Welcome!

Please feel free to have extended discussions with me here and not on article talk pages! Thanks! MarkCertif1ed 09:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, this is an interesting band to research - most evidence is anecdotal, but the little snippets of fact put them in the right places;

http://www.cloudsmusic.com/ - an autobiographical but hugely anecdotal reference - unreliable as it's very short on fact and very long on POV/opinion.

The MOJO article is interesting, as it uses an original Rolling Stone article as its basis, but still inconclusive. David Bowie obviously liked what 1-2-3 did to his song, and this article seems to prove that there are holes in the Marquee records (apparently 1-2-3 supported Hendrix) - which is very interesting. However, Bowie championed a lot of groups that didn't get fair recognition - for example, the all-girl American band called Fanny, who were largely mediochre, but produced a couple of good covers (e.g. "Bulldog"), and a couple of really good original songs over the course of 4 or 5 albums. Mention is made of Ritchie's keyboard playing, but nothing specific.

"Chromatic, quarter-tone and choral harmonics? Choral harmonics? This proves that the article wasn't written by a music student, at least! Did he mean harmonies? Why make the difference between chromatic, quarter-tone and choral? Choral harmonies that were made up of chromatic and even quarter tones? Is this what he meant? Aren't the blues (and Hendrix's music) stuffed full of such intervals, especially in the string-bending madnesses where quarter tones are as octaves? Or does it mean vocal harmonics, like Janis Joplin's? What is the writer getting at? I know it's Bowie, but he wasn't a music student. http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/billy347-685372/cloudsmusic/id11.html

"Why should they think that Open Harmony and subtle colouring..." Open harmony? Simple wide-spacing of harmonies as opposed to close harmony? I guess that may be radical for pop music - but I'm not sure on this one - need to search for others using open harmony. What was the subtle colouring? A lot of "progressive" musical ideas came from jazz - is this the link? http://www.jazzprofessional.com/technical/open_harmony_1.htm.

http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/billy347-685372/cloudsmusic/id12.html states "Clouds were one of the original UK progressive groups." When was this article written? Did it mean progressive as in the fashionably progressive at the time, or Prog Rock? Did the music really share anything tangible with Prog Rock, or is it really more like progressive music (as in the stuff that ended up on Wowie Zowie - the world of progressive music).

http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/billy347-685372/cloudsmusic/id46.html - dubious and opinionated. What is this "swing" that the author refers to as the important difference? Many bands had "swing" after a fashion.

http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/billy347-685372/cloudsmusic/id16.html; "Musically speaking they are exploring rhythmic and harmonic field in much the same way as jazz musicians do" - more specificity would be nice - which jazz musicians? Akker Bilk? Dave Brubek? Django? Miles? Lennie Tristano (surely not!!!). This might be onto something - it's difficult to think of jazz-influenced pop groups from 1966.

http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/billy347-685372/cloudsmusic/id22.html; "Ritchie took the lead role, standing of all things..." OK, the author makes it clear that he thought this unusual - but was it? Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis were famous for larking around the keyboard. More research needed. Also "Blues, Classics, Pop and Scat-Jazz..." - kinda like a rocky Skiffle?

Many bands are cited, but did they get to hear the music and hence obtain the influence? "To Yes went the baroque structures of improvisation that were virtually rewrites of known material, to The Nice, the concept of a Classic rock organ trio, to King Crimson the melodic grandeur and intricate interplay, to Genesis the drama (especially dubious), to Soft Machine the acid jazz, to Family the invention" - these are broad-sweeping brush strokes that paint a colourful picture of loss, but what is in the fine print?

The author then makes the audacious claim that 1-2-3 invented Prog Rock, with only these sweeping statements as evidence.

"Rewriting other people's songs was their forte" - presumably like Vanilla Fudge were later to do - but interpreting other people's songs wasn't new. Maybe in the field of rock it was - again, this is the second time we've come near anything like evidence, and it's ambiguous.

http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/billy347-685372/cloudsmusic/id24.html; It's difficult to see how Martin Aston could possibly say that the band were an obvious Nice influence, when the album in question was released after the Nice's. How, when the album was released in 1971, did it pre-empt Keith Emerson? That question is raised by this review.

I will order this from Amazon :o)

http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/billy347-685372/cloudsmusic/id31.html "1-2-3 have a wide-ranging repertiore dominated by standards in a modern jazz style." Hmm.

http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/billy347-685372/cloudsmusic/id34.html - something about the music at last (not dated though) - to ruminate over at another time...

http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/billy347-685372/cloudsmusic/id6.html - intriguing - fan's opinions...

"I saw 1-2-3 at the Marquee in 67. It was musical anarchy, the audience were almost fighting with each other, some loved it, some hated it, but all the guys from the groups were down the front of the stage, cheering, and absolutely gob-smacked.....Robert Fripp was one of them, so was Keith Emerson, David Bowie was there.......and it really was a style that had never been seen before....and it truly was a blueprint for what came afterwards - but it's true to say that 1-2-3 has never been reproduced......who can persuade the three lads to record it for posterity? Now that would be something......"

Now we're onto something - can this be verified with the named gentlemen? No mention of Yes, Family, Soft Machine or Genesis members, alas... though I'd assume that all had visited the Marquee at some point.

Interesting fight in the Amazon reviews; http://www.amazon.com/Scrapbook-Watercolour-Days-Clouds/dp/B0000011OV

Played at the Marquee in 1968, alongside the recognised greats; http://www.themarqueeclub.net/1968

Listed here - but nothing more than a list entry (Billy Ritchie); http://www.geocities.com/sunsetstrip/palladium/9932/oly_keyb.htm

Terry Ellis link; http://www.mp3.com/artist/clouds/summary/

Hold on, I've got this album (but my turntable's broken...); http://rateyourmusic.com/release/comp/various_artists___labels___island_records/you_can_all_join_in/

I've got this too; http://rateyourmusic.com/release/comp/various_artists___labels___island_records/bumpers/

http://www.kinemagigz.com/'c'.htm

Interesting, first mention of 1-2-3 that I've come across - doesn't even begin to mention the music or prowess of the musicians; http://www.kinemagigz.com/'o'.htm#1-2-3

Damn! Here's a good site - and a top link for this subject to boot - Ritchie's brother! pity the link to rapidshare is dead. I'll be ordering this from Amazon... http://timospsychedelicious.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html

Background on The Nice is hard to find (to confirm the Emerson link - it's plain the Nice and Clouds performed at the Marquee, but so did Graham Bond organisation - and didn't the Animals use keyboards as lead?). Johnny Farr and the T-Bones are the most referred to - naturally, but Emerson's background is sketchy apart from that. *Wonder if Linda can find out via Greg?

You do go all the way into it, don't you! Perhaps there's a danger there of not seeing the wood for the trees. Interesting comments though. The point Martin Aston was making wasn't based on the release date of the records, it was based on the history. Check, for instance, the Encyclopedia of popular music by Colin Larkin. Though the records didn't appear till much later, the pedigree was long established, circa 1966. Jon Anderson did say at some points that Clouds was his favourite group, but I haven't been able to establish where those quotes come from as yet. Blinky Davison (of the Nice) said that Billy Ritchie was his favourite organist, but that may well have been a dig at Keith. Again, I need to find where those quotes come from. As regards the Marquee, there was a life-size photograph of 1-2-3 in the entrance hall all during 67-68. And somewhere in the TV archives, there is John Gee (the Manager) being interviewed by Gloria Hunniford (on his retirement) and when asked by Gloria who was the best group he ever saw, he said 'Clouds'. Meaning of course, 1-2-3. She of course looked baffled. DaveEx 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Basically, that's why all the trees have tags - to avoid getting lost!

I try to maintain perspective on the overall woods at all times - what is needed is factual evidence to conclusively link this band to progressive rock, and, as I have a couple of recordings and can obtain more, that bit's not hard. While a picture speaks a thousand words - music paints many pictures. It's not all scientific - although there will be hard facts that can be drawn from the music, e.g. musical techniques (use of modes, close harmony, open harmony, complex as opposed to simple underlying structures, rhythmic invention, stylistic influences, etc.).

The hard bit is 1-2-3, for whom no recordings seem available, and documentation is fragmentary. The claim that's made for them absolutely requires more solid verification than these sources provide - there will be more skeptical people than I. There's also little biographical data on the band, or comments from musicians who were influenced by them - surely not all will try to hide their influeces - most musicians are quite forthcoming. I suppose that, in the 1960s, everybody had to be original, in the artistic circles - as now, plagiarism in any form is seen as a complete no-no, even though there isn't a musician alive or dead that hasn't done it: Listen to Beethoven's early works - notice a "slight" resemblance to Mozart? How about Haydn's work after he met Mozart - is it just me, or are there a few new tricks in Haydn's toolbox?. On the flip-side, Mozart completely re-wrote Handel's "Acis and Galatea" in his own style. Does that technique sound familiar?

