Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Why do prog artists peak out?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhy do prog artists peak out?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
Message
natewait View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 08 2009
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 218
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2010 at 17:18
Originally posted by Anonamoose52 Anonamoose52 wrote:

I really agree with what Friso has to say here. Prog is a difficult genre to crack because it's never quite been mainstream. (But that's why we love it eh?) Many Prog masters were "enigmatic geniuses" making them very difficult to work with, IE Waters, Wakeman, Emerson, etc. However, I think the deeper problem lies in the Prog community itself. Prog fans, generally, are more knowledgeable about music than some other genres, which is why we can appreciate such deep works. However, this also makes us more critical. When a band releases a great work, a "magnum opus", all of their later work will be compared side by side with it, often times with the newer work in a negative light. (Look at Pink Floyd, everything is compared to DSOTM or The Wall, though The Final Cut was inexcusable) This is a mistake! Yes's recent releases, (Magnification) Dream Theater (Black Clouds and Silver Linings) and others are all great works. We must view new works objectively to truly appreciate them. 

I agree with this whole-heartedly. I think that many prog fans latch on to a particular album from their favorite prog band and judge every subsequent work in comparison to that initial "masterpiece" they fell in love with. I think the problem with this is that often those albums we consider to be masterpieces are considered superior in our minds because we are attached to them and they hold a certain type of nostalgia, not because they are objectively better.

For example, I think that Metropolis Pt. 2 by Dream Theater is their masterpiece, and nothing that has come out since has topped it in my eyes. However, I think that I view the album as such a masterpiece because of my memory of how special the album was when I discovered it and was first getting into prog music. I don't think it is musically better than Black Clouds and Silver Linings, but it has a more special place in my heart, so it is unfair to judge and could make it appear that Metropolis Pt. 2 is a better album and thus Dream Theater's peak.

Also, I think that some bands evolve in their sound, and often that evolution could be in a direction that the listener doesn't particularly like. This doesn't mean the band in question has hit their peak and is going downhill, it just means that this new direction for the band isn't pleasing to your ears.

In the case of classic prog bands who went more commercial in the '80s and beyond (Genesis, Yes, Rush, etc.) I think they began to focus more on music as a career and focused on pleasing a wider audience, sacrificing their prog roots to some extent. I think they still had it in them to create prog masterpieces like they did in the '70s, but it didn't make sense commercially if they wanted to be successful.

Also, music is completely objective. A '90s Rush album could be superior to 2112 in one person's opinion, and the other way around for a different person. It is impossible to determine in the first place if a band or artist has "peaked out".

Just some rambling random thoughts Wink

Please check out my Progressive Music Blog: The Leviathan.
Back to Top
Conor Fynes View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 11 2009
Location: Vancouver, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 3196
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2010 at 17:57
Prog is defined by new and fresh ideas. Very few people can keep coming up with new exciting things throughout the course of their entire lives.
Back to Top
Progosopher View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2009
Location: Coolwood
Status: Offline
Points: 6393
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2010 at 22:00
Originally posted by Marcusmax Marcusmax wrote:

[
Yes I agree with this. When I say 'masterpiece' etc in relation to e.g. a Kate Bush album I mean that as a relative term. Of course compared to a Bach, Stravinsky or Debussy our prog 'composers' are not in the same league by any stretch. However, it's important to compare like with like and in the limited world of a particular genre of music we can possibly allow ourselves a little licence, no? So in the world of modern broadly popular music Peter Gabriel or Steve Hackett or whoever could be considered a genius by the side of some fluffy latter-day pop star who churns out yet another commercial hit according to the latest formula. Hopefully we know here that our 'geniuses' can only be regarded as such in a very limited context. Big fish in a small pond? (I know pop ain't prog but at the end of the day it's all related.)       
Good point, Marcus.  I was thinking along a similar line just a short while ago.  To compare rock musicians to classical composers is really not fair - the two are such different genres of music.  Furthermore, it struck me that in terms of longevity, comparing Pop artists to Prog artists, I find the Progsters to have longer careers.  Classic rock radio has condensed the amount of songs played from the 70s (let's just use that decade as an example - the same applies to other time periods.)  There was a seemingly endless string of flash-in-the-pan hitmakers.  Who remembers David Essex?  Compare his career to David Bowie.  Both had hits, but Bowie had a lot more hits over a much longer period of time.  Artists had six year long careers, tops, by conventional pop music standards.  Yes had several hits, and were a radio mainstay throughout the decade.  With a few ups and downs, however, they consistently produced up through the 90s, and are working on a new album now.  A few months ago someone introduced a poll on some of the newer Prog bands - and every single one listed has been around for fifteen to twenty years.  A few years ago I bought Gillan's Inn by Ian Gillan.  His voice is not what it once was, but he was still going strong then and I assume he still is.  That tells me the man has some real talent, that he is a real musician, and because of that he can sustain a lengthy career.  It is significant to note in that example, though, that none of the songs on the album are new - they are all re-recordings.  That means there is a difference in performing music and creating it.  Creation is a matter of inspiration.  Pop is all about the money, and there have been some good artists within that genre, but again, they tend not to last very long.  I think I'm starting to ramble.  Hope my point is clear, though.
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"
Back to Top
silversaw View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 126
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 17 2010 at 13:29
Beethoven did write amazing stuff at the end...but also realize that back then, he didn't play hundreds of shows every year, all around the world...he wasn't under record company pressure to make a popular album, or under the same pressure to record hit songs just because the 1980's began.

