Hi,

I believe there was one important genre of music in the '70s the Stones had never touched: progressive rock (shortened as prog-rock), or art rock.

From Wikipedia:
Progressive rock (often shortened to prog or prog-rock) refers to a form of music which evolved in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of a "mostly British attempt to elevate rock music to new levels of artistic credibility."

Progressive rock bands pushed "rock's technical and compositional boundaries" by going beyond the standard rock or popular verse/chorus-based song structures. Additionally, the arrangements often incorporated elements from classical, jazz and world music. Instrumentals were common, while songs with lyrics were sometimes conceptual, abstract or based in fantasy. Progressive rock bands sometimes used "concept albums that made unified statements, usually telling an epic story or tackling a grand overarching theme."

So, please tell me, did the Stones ever attempt to record a progressive rock concept album in the vein of those by the then up-and-coming '70s bands like Yes, Queen and Supertramp (as well as the Stones' own rock rivals The Who and their two concept albums that were 1969's Tommy and 1973's Quadrophenia)?

~Ben

No.

Oh God I hope not.
I can't think of anything more horrible.
I HATED prog!


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

they did not and really could not...leave the prog rock to the rock gods who knew who to weave classical and jazz into the music - king crimson, yes, genesis, zappa...you know the roll call...

Stones are too guitar-oriented to have gone down that road (thank jeebus)

Quote
swiss
Stones are too guitar-oriented to have gone down that road (thank jeebus)

nothing to do with that at all. king crimson is guitar-driven - many others in the field, as well...

She's Like a Rainbow is about as close as they got.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
swiss
Stones are too guitar-oriented to have gone down that road (thank jeebus)

nothing to do with that at all. king crimson is guitar-driven - many others in the field, as well...

Keith's sound (and BJ, MT, rw) is as far from Adrian Belew as you can get (as his website says "the world's greatest experimental whammy twang bar rhino king crimson stunt guitarist" ) but I see what you mean.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-26 23:38 by swiss.

sure it's a style difference, but really the same set of instruments -that's the only thing in common, really. and long before belew joined the act, it was fripp handling all the guitar chores - with aplomb, i might add...

I also believe Bill Wyman's 1967 solo single "In Another Land" had him channeling Pink Floyd's "Arnold Layne."

~Ben

Quote
BrianJones1969
I also believe Bill Wyman's 1967 solo single "In Another Land" had him channeling Pink Floyd's "Arnold Layne."

~Ben

not to overdo it with the label's - but i would regard early floyd and TSMR in general as "acid rock" as opposed to progressive rock....

Quote
BrianJones1969
Hi,

I believe there was one important genre of music in the '70s the Stones had never touched: progressive rock (shortened as prog-rock), or art rock.

Thank Christ for that.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
BrianJones1969
Hi,

I believe there was one important genre of music in the '70s the Stones had never touched: progressive rock (shortened as prog-rock), or art rock.

Thank Christ for that.

because there's something wrong with prog rock or cos the stones weren't equipped for it?

Mostly the former. Thankfully the Stones have never been that pretentious, so we never got to truly find out if it was the latter.

hmmmm....i love good, classic pretentiousness.

seriously, the musicians in most of the prog rock bands are much more skilled than their rock'n'roll counterparts - just from a musical appreciation level alone, it's worth investigating some of it....

Quote
StonesTod
seriously, the musicians in most of the prog rock bands are much more skilled than their rock'n'roll counterparts - just from a musical appreciation level alone, it's worth investigating some of it....

...and I don´t care if musicians are much more skilled than others as long as it does not touch my soul,move me...

The so called ´70s prog rock was an experience I will never repeat again.

Quote
shortfatfanny

Quote
StonesTod
seriously, the musicians in most of the prog rock bands are much more skilled than their rock'n'roll counterparts - just from a musical appreciation level alone, it's worth investigating some of it....

...and I don´t care if musicians are much more skilled than others as long as it does not touch my soul,move me...

The so called ´70s prog rock was an experience I will never repeat again.

not all music is for the soul - some is for the head

Therefore the terms soulmusic and headmusic ,Tod ?

Beside simply labeling it´s as usual a matter of musical taste.

And it´s not necessarily a contradiction being music for soul and head.(Depends of course on the individual listener - who else ?)
I just discovered Miles Davis ´"On The Corner" sessions (the 6 CD package) for me.
It´s great,groovy...that´s fantastic music I never listened to before.

Have just heard the first CD ,need a break now,but looking forward to listen to the others.

After that for example "We´re a happy family" by The Ramones is very welcome...

whatever works for you - there is no good and bad music, imo. sometimes i need to feed by head, sometimes my body and soul. some of my fave prog rock works for all of it, but some is just when i'm in a head place. lots of classical music and alot of the jazz i listen to works like that too.

the stones are definitely a body and soul feeder....

Quote
StonesTod
the stones are definitely a body and soul feeder....

I guess you don´t mind that I agree on this one,definitely !

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
BrianJones1969
I also believe Bill Wyman's 1967 solo single "In Another Land" had him channeling Pink Floyd's "Arnold Layne."

~Ben

not to overdo it with the label's - but i would regard early floyd and TSMR in general as "acid rock" as opposed to progressive rock....

I 100% agree.
Satanic Majesties was their attempt at 'acid rock, and while amusing, missed the mark for me.

Structurally, the closest I think they ever gor to being prog (which isn't that close really) would be '100 Years Ago'. The inventive chord progressions, the stops, the pick-up and rhythm changes started by the clavinet at the end...

[thepowergoats.com]

Sometime in the late 70s, I heard a radio commercial for a gig by a Rolling Stones tribute band. Not only was the music they had playing underneath the voice-over NOT Rolling Stones music, it was actually some kind of generic, instrumental, keyboard-laden PROG! I thought "What Rolling Stones song is THAT supposed to be?" I mean, really, Is there any band LESS prog than the Rolling Stones?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-27 16:38 by tatters.

best prog band today - Dream Theater

There used to be a (I guess) prog band called No Walls from ATL. Maybe there was free jazz in there; the leader, writer, singer, frontman came right out of hardcore punk. But these guys did one album WAAAY back, and to this day it remains amazing.

Absolutely not. As far as I'm concerned, they strayed from their roots enough with Between the Buttons and Satanic Majesties. Thank God they found their way home.

Does anyone recall Dylan's line about prog rock?

It was something like: No music brings about its own demise . . . well except maybe prog rock.

Could have been the Theme Time Radio Show on Beginnings Middles and Ends.

there's prog and there's prog. If Gabriel-era Genesis is prog, then I love some prog. Even "Close to Tne Edge" era Yes is okay, but...e.g I had a friend who loved this band called Camel, and on and on and yawn. I really wonder how the band themselves were staying awake.

Brrrr!!! with double-necked guitars and shit...Genesis 'Suppers ready' is about the only thing I like from that horrible era...

2 1 2 0

most prog rock is boring i do like the big names like emerson lake and palmer, yes,genesis,king crimson, pink floyd, and jethro tull. but pushing songs over the 15 min mark in the studio puts me to sleep. a 20 min. song in concert can be awesome because a good band feeds off the audience. but for the most part a 3-4 min. song has more to offer.

They strayed into it with part-2 of 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking'. Probably pulled that way by Mick Taylor who could could easily have settled into some kind prog-rock-blues outfit. Did he not eventually leave because he thought their style of music was too limiting - and stifling his 'creativity'.