See, the point is not to dismiss the claim, but to look for evidence that conclusively proves it and puts the guys into their correct historical position. Otherwise it looks a bit like fanboyism. MarkCertif1ed 10:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't want to pour cold water on what you're trying to do, or knock your motives, but you're looking for evidential qualities from 1-2-3 that you're not really applying to anyone else as far as I can see. 'Fanboyism' will always be an issue with EVERY group, even relatively unknown ones like 1-2-3. But you can hardly describe 'Mojo' 'Q' 'Billboard' and books published by major publishers as being non-citational! That, after all, is part of the Wiki criteria. There is enough published strong evidence for 1-2-3's inclusion, full-stop. But I'm all for uncovering more, and perhaps pertinent to your enquiries, more direct quotes from 'influenced' people. That, I think, is the tough part, but well worth pursuing, and if anyone can dig it up, you can! That much is evident. As for the comments about musicians being forthcoming, I stand by what I said! I knew a lot of them after all! I heard Jon Anderson and Keith Emerson say things like it in private, but I accept that's anecdotal - and that's how they intended it to stay! If someone copies someone else, not many would own up to it. That's human nature. But the 1-2-3 inclusion has to stay, in it's present form as a minimum, but ideally, with slightly more reference to the groups who took the ideas. And that's not just my opinion, I think you'll find there are plenty who'll agree with me. Then again, plenty who won't! (as the Marquee bullshit site shows). DaveEx 12:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

"But you can hardly describe 'Mojo' 'Q' 'Billboard' and books published by major publishers as being non-citational! That, after all, is part of the Wiki criteria. There is enough published strong evidence for 1-2-3's inclusion, full-stop"

No there isn't - there is no evidence, full-stop.

The small amount of written material I've read in the publications you mention is so obviously inconclusive - not to mention the author's opinion - that I can't see how anyone would buy it, except someone who'd seen the band at the time and liked them a lot.

If you knew the musicians, it's a pity you didn't keep in touch. I know a few, and I know people who know people, but I'd really like to talk to the guys directly - or a few people who were there and have a strong enough grasp or musical technique to be able to describe accurately what 1-2-3 did.

"jazz-influenced" isn't enough - there were colonies of hippies in the US who were "jazz-influenced, man - who produced drivel that probably sounded great after a few spliffs and a tab of acid. Then again, there were those who really were innovative and different - and fortunately, recordings exist to prove it.

On paper, re-interpreting other people's songs comes across like what the Beatles and everyone else had to do before the Beatles said "sod that" and only recorded their own stuff.

The "Classical influences" come across like what the jazzers were doing - Loussier's Bach interpretations (which get mentioned in some of the links I found below...). The Beatles also had George's impeccable string arrangement on "Eleanor Rigby".

As for Avant Garde, that's the Beatles again - the backwards tape thing of "Tomorrow Never Knows" was inspired by Paul playing Stockhausen to John, and John being so gobsmacked he recorded 3 LPs of the stuff with Yoko. Not to mention "Rain", the b-side of "Paperback Writer".

The organ as lead thing sounds interesting - but didn't the Animals and, more significantly, the Doors do that too?

What about Floyd? Most docs state that they were experimental as early as 1966 - there's still the black hole about what made them start - influence from the US, presumably. Personally, I think that Dylan going electric, Haight Asbury, Revolver, Pet Sounds and LSD was the catalyst - but as with the famous Abbot and Costello clip - Who's on first? Could this link to A quick one... or is this barking up the wrong tree?

There are recordings and documents of "everyone else" - see the research I did on Fifty Foot Hose - it didn't take me long to find a recording of The Ethix legendary avante-garde/dada release, as it's on the extended CD of "Cauldron". I also found recordings of the Aquarian Age on the extended CD of "Tomorrow", along with some other Tomorrow-related archive material. I also have recordings of The Silver Apples, Twink, White Noise and just about everyone else that seems key to Progs evolution.

The music is the real message - but there is also accompanying documentation and in-depth analysis of their music, especially on Julian Cope's fantastic site. Without recordings of 1-2-3, it's all hearsay and opinion. They were there, that much is provable, but what they did - and more importantly, when they did it - is the word of a few against the lack of experience and or word of others.

BTW, this is the strongest link I've found so far - but the reference [4] is untraceable, and I don't know who runs this page; http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=1851900595

Here's another that says the same thing (suspicious!) http://www.lala.com/frontend/action/artist/King_Crimson - cites The Illustrated History of Rock Music, which I've seen to be anecdotal.

Hmm - the same author says much the same thing about Yes... http://www.lala.com/frontend/action/artist/Yes

Is it possible that 1-2-3 were inspired by Pink Floyd? http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?m=2006&w=2 (scroll down - Floyd played in '66 and it would seem were blowing minds then).

More linkage;

http://yes.wikia.com/wiki/Yes

http://www.lala.com/frontend/action/artist/Genesis - no mention here (but I wouldn't expect it!)

http://www.lala.com/frontend/action/artist/Family - none here either. Rule out fanboyism...

http://www.lala.com/frontend/action/artist/The_Nice - the author is speculative of the connection... that's interesting.

http://www.lala.com/frontend/action/artist/Clouds - is this a joke?

http://www.lala.com/frontend/action/search?Q=1-2-3 - a blank. Very interesting - some sort of conspiracy against the band that's leaving no concrete evidence, or just none existing?

One can't put forward the claim that 1-2-3 invented Prog Rock without having something that backs it up - (ie, a recording). There's a very large Prog Rock community, a large number of whom will simply say who? What did they do? - and the answers won't be very convincing. I'm trying to discover convincing arguments. What we have at the moment is paper-thin. No matter who the source is, if the material is rubbish, then that's no use - garbage in, garbage out. MarkCertif1ed 19:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Some of your comments stagger me. How you can continue to say this is anecodal baffles me. These are major publications, stating clearly what was going on. And I don't recall saying that 1-2-3 invented prog-rock, just that they had a large hand in it. King crimson, yes, the nice/elp were the main recipients of the influence. The lack of recordings does not mean the influence wasn't there. The jazz references you make are a clue, and that's exactly what the Marquee programmes say - a pop group that plays like a jazz group. Doesn't that give you a clue?

It's far from hearsay and opinion, there is plenty of corroboration, and much better corroboration than most of the citations you'll see on Wiki. I still think you're being influenced by the fame game. 1-2-3 stays, anything other than that would be bullshit history. DaveEx 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I've covered above why the references are anecdotal - there are a very few people who have said some rather vague things about how exciting and different this group was - the trouble is, that if you like a group, then it's easy to get carried away and make outlandish claims.

The publications make similar vague claims - as I've also covered above - none of what is written in them is conclusive, especially the fan mail from the young Bowie. I find it all rather unconvincing - it looks like it was all either written by the same person, or by a handful of people that all liked the band at the time.

What is surprising is the start split of opinion over them - that is the strongest suggestion that they were doing something different, but does not support claims to have influenced Prog.

However, what was happening in the US at the same time, or perhaps a little earlier, IS conclusive. In the case of Fifty Foot Hose, innovations by other bands is acknowledged - Cork even gives kudos to the Silver Apples and other groups that were using electronic instruments. They're a joy to research, as everything adds up.

They also had jazz influences - as did Pink Floyd, who played the Marquee at the same time - so the clue isn't great for 1-2-3.

The corroboration is scant - there are very few "names" - in fact, Bowie is the only real name.

Some of the claims made about them are outlandish - as if trying to counteract the detractors; Did Genesis really get their dramatic influence from 1-2-3? There's no mention of the Genesis guys attending the Marquee and witnessing them (as just one example).

Surely Fripp would acknowledge his influences - surely ONE out of the mentioned greats would acknowledge this band?

I'm not removing anything yet - but I could - and so could anyone else as anyone can edit Wikipedia.

If this band are to remain, something a bit more substantial is needed, before someone else comes along and decides it's all nonsense.

