Talk:Clouds (1960s rock band)

Things to do on this page
I basically deleted EVERYTHING off here except the references because what was there was all copyrighted material so don't bring it back. There are laws against copying things from websites you know... I have now added the band's discography and started half of the Biography which needs to be done, so if anyone can be bothered to research and finish the bands bio it would be much appreciated but remember DON'T copy stuff off other websites. Debaser23 15:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all that (once again!) Debaser23, you've really pulled this round......I'll follow up your advice on record info and reaction etc........thanks too for pointing me in the direction of this page! "Matthew.hartington 16:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)"

Just some basic facts that can be fleshed out too -

The first record CLOUDS appeared on was an Island Records Compilation, issued in 1968, called 'You Can All Join In', which featured artists such as Jethro Tull, Traffic, Free, etc. This is actually quite a famous cult album, for years, magazines vied with each other to name all the people shown on the cover - they are standing in a large group in Hyde Park. The first issue of Mojo Magazine made an unsuccessful attempt to name everyone, but a definitive naming was done in a Record Collector issue, a copy of which can be seen on the Clouds website. The three members of Clouds are right at the front and in the centre of the group, standing next to the three members of FREE. A new version of this album has been released recently, with the same groups, but using different tracks from the groups. The title of the track used by Clouds is unknown to me at this time.

A single by Clouds was released in 1968 entitled 'Make No Bones About it'. The Melody Maker said 'they are one of our best groups, and very exciting 'live', but this is rather monotonous and disappointing'. The 'B' side was called 'Heritage'.

The next Clouds record was a single/45 called 'Scrapbook', issued in 1969, a track taken from the album of the same name. The review of the single in Melody Maker said 'If this isn't a hit, there ain't no justice'.

The album 'Scrapbook' was released in 1969, and received excellent reviews. It was Melody Maker's 'Album of the month' quote 'the group who have taken London by storm with their fine songs and exciting stage show'

Clodagh Rogers, a successful singer of that time, also recorded the song 'Scrapbook'.

A single was released in Europe only, during 1970, called 'Take me to your leader', a track from the forthcoming album 'Up Above our Heads'. The 'B' side was called 'Old Man', another track taken from the album 'Scrapbook'.

Another Island records compilation appeared in 1969. Called 'Bumpers', it was a double album, and there were two issues, one had a Clouds track called 'Take me to your leader', the other had 'Make no Bones About it'.

'Up Above our Heads' was released in the USA and Canada only, the year was 1970. 1971 saw the release of 'Watercolour Days' in the UK and Europe under Chrysalis records, and in the USA and Canada under Deram. Billboard magazine reviewed the album and said 'Deram's new import Clouds plays music that is fluid and non-routine'. The Melody Maker gave a negative review, saying 'the organist seems to think he's playing in the Blackpool Tower'. 'Watercolour Days' was Kid Jensen's album of the week on his radio show.

1996 saw the re-release of two Clouds' albums on one CD, 'Scrapbook/Watercolour Days'. It was reviewed favourably by Q Magazine, Record Collector, and others, some of these reviews appear on the Clouds website"Matthew.hartington 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)"


 * Did you get this from their website? What i will do is I will thin it out tomorrow mornign when I have the time and I will interpret it into their biography. I don't mind helping you out. In fact I actually enjoy adding to this page! Debaser23 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't get it from the website, no, I trawled it from stuff I was given a long time ago, plus got some info from the guy who knows the group. It's really good of you to do all this - and I'm glad you enjoy it - I don't feel QUITE so guilty! "Matthew.hartington 19:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)"


 * It would be good if we could get an authorised picture of the 'You Can All Join In' album so we can put it on here. It would also be good if we could get a picture of the band to put on the top of the page. If you find one though don't forget to ask for the copyrighters permission. Debaser23 09:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Will get to work on finding both of those, good suggestion, thank you "Matthew.hartington 12:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)"


