Why so few American bands in 70's prog?

I'm curious why the classic period of prog was an almost European-only phenomenon.  One could argue that the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds influenced the Beatles on Pepper, which opened up the door for all other forms of musical experimentation, including prog.  But the Beach Boys weren't prog, to me.  Frank Zappa was.  I think the first couple of albums by Kansas and Styx were prog, although they fell off into area rock/pop pretty quickly. You could argue that Chicago started out very progressive.  Starcastle was very derivative of Yes, to me.  But, after that, I can't think of too many American bands.

Don't overlook Captain Beefhart too. I think one might expect more because of Zappa's influence, given all the musicians he's had going through his band. A lot of them, though, such as George Duke or Jean Luc Ponty (a little later) were doing stuff that was more standard jazz in their solo work than the Prog/Fusion they took part in with Zappa. A lot of British and German psychedelic music was not easily distinguishable from Prog. In the US, the Grateful Dead were mainly extended blues and didn't get proggy until Terrapin Station. None of these are real answers, just ways of deepening the mystery.

HackettFan wrote: Don't overlook Captain Beefhart too. I think one might expect more because of Zappa's influence, given all the musicians he's had going through his band. A lot of them, though, such as George Duke or Jean Luc Ponty (a little later) were doing stuff that was more standard jazz in their solo work than the Prog/Fusion they took part in with Zappa. A lot of British and German psychedelic music was not easily distinguishable from Prog. In the US, the Grateful Dead were mainly extended blues and didn't get proggy until Terrapin Station. None of these are real answers, just ways of deepening the mystery.

That is an interesting question; .....there were others besides Kansas, Styx, Starcastle, ......

Rando wrote: Big Kid Josie wrote: Why do you think so few US bands jumped on the prog bandwagon? Maybe its simply American music traditions vs European tradition. Yet what I find interesting is at the same time here in the US we had the more "eclectic-avant-garde-experimentalists" like Zappa, Miles Davis, Beefheart, Velvet Underground, or even The Residents. Maybe its because Classical music here in the US (generally speaking) has always had a bad rap as this elitist, "symphony hall night with seasoned tickets" image. US bands are too deep-rooted in Blues, R & B, Jazz, and even Gospel. It's in our musical blood. Prog involved using European classical influences, with a more compositional approach with set arrangements, utilizing long extended cadenza-like solos. We all know that. But I still find that no different from say, an extended blues jam, or an improvised Jazz section, or variations on a theme. Like somebody already said; maybe the the soil here wasn't tilled or fertile enough at the time...

I tend to think of this as correct. The US was more moved by blues and jazz while England was more swayed by classical music. But then it runs up against the fact that Zappa was extremely classically influenced and made that a significant part of his music, and even composed pieces to be performed by the LSO rather early on. The initial Mothers line up was more jazz oriented true, but later members Ian and Ruth Underwood were classically trained. They just didn't produce any solo work to my knowledge that could be called Progressive Rock.

Also, in England the Canterbury groups were heavily jazz oriented. Jethro Tull was heavily blues oriented. Steve Hackett was classically oriented but also blues oriented. Peter Gabriel brought elements of soul music to Genesis, and so on. So I'm still unclear about what the differences were.

CCVP wrote: The US didn't have many bands, but had arguably the most influential artist of the progressive movement as a whole: Frank Zappa.  He was an influence to the inception of progressive rock during the earliest stages of the Mothers and he always pushed boundaries forward during the 4 decades he released material during his life.  it can be argues that his impact was mostly felt on the underground circles, but that's not right either. Even though he wasn't "successful" regarding record sales, his music was, at that time, of great importance for the musicians and composers of progressive bands; his impact was absolutely universal, although not quite as apparent as, say, Pink Floyd or Yes.

Yeah, he was influential and not influential all at the same time. Very strange. Zappa was noted for introducing new talent, but again that new talent never seemed to emerge in the form of Progressive Rock musicians, not until Adrian Belew or perhaps a little earlier with Chester Thompson, but their non-Zappa contributions to Prog were rather late relative to the Prog era. Is there anyone that I'm overlooking?

As already mentioned, very influential avant bands/artists are from America. America also had a strong jazz rock scene in the 70s. It is symph prog that was weak in America. Perhaps the particular blend of classical influences with a more pastoral, folky kind of rock/pop could not have happened in America and what bands did pick up the thread from the European scene were condemned to be me-toos at best. Prog metal embraced the epic format and the most influential prog metal band is American.

Svetonio wrote: Due to an unique atmosphere in that part of England where Symphonic rock was born, methinks (I'v been there as a tourist). It was not possible to Symphonic rock occurs elsewhere, it could be only exported from England. And as an imported genre in America, Symphonic rock didn't find a suitable soil for growth.

I'm sure I read a Kansas interview once where they said that record companies in the US were completely opposed to prog rock, with a few notable exceptions, because they didn't think US bands would be able to compete with the European prog bands - British bands in particular - and that they should just stick to hard rock.

Rush also had opposition from the record company when they started to move away from rock 'n' roll on COS. Whereas British labels were embracing a lot of prog, it seems that US labels didn't want to promote anything that was not radio friendly. Just a theory.

ClemofNazareth wrote: Pretty sure what happened was that America created the blues, jazz, R&B, bluegrass, country and psych, and while we were resting on the seventh day the Brits came up with prog.

The.Crimson.King wrote: dr wu23 wrote: That is an interesting question; .....there were others besides Kansas, Styx, Starcastle, ...... Ethos Cathedral Happy The Man Yezda Urfa Babylon Easter Island   ..but none ever became very popular except for Kansas and Styx. There were probably more Canadian prog bands .   Along with... Netherworld Lift Pentwater Ambrosia (1st album) Shadowfax (1st album) It's not that there weren't US prog bands, just not many that got any radio attention or became known outside their local area

I'll add Pavlov's Dog to the list.