I'm becoming of the opinion that Clouds are probably worth listing among the Proto-Prog acts, as their music is available - with a little of the anecdodal stuff on 1-2-3 in there for readers to make up their own minds. That way, they get a "mention" in the proper context - after all, are they really more important or influential than Fifty Foot Hose, Great Society, The Byrds, The Who, Dylan, Delia Derbyshire, The Doors or Pink Floyd (none of whom are currently mentioned in that context)? MarkCertif1ed 07:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Of course you have the right to remove anything, just as I, or anyone else has the right to put it straight back, but it's obviously better to reach some kind of agreement. I don't accept your argument about the evidence being vague. It's no more vague than most comments made about any group, the point is these comments were made in major publications, which is the criteria most people go by. And you're wrong about just Bowie, what about Ed Bicknall, Terry Ellis, Martin Aston, Brian Hogg, etc etc etc? Hardly nonentities or fans. As it happens, I think you have a point in saying that comments should be analysed, whether or not they're in major publications or not, but the fact is, if that rule was applied, there wouldn't be any entries for rock groups in Wiki. Have a look at similar articles around you - hardly any of them could stand the tests you try to set. And I've never tried to say that 1-2-3 invented Prog, and I'm not particularly a fan either. I'd never given it a great deal of thought till I saw Matthew's article, and felt able to contribute, because I was just there at the time, saw what happened, and I know that 1-2-3 got a rough deal from history (and from Yes, The Nice/ELP, King Crimson etc), so I'm happy to support Matthew and others who want to put that right. The main stumbling block has been, I think, the lack of recordings you allude to. And there are always 'outlandish' claims for any group, but again, the fact that these claims are made by leading writers and rock personalities in mainstream publication means that they pass the Wiki test for inclusion in any case. But the main point is, adding all these things together clearly shows why 1-2-3 must be included. I don't think any of the contributors who agree would allow exclusion, though as I said before, I think the reference we already have is almost there. It's really not worth agonising about to that extent, it is, after all, a sidebare to the main event. I think the article in general has suffered from too many distractions like this. It really should begin with Crimson and end in the 70's where the dinosaurs died, with an intro leading up (including 1-2-3 etc) and an epilogue afterwards to cite the aftermath in it's proper context. If we (and you especially of course) put most of your efforts into the main segment, and keep those other two issues before and after - and as brief as possible - then the article should have a much better shape. DaveEx 10:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you have any idea how this virtual version can be tracked down? (from cloudsmusic.com) "1-2-3 No original recordings available on general release. Only a 'virtual' version of the band is in circulation. However, this does contain one track recorded live at the Marquee in 1967."

It's odd, but the only Epstein -> Clouds link I could come up with is this one; http://www.thefourmost.co.uk/fourmost_002.htm, about a completely different group. MarkCertif1ed 08:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The only link to that I know is Matthew Hartington, who, as I said, originated the Clouds page here. As to the Nems link, of course the group was called 1-2-3 then, not Clouds, that was a Chyrsalis connection. There's plenty of mention about the signing to Nems/Epstein in most journalist reference books, like Colin Larkin's for instance, and there is the news clipping from the Daily Record (with a photograph) when the signing was made. What you'd hear on that live recording is a band that had many of the elements that you'd later associate with Yes and The Nice/ELP in particular. Coming presumably from a much later generation, who are by now well used to the sounds, you'd have to try and put yourself back in 1966/67, and imagine hearing those sounds for the first time. Then you'd get the reality of 1-2-3's achievement. The others took up that approach much later. If 1-2-3 had made studio albums at that time, we wouldn't even be having this debate. DaveEx 09:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Just looking at all the dialogue on this. You still seem to be looking for forensic-quality evidence. That's difficult to come by in ANY article. If that criteria was applied, none of these Wiki articles would exist at all. Even so-called direct quotes from 'influenced' sources, might be nothing of the sort. Reading it being said doesn't pass the forensic test either. We have to take the quality of the publications into account, and that's exactly what Wiki says. Of course, there will always be statements made that exaggerate, or make wild claims, even in 'major' publications. But that has to remain the Wiki criteria, that these claims are made by widely-respected journals and journalists, and the 1-2-3 connection is firmly established in that sense. There's no doubt that they were an influence, and that Ritchie was the model that Emerson and Wakeman followed. But of course, it's much more dubious (in my opinion) to say that 1-2-3 were 'the birth of prog' (as said in Mojo for example). Personally, I think 'Prog' was an accumulation of sources, not any one thing. The main point about 1-2-3 is that they definitely gave the concept to true Prog Rock bands such as Yes, The Nice/ELP, King Crimson. Those, to me, were the main beneficiaries, though there were undoubtedly others. I tend to agree with you about Genesis for instance, I'm not so sure that they had anything to do with that. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that 1-2-3 had a hand in all this. Perhaps you need to hear that Marquee tape to be more convinced, provided, as I say, you can put yourself back in 1966/67 when you listen. I had the advantage of hearing the real thing. So what we have to do is sift the claims as best we can. I personally admire the ethics behind the forensic approach, but the kind of evidence we have to deal with relies on us taking the body of what is available, and asking ourselves what is the likely truth. Even the most sceptical honest researcher would have to admit that SOMETHING was going on when 1-2-3 appeared on the scene. DaveEx 11:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Also noticed the reference to the lead organ thing re Animals/Doors. In those groups, the organ played a more dominant role than was usual, but Ritchie not only took the lead role, he stood and used the organ as a prop, balanced on his knee as he played solos, that sort of thing. He used to throw the Hammond on it's back at the end of a solo or a number. As you might know, the Hammond has a reverb unit inside it, when it's moved or banged about, it sounds like explosions. Who does that remind you off?!! But the crucial fact was the standing and taking the lead role. He was the first to do it. Again, thinking of where our heads are in 2007, we have to try and imagine something like that happening in 1966 to place it properly in context. DaveEx 11:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed - I can imagine it vividly - I have an artist's imagination to go with the scientifically-oriented historian. Kinda right brain meets left - and you'll hear that in my music ( http://garageband.com/artist/Certif1ed).

The thing with the other bands I've currently got lined up as being crucial to Prog's development is that there are recordings. Where there are no recordings, we need other evidence - and we need to be stricter, otherwise we might be seen as giving into fanboyism. I know that's a horrible word, but it's very graphic and gets the sense across.

Where did Ritchie get his ideas? Was this completely original, or did he see someone else doing something similar (not trying to discredit, just trying to fill in all the links in the chain).

Ritchie seems to be the driving musical force here - it's certainly difficult to imagine either a drummer or a bassist taking that role, and they hardly get a look-in!

Your stories of his handling of the Hammond are really interesting - I must say that the whole missing link thing is convincing - but it's still not possible to prove anything.

Let's summarise: Clouds moved to London in Feb of 1967. During the summer of 1967 there was a kind of musical revolution. In 1965, the seeds of the revolution can clearly be seen as having been sown by the electrification of the folkies, and a more elaborate approach to songwriting by the likes of the Who. The Beatles in the same year released an album which was 100% their own songwriting (unusual for the time) and featured exotic instrumentation, such as the sitar (the Byrds introduced the fab 4 to Ravi Shankar, and there was a significant meeting with the two bands and Dylan). Dylan's backing band was used for Simon and Garfunkel's "Sounds of Silence", and a sophistication was brought to electrified folk/pop. None of this is Prog, but it's where it started.

In 1966, experimentation was practically the watchword among trendier circles - I'd guess that the term progressive music was used even then, but would need to find evidence. I have lots of data about progressive blues, but much less about the progessive music scene - it's extremely hazy. Fifty Foot Hose came about because of one member who hung out at the tape studio and had witnessed the amazing live performance of "Poem Electronique" - essentially a rock musician who was inspired by the art community and avante-garde music composers. The band produced music that was too rock for art and too arty for rock (by numerous reports, and recorded evidence). There's also Frank Zappa, whose first album was released the same year - Frank was also inspired by Varese, but came from the other direction - a trained and talented composer that decided to play rock. The Pink Floyd stopped playing straightforward blues, and began experimenting with their sound, composing quirky songs and electronics infused jazz-influenced spacey jams. The Beatles released the revolutionary "Rain" as the B-side to "Paperback Writer", after McCartney played Lennon the piece "Kontakte" by Stockhausen. Love release their first quirky folk album, inspired by the Byrds. Also in the realms of folk, there was the ISB and Great Society (Grace Slick->Jefferson Airplane)

1-2-3 practically took up residency at the Marquee and Dumfernline for 1967 - and Clouds continued in this tradition, also playing events such as the Windsor festival, and appearing on compilations such as "You Can All Join In", which features progressive artists of the day, and "Bumpers", another Island collection that features both progressive and bona fide Prog Rock artists. These compilations were very fashionable, e.g. Harvest's "A Breath of Fresh Air", "Nice Enough To Eat", "Rock Machine", and many label samplers from Elekra, Charisma, Vertigo and other "progressive" labels.

During 1-2-3's residency, other important bands arose (as far as the development of Prog Rock is concerned); The Nice (1967) being probably the most obvious. The "progressiveness" was mainly in the realms of psychedelia - but with a notable attraction towards the artistic, as modern jazz and classical influences appeared. The origins of this in the Marquee scene is difficult to pinpoint, as data is sketchy at the moment, but it's possible that the Beatles were influential on this too, with the orchestrated "Eleanor Rigby", and the huge variety of material on "Revolver".

We're getting there, if loosely in historical terms - but from the data we have, it's difficult to verify (without getting particularly "forensic") just how important this band were - and even harder to verify their specific contributions. But it's also hard to see where the other bands got their ideas from - it's clear that there was a "movement" of sorts, but these ideas all come from somewhere.

It ties in - but the music is missing, especially as the consensus is that the posthumous albums do not represent what the band were like live (as is the case with Fifty Foot Hose).