 * And I will get to work on putting all of that information you have given and putting it into the article. I have already added when the albums were released into the discography table. It would be nice if you had any EXACT dates we could have for example the month. Until then though I'll keep working at this page. Debaser23 09:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename
I renamed the article and deleted the redirect. I fixed the double redirects from articles first. If you guys don't like the name, feel free to move it again. ---J.S (T/C) 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping with the article name change. "Matthew.hartington 19:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)"


 * I've just realised that there is a link to an existing Wikipedia page - You Can All Join In is the album on this page that Clouds featured on - the three members of the band are at the front of the famous photo, right beside the guys from Free. Could someone who is skilled at linking this up do it on the main page, rather than myself? (For obvious reasons!)"Matthew.hartington 14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)"

Compilation albums
As well as you finding You Can All Join In I also found Bumpers. Clouds are the last band on the list so I linked them to here. Debaser23 14:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done - as always! "Matthew.hartington 16:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)"

RE ALLEGED 'VANDALISM'
To 156

I disagree that this was vandalism - didn't you see the mess that was left after the citations were (quite rightly) added by SmackedBot? Something had to be done to clean it up. It seems mean of you to just set it all back to square one when a lot of people have worked to get it where it is. It seems just spite, after our brief conversation on the Emerson discussion page. I think I responded fairly, I could have said an awful lot more, but in your words, I was trying to avoid being 'personal'. I'd rather you leave this site to SmackedBot and others who genuinely care about the outcome, not pursuing some personal vendetta.Matthew.hartington 07:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation requsts are valid and inline citations for all the requested content is req'd. The 2 main {templates} at the top of the page are also req'd to stay until the article is improved. Removing the templates or the tags wiothout addressing the reason for them being there is vandalism. 156.34.215.47 08:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The tags issue you raise is fair, but I addressed the citations - couldn't you just have replaced the missing tags? Also, the content you took out is infinitely better written than what's now there - surely you of all people know that if you're fair? I don't want to just delete your contribution, I'd rather we find a way forward. Also note my comments on the Emerson talk page. I'll wait for your reply before I make any more changes. Matthew.hartington 08:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A review of the article history shows that a few weeks ago this article was very poorly written and violated several key Wikipedia policies including WP:ATT, WP:AWW and WP:NPOV. Someone took the time to clean out all of the horribly written text(with tht comment that more removal was needed) They also tagged all the obvious text requiring inline/verifiable citations from reliable sources. And they placed the proper templates for an article that was on the verge of being nominated for deletion. From what I can see, your edits were to basically put all the poorly written, unencyclopedic content back in. Wiki is an encyclopedia. No opinions should be expressed here. No poetic POV prose. Just point-to-point, dry boring facts. Despite its cleanup this article is still basically about a non-notable subject. The only way this article has any hope of staying on Wikipedia is to keep the text short and direct about the subject. Inline citations are needed... 1 for every line would be ideal. And no superfluity. The article barely survived its first AfD nomination. It won't survive a second nom if it returns to the state it was in before. It's a non-notable subject. 2-3 short referenced paragraphs are all that is needed here. If proper refs can be found I can format them correctly in the standard {cite web} and {cite book} reference style. But the sources need to be verifiable and reliable otherwise they can't be added. The article can be chopped down another 15-20% of its current size. Too much fluff = article prod. For its size right now at 15-20 inline refs from at least 6 different professional publications or books. The more the better. And I will format them once they are added in. You can list them here as well as long as you indicate which specific text from the article the ref supports. 156.34.215.47 12:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the help and advice. But the article as it stands now has a very poor prose style for a start. That will need attention too. I didn’t write it in it’s recent form, by the way, other editors did, notably Debaser, with help from others. The article wasn’t deleted because it was decided it was notable enough. You obviously don’t rate the group. That’s fine, we all have our likes and dislikes. It makes it all the more a challenge to you to use your skills in a positive way to ensure the article is fair and reasonable. Thank you for doing that. Most of the material you need for the citations is already listed at the bottom of the page, albeit in wrong/non-wiki fashion. I did place proper citation format during my hasty edit, but these have now been lost. In any case, I’m sure you will do a better job. I’ll need to do some editing of the prose, but bearing your comments in mind. I’m sure you’ll put me straight if you disagree! Matthew.hartington 13:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - the deletion of the tags was accidental, not deliberate, just too much of a rushed edit.Matthew.hartington 13:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