Also, we look BACK at the classical period and say it was amazing stuff...at the time it could have been the equivalent of listening to "Invisible Touch."  You liked some of what the person did...decided to listen to more, were upset by the fact that it wasn't as good as the previous stuff, but listened to it anyway.

Music was more of a novelty then...not everyone had access to hundreds of pieces of music...I think hearing anything at that time would've gotten a reaction.

To stick specifically with prog...the bands that were recording non-stop from 1969 to 1980 (some had two or three albums in ONE year) just ran out of ideas.  How many hundreds of songs can anyone write before the spark is gone??  Let us not forget radio station and record label pressure AND serious drug and alcohol abuse!

There's only so much pickling a brain can handle before it goes from creative to fried...so with all of those reasons combined...that is why I think some singers and songwriters tucker out over the years...
"In the Court Of Kings I look around, my blood runs cold, I close my eyes..."
Back to Top
Pankot View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: December 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2010 at 05:54
Good thread. Thumbs Up
 (long time lurker here..)

Like other posters, I don't think there is a single cause, but a few factors do crop up again and again.

1) The recklessness and energy of youth - fewer ties, fewer responsibilties, greater willingness to put up with living on baked beans in the back of a transit for 6 months etc. - makes for more prodigious output and more adventurous musical choices. In particular, everything the young artist does is new to him or her - there is freedom to explore every whim and see where it leads. Later on, it can become harder to write because the artist keeps tripping over his or her past  - you may have an idea and then discard it because it sounds too much like an older song - and simultaneously family life and the comforts of home begin to steal away time to compose.

2) Many rock artists are instinctive composers - working by ear rather than from any formal training. For those artists, technique will not automatically develop as they age: rather, the same signature patterns and forms will be recycled again and again. Staleness can be avoided by making an explicit effort to broaden the pallette, but here the reduced time and energy kicks in.

3) Innovation is not always successful. The marketplace loves the new, but usually demands the new from new faces. Thus, a new young band performing innovative music will get a buzz going, but an established band that tries to re-invent itself and genuinely innovate (if it manages to do so without tearing itself apart) runs the risk of a double-barrelled blast - resentment from the existing fanbase and rejection from everyone else. The band's new material isn't given a fair hearing because the band itself is still seen as "old." Consequently the incentive to take risks drops off dramatically when the alternative is to stay in the "comfort zone"  playing classics to a faithful audience.



Back to Top
Gentlegiantprog View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 31 2008
Location: Stafford
Status: Offline
Points: 238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2010 at 07:20
Doesn't everybody peak out. Sabbath/Deep Purple/Ac/Dc style bands included ?

A lot of bands seem to go for ten years of glory, ten years of failure and then a lesser glory after between 5 and 15 years after that.

That is just based on my own favourite bands, many of whom are prog, but a lot of classic rock, metal (especially Thrash Metal) etc who all seem to have pretty identical careers.

Of course some bands die/break up before they can start to go downhill, and some die/break up before they can gt that 2nd wind.
Let the maps of war be drawn !

http://kingcrimsonprog.wordpress.com/
Back to Top
OT Räihälä View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 514
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2010 at 07:58
Originally posted by silversaw silversaw wrote:

Beethoven did write amazing stuff at the end...but also realize that back then, he didn't play hundreds of shows every year, all around the world...he wasn't under record company pressure to make a popular album, or under the same pressure to record hit songs just because the 1980's began.

