Why no 'USA' Prog bands made the big 5?

There was Handel. I just took great interest in the idea that it had "happened before" in England. It was foundational stuff that inspired Monteverdi and others.

 

Let me guess : that book was written by an Englishman.
Early Renaissance music was dominated by northern France and Belgium.
Later innovations came from Italy.
And, by the way, Haendel was German.

 

He is English. I think he was talking about the change in musical styles around religion, and protestantism, 1550 - 1600. How the idea of the song as we know it came to be more visible and identifable. It having being the protestant nations where the changes came to flower, in "a simpler, clearer, text-dominated choral style."

When I think of an English, comparatively liberal society leaning towards humanism, and there are musical innovations involved, I get a deja vu.

 

I loved "Holdin' On To Yesterday" when it was charting and then bought the first album and then saw the band back up Kansas or someone at a 1975 concert. While I didn't really dig the Anbrosia albums (I bought the first three or so), and was already several years into Yes, I felt that the (at the time) incessant attempt to label Ambrosia as progressive was a little strange.

I felt they were themselves trying to hype themselves as progressive. But it didn't sound like it to me. Sort of like calling Sgt Pepper a concept album because the band said it was... for a little while anyway.

As much as I love Dave Pack's voice (and Joe too), the four-piece band... especially live...... lacked a good, solid, lead guitar player. Which Dave was/is not. Chris North was outstanding live on keyboards (especially B3)..... but the band needed, circa 1975.... a stellar, innovative lead guitar player. Which they didn't have. Especially necessary (as I was sitting there watching them play or listening to the records), if the band was trying to wedge into a progressive category.

That second album (Somewhere I Never travelled)...... I dunno. It was tedious to me. Sort of like listening to that now-silly spoken word stuff that bookended so many Moody Blues things 8 years earlier.

"Make Us All Aware" (or whatever that thing was on the first album), was pretentious to me. As well as a lot of the other stuff.

I saw the band again in the 80s or 90s at the Temecula Wine Festival before Dave quit. Chris was with them and the band sounded pretty good, but not better or worse than in 1975. They still weren't progressive imo, and even on that day, they sorely needed some definitive lead guitar work going on.

On the other hand, as a pop singles band, I love David's output. "Holdin' On", "How Much I Feel" "You're the Only Woman", and an album cut called "Heart to Heart" are favs of mine. Didn't really like "Biggest Part of Me". I may be forgetting a few singles. But like I say, as a pop band with not much going on in the way of lead guitar, I liked their singles.

 

Ummagumma is also a progressive rock/Art rock venture.
One of my favorites.

 

He was many, many things, but he was always Progressive. I guess it depends on how Prog is defined. I’d call Rush and Opeth prog bands too, and others may not. To me it’s more a musical philosophy and mindset than purely a “sound” or “style.” What are the requisites for Prog?

 

1) you cant dance to it
2) almost 100% male audience (see item 1)
3) instrumental skills required
4) music critics hate it (see item 3)

 

i like all those bands, but styx and kansas couldn't touch yes, genesis, gentle giant, crimson or floyd

 

I just realized that Gentle Giant were Number 6.

 

First, I don't think a rock band HAS to have a stellar lead guitar player to be considered progressive. Gary Green of Gentle Giant wasn't firing off speed-of-light guitar solos, but that band certainly was progressive--with a capital P.

Second, Make Us All Aware pretentious? Nah. Ambitious? You betcha'. I'm all for ambition. Check out Mama Frog from the debut album.

As for Ambrosia's pop albums, I have little use for them. But hey, different strokes for different folks.

 

Serious question: How close did the beatles ever get to calling Pepper a "concept album"?

 

Well we are talking about labels and terminology here. So we can define Prog or not Prog somewhat arbitrarily. But Prog as I think most of us think of it definitely was a UK thing. The blues discussion here is part of it. The US gave rise to jam bands instead of Prog. Now I think Zappa, Grateful Dead, and Allman Brothers are just as inventive and musical as Prog; but it certainly sounds different. Well, Zappa is closer to Prog than the bluesy Dead and Allmans, but still does not sound like Yes. And the healthy since of humor and scatology was unique on many fronts.

I would say about 50% of my listening is either Prog; Jazz, or Jam Bands. The rest is classical (maybe 10%) and then regular old fashioned rock (a cross between what is played on Sirius XM Spectrum and Classic Vinyl).

Oh, by the way, I would have a hard time picking a favorite between Floyd, Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, Camel, Procol Harum, Zappa, Grateful Dead, Allman Brothers, Bowie, King Crimson, CSNY, Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, Traffic, Led Zep, Jethro Tull, and Roxy Music.