==To User: 156.34.215.47

I've attempted to re-write the piece and clean up the citations, no doubt they could still do with some input etc from you if you don't mind. See what you think and let me know. Thank you Matthew.hartington 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Ritchie
Interested in the Ritchie comments. I’m a muso too, played keyboards at good level, met Emerson, didn’t meet Wakeman, but saw him. Lot of top guys then, but Emerson and Ritchie stand out from rest coz they carried the whole fxxxxxg thing on their own without support other than bass and drums. And Ritchie was first to do it, no question. Clouds records not best, unfair on the guys. Watercolour days organ might not be that hard to play, but shows distinct and individual voice, and some very sublime piano phrases. Lighthouse (corny song), piano and organ very cleverly make sound paintings, not techno, but not always about difficult, bout taste and sense too. Tons of that here, saves the song. I know better than you, nother naff song, but easy to play? Don’t think so - those phrases aren’t just a few notes, they’re chords, and the thing about Billy, he had hands like two right hands, all his solos were either octaves or harmonies, that’s why the organ sounded so strong live. I remember Tony Kaye puzzling bout that - they played the same Hammond, but he couldn’t get the strong sound, even stood the two keyboards together at the Marquee to study the drawbars and work out why. The answer wasn’t the keyboard, it was Billy. On I know better than you, those eight-finger chords work out at 12 a bar. Listen to Imagine me - no-one else at that time could have played that two-handed ending, those ascending diminished chords played at incredible speed and power. Sing Sing Sing, the same. On stage, even more so. And did a lot of those classical snatches that gave Keith the idea he later became famous for. Fugue in Cminor in the middle of Bowie’s song for instance. And did Nut Rocker, that ELP did later as an encore. Plus America, that Yes filched. Cold Sweat, predictable notes, but part of ambience, not meant as solo. Listen instead to the powerful syncopations of the organ - no overdubs, just two quick hands. Agree about Carpenter (trying to build a solo that just didn’t build) and Get off my farm (worst song of the lot)- solo disappears up its own axxhxxe. Ritchie was never a great soloist, but then, neither was Keith. Billy was a great band player, and Keith was a great set-piece player. They were very different in style. Keith was generally from that McGriff/Smith Hammond school, Billy played the organ with more of an orchestral approach, he tended to try and play everybody’s part, just as well he was in a three-piece. Same was true of Harry, the drummer. They wouldn’t have suited a full band, too busy, could say Billy was power mad. But for my money, the best live organist at that time by a mile. Biggest organ sound ever. DaveEx 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to say thank you for defending my edit. Matthew.hartington 19:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

TO USER 156
I note your changes, but don't follow your reasoning. You've taken out pieces that already have citations, and put in old pieces that need citations yet don't need to be included in the article. The article as it stood before the changes was not perfect by any means, but it was at least as good if not better than many of the rock music pieces allowed to exist as they are. If you were to follow your own logic, you'd be very busy re-writing every article you see! I can't allow this to stand as it is and will either re-write it or revert completely to previous editMatthew.hartington 06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the possibility of absorbing some of the changes, but the main problem was the lost citations that user 156 took out unnecessarily, supplanting some with 'citation required' tags when citations were already given. I'm not against changes, or taking out what others deem unneeded baggage, but to simply go back to old edits (complete with mis-spelling) isn't the answer. Hence removal. I don't like edit wars, but needs must. Matthew.hartington 06:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Citations need to be inline and use the {citeweb} or {citebook} notation. NPOV crufting and original research issues still need to be addressed along with weasel wording. 156.34.210.28 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I acknowledged in my message to you that work needed done on the citations, but the citations did exist, and you simply went back to a very old edit that removed those citations. I was hoping you'd help with improving the piece, not just replace it with a very poor and threadbare edit that doesn't stand up. As for the weasel words, I'd accept that if your standards were applied across the board - take a look at the other articles nearby, those standards are clearly not being applied there, so why apply them here? I'd much rather we reach a compromise somewhere in between your version and mine - can't you take my version and start again, rather than just impose that old edit? Surely the citations don't need such radical removal? They exist, after all. I'm putting my version back online, but if you come up with a compromise edit - and better still, use your skills and knowledge to improve the piece, I'll gladly go along with that. Matthew.hartington 12:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PS - When I have a bit more time, I'll also try and re-write the piece to attempt to marry both versions, taking on board your comments, as well as leaving the citations as they are intact till they can be polished. Matthew.hartington 17:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