Interesting point. However, during Beethoven's time there were no records, which meant that ALL music had to be ALWAYS played or sung by somebody. This meant that there was a big demand of written music, and trust me, Beethoven and other composers had a hell of a pressure from their publishers who wanted to milk out every schilling from composers.
As Beethoven himself coudn't go on with public performances, he was an exception as a non-gigging composer, but before the mid-20th century, practically ALL composers were also performing musicians. At least almost all. They had to make their living from writing, performing and teaching music. The pressure was always on.

Originally posted by silversaw silversaw wrote:


To stick specifically with prog...the bands that were recording non-stop from 1969 to 1980 (some had two or three albums in ONE year) just ran out of ideas.  How many hundreds of songs can anyone write before the spark is gone??  Let us not forget radio station and record label pressure AND serious drug and alcohol abuse!

During his last decade Beethoven obviously drank four or five bottles of wine daily. Consequently, he had a cirrhosis that would have taken his life had he not died of mercury poisoning before that.

I still believe this "peak out" phenomenon belongs more to rock music than to classical, especially contemporary, because usually the borders of expression are so narrow in pop music that very few can find new angles to them all the time. Or for a long time.
Back to Top
daslaf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 03 2009
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 290
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2010 at 11:04
I haven't read any of the answers cause I have a strong opinion I want to write first... everytime I try to write something here in the prog music lounge I start reading everyone else's opinions, and the things I clearly thought get lost in the middle of a sea of new information and ways of thinking different from mine...
 
Nevermind, here I go:
 
I have also studied some history of european music and there's one common factor I see in all the eras, from the gregoryan chants era to, I don't know, Wagner... there are no styles in "classical" music, there ain't two different things going on at the same period of time, at least in the first 19 centuries.... of course Italian 16th century music had its own things, compared to german or french music in the same period, but the formulas that composers used back in those days were the same for all of them... In the times of Mozart & Haydn everybody wrote sonatas the same way.... Bethoveen's sonatas are different though, cause he thought that a sad theme (or a joyful one) should remain in the same mode... so he had to made a lot of tone changes in order stick with that idea but, in the end, his sonatas have the same structure of Mozart's and Haydn's.
 
What I'm trying to say is that, from a personal point of view, classical music is very formulaic, not in a bad way let me be clear... but it follows a lot of rules and stylistic ways in order to be composed... With atonal music i things started to change, but I don't know much about that to make an opinion...  I guess that these genius of classical music got better everytime they wrote a piece because they were pulling off these techniques and ergo, their last works are their greatest. Of course these guys made innovations, I mean.. that's how music evolves and new styles are born, but it wasn't common a composer changing his writing style everyday like underwear, as we have it nowadays in popular music...  
And remember that these guys were paid to write pieces for social events, religious events, etc... so they really wrote tons of music.
 
I'm just starting to get into jazz from a couple of months ago now so, I'm not an expert.... but almst all traditional jazz have the same structure... I think jazz listeners and classical music listeners appreciate other things than prog listeners... you can't have the same approach in order to fully enjoy every style...
 
Now... why the hell rock musicians peak out? I have no freakin' idea.. if I had I'd be millionaire =)
 
PD: I'm not a native English speaker btw, sorry for the mistakes =P
But now my branches suffer
And my leaves don't bear the glow
They did so long ago
Back to Top
sleeper View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 19 2010 at 14:51
I think the point that a lot of bands are a collective whereas many of the classical composers and jazz greats are very much running the whole show, its there ideas or not at all. For rock bands this means compromise on the songs for the band to stay togethor and actuall produce something. IQ are a good recent example, as Martin Orford sited having to compromise his own musical vision to fit with that of others in the band as one of the reason he left.
 
Reading this thread, I've also noticed that my two favourite bands, Pain of Salvation and Kayo Dot, are both lead by a single mind that defines the music being made (Daniel Gildenlow and Toby Driver) and neither band could ever possibly be accused of being stagnent, with no two releases being the same. Opeth and White Willow are two other bands that I have huge respect for that are lead by one man and have a pretty consistently strong output.  
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16039
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 20 2010 at 18:56
Originally posted by Marcusmax Marcusmax wrote:

... I do think it's down to the fact that composing music is mostly a solo affair just like other art forms. Imagine a group of people trying to write a great novel or screenplay, paint a picture etc. These things rely on the individual.
 
