Reexamining Commercial Prog of The 1980's.

Big Ears wrote: Progressive rock musicians could not operate outside of their time, any more than science fiction writers could anticipate developments beyond the knowledge and experience of their era. Robert Heinlein, a technical and imaginative writer, had settlers using radio on Mars. Portable and lower cost synthesizers, as well as drum machines, appeared to open a realm of fresh opportunity for musicians, but it is curious how it did not work this way and lead to at least ten years of banality.      Keith Emerson, who made futuristic music with synthesizers, that was also exciting and dynamic, on albums like Trilogy and Brain Salad Surgery, slipped into mediocrity with some horrible Japanese keyboard instruments on Love Beach. I am one of the few who thinks LB has its redeeming features, but it should have been a lot better. Emerson probably believed at the time that he was taking his instruments a step further (as he had done previously).  The irony is that by the early nineties and further advances in technology, like samplers, the progressive rock bands could capitalise artistically with these developments, but not commercially. I am thinking of ELP's live use of samplers, which gave Pictures at an Exhibition a whole new dimension, while Black Moon and In the Hot Seat were not very adventurous.

Edited by richardh - February 11 2015 at 14:25

Toaster Mantis wrote: One thing I find interesting, that has only been briefly remarked on so far is that Captain Beefheart and Frank Zappa did quite well in the late 1970s/early 1980s where both artists put out some of their best work. Doc at the Radar Station and Ice Cream for Crow are both remembered rightly as the Captain's bowing out on a high note after a couple failed attempts at mainstream crossover in the 1970s. Zappa's 1980s output was more hit-and-miss or at least there is less of a critical consensus about them, but he did put out stuff like Sheik Yerbouti and Joe's Garage which are some of his most respected back in 1979 when all the rest of the prog-rock movement was floundering and going out of style.

This. Though I tend to think the reason for it is that Zappa always went on the offense against many targets, including the record companies. He didn't wait around passively to learn his fate. He did a lot his own recording and production. Later sometime in the 80s he had his own mail order distribution company, Barfco-Swill.

^I'm basically in this camp.  The '80s saw bands that had previously front-lined the prog movement becoming more straight pop and rock.  But I strongly feel these bands did so really well compared to most groups that started out straight pop or rock.  When I take Big Generator or Power Windows (etc.) and compare them to what... for example.... hair bands were doing at the time, I'll take BG and PW all the way.

The musicianship was still there.  The song structure was different, and so were many of the sounds being employed.  But the core of what made these bands great in the first place allowed them to produce good music even if it wasn't the same type as before.

As to whether it was the record companies' fault... I really don't know.

HackettFan wrote: Toaster Mantis wrote: One thing I find interesting, that has only been briefly remarked on so far is that Captain Beefheart and Frank Zappa did quite well in the late 1970s/early 1980s where both artists put out some of their best work. Doc at the Radar Station and Ice Cream for Crow are both remembered rightly as the Captain's bowing out on a high note after a couple failed attempts at mainstream crossover in the 1970s. Zappa's 1980s output was more hit-and-miss or at least there is less of a critical consensus about them, but he did put out stuff like Sheik Yerbouti and Joe's Garage which are some of his most respected back in 1979 when all the rest of the prog-rock movement was floundering and going out of style. This. Though I tend to think the reason for it is that Zappa always went on the offense against many targets, including the record companies. He didn't wait around passively to learn his fate. He did a lot his own recording and production. Later sometime in the 80s he had his own mail order distribution company, Barfco-Swill.

Another reason is I think that Beefheart and Zappa were both too unique in their artistic sensibility to be part of any particular "cultural movement" like the classic progressive rock style was. They're definitely harder to pigeonhole into a "scene", and I guess as songwriters it was easier for them to adapt when the cultural circumstances that produced the original prog rock no longer really existed. Basically, either's signature sound is more of a "soul radar" for the musician's genius than part of a subgenre.

Maybe there's also the issue of both being an influence on music scenes that got bigger at the same time progressive rock's decline started, with Beefheart inspiring the more cerebral abstract end of punk (The Fall, Père Ubu) and Zappa being an influence on the guitar heroics of the heavy metal movement of the time?

Star_Song_Age_Less wrote: ^I'm basically in this camp.  The '80s saw bands that had previously front-lined the prog movement becoming more straight pop and rock.  But I strongly feel these bands did so really well compared to most groups that started out straight pop or rock.  When I take Big Generator or Power Windows (etc.) and compare them to what... for example.... hair bands were doing at the time, I'll take BG and PW all the way. The musicianship was still there.  The song structure was different, and so were many of the sounds being employed.  But the core of what made these bands great in the first place allowed them to produce good music even if it wasn't the same type as before. As to whether it was the record companies' fault... I really don't know.

I never said that it was all  the record industries' fault as their were many other known factors such as the music media of the times along many social and cultural factors.

Edited by SteveG - February 12 2015 at 11:08

cstack3 wrote: Dean wrote: So what was it? Public disinterest? Had the Prog scene become too commercial for the die-hard Prog fan and not commercial enough for Joe Average? Were Marillion more commercial than their Neo-Prog compatriots? We cannot examine the music of an era in a vacuum.

Highly debatable point. History of the arts has always shown someone that was in a "vacuum" and not doing something that everyone else was. Picasso became an example, and so did Stravinsky, and this is 2 of the 7 deadly arts!