 

Musically, Haendel was German through and through. Which is only natural given he was nearly 30 when he made his way to England.
And the "simpler style" you mention shows up throughout Europe in the later 1500s. See Le Jeune's "measured music", in France, or many of Monteverdi's madrigals. Nothing specific to England there.
Not that choral-like simplicity is a usual feature of prog rock !

 

This thread has convinced me that there's no consensus on a clear definition of "Prog", and how/if it's different from "Progressive" styles.

Heavy Metal has a similar issue, yet there seems to be more of a consensus as to what is Metal and what isn't.

 

Assuming we call the big 5 from the 60s-70s, during that time the US was so into pop music scene. And the likes of Carole King, Ronstadt, Eagles and Beatlemania...R&B/Soul was really big too in the US. Really there was no room for progressive rock bands from across the pond, none of it was making the FM dial. Psych music was not accepted in the US as it was in Europe/UK, during that time. LZepp, The Who, Cream were the main rock steadies from Europe.....

For me most of that music is fine but it got boring really quick. By the time 1977 came around I wanted different music, was really tired of rock in general, so I started buying that weird music (progressive rock). Plus the writing influences US bands had was nothing like the writing influences from merry old England and English literature.

The early Big 5 for me would be:
CAN
Yes
Genesis
JTull
King Crimson

Nothing these bands were doing was being done in the US back then.....

 

I have no idea if they used the term. But they loved the idea that they could hide between the Sgt. Peppers concept to put out music that otherwise would not make sense on a Beatles album. When Im 64, She’s Leaving Home, and Mr. Kite all make sense in that context but otherwise would not fit with a regular Beatles regime. Though the White Album had some Americana that probably would never have seen the light of day if not for making room for new directions in Pepper.

 

I think one of the things that characterizes prog with a capital P -- and this is also why so many critics dislike it -- is that it doesn't take the gestures, imagery, and language of African-American music as its point of departure.

Obviously you wouldn't have any kind of rock without black music as its antecedent; the idea is an absurdity. But that's the whole point: almost every kind of American popular music is irrevocably intertwined with black American music, and you won't find that many American bands from the era who weren't trafficking in some form/derivation of a fundamentally African-American musical language (unless they turned to some sort of country-rock or folk-rock schtick).

Meanwhile British prog rock bands and, for that matter, German bands like Can and Kraftwerk pursued lines of inquiry that brought them far away from the African-American vernacular (and, in Kraftwerk's case, were then famously readopted by that vernacular via sampling). Maybe it was the influence of classical music -- by which I mean everything from medieval and Renaissance music, to Stockhausen -- all of which means something entirely different in Europe than in the States, culturally speaking.

BTW I don't hear Phish as prog -- they're coming more out of Zappa (especially "Inca Roads"), Steely Dan, and Blues for Allah-era Dead (especially "Help on the Way/Slipknot", which is practically a template for much of Junta). Nor do I hear Pink Floyd that way, as they simply didn't have the chops for it (and I say that as a big fan of the Floyd).

And Happy the Man is probably my favorite prog band. I like their first album better than anything by the "big five".

 

I'm sure they did later on, but that term wasn't used in 1967.

 

In responding before I was looking for the quote in the book I needed and couldn't find it. It had to do with other musicians looking towards Britain for the English innovations and "spin" they were bringing.

I think he is citing the "simpler" style as coming from influences from non catholic countries during that time, lutheran in particular, and Dowland being a real innovator in terms of what songs had sounded like before him vs after him. Many things can show up places, if you're looking back a few hundred years. It doesn't mean there were no specific innovations in Britain or anywhere else.

 

You are kidding right?

 

Wow, never thought of it that way before.

There are some exceptions - Wakeman's organ solo in Yes' Roundabout gets very bluesy at times, as is the opening piano in Tull's Locomotive Breath.. heck, much of Tull's first couple non-Prog albums have strong blues roots which they brought with them as they defined Prog.

Yet still, I think @ostrichfarm 's point is very valid.

 

My point is that it would have been really tacky for them to call it that. I don't think they did. I think it was part of the reception to the LP by "others." If they didn't actually say it, to me it's best to not put the words in their mouth.

 

You got it. That is Brubeck for sure in the rhythm and timing, Scriabin and Jancek for the stacked fourths.

 

We both know the answer to that question but we can't tell the truth about it here.

 

No, I'm not. But if you can think of anything significant in Britain after World War 2, I'd love to know.
Cornelius Cardew is one, but a single person doesn't make much of a home, especially when he's something of an outcast.