I've got the CDs on order... :o) MarkCertif1ed 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I like the shape of the way you're heading, but definitely need to give more direct credence to 1-2-3. It might not be forensic, but there's plenty of Wiki standard evidence to show that there was a direct influence, at least on Yes, The Nice/ELP, Crimson. Agree that the other band influences are more murky. Will try and see what I can do about getting you that 1-2-3 track live at the Marquee. And maybe even the whole 'virtual' CD. Where would I send it? Or perhaps an email address I could download the tracks to? Will ask Matthew via this site and see what happens. Will also approach other more connected sources. DaveEx 11:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I can be messaged via ProgArchives Messenger; http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=256 - although you'd probably have to sign up. I've started a discussion there, but so far, despite the numerous views it's had, replies have been scant and skeptical (as I thought they would be).

Alternatively, my email is Certif1ed@yahoo.co.uk - it's no secret!

Ideally, I'd like to hear from the remaining guys. I've sent out feelers via a couple of contacts I have (Jethro Tull, Colosseum and Byrds band members - for creedence only, no name dropping!). I don't know any of the ELP members personally, but I know someone who does. It'll take time - but I've been working on this thing since January, so that's not a problem. I'm in no hurry to get it as close to "right" as it can be. MarkCertif1ed 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Recordings have arrived in my inbox, and are impressive almost beyond belief both in terms of musicianship and overall musical style - remember what I said about music painting many pictures, and pictures speaking a thousand words.

They certainly sound like the genuine article (in terms of age, sound quality, recording, playing style, influences, and that almost intangible musicianship that can only belong to a fixed period in time) - and the music really is everything it's claimed to be. It's almost too good - the sound quality is better than I thought it would be; Why have these recordings been hidden for so many years? Why not release them, since there is a huge market for Prog - and was in the 1980s and again in the mid 1990s with the two big revivals (not counting the current passion - the large membership of ProgArchives is just a small testament to this).

If these recordings can be proven to have come from a time before Emerson began doing this sort of thing, then the ultimate accolade of first known UK Prog Prototype would have to be shared with Pink Floyd.

If they come from later (ie, late 1967-68), then this music is still Proto-Prog.

The trouble I'm having now is that it seems too good to be true... I know, there's just no pleasing some people :o)

Boy, that was quick! I got them too, so I know what you're talking about. And the thing is, all the recordings do is back up the documented stuff. And remember that most of the tracks aren't the band, it's Billy by himself much later after the event. The live Marquee one has to be early 1967, and that IS the band. You can clearly hear the Nice and Yes in there, and Crimson (particularly in that section in 'I Keep Forgetting'. For me, it was great to hear again, especially 'America', it brought the atmosphere back. And don't forget, the band was doing this stuff the year before, 1966. There's absolutely no doubt that it pre-dates the others. Yes weren't even formed at this point, for instance. Found your stuff interesting too, by the way. DaveEx 20:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hold on - "America" was on the album "Bookends" - released on April 3rd 1968, and was released as a single in 1972 after Yes covered it in 1971.

Something doesn't add up... MarkCertif1ed 07:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Now that you mention it, I know it's true, 'Bookends' didn't appear till much later. Yet I KNOW I heard 'America' at the Marquee! Can't explain this discrepancy right now. Will check on this with Matthew et al, and get back to you. DaveEx 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, Matthew has explained it to me, and it seems reasonable; S&G began recording the songs for Bookends well in advance of releasing the album, and it wasn't uncommon for bands to perform or even record other people's songs back then - the fact that Yes released it as a single before S&G themselves adds some creedence to this explanation.

More evidence would be good, though - not because I'm suspicious, but because I'm not the only one who'd ask this sort of question. The same goes for most of the questions I've raised and have yet to raise - the more that can be made to add up, the more credibility the band gains - especially if they're planning on any kind of future publicity. Let's get all the awkward questions answered now ;o) MarkCertif1ed 17:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Definitely agree about truth, even if I don't share your need for absolute. well I really do, but just don't see it as practical or possible. And doesn't apply to anyone else here. Quotes in books and articles can be put there, because the person supposed to be saying it seems to be saying it in print - even respectable print - doesn't mean he did say it. Not good evidence for a murder. But maybe it's ok for Rock. As for what Matthew has to say, I don't know yet, he hasn't got back to me. But from what you're saying, it's something to do with getting the music from another source? The group did dig up some obscure stuff, like Bowie's song for instance. But they were right on the money about choosing future superstars.I await Matthew's verdict with curiosity. DaveEx 13:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

With other bands, we have publish dates on the recordings - can't argue with those.

I agree with what you're saying about other books and articles - rock journalism generally is shoddy and a mess of opinions. Facts generally are few and far between - usually the only things that are correct are the band names and song titles nothing else ever adds up. I am not a rock journalist, I'm a musicologist, and am used to researching to the nth degree, whether it's 13th century organum, 16th century lute music, alleged lost Mozart manuscripts or whatever.

My investigations take me down a real tangle of routes, not just the one - hence I have to put tags on everything. One important strand is where did Billy get his inspiration from - to fit the band into the chronology more accurately. He had several going on at once;

1. Incorporating ideas from the classics - well, I'm following that thread, and have found it "starts" at the same time rock an roll starts - 1955. Which groups of those playing this kind of style did Billy listen to? My money is currently on either Nero and the Gladiators or B Bumble and the Stingers - although there are plenty of other choices. Even Elvis based some of his tunes on Classics (It's Now or Never, Wooden Heart, Can't Help Falling in Love - all early 1960s).

2. Mixing up Rock and Modern Jazz - haven't started this one yet.

3. Arranging other people's material - the basis of much (modern) Jazz.

4. Stuff I haven't considered yet... time is short :o)

And these threads are part of a single strand.

MarkCertif1ed 18:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Just heard the America track, great memories of the Marquee, and easy to see where The Nice came from. Where they got the song from was par for the course for this group. Also Billy's virtual tracks - if that isn't genius, I don't know what is. DaveEx 09:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

PS . Your earlier comment about B Bumble and the Stingers. 1-2-3 were doing a version of Nut Rocker in 1967 at the Marquee (which is why The Nice& ELP did it too of course). So your comments are maybe on the right track. DaveEx 11:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I saw you reverted back to the boy/girl stuff in the article's into [1]. Not that I disagree with what you say, but I find it does not look serious and also implies that the other genres were mostly about this, what would be quite challengeable. I prefer the other version as prog rock sometimes address love affairs too, whereas perhaps not in its early days. -- Childhood's End 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

That's exactly why I removed it - it would be fine to talk about the change towards relationship matters in Neo-Prog, but the number of such songs produced during the main phase of Prog Rock can probably be summarised as "More Fool Me".

Of course, I'm generalising for effect, but as an identifying characteristic, the lyrics represented the final breakaway that the Beatles started in popular music, and provide a stark contrast to lyrics in other genres of music at the time. Only Hard Rock/Heavy Metal concerned itself with such fantastical themes, as far as I'm aware.

Maybe this should be clarified better - because the lyrics of Prog are surely one of their most defining characteristics?

Maybe we should try to keep characteristics completely out of the introduction?

So much work, so little time :o) MarkCertif1ed 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed ! I put something forward which I think captures the essence. [2] Cheers. -- Childhood's End 17:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, I'll go with that, as it's more important to emphasise the fantasy/philosophy side of things, but I still don't see how it's challengeable - I can't think of many examples of boy/girl relationship topics in the original Prog bands material - and I don't count "Nights in White Satin" as Prog Rock...

However, almost every pop song until the release of "Revolver" (1966) was concerned with such matters - I can't see how that's challengeable, as it's a fact. It was the most popular theme, and to me, it's one difference that begins to define prog rock, and another reason the Beatles were so important in its development.

Pop songs prior to 1966 that deviate from this norm are generally curios or one-offs - unless you can think of some good examples?

I'm not going to change this again, as I'm not convinced a discussion of the lyrical content belongs in the introduction any more - but I'm more concerned with the rest of the article and getting it into a readable, non-baised and laundry-list-free state - and hopefully go up a grade in the process!

MarkCertif1ed 10:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Any oddities in this section? It seems to be the least challenged and most consistent - but is it right? MarkCertif1ed 10:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't say that "rock opera" was a characteristic of Prog Rock - it's more a type of concept album. Is there a problem with this? MarkCertif1ed 10:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I think that the discussion of the lyrics belongs here MarkCertif1ed 10:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Improved the overall readability of this section by logical re-ordering and bullet-points. I'm now thinking that "Stage Theatrics" is one of these "Other Characteristics". The whole paragraph could be chopped down and made into a bullet point. I think that references should be limited to Gabriel's costumes, Emerson's daggers and keyboard antics, and Wakeman's cape - although I'm tempted to mention Knights on horseback on ice in the Albert Hall. All of these are famous and easily verifiable tales that illustrate both the excitement and the excesses of Progressive Rock. MarkCertif1ed 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Current Text (with >>comments)

---

Other characteristics Poetic, conceptually-themed or fantasy-based lyrics.