That was the way ... then. The way of music for the past 75 years has been the combination of people that put it together, and some are "groups".
 
It will make for a new world in music history. One certainly can not say that a piece is not any better than another because it was done by 3 or 4 people than ... anything else in the history of music. That is the main reason why I keep saying that the LP, Cassette, Radio, CD have turned the history of music on its head ... all of a sudden, it is very difficult to say that the Beatles were not anymore creative or defined than many of the 20th century composers, where other than the likes of Britten, Orff, Villa Lobos and Stravinsky ... the single greatest compositions are done by rock groups and some jazz artists!
 
I just find it sad that because of an oddball term, we can not sit here and help validate a Mike Oldfield, Vangelis Pappathanassiou, Riuichi Sakamoto, Klaus Schulze as the more modern version of composers that deserve the credit for their output and creativity. I would even add Tangerine Dream ... and what a treat it was to see it done by a Symphony Orchestra as well as at another time ... an Evening of Edgar Froese music ... which tells you that there is some appreciation that American and London simply do not have, or are interested in! Ohhh .... sorry ... let's put Elton John on stage with an orchestra instead!
 
It's a different time and place ... music history is forever changed ... let's just accept it and help place our own heroes in the map!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 25882
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 21 2010 at 01:21
Another way to approach this is that it would be strange if artists didn't peak out at some time.They must have glorious peices that stand out.However there is a refining process that goes on.
 
When ELP made Brain Salad Surgery they felt that encompassed all they had to say about using electronics in progressive rock music so then moved onto to other things as evidenced by the sadly inferior Works Volume One. Yet BSS clearly could have been refined and improved as many fans wanted. So we are also talking about atitude.This is one of the reasons I grew up an ELP fan.I saw them as truly progressive and sincere even if they affectively stabbed themselves in the foot. On the otherhand I couldn't see anything progressive about Yes or Genesis who were just repeating themselves yet those bands were a lot more consistent.
 
Conclusion: Progressive music is about attitude and should have peaks!
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16039
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 21 2010 at 20:42
HI,
 
This is good ... fairly good observation and points.
 
Originally posted by Pankot Pankot wrote:

Good thread. Thumbs Up
 (long time lurker here..)
Like other posters, I don't think there is a single cause, but a few factors do crop up again and again.

1) The recklessness and energy of youth - fewer ties, fewer responsibilties, greater willingness to put up with living on baked beans in the back of a transit for 6 months etc. - makes for more prodigious output and more adventurous musical choices. In particular, everything the young artist does is new to him or her - there is freedom to explore every whim and see where it leads. Later on, it can become harder to write because the artist keeps tripping over his or her past  - you may have an idea and then discard it because it sounds too much like an older song - and simultaneously family life and the comforts of home begin to steal away time to compose.
 
The energy I agree with ... the recklessness I don't. There was nothing really reckless for the most part with the compositions, or they would not have lasted. There were a lot of people that were already against the drugs, the drink and the various many things that were befitting "fame" that was destroying the music, and a lot of us were aware of Bryan, Jimi, Janis, Syd and Jim ... to mention a few ... I would almost suggest that what became known as "progressive" were by people that were already trying to do more than just a pop song ... however, it did not mean (necessarily) that they were all ripped.
 
And folks like Ian Anderson and many others were down right adamant and up front about being against the abuses and the excesses. And Roger's tirades in many concerts are also ... quite evident in more than one bootleg!
 
Originally posted by Pankot Pankot wrote:


2) Many rock artists are instinctive composers - working by ear rather than from any formal training. For those artists, technique will not automatically develop as they age: rather, the same signature patterns and forms will be recycled again and again. Staleness can be avoided by making an explicit effort to broaden the pallette, but here the reduced time and energy kicks in.
 
Thank you ... well said.
 
But we must also give credit where credit is due. Bands like KC were very well defined and rehearsed to the point of complaints by many of its members, which also makes for very stale music at times and repetitive, which I personally think that KC is at various periods.
 
The said thing is that the history of music for the last 2k years has done a pretty good job of "killing" a lot of music and stuff that would be considered "instinctive" ... because it didn't make sense, or was too different, and the Salieri's of the time didn't know any better except their mechanical and mathematical music!
 
All of a sudden it was not that mechanical anymore ... (hahahaha!!!! today is the DAW age and mechanical is back!!!!!) ... and a Mozart is problematic for the players at the time. Just like you are never goona see the Boston Pops do Tales From Topographic Oceans ... they wouldn't know "music" from anything else except top ten!
 