1-2-3 Live

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 10:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

THE HISTORY OF 1-2-3

I thought it might be useful to reprint this piece (by James Alexander):-

I’ve been reading Prog Archives with interest. The research is commendable, impressive, and the depth of knowledge and level of questioning refreshing. But there is a danger of them losing sight of the fact that they go so far into the depth, they often pass themselves on the way back again.

Rather amusingly, the contributors seem to think they’re on some kind of jury. Someone suggests they could be presiding over ‘a hoax’. They obviously didn’t study the history very well. I’m afraid the verdict has already been passed on this. 1-2-3’s role in pioneering early music is already decided. Contributors who have never accessed these facts before, and who have lived in a vacuum caused by absorbing only readily available material, may struggle to take it on board. But this was never a band from the backwoods, it was existing history that had been submerged from the surface of everyday vision, ‘Archaeology’, as Mojo Magazine observed. Then again, the lack of awareness about 1-2-3 on this website, and others, shows that there is still much work to do in reaching the general public. What is always worthwhile is spreading the word, so in that sense, perhaps some of these relatively-obscure archive conversations will have ultimate value too.

Much agonising seems to be going on about The Marquee, but 1-2-3 did headline, not support, all during the month of March 1967. That is a fact. They also headlined during May 1967 (documented). The residency was impressive enough for Epstein to sign the band to his NEMS management, not just agency, the basis on which most bands were signed. Bowie also confirms the Marquee’s influence. The National press took note. So something certainly happened there, whether sceptics like it or not. A life-size photograph of 1-2-3 was attached to the central pillar in the Marquee entrance foyer, another fact (and no doubt the source of much resentment). Other groups appearing at the same time were Syn, The Nice, Family, etc. Any one of these items taken individually may not be enough to please everyone, but taken together, these are considerable and weighty as regards evidence of something unusual going on at the Marquee.

That the Marquee club website (which is not an official website, merely a fan-of-those-times website) chooses to deliberately excise 1-2-3 from the record books, and have its own version of history, is unintentionally revealing. One can only assume that the story of 1-2-3 reaching the mainstream has infuriated those who would wish it to remain in obscurity. Again, such bile and spite, exhibited after 40 years, is suspicious in the extreme, and actually suggests the opposite to what is intended by the protagonist. This curious attitude was spotted by Certified in Cleary’s so-called testimony (is Cleary Peter from Quiver? No-one else has peddled the alleged virtues of this unknown keyboard player). Whoever he is, this person is almost frantic in his denials, even at a distance of forty years. Perhaps Cleary runs the Marquee website too. Certainly, someone with the same chip on his shoulder does. When I first came across such small-minded vindictiveness against 1-2-3, and in particular, Billy Ritchie, I was surprised. It struck me then, as now, how sharply divided the opinions are. It’s certainly not the sign of something bland and easily forgotten. Given the magazine and book articles that are appearing with more frequency, this negativity could easily backfire on the website itself, as questions are asked about the impartiality and motives of such a petty decision.