>>Maybe some f'examples in here to flesh it out - it's a bit of a bald statement otherwise.

The advancement of technology was always a prime element in progressive rock, especially in electronics.

>>Not fantastic - and not really a "prime" element - consider Jethro Tull and Gentle Giant.

In keyboards, the Mellotron was generally a signature sound in many progressive acts like The Moody Blues, King Crimson or Genesis.

>>Badly worded, but important point.

In the late 1970s, King Crimson's Robert Fripp along with Brian Eno developed his own patented version of electronic gadgetry called Frippertronics using analog tape loops which he still uses today in a digital format.

>>Too much on one item, and wrong section to boot.

>>Missing the electronics and spacey effects of Pink Floyd and Hawkwind, the (B3) Hammond Organ, Moog, etc. Also consider Tangerine Dream, White Noise, Beatles (used all/most), Kraftwerk - probably others.

>>Maybe Keyboards rather than technological developments.

>>While we're at it, what about other unusual instrumentation? Examples = Ian Anderson, Peter Gabriel, Nik Turner, Andy Latimer (etc.) flutes, the many instruments of Gentle Giant, Sax in King Crimson, and so on.

>>There was also the tendency of some Prog Rock bands to play quotations or excerpts from Classical pieces - or even interpretations of entire works; notably Exseption (almost no stone unturned!), Magma (especially Carl Orff), Renaissance (Bach and Beethoven), ELP (Mussorgsky! - et al.).

Concept albums, or albums with an overarching theme: These concepts became very lengthy and elaborate in the mid 1970s peak of Progressive Rock, resulting in packages that extended to 2 or even 3 vinyl discs' worth of music (approx 45 minutes per disc). Concepts of Progressive Rock albums would range from historical through fantastical to metaphysical, and even, in the case of Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick, poking fun at concept albums.

The music is often used theatrically to provide devices or ambient soundscapes that aurally describe scenes, events or other aspects of the concept; For example, the use of leitmotif to represent the various characters in Genesis' "Harold the Barrel", and the use of clocks and cash registers to represent time and money in Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon.

The packaging of the album as a part of the overall artistic concept: This trend began with The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and played a major part in the marketing of progressive rock. Some bands became as well-known for the art direction of their albums as for their sound, with the "look" integrated into the band's overall musical identity. This led to fame for particular artists and design studios, most notably Roger Dean for his work with Yes and Storm Thorgerson and his studio Hipgnosis for their work with Pink Floyd.

>>Move closer to packaging for better continuity. MarkCertif1ed 13:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC) reply

This section is messy and needs working into bite-size paragraphs that people are actually going to read and enjoy, with less tales of favourite bands and their exploits and more potted factual discussions for examples.

The difference is subtle, but is the difference between having this page look like it was written by a fanboy, and making it look like an encyclopaedia article. MarkCertif1ed 10:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

This is generally good, but maybe needs a bit of tidying. The final paragraph, particularly, is too long, messy, and includes vague examples of favourite pieces. MarkCertif1ed 10:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, cut the offending paragraph from the article, and will do a re-hash on this page over this weekend.

Here's the original text;

" The Who first tackled the rock opera form with " A Quick One While He's Away" from their 1966 album A Quick One. The Yardbirds' Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page composed " Beck's Bolero" in 1966 which reworks Maurice Ravel's Boléro. Pink Floyd's earliest albums showed progressive elements. The band 1-2-3 (later named Clouds) experimented with song structures, improvisation and multi-layered arrangements. Psychedelic rockers continued this experimental trend and began to compose long, complex songs such as Iron Butterfly's " In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" or "1983...(A Merman Should I Turn to Be)" by Jimi Hendrix. Frank Zappa's early work is also considered progressive. Many other bands began to experiment with blends of rock and jazz, a style that became known as jazz-rock. In the UK, Soft Machine was a prominent early jazz-rock band."

As will be seen, there's absolutely no flow - it's an unreadable list in a style that is a complete mismatch to the earlier part of the article. Much of it is dubious too - and much could be filed under "so what?". Zappa is mentioned in the early paragraphs - the list goes on. MarkCertif1ed 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Current Text with >>comments

---

Precursors In the late 1800s, the French composer Claude Debussy began using whole tone scales and modes now commonly associated with jazz, to break away from conventional diatonic harmony. In the 1910s, the Russian composer Igor Stravinsky used innovative rhythms, lush, unique timbres, dissonances, and Russian folk (pagan) motifs in his ballet Rite of Spring. In the early 1920s, German composer Arnold Schoenberg developed a new method of composition known as Serialism, which led to the evolution of avante-garde music.

In the 1930s, French composer Olivier Messiaen used the newly invented electronic instrument, the Ondes Martenot in compositions. In the 1940s, the composers Pierre Schaeffer and Pierre Henry began using the early tape recorder in the creation of compositions that would become known as musique concrete. Soon after, Karlheinz Stockhausen and others began to compose music entirely by electronic instruments. In the early to mid 1950s, "Cool Jazz" or "Modal Jazz" came about through the work of jazz maestros such as Miles Davis and later, John Coltrane. By the 1960s, Avant-Garde or Free Jazz was firmly established as due to recordings by Ornette Coleman and Charles Mingus.

The experimental period of rock music began in the mid 1960s with the studio work of The Beatles, who by then had given up touring. The influences of Stockhausen are apparent in the 1966 recordings "Rain", "She Said, She Said", and the tape experiment from the Revolver album, "Tomorrow Never Knows". The Beatles used these techniques extensively on Magical Mystery Tour and Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Sergeant Pepper is widely acknowledged as the first album to use the recording studio, and the artistic possibilities it affords, as an "instrument". In the late 1960s, Beatles songs and albums began incorporating many psychedelic rock elements and they also began combining instruments from classical music, Eastern music and improvisatory music.

Maybe bullet-point for clarity? Most of it is chronological, so a kind of time line might work.

The last paragraph is almost entirely about the Beatles - who should be in a new Proto-Prog section, so that can be removed.

It wasn't just the Beatles that Stockhausen influenced - two of Can were students of Stockhausen (while Stockhausen, when asked if he would appear on the cover of Sgt Pepper... asked who the Beatles were...). Stockhausen probably influenced bands like Kraftwerk (Organisation) and Faust too - not to mention other Krautrock bands of the late 1960s / early 1970s. How far did Stockhausen influence Silver Apples (actually, I think they were influenced by Morton Subotnik), Fifty Foot Hose, White Noise (Delia Derbyshire - and projects prior to White Noise).

Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana" pervades much early Magma - perhaps he's an influence - and what about Gershwin, whose incorporation of Jazz in "Rhapsody in Blue" is pretty much the first piece of its kind, as far as I'm aware.

Early players of Mellotron and Hammond (apart from the Beatles!).

http://egrefin.free.fr/eng/mellotron/melhist.php: Graham Bond's Organisation, Moody Blues, Mannfred Mann, Floyd - also Kinks and Stones (check which songs). M400 wasn the model used by most early Prog groups, not the MkII, as used by the aforementioned bands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellotron - mentions some songs

http://www.mikepinder.com/mellotron.shtml - a nice link to Mike Pinder's site!

http://www.theatreorgans.com/grounds/docs/history.html - not sure how useful this is

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul03/articles/hammondb3.asp - Sound on Sound is always good reading, but again, journalistic, and drools all over the instrument.

http://www.hammond-organ.com/History/hammond_lore.htm - interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammond_organ - of course

http://www.progarchives.com/history-of-vintage-keyboards-used-in-progressive-rock.asp

http://www.jerryfielden.com/essays/electromusic.htm - interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_rock - historical links

Then there's the Moog... http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/272/41/

Then there are the people that were using the technology to make music already - in addition to the well-known and credited ones; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Riley

Now this is where the real work starts to be needed, as opposed to general tidy-up. There's the missing link between the "Precursors" and the Early Bands to consider (Moodies, The Nice, etc. - you could even "mention" the Who, if their contribution pre-1969 is felt to be important and influential).

The overall discussion is messy and doesn't make for good reading MarkCertif1ed 10:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Not sure if "early bands" is a good title - The First Wave, perhaps, or The Birth of Prog? Not sure about either. Glory Days? The Golden Age of Prog?