Originally posted by Pankot Pankot wrote:


3) Innovation is not always successful. The marketplace loves the new, but usually demands the new from new faces. Thus, a new young band performing innovative music will get a buzz going, but an established band that tries to re-invent itself and genuinely innovate (if it manages to do so without tearing itself apart) runs the risk of a double-barrelled blast - resentment from the existing fanbase and rejection from everyone else. The band's new material isn't given a fair hearing because the band itself is still seen as "old." Consequently the incentive to take risks drops off dramatically when the alternative is to stay in the "comfort zone"  playing classics to a faithful audience.
 
Like I love to say ... there will be a lot more comments here about RUSH's new album than there will be about any other deserving band out there across the universe. That's not to say that Rush's is not worth the mention, but the issue is the board itself ... and the kids love their favorite bands ... that means all of us old folks ... pretty soon we gonna look stupid thinking ELP and Genesis are good!
 
The other issue is ... and this is personal for me, and not meant to sound bad about any of the individual reviewers in this board, but too many of the reviews should not have been done by that person ... and to me, that tends to lessen the ability and desire to listen to something. I specially have an aversion for ... this is not prog ... or this is neo-bovinelp something or other ... which as an artist I would find it insulting ... since I would compose something for my vision, not for that person's ideas!


Edited by moshkito - July 21 2010 at 20:50
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
tdfloyd View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 966
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 21 2010 at 22:46
Lots of reasons ... or possible reasons.  Here are a couple:  Groups are a tough thing to manage.  There are very few that can get thru their careers and still want to work with each other.  Most big groups implode. 
 
Many start chasing the almighty singles / dollars.  Everyone wants to get paid!  Remember that musical tastes of the public (whiich the large portion is teenage or twenty something) change and its a tough sell to work your butt off and realize that the album/cd has no chance of selling out of the box.  I know there are some so no need for anyone to flame me, but I find it hard to believe a teenager of today, listening to say, Genesis' Battle of Epping Forest.   
 
hard driving rock and roll life did in more than a few.  Audiences get stuck on were they discover a band and later music is rarely considered better.
 
Are the "great composers" of classical music better throughout or are there just a few?  I don't know enough of the greats complete work to have an opinion but as I am listening to more and more classical music lately, I would like to hear your thoughts.
 
  
Great Thread!  


Edited by tdfloyd - July 21 2010 at 23:17
Back to Top
tdfloyd View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 06 2008
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 966
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 21 2010 at 23:06
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

 
Genesis is the same thing, even though the massive interview with Peter Gabriel as he left was quite honorable, and had more to do with artistic reasons and freedom of expression than anything else. 
 
PG did, in his own way, say that he wanted artistic freedom.  I don't remember the exact quote anymore but it was something like getting your own idea  in was like moving concrete.  Some Genesis fan with a better memory than me can give you the exact quote. 
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16039
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2010 at 15:22
Originally posted by tdfloyd tdfloyd wrote:

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

 
Genesis is the same thing, even though the massive interview with Peter Gabriel as he left was quite honorable, and had more to do with artistic reasons and freedom of expression than anything else. 
 
PG did, in his own way, say that he wanted artistic freedom.  I don't remember the exact quote anymore but it was something like getting your own idea  in was like moving concrete.  Some Genesis fan with a better memory than me can give you the exact quote. 
 
I'm thinking of sending a copy of all the articles and stuff I have to Dean so that he can scan/copy/transcribe it onto the website.
 
The interview I am thinking of was a foldout in the middle of Melody Maker. It was, and this is from my memory, a very nice and honest opinion, and I thought it was alright. I had the feeling he didn't want to become another "diamond dog" out there wearing costumes that later look silly, because no one can appreciate the new work. I really think that he was saddened when he finally realized that a lot of people didn't appreciate "The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway" ... and what it entailed, and how in his own way he was complimenting so hard the many authors and artists that he appreciated ... that all rock reviewers ignored and avoided and ... instead ... immediately said that it was an overblown concept and not that great, and it should have been one album, not 2. When I heard that, even from fans of the band, I ... just was totally ... yeah ... you can't be an artist in America ... end of story! ... because here the media and the commercial machine will hurt you ... badly!
 
