps.

But you overlooked one of the biggies and most influential from the UK folk scene - Davey Graham who learned DADGAD tuning whilst in Morroco and whom some claim as being the father of world music. He could play the oud/sarod. His first lp/EP was 1963.

One of earliest raga rock lps was Paul Butterfield East Meets West (or summart loikes).

Then there is the "Raga Rock" lp by Folkswingers which is pretty darn early in the scene. 

Also I seem to recall - but my recollection is some 15 years old - the band Spikedrivers which came out of Detroit and contained two (Canadian) members of the later band, Perth County Conspiracy.)


----------