New Running order possibility;

Precursors (not bad - sums it up) (up to 1965ish)

LIST (just a list, nothing else)

(In addiion to those on the current page): Miles Davies, Stan Getz, Lennie Tristano, Dave Brubeck, Jaques Loussier (Django?), Swingle Singers, Gerschwin, Del Shannon, Shadows, Kinks, Animals

Proto-Prog (1965ish - 1969)

Pink Floyd, Soft Machine, Gong, Beatles, Moody Blues, Procul Harum, Tomorrow (Aquarian Age, Twink, Pink Fairies), The Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, United States of America, Silver Apples, Touch, Arthur Brown, Love, Edgar Broughton, East of Eden, Johnny Almond, Graham Bond, Yardbirds, Traffic (Spenced Davies Group), Spooky Tooth, Vanilla Fudge, The Doors, The Who, Kaleidoscope, The Zombies, The Gods, Deep Purple, Bluesbreakers, Organisation

The First Wave (1969 - 1972)

CORE: King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, ELP

Tier 1: Pink Floyd, Gentle Giant, Jethro Tull, Van der Graf Generator, Hawkwind

Tier 2: Kraftwerk, Can, Caravan, Soft Machine, Zappa, Moody Blues, Barclay James Harvest, Hatfield and the North, Arzakan, Egg, PFM, Magma, Gong, National Health, Supersister, Focus, Jan Akkerman (solo), Khan, Ekseption

Tier 3 (related, but not full-blown Prog): Uriah Heep, Deep Purple, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Colosseum II, Strawbs

Tier 4 (Obviously not Prog, but not "Standard" Rock: Bakerloo, May Blitz, High Tide, Quatermass, Fuzzy Duck, Pussy, Electric Light Orchestra (Tier 3?), Wishbone Ash

The Second Wave (1973-1975)

Camel, Supertramp, Triumvirat, Rush (dubious - first 2 Rush albums sound like Led Zeppelin)

The lost years (1976 - 1981) ...obviously, not completely lost - fab albums from Crimson, The Enid, Steve Hackett and Hillage, Gong, Genesis, Rush, etc. However, many prog stalwarts see these years as somehow "lost" because of Punk/New Wave.

Neo Prog (1982 - 1988?????)

Prog in the Nineties

Prog in the new Millenium

Somewhere in here Prog Metal may fit in, as it's all but replaced "proper" prog. However, I'm of the opinion that these are two separate genres, and that "Classic Prog" merely plays an influential role on Prog Metal - the latter did not actually evolve from the former, but instead took on some of its characteristics.

MarkCertif1ed 13:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Is this a good title? Is this a good discussion? Again, this is long, rambling and messy (a bit like a Wakeman solo). Needs a lot of work MarkCertif1ed 10:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I opened a thread regarding this section at the article's talk page. Perhaps you could throw in your input. -- Childhood's End 11:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Absolutely - that's the best place for the discussion - I'm just setting up a load of scratchboards here so I can doodle a few of my own ideas (and obviously, include other's thoughts), and keep these thoughts together, without making the articles discussion page go into unecessary depth. MarkCertif1ed 11:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Excellent - mind if I hang around just a little bit from time to time? :) -- Childhood's End 12:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Mind? I'd actively encourage you to do so!

It's an open talk page - the more the merrier (and the less off-topic stuff on the article page!), but I might be a bit more open with my opinions here... it's MY page, after all :o) MarkCertif1ed 13:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

As above MarkCertif1ed 10:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The 1980s revival is widely known as Neo-Progressive Rock and the unquestionable spearleaders of this "movement" were Marillion. Although the "revival" took place in the early 1980s - the point in time can be narrowed down to the release of "Script for a Jester's Tear" - it was already in full flow.

The original Silmarillion and Chemical Alice (Mark Kelly) were gigging around Aylesbury around 1979, and Twelfth Night released their first vinyl album "Live at the Target" the same year. Twelfth Night had been gigging for some time and had released many demo tapes including their first cassette album prior to this.

IQ are important to this movement, as are, probably, Pallas and Pendragon. Off the top of my head. Other Neo Prog bands here:

It's worth noting that the New Wave of British Heavy Metal - or, more accurately, the second wave, which included Def Leppard, etc - not the first wave that included Iron Maiden, were influenced by the re-awakening of the Prog monster.

Examples; Def Leppard, Saxon ("Frozen Rainbow"), Black Sabbath (Heaven and Hell), Blue Oyster Cult (Cultosaurus... and Fire...), and most importantly, Diamond Head - 50% of "Canterbury" is pop nonsense because of the hassles the group had with record companies, but the rest is gold. "Am I Evil" shows a clear progression from the Led Zeppelin style, and, along with the Rodney Matthews cover, features fantastical lyrics and progressive approaches to song structures that are on a par with much Neo-Prog (although not, of course, with the Prog originators). Magnum are probably important too - but I don't know their work well enough.

Later in the 1980s, we have Metallica, whose "Master..." and "...And Justice..." are such clear influences on Dream Theater, who not only covered "Master..." and used Metallica riffs verbatim in their songs (e.g. Sanitarium, One), but clearly based many of their song structures on Metallica songs as early as "Ride the Lightning" - ostensibly a standard rock song with a bridge in multiple contrasting parts.

Not wishing to get into the background of Prog Metal here, as that's another article - but the fact that all this was happening at the same time is possibly worthy of consideration - and may delight Prog metal fans in providing useful links between the genre and the one under discussion (there are others, of course, but I'm getting way off topic...).

Also worth considering the work of King Crimson and The Enid in this period - hugely inventive and true to the original spirit. Maybe Shub Niggurath - if anyone has actually heard them? Zappa/Vai?

MarkCertif1ed 16:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Don't want to go too far down the metal route, but the Wishbone Ash (twin guitar) -> Judas Priest (virtually invented both thrash and Prog Metal) -> Iron Maiden -> Queensryche tree is a bit too much to ignore. Maybe in the Prog Metal article (which I haven't even looked at yet...). Spooky Tooth and Scorps too, then there's the Tristano/Evans -> Satriani link and the Zappa -> Vai link... MarkCertif1ed 17:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

As above MarkCertif1ed 10:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The discussion is OK, but again, needs to be broken up and freed of laundry lists MarkCertif1ed 10:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

New Running order possibility;

Precursors (not bad - sums it up) (up to 1965ish)

LIST (just a list, nothing else)

(In addiion to those on the current page): Miles Davies, Stan Getz, Lennie Tristano, Dave Brubeck, Jaques Loussier (Django?), Swingle Singers, Gerschwin, Del Shannon, Shadows, Kinks, Animals

Proto-Prog (1965ish - 1969)

Pink Floyd, Soft Machine, Gong, Beatles, Moody Blues, Procul Harum, Tomorrow (Aquarian Age, Twink, Pink Fairies), The Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, United States of America, Silver Apples, Touch, Arthur Brown, Love, Edgar Broughton, East of Eden, Johnny Almond, Graham Bond, Yardbirds, Traffic (Spenced Davies Group), Spooky Tooth, Vanilla Fudge, The Doors, The Who, Kaleidoscope, The Zombies, The Gods, Deep Purple, Bluesbreakers, Organisation

The First Wave (1969 - 1972)

CORE: King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, ELP

Tier 1: Pink Floyd, Gentle Giant, Jethro Tull, Van der Graf Generator, Hawkwind

Tier 2: Kraftwerk, Can, Caravan, Soft Machine, Zappa, Moody Blues, Barclay James Harvest, Hatfield and the North, Arzakan, Egg, PFM, Magma, Gong, National Health, Supersister, Focus, Jan Akkerman (solo), Khan, Ekseption, Rick Wakeman

Tier 3 (related, but not full-blown Prog): Uriah Heep, Deep Purple, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Colosseum II, Strawbs

Tier 4 (Obviously not Prog, but not "Standard" Rock: Bakerloo, May Blitz, High Tide, Quatermass, Fuzzy Duck, Pussy, Electric Light Orchestra (Tier 3?), Wishbone Ash

The Second Wave (1973-1975)

Camel, Supertramp, Triumvirat, Rush (dubious - first 2 Rush albums sound like Led Zeppelin)

The lost years (1976 - 1981) ...obviously, not completely lost - fab albums from Crimson, The Enid, Steve Hackett and Hillage, Gong, Genesis, Rush, etc. However, many prog stalwarts see these years as somehow "lost" because of Punk/New Wave.

King Crimson, The Enid, Steve Hackett, Steve Hillage, Gong, Genesis, Rush, Yes (?)

Neo Prog (1982 - 1988?????)

Marillion, Twelfth Night, IQ, Pallas, Pendragon, The Enid, Genesis

Prog in the Nineties

Marillion, IQ, Pallas, Pendragon, Rush, Porcupine Tree, Spock's Beard, Radiohead

Prog in the new Millenium

Porcupine Tree, Spock's Beard, Radiohead, Muse, Pure Reason Revolution.

Somewhere in here Prog Metal may fit in, as it's all but replaced "proper" prog. However, I'm of the opinion that these are two separate genres, and that "Classic Prog" merely plays an influential role on Prog Metal - the latter did not actually evolve from the former, but instead took on some of its characteristics.

Currently, only ProgArchives.com seems to recognise Proto-Prog as a valid category.

It makes complete sense, to a historian, as there are many bands who were working on ideas that would later become amalgamated into Progressive Rock.

At the forefront of these is surely Pink Floyd, whose first two albums both contain pieces that are still deeply influential to this day in many bands considered to be Progressive (or related), and, of course, a huge number of so-called Krautrock bands that used those pieces as springboards for their own work.

The specific pieces are Astronomy Domine, Interstellar Overdrive, Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun and Saucerful of Secrets.

