The longevity of prog (and rock) music

Also. For the record. Prog rock is in great shape right now and longevity is largely present.
I have no doubt Prog will continue to live...at least in my lifetime.
Another 60 years? You bet. :)

I have also read a 'story' (I don't know how reliable it is, hence the quotes) that Renaissance never wanted to release Northern Lights as a single and the label insisted on it because they said they needed to make some money to recoup their losses.  That seems to fit in with Fripp's views on the music industry as it was in the 70s.

In 78' and 79' ...the band Nektar used to play around the corner from us at a place called Alexander's. We just COMPLETELY lost control. I mean to say...that loads of kids hopping from 1 venue to the next ..were amazed by Nektar and yet the band never seemed to get the proper backing. Although they were signed to Passport records , they just needed a little more promotion. I mean to say..and for real..that people were crazy over this band. And..I can only ..unfortunately..speak for the east coast of the U.S. It just takes some reading between the lines to understand what precisely was going on here with the industry. I had close ties with the Rock music scene which was very huge in the theatre circuit between 76' (which was when I started) and 84' . Johnny Winter, Rick Derringer, Ian Hunter, Rossington/Collins band and so many others who played "Hard Rock", "Blues Rock", "Boogie", had been shifted from stadiums/huge halls to theatres. Except keep one thought in mind and you will just have to believe me. It was 10 times worse for Prog. The reason...I don't know. I felt depressed over the issue. Everywhere I performed..the DJ's were anti-Prog and I assume that the promoters did not advice conflict from respected DJ's who had worthy positions in radio. They killed Prog. Happy the Man had not one chance to prove themselves beyond the theatre circuit when DJ's were giving their albums away or letting them collect dust instead of playing them over a huge sound system.

Rick Robson wrote:  ...  I respect your thoughts, and of course Picasso's Cubism, but as i've said - that style can be of such a great timeless spirit to many people, but to be honest not for me.

Isa wrote: .

Whoever you are, just wanted to say I love your avatar. 

Isa wrote: As a younger person I'm quite tired

Damn straight, shame on you, jaded is my department

Guldbamsen wrote: A few years ago, whilst talking to a female friend of mine, something hit home with me. We were sitting in some park drinking white wine and eating fruit (yeah I know playa), and we started talking about music. I quickly realised just far removed she was from my listening habits, as most women tend to be, but then she told me about getting goosebumps and chills down her spine from a Lady Gaga song. Oh my word! I couldn't believe what I was hearing, but tried acting all cool about it. I may even have made a somewhat badly timed joke about it, but it was just because I found her words so....erm...wrong perhaps? She was experiencing music in much the same manner as I was - she was a complete music nut who talked to similar people on the internet about whatever new and exciting thing was on the horizon.  After that experience, I left all of my preservations about "bad" music behind. Bad/beautiful music is, and will always be, in the ear of the beholder. All the other sh*te is merely condescending non-sense from people who think they're smart and specially enlightened because they listen to prog/classical/jazz/trance/polka you name it.

Perceptive post certainly. Some of the most intelligent people I know have no affinity for what esoteric music may or may not have to offer. Several years ago I played a qualified psychiatrist The End by the Doors re the oedipal aspects of the lyrics etc. His response was that although he was intrigued and slightly unnerved by the music, the lyrics were in his estimation those of a dilettante undergraduate who confuses the familiar with the familial. That's not to undermine the worth of Jim Morrison or the Doors as musicians of course, but our response to the messenger is always much more illuminating than the message.

BTW don't diss da polka bomb beeatch

@Isa:  I think it was just the way you put it that perhaps made it across as too elitist.  I have seen people pretend to listen to classical music, so I don't think it necessarily has to do with intelligence.  However, the notion of accepting a certain amount of 'musicality' in music is something that the industry has steadily tried to water down.  When Beatles succeeded, they let the genie out of the bottle but within two decades or so, the industry began to control again.  We have come to a point where the mere presence of an instrumental interlude within a song could make a lot of people groan.  I remember that not so long ago, it was popular enough to be Grammy award winning stuff.  I have a faint hope that the success of 21 may turn the tide but I am not holding my breath.

