Why so few American bands in 70's prog?

To be honest I do not think America was ready for prog at the time (one has to remember many even trashed/burned The Beatles albums a few years earlier lololol hihihi )

Dean wrote: SteveG wrote: cstack3 wrote: SteveG wrote: ^I don't think that different musical interests is the same as lack of interest, and I agree with you in that no country has a monopoly on talent.   But sixties London must have been a gas! I wish I could have experienced it. You and I, both!!  I was listening to the Monkees when I could have been listening to the first Yes LP!   My point was one of geography....America is a vast land, and our cities are not very well connected.  London was THE scene in the UK, whereas musicians in the USA were in "islands" such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City and various other cities.   My own Chicago was always something of a backwater for music, despite an ill-deserved reputation as "birthplace of the blues" and large population.   On my first trip to London in the early 1990s, I took the tube to Piccadilly Circus just because I had read so much about it in my youth....mod fashion especially.  The place was a RIOT!!  I love London, fantastic town!   Anyway....I have no idea why the prog bands Yes, Genesis, ELP, KC etc. exploded out of the UK like they did.   Was there better social support, so that the musicians didn't have to hustle for a living as much as we Yanks did?   I see your point more clearly now, Charles. It is indeed hard to imagine the UFO club as once residing in Hull. Then why was Friars Club so popular? While not being in Hull, Alyesbury isn't recognised as a thriving hub of music, or anything else come to that.

Ah, you've missed a few key words. I said "as once residing" in regard to the UFO club as it was

Edited by SteveG - June 29 2015 at 10:53

Skalla-Grim wrote: The brilliant HANDS have not yet been mentioned in this thread, I think. Their "eclectic" prog with a lot of different instruments reminds me of Gentle Giant. Unfortunately, I haven't managed to buy one of their CDs which were released in the 90s, containing their music from the 70s (HANDS and PALM MYSTERY). But their 2002 album TWENTY-FIVE WINTERS is very good, though not as playful as the old stuff. I must admit I haven't heard STRANGELET (2008) so far.

I am the proud owner of a copy of Strangelet (a gift from a friend who is also a friend of the band), which is a truly outstanding album - a must for fans of the Warr guitar, played by Mark Cook (now a member of Herd of Instinct).

Kati wrote: Zappa is American tho' :) he was/ is awesome Progressive music did originate from the UK tho' :) xxx

Progressive music developed along very different paths in the US and the UK. Although there are some wonderful US-Canadian progressive rock bands of the classic era (Zappa, Rundgren, Rush, Dixie Dregs, etc.), the North American school of progressive music was much more closely tied to fusion and the contributions of Miles Davis and his progeny (Zawinul, Corea, Clarke, McLaughlin, Shorter, Coryell, Hancock, Martino, etc.). 

Didn't most of Beefheart and Zappa's band lineups come from the jazz subculture, though?

FEW?

One American band that was at the forefront of psychedelic, ambient, prog-folk, electronic, jazz-fusion, not to mention avant-garde and space music was THE GRATEFUL DEAD.  Those who don't think they belong on PA have probably never explored the Dead's studio and live catalog.  Their work from 1965-70 was a huge influence on so many genres of prog....where would Krautrock be without the Velvets and the Dead? 

RockHound wrote: An interesting aspect of the Brits spearheading the fusion of classical music with rock is the British composer gap. There wasn't a whole lot between Purcell and Britten that worked its way into the general repertoire (unless you count Handel). I forgot Elgar, but then again, I'd really like to forget Elgar (apologies to all you Elgar fans out there). I guess it was worth the wait, considering what Brittania gave the world with the "Big Five or Six" of prog.

And in England, people like Britten and Tippett still composed tonally and in a classical spirit while on the Continent and in the US, the serialist avant-garde had taken over after 1945.  IMHO, serialism was a cul-de-sac; it resulted in music that more than 99% of the people considered unlistenable.  It was ice-cold and academic, and rock musicians saw no way connecting to it and letting it influence popular music.  England still had a living tradition of tonal, non-serialist music that rock musicians could connect to, and they did.

Also, the divide between "serious" and "popular" music was less rigid in the UK than in most other countries.  There was not much of this "if the masses like it, it cannot be good" nonsense that had infected avant-garde music circles (and not only them; some jazz aficionados thought in similar ways) elsewhere.  English composers not only continued to compose tonally, they continued to compose for the common people.  Even the ach-so-egalitarian Americans were more elitist than that.  Compare that to Schoenberg's "Society for Private Music Performances" which was as snobbish as one could get.

These factors predestined England to become the place where the rock and classical traditions could merge fruitfully.

The Sloth wrote: I bet the Dead only have about a dozen songs that could be seen as Prog, and only a few of them in any substantial way. They're mostly a psychedelic folk-rock band with jazzy tendencies.

"Psychedelic folk rock band with jazzy tendencies" could be nothing less than that experimental i.e. progressive psychedelia ( i.e. PA material at least as prog related if not psych /space or prog folk as per PA policy of addition the bands to prog genres and to prog related section) and the Dead released some of best of that in 60s and 70s.

Edited by Svetonio - July 17 2015 at 11:38