Saucerful of Secrets is particularly interesting because of the architectural construction of the piece (3 of Floyd were architecture students - find source). There are 4 sections, each with a distinct character, yet the piece is clearly one composition - the transitions between the sections are seamless. Within the tight structure, there is a high degree of improvisation and experimentation - not to mention random noise. This is best highlighted in the "Live At Pompeii" film.

Pink Floyd are important not just because of these pieces and their influence, but also because of the light show and sound canvas that they developed to make up for the band's preference to stay somewhat anonymous on stage. This produced a kind of gesamtkunstwerk, where the visuals and music were inextricably interlinked - a theme that the Floyd would continue developing until at least The Wall, in which the entire show was more like a work of theater than a pop music concert.

The light show included the revolutionary use of heated oils projected onto screens.

The sound canvas included a special device that I forget the name of that they had to develop to control the multi-channel sound. Speakers fed sound from different channels around the venue - there was a plan, can't remember if it was realised, to put a speaker under the dancefloor to complete the surround sound vision.

The artwork on Pink Floyd's album sleeves was revolutionary, as were the lyrics, which dealt with fantastical/sci-fi/fairytale topics, as well as more mundane things related with a psychedelic slant (similar to Kaleidoscope).

Next in importance are the Moody Blues, who many argue invented Progressive Rock. "Days of Future Passed" is generally over-rated, being a collection of simple pop songs interlinked with orchestral interludes. The idea was to create an uninterrupted flow to the album so that it came across more as a kind of symphonic-styled suite - but the reality is somewhat different. Nevertheless, it's a benchmark in the evolution of Progressive Rock.

Their later albums showed marked progression in this field, and for the entireity of the "Golden age", they remain a second tier Prog band, mainly because the individual compositions on the albums remain standard pop/rock songs, and are non-complex - even though the albums are clear conceptual wholes and contain use of instruments recognised as coming under the Prog Rock umbrella. It's a difficult distinction, particularly when you also consider the work of Pink Floyd and Hawkwind - so maybe it's not the right one?

As with the Pink Floyd, the Moodies' artwork is representative of Prog, their use of the Mellotron as a signature sound and use of other electronic effects and orchestral instruments integral to their sound. Also worth considering earlier use of the Mellotron - I did find out who was reportedly first to use it, but can't remember where I recorded that. Beatles used it on "Pepper", of course, as did Traffic and many other bands after the release of Pepper.

Next up, The Nice. Need to explore more, but seem to remember that Emerson was inspired by the Bach/Jazz incorporations I alluded to by mentioning Loussier and the Swingle Singers.

Then Procul Harum. I'm not familiar with much of their early work, but the first album doesn't seem very "Classically inspired", as many fans would have you believe. OK, there's the pop song "Whiter Shade of Pale" and it's obvious Bach connection - but that's a bit of a gimmick to my ears.

Next Tommorow. Steve Howe, of course, went on to Yes, their use of the Mellotron and backwards tape in "Hole in My Shoe" is a bit of an oddity, rather than part of their style. "Twink" went on to form The Aquarian Age, whose one EP is a mini Prog masterpiece IMHO. He then formed "Twink", which released a Hawkwind style LP a few years before Hawkwind did.

As for other Proto-Prog bands, we've got quite a list;

1-2-3/Clouds have a lot of anecdotal evidence - and a big black hole in terms of period documentation and recordings (not unusual for the 1960s...). Need to establish a list of bands prior to 1967 that were doing interesting things - from the prominent (like Floyd and the Nice) to the lesser known but possibly first and most influential overall (like Fifty Foot Hose/the Ethix and 1-2-3. Recordings exist of Clouds, but it's not clear a) what, specifically, they were doing as 1-2-3, or b) whether other bands really did get their inspiration from them or it was simply co-incidence and "everyone" was being experimental. It was an experimental time, and the Beatles led from the front, while Pink Floyd and the Softies dominated the underground - hence these 3 are well researched and documented.

Where did 1-2-3 get their ideas from? Ritchie especially! Perhaps it was from the jazzers, like Loussier, who combined Bach (etc) with jazz?

Links;

Fifty Foot Hose/the Ethix:

http://www.headheritage.co.uk/unsung/thebookofseth/96 http://www.mindspring.com/~acheslow/AuntMary/bang/hose_intro.html http://www.mindspring.com/~acheslow/AuntMary/bang/hose.html http://www.terrascope.co.uk/MyBackPages/Fifty%20Foot%20Hose%20interview.htm http://www.o-art.org/history/50s&_60s/Trips/50/50foot.html http://www.answers.com/topic/fifty-foot-hose-1?cat=entertainment http://www.anthologyrecordings.com/release.asp?album=SzKUM4yENNv - fantastic link, connects this band to Varese, who was also deeply influential on Frank Zappa. "Poem Electronique" is mentioned - and how could anyone not be mesmerised by such a work? Also mentioned is Morton Subotnik, the primary influence on Silver Apples, and Delia Derbyshire/White Noise.

OK, biased reviews of the music, but all describe what to listen for, specify precise influences on the band, and the recording is easily available through Amazon to verify that this 1967 recording is something quite unique.

Found this on Julian Cope's site; http://www.headheritage.co.uk/unsung/review/1793 - hurrah! Messaien was not just a Classical composer - he was the original progressive musician.

...more lesser known but highly important bands to follow....

Something like;

Before the release of ITCOTCK, there was a "movement", predominantly in the United States and in the Underground circuits of UK music of progressive music, most of which was happening in the sphere of Rock music. There is fragmentary evidence (one piece so far!) that this was known at the time as progressive rock. It was not, however, the same as the music that became christened Progressive Rock (or Prog) in the mid 1970s - indeed, the term "Prog" came along later still, according to sources (need to source all of this!).

To confuse matters, the term "progressive rock" has also been widely used to describe bands who played rock music that did something a bit different to the run-of-the-mill, or added experimental elements to standard rock songs, e.g Led Zeppelin.

But the experimental rock music that predated Prog Rock was largely in the realms of psychedelic rock, where new sounds were craved to create ever newer and wilder textures in the music, notable use was made of the sitar, the Mellotron, the flute and the Hammond organ.

Psychedelic rock often incorporated free-jazz stylings - or at least, made this claim to lend authenticity to garage style jam sessions - but some managed to rise above the random jams and produce coherent music with relatively free and loose forms. The bands that came to influence Progressive Rock went one stage further, and tightened up the structures of their pieces while leaving plenty of room for experimentation, or went the other way and used classical styles as a springboard for improvisation.

...kinda reasonable, but needs work and links. MarkCertif1ed 17:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

There is often confusion between the two terms - the noun describing the genre of Prog Rock (Genesis et al) and progressive rock music, which is an accurate term to define a rock band that accomplishes something that "progresses" the genre of rock music - or takes it to a new level, e.g. bands such as Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Scorpions, UFO, Uriah Heep, etc.

This is the whole reason, in my opinion, that bands such as Yes, Genesis, ELP et al are widely referred to as Prog or Prog Rock rather than using the full title of the genre. It makes the distinction between the two - you'd never hear The Who referred to as Prog Rock, for example, but many believe that they were a progressive rock band, and for rational reasons.

The real distinction is in the music, of course - while Prog Rock is almost fully composed, progressive rock incorporates a much higher level of improvisation, and songs of this type are usually standard rock songs (verse, chorus, etc.) with extended bridges - notable examples being "Whole Lotta Love" by Led Zeppelin and "Warrior" by Wishbone Ash.

Examples of Prog Rock where this simply is not the case are extensive, but "The Musical Box" by Genesis and "On Reflection" by Gentle Giant are excellent examples.

"Hocus Pocus" by Focus is a very interesting middle ground, as the structure is essentially verse/chorus - but the treatment given to the material is notably different, and the quality of the improvisations shows careful attention to structuring and an overall dramatic picture. It is, however, riff-based - the riff was used by Metallica for the song "Blitzkrieg" (B-side of "Creeping Death"), and hence this, along with a lot of other Focus material, forms part of the Progressive Metal family tree. Focus are a particularly interesting case, with their "Hamburger Concerto", and other pieces, many of which feature repeating riffs - as with "Classic" rock and extended bridges with improvisation. The main difference with Focus' improvisations lie in the advanced techniques of the musicians - particularly guitarist/lutenist Jan Akkerman. Steve Hillage's solo albums (and "Arzakan and Khan") (apart from Fish Rising) all fall into similar middle ground - hence their 2nd tiering. But I get off-topic...

There is a widespread similar confusion between Art Rock - the genre that encompasses David Bowie, Roxy Music et al, and art rock music, which is an all-encompassing term that accurately describes any rock music with artistic ideals (including Art Rock and Progressive Rock as genres) - as opposed to rock music that has the clear goal of "simply" writing rock music for the fun of it, to get the girls, etc. Such bands might include Status Quo - with one or two exceptions in their mid 1970s output and their early music which is clearly psychedelic pop/rock.