The analysis of the tape, Ritchie’s playing, the songs, the arrangements, is healthy, and even desirable (if at times, rather amateurish and clumsy in execution and conclusion). But again, these are only pieces of the story, interesting pieces, no doubt. Yet the story and history do not stand or fall by any one piece of jigsaw. It may be the wrong piece, or the right piece in the wrong place. That is the nature of such research, especially with decades passing in between. The recording may or may not help, depending on one’s view of the value of such a tape. My own view is that all the disparate pieces, which include the tape, must be taken together to give a likely answer to the questions. It may not be possible to do better than that in the long run.

As I understand it, the recording was made with a hand-held cassette, the band road manager standing in the crowd. Or was it at the side of the stage somewhere? The exact location of the tape machine – if there be any one location – is unknown. Such ‘on the hoof’ recordings were common in that day and age. I am told that the tape originally consisted of several pieces of songs, but only one complete song – ‘America’. The other pieces became lost or discarded over the years, seemingly of little importance in the years following the demise of the group. I don’t believe the original tape even exists now, or it is, at least, lost. There is mention of the date being wrong – there’s no evidence for that. If the date was wrongly stated, it could only mean a difference of a week or so, i.e., the nights of 11th or 25th instead of 18th. All those nights at the Marquee belonged to 1-2-3 as the headline group. But if there was doubt, why would tradition and the scribble on the label pass down the date as 18th? Otherwise, why be specific about the date at all? It seems likely (though not certain) that this was the date of the recording. It obviously can’t be proved that it was the Marquee in March 1967, but it seems the most likely venue, and fits with the tradition of the tape as it was handed down. Even putting that to one side, it certainly would have to have been recorded during the early-mid part of 1967, for when the band became Clouds, later that year, songs like ‘America’ were never used, because of the new musical policy imposed by Chrysalis, and confirmed to me by Terry Ellis and others. What is certain is that Clouds never performed any of the 1-2-3 repertoires. The personnel were the same, but it was a new band with a new approach. Hence the recording – whatever it is or isn’t – had to be before the winter of 1967, which still pre-dates the Yes and Paul Simon versions by a long way. And it also should be noted that in those days, an obscure group would not ‘seek permission’ to pick up a song and play it – they would just do it.

For the acoustically-minded, there were no ‘drum mics’ or other mics, it was just a rough recording, as has always been stated. You can hear the muffled quality of the instruments, especially the drums, and the sound comes and goes every so often. In the quiet passages, you can clearly hear the clink of glasses and the babble of people. Then again, it’s not impossible that someone (the roadie? Roadies, we know, are prone to such behaviour!) decided to tinker with it in some way, though is it likely? The applause doesn’t sound like “Beatle screams” to me. It could easily be magnified by its proximity to the recording head. It was most likely a stereo recorder, which could easily account for different sound qualities and aspects of the acoustic, especially sudden sounds like applause noises. It all sounds quite natural to my ear, but I am not fazed by the proposition that some of it could be dubbed to enhance the audience reaction. I think that unlikely, but possible, though irrelevant. The important thing for me is what the music consists of.

