Is Prog Getting Bigger?

I believe that prog as a niche has gotten bigger but compared to popular music forms like Hip Hop, Pop, Metal, etc., that it has to compete with, I would say no.

Music, outside the commercial best seller crap lists, is constantly on the move. Whether you call that prog or something else doesn't matter. There's a lot going on and the amount of artists as well as the amount of listeners interested in is growing. Doesn't meant that prog (for which we still cannot provide a useful definition btw) is getting bigger, it means that music keeps evolving and the amount of people realising that is at least not decreasing.

I'd say broader but not bigger, there are tons of bands out there but the level of success is way lower than the 70's. The low cost self-release approach allows lots of stuff to be released that the labels wouldn't have in the past. Still loads of good music out there.

In the grand scheme, "Prog rock" may not really exist.   Nor did it ever.   Though the term "progressive rock" was in use as far back as the early '60s, it was more a term of convenience ~ a descriptive ~ rather than a singularity like Bluegrass or Rockabilly.  

I think what we had was a state of continual progression from about 1965 through 1985 (possibly culminating with U2); an immense growth period that seemed limitless and surely permanent but as with anything, that period slowed and recessed.   It is only now that we look back and go "Yeah they were a prog band" or "No they were not".   But at the time it was just the state of modern rock.   Heavy metal (not Progmetal) could easily be considered a form of prog rock, and in fact was by many because at the time, Priest and Zeppelin and the Scorps were progressing the state of rock music with the same sense of ambition and dynamism that Genesis and Yes were.   If you were a rock artist, either you were progressing rock or you were leering enviously at those who were. 

In answer to the OP:  No, I don't think prog is getting bigger because rock is not getting bigger.   It is in fact shrinking.

Atavachron wrote: In the grand scheme, "Prog rock" may not really exist.   Nor did it ever.   Though the term "progressive rock" was in use as far back as the early '60s, it was more a term of convenience ~ a descriptive ~ rather than a singularity like Bluegrass or Rockabilly.   I think what we had was a state of continual progression from about 1965 through 1985 (possibly culminating with U2); an immense growth period that seemed limitless and surely permanent but as with anything, that period slowed and recessed.   It is only now that we look back and go "Yeah they were a prog band" or "No they were not".   But at the time it was just the state of modern rock.   Heavy metal (not Progmetal) could easily be considered a form of prog rock, and in fact was by many because at the time, Priest and Zeppelin and the Scorps were progressing the state of rock music with the same sense of ambition and dynamism that Genesis and Yes were.   If you were a rock artist, either you were progressing rock or you were leering enviously at those who were.  In answer to the OP:  No, I don't think prog is getting bigger because rock is not getting bigger.   It is in fact shrinking.

Pastmaster wrote: Lear'sFool wrote: ^ For the most part, I'm liking your view of rock history, though I'd argue instead that rock's just stagnated on balance; you do in fact have plenty of progressive artists across the width and breadth of rock to match the multitude of heel-dragging and backwards-heading artists. And I'd say the state of progression starts with the very beginning of rock in the early '50's and lasts until the late '90's, when the rise of post-grunge and nu metal started holding the genre back as best they could, and, again, that hasn't stopped a lot of artists. How was post-grunge and nu metal holding anything back? Nu metal bands were doing unique things, so how is that holding anything back? Music is always progressing, and with that in mind there is so much that could be called progressive. While many prog fans probably cringe at the mention of a band like Korn, Korn did something that progressed rock/metal music. Korn's debut was certainly a unique album, and a masterpiece to my ears. While it's sound was rooted in groove metal which had been done before, they added a gritty and murky darkness that wasn't there before. Their lyrical themes were also pretty unique at the time. I think the best thing we can do is ignore labels, and just accept it when we find some music that we enjoy.

Pastmaster wrote: Lear'sFool wrote: Pastmaster wrote: Lear'sFool wrote: ^ For the most part, I'm liking your view of rock history, though I'd argue instead that rock's just stagnated on balance; you do in fact have plenty of progressive artists across the width and breadth of rock to match the multitude of heel-dragging and backwards-heading artists. And I'd say the state of progression starts with the very beginning of rock in the early '50's and lasts until the late '90's, when the rise of post-grunge and nu metal started holding the genre back as best they could, and, again, that hasn't stopped a lot of artists. How was post-grunge and nu metal holding anything back? Nu metal bands were doing unique things, so how is that holding anything back? Music is always progressing, and with that in mind there is so much that could be called progressive. While many prog fans probably cringe at the mention of a band like Korn, Korn did something that progressed rock/metal music. Korn's debut was certainly a unique album, and a masterpiece to my ears. While it's sound was rooted in groove metal which had been done before, they added a gritty and murky darkness that wasn't there before. Their lyrical themes were also pretty unique at the time. I think the best thing we can do is ignore labels, and just accept it when we find some music that we enjoy.  To say that post-grunge was in any way a forward thinking movement is foolish. The whole movement was just about making the same Pearl Jam record over and over again without any of the thought that Pearl Jam themselves put into their albums. There's acknowledging that almost all genres are good and progressive, and then there's not acknowledging that there are rare exceptions such as. Nu metal started with a unique idea and drove it into the ground by not moving forward with it. Korn have been an exceptionally lazy band, hence the immense dislike for them. I wouldn't quite throw most of the nu metal anywhere near as down to the same level as the post-grunge bands, but they proved more detrimental to radio rock than helpful. Many bands that have been labeled as 'post-grunge' sound absolutely nothing like Pearl Jam or the like. Bands like Breaking Benjamin created their own sound, just like any other band. Also, I wouldn't call Korn lazy in any way. Their sound evolved over time, for better and for worse. Nu-metal evolved too though, bands like System of a Down and Mudvayne took the groove metal roots of nu-metal and combined it with complex compositions and other musical styles. The problem is not with the music, but with ignorant elitists, which there is no shortage of in the prog community.