• Investigate Art Rock further*

The difference between Prog and progressive rock music should be clarified in the first paragraph, with a link to a new article on Progressive Rock Music that clearly makes the distinction - and would include "controversial" bands such as The Who with no difficuly.

MarkCertif1ed 11:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC) reply

See, now this is a much better tack for you to take than just deleting any and all mention of rock opera and The Who, calling it "nonsense". Your calling it nonsense and deleting it wholesale is exactly what irked me, especially since I had university level textbooks and numerous other sources saying it was anything but nonsense. 74.77.208.52 07:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

This is a better tack for you to take also - actually taking time to understand other people's reasoning instead of railing against it and the person in a vain attempt to promote your ideas. As noted in the discussion, your sources were all dubious (with the exception of the Text Book, which I have not read, but doubt the integrity of, as I have read many text books on the subject, all of which were strongly opinionated) - until you realised that Prog Archives is much better than any source you previously had.

You made all kinds of assumptions and assertions, submitted stuff despite comments from others about its dubious nature, and persistently engaged with aggressive and at some point threatening statements, including many hypocritical calls of "foul" over rule-breaking, not to mention the hypocrisy of taking another's recommended source (that you previously railed against) as your own source - and not noticing that the source itself is POV.

We're none of us whiter than white - and it did not make for good or useful discussion.

Your text is not well formatted and does not flow well with the material I posted above it - which in itself is not perfect: I don't just criticise what you write - my criticism does extend to my own work too!

You need to understand that it takes time to develop an article like this, and that was the particular section I was working on at the time - see, I'm not 100% against your ideas, but you did piss me off to the nth degree.

I'm not going to go over old ground or dig up hard feelings - if you want to contribute to my ideas here, then that's fine. If you want to post abuse, I'll remove it, as this is MY page, and I maintain an offline copy. :o)

Understand that I have a vision for this article that I am genuinely trying to base on fact rather than opinion - and I have been working on it since January, on and off. That doesn't make it mine (ask not what Wikipedia can do for you, yadda, yadda), but I'm going to maintain an air of proprietorship over it, as it's Work In Progress.

In the meantime, any comments about the overall vision - or the parts as I've outlined above - will be treated with the same respect that is brought to this discussion, bearing in mind that my vision may not be the correct one and I fully realise that.

I understand that you have a vision for the article and that you're putting a lot of thought and effort into it and have been doing so for months. I can see that you viewed my edits as throwing a monkey wrench into your plans and I can see why that upset you. I'd much rather work with you than against you. You have to know, though, that Wikipedia warns its users that content they submit will be edited mercilessly and that they would not have it any other way. If that's going to be endlessly frustrating for you, then you're better off applying your efforts to sites like progarchives.com where you have some measure of control over the material you submit. That said, I know you are a very valuable contributer to this article and I do not want to see you go. I know you're more knowledgeable on the subject than I, but I'm not just some Who fanboy. I have a wide-ranging knowledge of much of rock music, including progressive rock. If my text is not well formatted and does not flow well with the text above it, I would be grateful if you could clean it up for me. I'm just trying to get across the wealth of rock acts that contributed to the foundations of progressive rock in the 1960's. Mentioning the Beatles and only the Beatles strikes me as wrongfully dismissive of the many notable and important contributions of other sixties acts. I'd like to add the Byrds, next. My apologies for angering you. The feeling was certainly mutual, but I hope we can work together constructively rather than destructively. 74.77.208.52 10:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, apology accepted - and returned.

I understand the principles of Wikipedia, and the current bias of the article towards the Beatles (which is actually reasonably fair, as they were not only at the forefront of pop but they were not afraid to risk losing that position with their experiments - and those experiments had profound effects on the whole of rockdom.

As regards Prog Archives, I think that they have now reached the status of outranking Wikipedia as a source for Progressive Rock music, and I have been known to contribute there on occasion :o)

It is, of course, wrong to only mention the Beatles (how I'm coming to loathe the word "mention"), but the list is long, and the contributions many - this is the tangle I'm trying to unravel. Rather than risking POV stuff, I'm taking the approach that if it's not actually observable (ie completely non-POV), then it's probably wrong. The Beatles are easy, because you only have to listen to the music to verify that they used Mellotrons, used backwards tape, etc - and there are plenty of sources that confirm what they did because everyone was watching them.

Maybe the discussion page should be edited to remove the unhelpful/argument stuff? I'm up for removing all of it, except the bits where you suggest the Who and I say "good idea, but we need to consider everybody else too" and you say "good idea - I was just going to say that, and I suggest...". OK, I over-simplify - but that's my sense of humour. I'll even trust you to do the removal and editing, unless you feel that my credentials are better suited (note: not better per se). MarkCertif1ed 12:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You have my complete blessing in cleaning up the Talk Page as you see fit. 74.77.208.52 21:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, it was a tough job - and I have not deliberately left stuff in to make you look bad, but I did have to leave in stuff I wanted to remove because other editors replied to it, and I can't in all fairness remove their comments without their permission. OK, I could, but it wouldn't be right... Please scan through the edits I've made, and verify that they meet with your approval - I've made notes in all cases where the edits are, and left some of the discussion, because of its direct relationship to the article. If you want to take anything out of individual paragraphs that you wish to withdraw, you'll need to do it yourself - but I think I've removed the unecessary arguing stuff without colouring it one way or the other.

Looks good to me, Mark. Thanks for taking the time to do that. I'm fully onboard with your "Proto-Prog" section idea. 74.77.208.52 18:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm currently researching a "new" area - what came before Proto - and it's turning out to be very interesting; I chose to follow the line of rock recordings that are either classically inspired or incorporate classical music, and I turned up a consistent and unbroken line going back to 1955 (year 0 as far as rock and roll is generally concerned - although the reality is, of course, different). This list is a great start for this type of research, and gives many clues as to where the idea came from - ie, it was there all the time: http://www.allegro.philharmonic.me.uk/

Jazz next...

Hello. You recently contributed to a discussion about original research and sourcing at the List of musical works in unusual time signatures. I am requesting comments from the wider community in hopes of settling a dispute there. Please visit this section of the talk page if you wish to further contribute to the discussion. Thank you. Nick Graves 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑ Bot ( STOP!) 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I see you were listed as a participant in the League of Copy-Editors so it seems likely. The thing is the Military history wikiproject urgently needs prose pros to help with our best articles. Milhist covers a broad range of interesting and varied subjects from film to biography, battles to weaponry, and Roman emperors to twentieth-century dictators. In Milhist, A-Class has become the last port of call before FAC and we are looking for people to help identify prose and MoS issues at A-Class A-Class Reviews and help fix them prior to featured article candidacy. We also have a copy-editing section in our Logistics Dept and that can always use experienced copy-editors. For most of our articles, you don't need to be a specialist in the subject matter, just good with words.

If you think you can help, please do! Thanks for your time, -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 03:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I was wondering if you'd be able to take a look at the Frank Zappa article and perform a copyedit on it? ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 07:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)) reply

The Rock music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 9 - October 2008

"As long as my face is on page one, I don't care what they say about me on page seventeen."- Mick Jagger Project news The project has a total of 106 GAs and 91 Featured Articles and Lists put together. We collaborated on Soul Bomb. Help us select good versions of WP:ROCK articles for inclusion on the Wikipedia 0.7 release! Find out more about Wikipedia 0.7 selection on the project talk page and add your thoughts to the discussion. If you are personally responsible for a Featured or Good Article listed here, please the select a version to include in Wikipedia 0.7 on that page if you haven't already. Page versions must be selected by October 20. The genres in infobox fields have been removed cause of the discussion found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box?. You can provide any opinions you may have about this. This month's "Recommended Rock Album" is Soundgarden - Superunknown (1994).

Editors User:Be Black Hole Sun

Be Black Hole Sun ( talk · contribs)

I've been wondering about that page for a while, and I suppose it's about time we get around to it. If you have some time to help, let me know. I will need lots of sources, so if you have some old articles around, I'm all ears. I will probably set up a stripped-down WIP page sometime soon, but I won't be able to do too much until I get some good reliable sources. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated. 71.203.185.108 ( talk) 22:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

What a Mess!!!!

Loads of horrible lists and unnecessary quotes make this article a hugely unpleasant reading experience -and mostly just dull and pointless.

Time for some surgery, methinks...

Hi, if you make large insertions like this, it would be nice to know what your sources are and how it is verifiable. If you cite a book or an article, you can use the <ref></ref> tags to reference the source. Otherwise it might be assumed that the passage is not based on verifiable source material. Thanks a lot, -- hroest 10:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I answered you on User talk:Hannes Röst. Greetings -- hroest 00:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I started the procedure to have the New Wave of British Heavy Metal article promoted to WP:FA. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1 needs discussants. Since you were very active in the past on the article's talk page, I am hoping you might give some comments. Lewismaster ( talk) 08:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC) reply