Why do prog artists peak out?

^You missed out the part where he likes to re-wright history as well.

it happens to any artist not just Prog Bands. But it happened to prog bands quicker because when you have 3-5 trained musicians and potential band leaders who want their say in everything egos fly and everything falls apart after efew years, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes, ELP, Soft Machine (to some extent) and so many more fell apart in the late 70's because of ego 

Edited by topographicbroadways - July 28 2010 at 09:27

moshkito wrote: 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 ...

Again, brutally off-topic. What does that have to do with anything? At least you've finally delivered a short comment. Really, who wants to read a load of irrelevant clutter that is, more often than not, completely wrong and full of dire errors?

Oh, and I'll take The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire over fictional scribbles any day.

I think the tendency of prog artists (and really any contemporary musical artist) to peak out has a great deal to do with the pace at which society produces and consumes culture. Mass communication, the dissemination of text, and most recently the internet, means that we are hyper-conscious of the developing artistic world.  The outcome of this is that we consume culture as fast as we can produce it.  I vividly remember the so called 'Latin explosion' at the end the the 20th century...one artist had a hit, and suddenly the media was expounding on the newest overwhelming trend.  I saw articles comparing Ricky Martin to The Beatles, no joke.  The same thing happened with the swing 'revival' - one or two notable songs, and a whole slew of declaratory articles in music magazines heralding the second coming.

Taking that into consideration, I think that musical artists are forced to observe others observing them.  Following an acknowledged success, the band becomes self-conscious, aware that they produced something valuable and subsequently crushed beneath the expectation of further innovation.  I remember reading an interview with Roger Waters, talking about the band post-Dark Side - they were all terrified that they had reached their apex, that there was nothing left to say.  In Floyd's case they managed to convert that anxiety into several more masterpieces, but many bands crumble beneath the scrutiny.  Jumping out of prog for a moment, I remember reading about Def Leppard's guitarist, Steve Clark.  He freaked out on the Hysteria tour, trying to break his fingers in the bathroom prior to a show.  He made it through the tour, but was dogged by the certainty that Hysteria was the pinnacle of the band's career.  He eventually died at age 31 from a collective overdose of alcohol and anti-depressants.

Couple this with our culture's current obsession with youth.  We like our rock stars to be young, fiery, passionate and visionary.  Somewhere we stumbled across this conception that, after the age of thirty or so, even the most revolutionary musical artist becomes a dinosaur.  I think that most bands are aware of this cultural expectation, and so frantically attempt to 'change with the times,' or at the least try something drastically different and usually ill-advised.  This is why artists tend to flare, then fade, then flare up again a decade or so later with much better material: they've gotten over the age hump, and come to terms with culture's expectations.  Of course, even if they start producing vital work again, chances are it will only be consumed by old-time fans.  I know that Nektar's latest releases haven't cause much of a stir outside the heavily cloistered prog community...although I suppose they never really received the accolades they deserved.

All this comes back to a culture that manically documents every trend (imaginary or real), every new idea, every innovation or revitalization of an older genre.  I think that being in a relatively well-known band must feel like being permanently captured in the camera's eye, there to excel while you can and then, inevitably, fall from grace. 

moshkito wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Lights that shine the brightest sometimes burn out the quickest.   Oh my gawd ... another astrophysicist to join us with Brian May!

My name may be Brian however I am not astrophysical.

I would like to put more stress on this:

friso wrote: Their's a need for a certain environment in which progressive groups are encouraged to be innovative.

I personally think, that every artist needs a certain social environment for best output. If an artist competes and interchanges with many similar artists at the same time, the chances to create masterpieces rise.

Sometimes in history there are peaks for certain genres, for example Surrealism peaked in the 20ies and 30ies of the 20ieth century. And for Prog Rock it was the 70ies. Why just in the 70ies I tried to explain somewhere in the middle of this page:
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=71497&PN=4
When the 'big time' of prog was over, the creativity of those bands/artists became less as well.

The prog bands from the 90ies onwards never had this kind of social environment, they were always in a kind of a relatively small 'sub culture'. So I expect that these newer artists or artists, residing in niches, do not follow the development of the 70ies bands, with one peak and then slump. I expect there the 'usual' up and down.

(And the slumps that follow the split of the bands, of course, but this applies to any rock band, not only prog.)

^that sig made me lol so hard

Meh. I think it really depends how far a composer wants to go with their music. I don't want to say that artists do have a steady decline aren't true to themselves, but I feel that they could do better. If I felt I had run out of ideas, I wouldn't put out sh*t music. I'd give myself time to compose good music. So it really varies. My definition of perfect  music can differ in 12 years. And there's the money factor. And the sociological aspect. Etc.

Cygnus567 wrote: It's called the 80's. The 80's ruined every genre of music. The 80's is the great sell-out period.

Probably...........

Tapfret wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Kind of thinking the answer is obvious, people get old, inspiration wanes. That's not true at all. I am very inspired to take a nap. I suppose you meant that in regards to creating music specifically. I suppose that's true. There is also the drive to be different and "way out" that comes with youth. At some point we either settle in and be happy with what we can create or get frustrated and crotchety that we physically cant keep up with our own minds.

Heck man, inspired to take a nap?  Whaaat? OK.  Now that you mention it...

I was only talking musically.  Inspired = more energy and creative drive musically.  No real consistency with musicians though. 


Edited by Slartibartfast - September 29 2010 at 14:38

TODDLER wrote: I can't seem to recall this happening to Classical composers centuries ago.

You had to be there.