Pastmaster wrote: Lear'sFool wrote: Pastmaster wrote: Lear'sFool wrote: Pastmaster wrote: Lear'sFool wrote: ^ For the most part, I'm liking your view of rock history, though I'd argue instead that rock's just stagnated on balance; you do in fact have plenty of progressive artists across the width and breadth of rock to match the multitude of heel-dragging and backwards-heading artists. And I'd say the state of progression starts with the very beginning of rock in the early '50's and lasts until the late '90's, when the rise of post-grunge and nu metal started holding the genre back as best they could, and, again, that hasn't stopped a lot of artists. How was post-grunge and nu metal holding anything back? Nu metal bands were doing unique things, so how is that holding anything back? Music is always progressing, and with that in mind there is so much that could be called progressive. While many prog fans probably cringe at the mention of a band like Korn, Korn did something that progressed rock/metal music. Korn's debut was certainly a unique album, and a masterpiece to my ears. While it's sound was rooted in groove metal which had been done before, they added a gritty and murky darkness that wasn't there before. Their lyrical themes were also pretty unique at the time. I think the best thing we can do is ignore labels, and just accept it when we find some music that we enjoy.  To say that post-grunge was in any way a forward thinking movement is foolish. The whole movement was just about making the same Pearl Jam record over and over again without any of the thought that Pearl Jam themselves put into their albums. There's acknowledging that almost all genres are good and progressive, and then there's not acknowledging that there are rare exceptions such as. Nu metal started with a unique idea and drove it into the ground by not moving forward with it. Korn have been an exceptionally lazy band, hence the immense dislike for them. I wouldn't quite throw most of the nu metal anywhere near as down to the same level as the post-grunge bands, but they proved more detrimental to radio rock than helpful. Many bands that have been labeled as 'post-grunge' sound absolutely nothing like Pearl Jam or the like. Bands like Breaking Benjamin created their own sound, just like any other band. Also, I wouldn't call Korn lazy in any way. Their sound evolved over time, for better and for worse. Nu-metal evolved too though, bands like System of a Down and Mudvayne took the groove metal roots of nu-metal and combined it with complex compositions and other musical styles. The problem is not with the music, but with ignorant elitists, which there is no shortage of in the prog community. You talk as if I only listen to prog. Post-grunge bands, as a rule, never created their own sounds. The exceptions to the Pearl Jam egging rule only prove the rule further: Godsmack is the world's greatest Alice in Chains tribute band, and Breaking Benjamin just fused Nickelback with stagnation era Korn. None of them were anything more than radio rock egging garage bands that got record deals. They only ever evolved for the worst. And remember what I said about nu metal bands starting with a unique idea, and then sitting on it forever? As Korn did, so did System of a Down and Mudvayne. And don't make me bring up He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. I have the combined fortune/misfortune to listen to these bands every day on the local modern rock station. These bands have inadvertently created fodder for corporate run radio to overplay. The station never plays anything from after the day All The Right Reasons came out. Since almost all rock radio precludes any newer artists, the course of music's evolution is held back. Finding all the actually forward thinking bands to listen to, support, and be inspired by takes a bit of extra effort, and for many, it never happens. I apologize for the last comment I made, it was uncalled for. By forward thinking, do you mean not showing your influences? When I listen to Godsmack, I do hear Alice in Chains influence, but they don't rip them off. Saying that, I could easily call many 'prog' bands something that damages the evolution of music. Many modern prog bands copy older bands. Haken's 'The Mountain' is full of Gentle Giant and Dream Theater influences, but look at how many people on this site love it. I don't hear any Korn or Nickelback in Breaking Benjamin, but I guess everyone hears something different. I'm not saying post-grunge and nu-metal are the greatest things ever and there's no crap in there, after all a certain band with the initials 'L.B.' is one of the worst things I've ever heard, but it's not like those genres have any more crap then other genres.

I think is just because we are on a Prog rock fan side, that everything is put into small boxes, in real life a lot of people have a diverse music taste, and listen to Prog along side other genres, without thinging to much about