| Author |
|
tboyd1802 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 01 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 898
|
 Topic: Who Will be Remembered?
Posted: May 27 2016 at 09:55 |
I recently read this article in the NY Times:
As rock music passes into historical obscurity, this article ponders the question of which rock star or group will be remembered by future generations and future historians as the archetypical representative of a musical genre that in their daily experience has been a long forgotten. So I ask the question, in 300 years, if progressive rock is still even remembered, who will be the representative future generations choose to remember this genre by?
I'll start. I would argue that: 1) it has to be one of the original progressive rock acts, 2) has to have been one of the more popular acts, and 3) that its story arc ties in with the cultural revolutions of the 60's through to the decline of genre in the late 70's (i.e., its existence has to resonate as an example of an historical story arc that is representative of the genre). Based on these criteria, I'm going with Floyd...
|
|
He neither drank, smoked, nor rode a bicycle. Living frugally, saving his money, he died early, surrounded by greedy relatives. It was a great lesson to me -- John Barrymore
|
 |
Guldbamsen
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23098
|
Posted: May 27 2016 at 14:58 |
|
I think the main reason for you not getting any replies is that we currently have an identical (almost) thread running: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=106720
|
|
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
|
|
tboyd1802
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 01 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 898
|
Posted: May 27 2016 at 17:02 |
|
^Very well could be !-)
|
|
He neither drank, smoked, nor rode a bicycle. Living frugally, saving his money, he died early, surrounded by greedy relatives. It was a great lesson to me -- John Barrymore
|
|
KABSA
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 09 2010
Location: midlands
Status: Offline
Points: 154
|
Posted: May 27 2016 at 18:39 |
|
Hmmmm.......
Educated Guess __ Lottery
Article was an Interesting Read.....
Regards Progressive Rock; then i reckon a Band who are/were through their discography a Dedicated Prog-Rock band
Also..... A Band that Has a Rock Base., in the normally accepted meaning of a Rock-Format., as opposed to other styles of Prog
Helps i think to Narrow down the Field
And.... A band that sold and was recieved "Majoritively"
You Reckon: Pink Floyd
My Answer then, avoiding repetition [for interests sake] = King Crimson
"even though; these days i rarely give their albums a listen [only cuz]., i did 100s of listens years back; and have lost the euphoria-rush i used to get then"
Might be Good to Offer a Poll / List here
Edited by KABSA - May 27 2016 at 18:46
|
|
Tall Tales of Topographic Inconsequence
|
|
Necrotica
Special Collaborator
Honorary Colaborator
Joined: July 28 2015
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 3204
|
Posted: May 27 2016 at 18:52 |
|
If we're talking about Classic prog, I'd say either Rush, Pink Floyd, or King Crimson. As far as bands who I feel will become classic in the future, I'd go with either Opeth or Porcupine Tree (probably Opeth though)
|
|
Take me down, to the underground
Won't you take me down, to the underground
Why oh why, there is no light
And if I can't sleep, can you hold my life
https://www.youtube.com/@CocoonMasterBrendan-wh3sd
|
|
jude111
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1729
|
Posted: May 27 2016 at 19:56 |
I'd go with one of the critics quoted in that article: The Rolling Stones.
Edited by jude111 - May 27 2016 at 19:57
|
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12681
|
Posted: May 27 2016 at 20:14 |
|
If you whittled it down to one band, then the obvious choice is The Beatles, whose compositions are already part of many musicology classes.
|
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
|
|
jude111
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1729
|
Posted: May 27 2016 at 21:25 |
 The Dark Elf wrote:
If you whittled it down to one band, then the obvious choice is The Beatles, whose compositions are already part of many musicology classes. |
The Beatles were very eclectic, and incorporated many non-rock styles into their music. I mean, it's hard to argue that Here Comes the Sun is a rock song, or Eleanor Rigby, or Yesterday, When I'm 64, Yellow Submarine, Let It Be, Lady Madonna, A Day in the Life, etc. They seemed more inspired by Indian classical music and the American songbook than Chuck Berry or the blues. They're like, beyond rock; a genre unto themselves. The Stones, however, were pure rock and roll. They had great energy, wrote amazing classic rock songs, had tremendous rock riffs, and they had attitude.
Edited by jude111 - May 27 2016 at 21:33
|
|
The.Crimson.King
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4591
|
Posted: May 27 2016 at 23:38 |
I'd go with the Beatles...the musical aspect has already been pointed out. In addition, the changes they went through lead society on some of the major alterations of the 60's so their place in history is assured 
|
|
|
|
FragileKings
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 10 2012
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 92
|
Posted: May 28 2016 at 03:53 |
I was talking about this with someone recently because I said that even Japanese elementary school students who know no western artists except for Justin Beiber and Ariana Grande (spelling?) have at least heard of the Beatles. Also many artists internationally cite the Beatles as an influence more than any other band I've ever heard cited.