Someone asks why not the more mainstream, or underground populist choice of songs to use? Of course, there was that – songs like ‘She’s not there’ and ‘Sweet Talking Guy’ were in the repertoire, and also ‘Worksong’ and ‘Parchment Farm’, but choosing ‘The Sound of Silence’ and ‘America’, by an unknown Paul Simon, was no different to choosing ‘I Dig Everything’, by an unknown David Bowie. It was par for the course for 1-2-3; they were looking for something different. They picked up whatever they could on their travels, and perhaps, as was suggested, Cyril Stapleton had a hand in that particular choice. The group was open to that; they wanted to experiment – another strand of proof in itself, if you like. Not enough credence is being given to some of the things that were said. The 19yr old Bowie is being picked upon for mixing musical terms (he said “harmonies” not “harmonics”), but what of his 1994 comments (when he was 47) that his “song was radically altered, yet retained its heart and soul”. Doesn’t that strongly suggest that in March 1967 1-2-3 were playing in a style that Yes later became famous for? It certainly goes along with the rest of what we hear about 1-2-3. Bowie’s 1967 letter to the Record Mirror gives a tantalising glimpse of something very eclectic, and not commonplace in any sense. In one of the earliest modern direct references to the music, Brian Hogg gives a similar picture of the kind of approach the band had in 1966 “but these pieces were radically altered, to become, in essence, new”; “it anticipated the techniques later used by America’s Vanilla Fudge”; “used the pieces as stepping stone to self-expression”; “There was nothing remotely like it around”. The Marquee programme of May 1967, states that 1-2-3 are “unique” and “have created an entirely new sound in pop group music”. Bowie’s own letter mentions that “these three thistle and haggis-voiced bairns had the audacity to face a mob of self-opinionated hippies with a brand of unique pop music that floated as would a Hogarth cartoon in Beano”. As we noted, Brian Hogg makes it clear that 1-2-3 pre-dated Vanilla Fudge in being the first pop/rock group to comprehensively re-write and change others’ songs. And there are plenty of other references to this, I won’t labour the point. This is not collusion and not coincidence either [my italics]. I would also point out that when Yes formed in 1967, their song list mainly consisted of straight Beatles covers. That is, till they heard 1-2-3. And Keith Emerson was “playing sideboard”.

It’s not such an important matter, but I also disagree with some of the views about Billy Ritchie and his legacy. Everyone has, and is entitled to, their own tastes and opinions, but there is little doubt that Ritchie was among the elite of keyboard players at that time. The main point to be stressed is that he was the first to bring organ out in the open as a truly lead instrument. Even his detractors, like Cleary, for instance, reluctantly agree on this. That doesn’t mean that he was the best player, that’s another argument altogether, and Keith Emerson is certainly not in any way a ‘clone’. All that has been said is that the concept of approach was taken from that source. I personally dislike quality comparisons between fine musicians, but if such judgements are to be made, they should be made in the context of the timeframe. Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman, and others, have careers that stretch to the present day, and have had great success at times. This obviously has led to these people maximising, and arguably, at least to some extent, fulfilling their potential. Billy Ritchie, on the other hand, had his career cut short circa October 1971. Without the mass support, confidence that success brings, and crucially, playing at the top level, this obviously means that his potential was lost, an implosion of sorts, common to most talented people who don’t sustain a career. The fairest comparison therefore (if such a comparison has to be made) should be made with Emerson’s, Wakeman’s (and any other contenders) output circa 66-71, and not glancing at these players’ achievements since that time. Personally, I think even without that proviso, Ritchie’s playing stands up well. As other successful keyboard players have remarked, it was difficult to judge Billy against the others, he had a style and approach that were not from the usual sources, though, contrary to one statement on the archives, he was also classically trained, hence the Bach etc. On tour, he would pass the time in his room, by playing the whole of ‘The Well-tempered Clavier’, as those who were tired of hearing it have testified. These are hardly pieces that could be even attempted by any ‘untrained’ player. The comments about Ritchie being unable to be a studio musician etc, are also quite untrue. He appeared on many recordings, and was, until the band’s relative success curtailed it, the former band-leader Jack Dorsey’s resident studio session keyboard player (I believe it was the Pye label), as well as appearing regularly as a guest on the ‘Country Club’ BBC program. One of Ritchie’s organ solos was used as an advertisement leader in the BBC radio’s ‘Sounds of the Seventies’. Many other examples exist, but suffice it to say, he was a sought-after session musician. Even in today’s world, Q magazine and Mojo (and others) cite him as being “virtuoso” “outstanding” “especially brilliant” “genius”. Again, no collusion, and not coincidence either, but completely at odds with some of the views expressed in this discussion (and elsewhere). Crucially, these peer views are expressed by leading figures in the music business, not just armchair pundits, or frustrated amateur or semi-pro/quasi-pro musicians. I would recommend listening to the little-known Clouds album ‘Up Above our Heads’ for a clearer view of the musicianship, if not the songs.