There are just as many artists that started in a vacuum as there are artists that started within a social context.

Ex: In America is was easy to discern the discontent in the late 60's that led to a lot of things, and these coincided with the Black Americans plight, on the spirit of Martin Luther King, who was taken away from us, along with so many other folks that we thought taught us something new about ourselves ... that part would be a social context. As would a KC in England.

In Germany, however, with the music schools intent on not using "western music concepts" (that is the stuff that we KNOW!!!!!), would be a bit more on the vacuum side of things. And you can see this in other areas, for example, check out the stuff on Manuel Gottsching on the Tube, and there is an interview that he talks about his music ... and he says that he is a "live performer", not anything else. And THIS, was the main factor behind a lot of those Berlin schools that we are not checking out ... ALL of them were live performers first, and recorded what they did second, and they retained their freshness for the most part. Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, AshRa Tempel and Ashra, Can ... all of them made their marks off improvisations and free form-ness, and we STILL do not accept it!

And is the main reason why I find their work so good! It's explorations are magnificent compared to the simple minded rock music countdown and reinventing of the same 4 measures!

cstack3 wrote: ... As the times changed, so did the drugs of choice of those who tended to listen to rock music.  Marijuana, which helped fuel the prog boom of the 1970s (Jon Anderson has written about this) was looked upon as an "old hippie drug," and newer drugs including stimulants and other synthetics became more fashionable.  These did not lend themselves to sitting around in a dark room, listening to side after side of progressive music.

I take offense at this ... slightly. I was not doing anything at the time, and drugs were NOT the main influence in my music tastes and here I am with you guys!

Not everyone was ripped or stoned, and I walked out of many a concert because of the stupidity that it was about being stoned, and the music on stage was not only bad, it was out of tune, and it was sick ... and we're talking Rolling Stones, here!

And now, you could change the story that by the time that disco and then the fashionistas came around that it was about cocaine that dictated the music!

This was not the case in Europe, but in America, you could say that it was ... everyone lost sight of the Chicago Seven and thought that what they fought for was just the right to pee in their own toilets! We forgot everything, including the flowers in our hair (thank gawd for that!), and then blamed it on Reagan and Bush and Ford and ... anything except our own strength, and we had none ... we got one guy voted in by accident, and it was like a priest in the midst of a bunch of sinners ... no one even wrote about that in music!

By 1974, my music tastes had started to get refined. I had already "met" Gismonti, Garbarek, Rypdal, Jarrett, ECM and other stuff that became far more "TUNED" to the feelings inside that I understood, instead of the external anger, which Jon Anderson had written about, and we ignored! And I quit the top ten ideals for good .... because they were condusive to manipulating your mind into believing something ... that was not there! You might discount this, since I lived in a Fascist country and they manipulated everything you could think of, and there is a publish work translated, of my dad's own film, and critical reviews that were government censored in the 50's if you want to see what I am talking about ... and when the "public" doesn't know any better ... and the media in America is owned by two conglomerates and they do their best to manipulate everything they do, to support their goals, not yours. And that means they have an interest in the top ten, that you DON'T as an artist! Also means that in America, you are NOT going to get any recognition until you have shown you can make money for them!

I know very well the day I stopped doing any dope at all, with my friend ... when we heard a president say ... "let them smoke dope! I'll win all the elections!" ... and he DID! And I knew that we were now being totally stupid and out of touch with the reality of it all and I also knew that it was no longer needed or required and I had seen enough literature and music in the LP's (over 3K of classical stuff) at dad's house to know that fact!

In the end, we were the ones that had no personality or ability to stand up for ourselves, and the best we could do was kiss-up to a top ten or other. Some of them were worth it, as I would never say anything bad about Michael Jackson (the only black performer I ever saw where the audience was 50-50 instead of 90-10!!!!! think about it!!!!! how things changed in America!), but in the end, most of them were just fabricated news and fame, to make sure you did not appreciate anything else.

You have to make a choice!!!! And sometimes, we just don't know how! And this is the part that is difficult here when it seems that too many folks only live by their favorites ... they are walking right into the manipulation trap!

Edited by moshkito - February 13 2015 at 09:50

cstack3 wrote: Dean wrote: So what was it? Public disinterest? Had the Prog scene become too commercial for the die-hard Prog fan and not commercial enough for Joe Average? Were Marillion more commercial than their Neo-Prog compatriots?  We cannot examine the music of an era in a vacuum.  As the times changed, so did the drugs of choice of those who tended to listen to rock music.  Marijuana, which helped fuel the prog boom of the 1970s (Jon Anderson has written about this) was looked upon as an "old hippie drug," and newer drugs including stimulants and other synthetics became more fashionable.  These did not lend themselves to sitting around in a dark room, listening to side after side of progressive music.

I think Charles got some undeserved flak from his statement as it leads to the bigger picture of cultural and social changes in society, which has had great effect on popular music's appeal in regard to many different genres in many different eras.

Edited by SteveG - February 13 2015 at 11:21

^Not at all. Weed was still around in the 80's but Coke became the drug choice of the Me Generation. Reagan was only the dealer.

^Yes. And I remember Iran Contra, but I wish that that was only a foggy recollection.

I think you mean "Reexamining former prog bands that started making commercial music that wasn't prog in the 80's"