We know not so many composers of the past. Only a special few have had their names etched into history. So 300 years hence who of the rock years will be remembered is an interesting question. And prog? I think the bands that captured a mainstream audience are more likely to be remembered like Pink Floyd and Rush.
|
|
I used to be a fan of particular bands like Rush, Yes, and Deep Purple. Now I travel the Proglands, exploring a little bit of everything. I have become a Prog Voyager.
|
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12681
|
Posted: May 28 2016 at 08:15 |
jude111 wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
If you whittled it down to one band, then the obvious choice is The Beatles, whose compositions are already part of many musicology classes. |
The Beatles were very eclectic, and incorporated many non-rock styles into their music. I mean, it's hard to argue that Here Comes the Sun is a rock song, or Eleanor Rigby, or Yesterday, When I'm 64, Yellow Submarine, Let It Be, Lady Madonna, A Day in the Life, etc. They seemed more inspired by Indian classical music and the American songbook than Chuck Berry or the blues. They're like, beyond rock; a genre unto themselves. The Stones, however, were pure rock and roll. They had great energy, wrote amazing classic rock songs, had tremendous rock riffs, and they had attitude.
|
The question was "who will be remembered", not who stuck to the formula. The Rolling Stones broke no new ground. The Beatles did with nearly every album. The Rolling Stones never evolved except for a brief dalliance with disco in the late 70s, something that does not at all enhance their "rock and roll" repertoire as far as I'm concerned. In fact, after the great Exile on Main Street, most of their albums in the 70s were simply wretched. They have longevity, not a musical legacy.
The Beatles will be remembered because they were innovators and superb compositionally. They did everything and they did everything splendidly, from the brutal "Helter Skelter" to the pastoral "Here Comes the Sun", from the psychedelic "I am the Walrus" to the classically-influenced "Eleanor Rigby", from the Indian-drone of "Tomorrow Never Knows" to the American Surf-sound of "Back in the U.S.S.R". No other single band had such an influence on rock music, but more importantly on society itself, than The Beatles in the 1960s.
And let's be real here, tomorrow The Beatles could release outtakes from studio work from 50 years ago and it would sell a million copies. When The Beatles released their remastered CDs in 2009, they set a record with more than 2.25 million albums sold in the first 5 days...40 years after they broke up. With no internet downloads either. No other band or performer has that sort of hold on the public consciousness. Most likely no other band or performer will be able to do that 40 years after their last studio album.
|
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
|
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12681
|
Posted: May 28 2016 at 09:38 |
jude111 wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
The Rolling Stones broke no new ground. The Beatles did with nearly every album. The Rolling Stones never evolved except for a brief dalliance with disco in the late 70s, something that does not at all enhance their "rock and roll" repertoire as far as I'm concerned. In fact, after the great Exile on Main Street, most of their albums in the 70s were simply wretched. They have longevity, not a musical legacy.
|
 The Stones forged a unique sound. No one else really sounds like them. On the other hand, Beatles clones are a dime a dozen. How many songs and bands sound like the Beatles, from Badfinger and ELO up to Tame Impala today. How many singers sound exactly like Paul McCartney or John Lennon?
Another important aspect to consider: The Beatles were a studio band. Unlike nearly every other important rock act, the Beatles never played live, except in the beginning, before they reached greatness.
I love the Beatles. But the Stones were pure rock and roll, the energy and attitude.
Also, those 70s albums by the Stones are brilliant. Every album had something to recommend it. Very few of the tracks are "disco" from their "disco" phase - but those are brilliant too. (I wish they had made many more disco tracks.) They toughened up disco, and furthermore, those tracks reflect the NYC of the 1970s where they were hanging out. For me, the only other rock album that really capture the City is VU & Nico. |
Again, the concept is 'who will be remembered', not who sounded good on stage. No one gives a damn if Bach jammed in the cathedral or Mozart blew away the nobility in some Lord's parlor. We remember them from a compositional standpoint, and from that perspective The Rolling Stones really don't hold a candle to The Beatles.
As far as Beatles clones, I can rattle off any number of dreadful Stones wannabes - they are as ubiquitous as garages in suburbia. That is not the point. The Beatles influence goes far beyond a few bands trying to sound like them but to the whole process of how rock music is composed. Robert Fripp does not mention The Stones as an influence, but rather The Beatles, even though his music is completely different. It is their approach, their techniques and their adaptation that changed rock music from The Stones' 12 bar blues-rock simplicity to whole symphonic treatments within the rock genre. They also popularized psychedelic music, Indian influences, classical influences in the rock genre, the music video as a means of expression, and advanced studio techniques (with George Martin). They changed the perception of rock music, and most every rock composer since usually acknowledges their influence.