The songs are also receiving an unfair hearing. Because it is acknowledged that Clouds diluted 1-2-3, and the songs were admitted as not being suitable for the band, it does not mean that the songs were poor. In fact, as has been well-documented, they were excellent, some of them at least, and from what we know, Ritchie had hundreds more that were never used, because Chrysalis policy decreed that the band should have a mainstream (at the time) rock output rather than good songs for the sake of it. Only a few years ago, Record Collector described ‘Watercolour Days’ as opening with “a brace of Progressive Pop gems”. ‘Scrapbook’ (the single) was heralded in Melody Maker, “if this isn’t a hit, there ain’t no justice”. The album ‘Scrapbook’ was one of Melody Maker’s ‘albums of the month’. A famous singer of the day, Clodagh Rogers, also recorded ‘Scrapbook’. Brian Hogg says “many mourned the rejection of those wondrous strings-backed pop songs”. ‘Watercolour Days’ was an obvious attempt to merge the band and the song-writing, and to some extent, it worked, though only on a few tracks. [‘Watercolour Days’ received mixed (and sometimes poor) reviews on its release, but time has been much kinder – read the Island records bio on ‘Strangely Strange but Oddly Normal’]. Some did take notice in 1971, Kid Jensen and Billboard magazine among them, but like much of what 1-2-3 was involved in, it was all too far ahead of the audience, too visionary to be popular in its own time. And it was all work in progress. The obvious inference is that a few more albums would have produced work of great quality and beauty. It was a tragic loss, in my opinion. So no, it wasn’t the songs that were the problem, it was the troubled marriage of Clouds and the songs, and the partial strangulation of the heritage of 1-2-3.

Then again, the last two paragraphs are neither here nor there. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if Keith Emerson, and others, are much preferred to Billy Ritchie, or if some find his songs to be uninteresting. Those are side issues, and free to separate argument and debate. The true thrust of the PR exercise is to increase wider knowledge of 1-2-3’s rightful place in history. The claim they have thus far established (as I see it) is not a massive one. I personally would never look to push a case for 1-2-3 being responsible for ‘The Birth of Prog’ (though I wouldn’t prevent anyone else saying it – who am I to argue with ‘Mojo Magazine’?). I agree with Dick Heath’s views on that particular issue. But it is quite certain that The Nice and Yes would never have existed in their final form but for those Marquee performances, and many others took the fruits of that too, albeit less conspicuously. In fact, exactly who took what is difficult to pin down (though some commentators seem quite certain of who the recipients were). I have no fixed views on that, I’m content with it being said there was an influence, and a crucial influence at that. 1-2-3 may well not have been responsible for the Birth of Prog, but they certainly were responsible for some of the labour pains. And I have to extend that metaphor by sadly conceding that they were not present at the birth. By the time they had regrouped, the infant was already howling in the world, leaving them exposed to a charge of stealing from their own DNA.

These Prog-agonies are virtuous (in the main) and always of interest, but either way, regardless of earnest chat-room debate, knowledge of 1-2-3 has been gaining momentum for at least ten years of gestation, and won’t be denied by a few disgruntled voices, or the views of fringe groups. That’s the least we owe 1-2-3. Those three people suffered a lot for so little return. Even now they are being criticised for even daring to have existed. Such meanness of spirit, often based on little more than pure snobbery and prejudice, is against the principles of truth. I became involved by accident, when I was asked to research the group by Mojo magazine for the article that appeared in November 1994. Like many of these Prog Archives people now, I had then never even heard of 1-2-3. But in my conversations with David Bowie, Ed Bicknell, Terry Ellis etc, and in archives ‘archaeology’, it became obvious that some kind of injustice had been done. Hence my decision to do something about it, ergo the website, Wikipedia (with thanks to Matthew for that) etc. Of course some of the facts may have become distorted by time. But anyone who is genuinely interested in research as a vehicle of truth, will want to see that 1-2-3 are given more and more mainstream exposure for their own small niche in Rock’s long history.

James Alexander

Matthew.hartington 08:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)