In the end, Peter survived. Fish left Marillion pretty much for the same reasons and he had to work twice harder to get things done, for example, and Fish WAS an actor, not just a singer, like Peter is. I always thought that Peter tried the actor thing, and then ... done that ... got the t-shirt ... made the group famous ... and ... then it was time for something else! ... but rock'n'roll audiences and top ten audiences don't allow that .. and is one of the biggest criticisms against "progressive" anything!


Edited by moshkito - July 22 2010 at 15:29
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
crickleymal View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 02 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2010 at 07:44

This is an interesting discussion.

It seems to me that what we are comparing is prog in general with famous classical composers. I could maybe name 20 classical composers some of whom got better as they went on, some plateaued and some like Holst only produced one really famous work (yes I know he did other stuff).  But there must be loads of other composers who never made it or were briefly/locally famous.
 
Someone mentioned Tull earlier. IMO Tull peaked in the 70s, their quality dipped a bit in the late 80s then picked up again in the 90s. As they haven't produced very much recently (as a group) perhaps the combined creative juices are drying up a bit.  
Rusted and ropy.
Dog-eared old copy.
Vintage and classic,
or just plain Jurassic:
all words to describe me.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 23 2010 at 08:24
Lights that shine the brightest sometimes burn out the quickest.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 25882
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 24 2010 at 02:47
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Lights that shine the brightest sometimes burn out the quickest.
Reminds me of the line in Blade Runner when the inventor of the replicants is trying to explain to a replicant why they have an expiry date.Also very true of many prog bands.
Back to Top
Fieldofsorrow View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 27 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 220
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 24 2010 at 16:29
I don't think there is any hard and fast rule with regards to prog bands declining in quality as they age. Perhaps many do however (besides aforementioned concepts of the influence of commercialism and clashes of ideas between individuals) because they are inevitably and inescapably tuned into what their fans want. Even though many musicians have admirable integrity, this will surely affect their creative decisions.

One of the confines of rock music is how a band will set up certain stylistic parameters over their early, defining albums, and in many cases are undoubtedly keen to remain within their created identity for the duration of their career. Even prog bands have a 'sound' in which they dwell. Of course, this is in many ways a great thing, as we the listener have something to easily latch onto - and the great musical challenge (that jazz and classical styles may have to face to a lesser extent) is to maintain variation inside the walls that the artist themselves build. Many rise to the occasion, and create a very diverse output, but even players at this level will have a very difficult job sustaining originality over many years.
  
I personally think that this idea is one of rock's innermost joys. I just love the whole 'band' set-up; when musicians endure the hardship of many years creating and playing together and developing with each other as well as apart, to create a unity that many can follow and adore. But perhaps this comes at a price - the very identity that draws us in disappoints us when the group twenty years on aren't breaking out.

For this reason, I try to empathise with ageing rock veterans in a seemingly creative lull. Forget whether or not they are able to create something fresh; their latest album depends on their balancing act between holding onto the beauty of their own special style and self-reinvention.  
Groovy teenage rock with mild prog tendencies: http://www.myspace.com/omniabsenceband
Back to Top
thehallway View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 13 2010
Location: Dorset, England
Status: Offline
Points: 1433
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2010 at 16:04
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by WalterDigsTunes WalterDigsTunes wrote:

^

You've been blabbering on and on for ages, yet all of your posts are equally  -->>> "unreadable"... and pointless!
 
With all due respect you are only showing your commercial and unartistic side. Ohhh , excuse me  ... your 3 minute song side! How progressive of you!
 
You could never appreciate War and Peace anyway ...
 
Moshkito, with respect, your own posts seem to be written only with personal superiority in mind. Not "unreadable", but frequently off-subject; used only as a vehicle for displaying your vast cultural knowledge. Your seem to desire to do nothing other than mock and find flaws in the initial questions posed by the first poster in this thread (whose inquisitions may have been pointless but were still very interesting, as is true of a lot of conversational topics). This thread probably isn't the best example, but I've seen you do this a lot.
 
The point of a forum isn't to be the person with the best and undisputable logic, it is to form a creative and opinionated discussion which makes for interesting reading. If a topic is stupid or a question pointless, don't answer it.
 
So much e-flurry is based on speculation, where contributors know little or nothing about the subject they speculate upon. This doesn't matter, the communication leads to learning and/or light-hearted disagreements. You seem to write with the aim of belittling the forum systrem and patronising its users, attempting to reference as many different musical artists and albums in every post as possible.
 
Why are you here at all?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.128 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.