Regarding The Stones' 70s output, I will maintain it was wretched, particularly Goat's Head Soup and the horrid Black and Blue. In comparison to stellar releases such as Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street and Let It Bleed, that period was an embarrassment. And from the 80s onward, most of their releases have been simply forgettable, rehashing prior glory, throwing the stratified and decaying band back together occasionally to tour and start every concert with the same damn "Start Me Up". Cockroaches and Keith Richards, they've been around forever, but no one really wants them in their house.
|
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
|
|
jude111
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1729
|
Posted: May 28 2016 at 09:47 |
You made a good argument. I deleted my post; I think you won me over. I do prefer the Stones - at least, at this point in my life - but the Beatles were kings, and far more internationally revered.
(I admit the 3 albums you mention were their weakest albums of the 70s, but by no means "wretched." They contain great music such as Heartbreaker, Angie, Ain't Too Proud to Beg, It's Only Rock 'n Roll, Time Waits for No One, and one of my all-time faves, Fool to Cry - all of them radio staples to this day. The next 3 'disco' albums are brilliant, and set the template for bands such as U2 and Radiohead to embrace dance music and radically alter their sound. But they should have called it quits after that.)
Edited by jude111 - May 28 2016 at 09:57
|
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12681
|
Posted: May 28 2016 at 09:52 |
jude111 wrote:
You made a good argument. I deleted my post; I think you won me over. I do prefer the Stones - at least, at this point in my life - but the Beatles were kings, and far more internationally revered. |
Hey, I love the early Stones. In fact, I'm listening to the second side of Exile on Main Street currently.
|
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
|
|
Manuel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 09 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 12369
|
Posted: May 28 2016 at 10:47 |
|
I think it won't be only one, but a few, just like we have many masters of classical music remembered today, if the progressive movement in music is remembered, it will be the top main acts of the classic period, yes, genesis, tull, floyd, crimson, etc.
|
|
Lewian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14106
|
Posted: May 29 2016 at 07:01 |
|
The general public may not care for long but some geeks and musicians
may still want to dig out old stuff and see whether they can revive it,
and so it may make reappearances in documentaries and a handful of
people may care and carry the torch on, you never know. Still it's more
likely that this happens with acts that were fairly widely known such
as Pink Floyd. Some people may in 2100 still be interested in how rock
musicians treated classical music in the 20th century and this may bring
them to ELP. The beginnings of electronic music will still be of
interest to music historians so Tangerine Dream may be remembered, and also somebody will still be interested in the power of (psychedelic) improvisation. Some jazzers including Miles Davis may have better staying power than the proggies but who knows some may dig out Tago Mago or early Pink Floyd for that reason.
|
|
thwok
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 15 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 160
|
Posted: June 02 2016 at 05:22 |
|
Let's think about the music of 300 years ago, which is the early 18th century. Which music from that time period is the most familiar? It's music from composers like Bach, Vivaldi, and a few others. Why is their music preserved and remembered? It's because academic institutions, classical music performers, and record companies have decided that this is the music worth preserving. I believe it's because the music of these composers is both innovative and enjoyed by a large number of listeners. The constantly evolving technology used to record music and disseminate music has shifted the focus from composers to performers. Therefore, I think that the distributors of music (the Internet, for example), and the buying choices made by consumers will determine what music is listened to hundreds of years from now.
|
|
I am the funkiest man on the planet!
|
|
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: June 03 2016 at 07:01 |
The Dark Elf wrote:
If you whittled it down to one band, then the obvious choice is The Beatles, whose compositions are already part of many musicology classes. |
As is Pink Floyd.
|
|
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: June 03 2016 at 07:25 |
|
The recording medium (not the web), which is the event that really changed the musical world, will ensure a lot will be around for a long, long time. We may be surprised, after all a lot of proper, um, I mean, classical music is now recorded, albeit tribute bands such as the London and Berlin Fox Phillies. I think I've a Bela Bartok plays Bartok somewhere... (1949 - and it sounds it...).
The Stones' embrace and preservation of roots music will be their legacy. The 1960s singles, the Beggars to Exile album era, the more mainstream orientation of their recordings aside and showing how to continue in the face of adversity may be an inspiration to many. Satanic Majesties showed a desire to stretch boundaries at least once rather than tuning into the dark side of popular psyche as they did afterward.
However it may be the music of Jimi Hendrix who was solely and singularly responsible for how rock guitar sounds and sounded that may be the star in eternity. Bob Dylan who also embraced roots music and blazed it into flowering and gave pop music a lyrical depth from which it has never recovered...
Largely it will be the popular song, perhaps Satisfaction, or the album experience, Dark Side, that will live long after most of the rest of us have retired from haunting prog blogs. Social music has to become art music to live on (Beethoven's 6th) so it may be that punk composer Jaz Coleman's brilliant orchestral arrangements of Led Zeppelin music may ensure longevity there while the "original" catalogue is viewed with compositional suspicion tainted by years of plagiarist accusations.
Anyway, just be thankful that the worst of the '80s pop music will be forgotten - unless you really want the forebears of your forebears to go "man those old dudes listed to that?!"
One wonders what new stuff lies in the Futura.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Who Will be Remembered?
Topic Options