ExittheLemming wrote: Prog 74 wrote: I think we can agree that rock music's peak years were roughly between 1965 - 1975.  Artists were given the freedom in the studio to virtually do as they pleased and this was encouraged by the record companies.  Music fans bought these experimental and progressive records and radio stations played them around the clock.  Warner Brothers famously signed the Grateful Dead and allowed them to be themselves.  They wisely did not try to "reign" them in and turn them into something more mainstream.  The more original and creative you were the more likely you would be signed and promoted by the record companies.  By the late 70s that began to change.  The music business became a business first and foremost.  Like any business it's aim was to make money and the best way to make loads of money in the music business was to sign bands that had mass appeal.  The more appealing you were the more likely you would have a top 10 hit.  MTV furthered the situation by saying you couldn't merely sound appealing you had to look appealing too.  A hairy, aging band like Jethro Tull would never get a video played if you were judged solely on "looks".  Creativity was stifled.  Wanting to venture beyond the standard 3-4 minute pop song structure was strongly discouraged.  Prog became a joke to many.  A few great prog bands have boldly defied those trends, but in order to survive it needed to go underground where is still exists today.  It's doubtful prog will ever again attain the popularity it had in the early 70s.  It can be done, but the now struggling music business needs to reverse it's stance on creativity & experimentalism.  The Flower Kings should be on the Grammys instead of just Beyonce, Macklemore or Taylor Swift.  Am I truly believe that any of those artists had a more creative, more imaginative album than Desolation Rose?  Absolutely not.  We need to stop dumbing down everything and instead encourage people to want to think and to learn.  Truly good music, be it classical or prog or jazz, requires a certain degree of intelligence that many people find intimidating.  Being smart, being creative, being different are what I find to be truly appealing and the music business should as well.  I do take on board your remarks about an industry that has to adapt to a rapidly changing world but the red part is elitist self serving bollocks of the worst kind. The truth you refer to is the one where your tastes and values are reflected in the marketplace as some sort of vindicated litmus test of a meritocracy. The money men who delivered the music of the Prog artists of the early 70's to fans were no different to the money men we have today i.e. businessmen will only invest in a phenomenon if they think they can get a worthwhile return on their investment. They recognised at that time that the youthful demographic was receptive to experimentation, risk taking and eclecticism and more importantly, were prepared to direct their increased spending power on same. Smart people study markets and target perceived needs accordingly. Things have certainly changed considerably in the interim and artists can now market, distribute and promote themselves via the internet. This is probably a good thing but given the inexhaustibly vast amount of music consumers are asked to make an informed decision about they naturally find this intimidating. Intelligence has nothing to do with responding positively to what you like. I know loads of smart, creative and fiercely independent people who care not a jot for classical, Prog or Jazz (on Planet Prog 74 there are just 3 types of music right? you have to be kidding, otherwise you should be hoisted by your own petard - how can being different be anything other than a prevailing minority demographic? yet you want the music business to expect viability will result in what is by definition a niche market?) The only way you can achieve a marketplace that mirrors your values is by interventionist and subsidized means, and yes that's the sort of Soviet era suppression of democracy that I like to think we both find repugnant.

Of course the greatest sin of our era is to have any whiff of an elitist attitude, right? ;)

As a younger person I'm quite tired of the logical fallacy of artistic relativism that old dofers from the 60s keep shoving down our throats, and then wondering why the arts are losing funding from institutions. While I do disagree with the asserted "intellectual" elitism, I wholeheartedly agree with the point of music being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator for the musically uneducated masses. Almost no one is listening to the Jonas Bros. anymore, just as no one will listen to Cyrus in a few years, because there is just too little substance to it, whilst tons of young people are still listening to Rush and Yes, just as there are tons of young people still listening to Beethoven and John Coltrane. If those who wish to point at this pretty significant Elephant in the room are called elitist, than so be it.

A few years ago, whilst talking to a female friend of mine, something hit home with me. We were sitting in some park drinking white wine and eating fruit (yeah I know playa), and we started talking about music. I quickly realised just far removed she was from my listening habits, as most women tend to be, but then she told me about getting goosebumps and chills down her spine from a Lady Gaga song. Oh my word! I couldn't believe what I was hearing, but tried acting all cool about it. I may even have made a somewhat badly timed joke about it, but it was just because I found her words so....erm...wrong perhaps? She was experiencing music in much the same manner as I was - she was a complete music nut who talked to similar people on the internet about whatever new and exciting thing was on the horizon. 

Edited by Guldbamsen - March 25 2014 at 09:50