... or ...

go with metal. I'm not sure how popular guys like Death are today, but the metal scene here in Reno is huge and diverse, from technical to crap. I was auditioning for a metal band (whoever told me that was a good idea) that had the chops, so as an idea prog was in place.

Crossover, metal, or both; take your pick. That would be my guess, all in all.

It just needs a lucky trigger, by which it starts to become a trend among a certain social group, something considered 'cool' which spreads. The said social group would possibly be, as it was in the 70's, university students seeking some cultural referent. And the trigger might involve something visual, I think it's difficult to attract much people with the music alone, but if some band would come with some innovative and spectacular visual show, who knows... (Gabriel-like theatrics again but with some modern twist?). It should be a trend involving not only music but including some lifestyle elements, style of clothing, some social statements or moto's or whatever (like 'Make Love Not War' was for the flower power, 'No Future' was for punk, clothing and makeup was for glam, hairstyle was for new wave etc).

But also very possibly it would be some of the 'new Prog' styles, not retro Prog, and it would not be popular in the league of Lady Gaga, Bieber & co. That's not going to happen, but it could become relatively popular as a niche.

15 years IMHO. 

Will it be mainstream or not? I don't think it matters, in the long run, after all Debussy, and many others were laughed at as stupid and bad composers!

 

There  how always been chart quarks, is this simply another?

I think Miley or Gaga would have to actually release an album with an extended prog epic or two. 

Maybe Miley's next identity crisis could be based on her questioning her own artistic integrity??  

They both seem eccentric enough for something like this to happen.  

I suppose it depends on how much leeway their management/label gives them to experiment musically. 

If either found success with a Bohemian Rhapsody (or even Sister Christian) style song, it may open the door.

I'm not so sure. The physical principles of sound are now completely understood and by now the technology exists so that ANY humanly audible timbre can be produced. From this perspective the ceiling you refer to is there to remain, there can not be any further expansion in terms of generating new sounds. Another thing is that sounds which are already possible today but are rarely used because they feel too weird may become common as our ears and brains get used to new trends. And of course the possible re-combinations of existing sounds in different ways are endless. But new sounds from new instruments evolution? no I don't think so or at least not in any major way.

I think truly "new music" may come from scientific and technological advances not in the sound synthesis itself but in the understanding of the neurology involved in music perception. There may come a day when "music" is a different thing, we getting wired or wearing a sort of helmet which directly will cause sense perceptions in our brain similar to what we now get with sonic music, exciting the same brain circuits as our hearing does and generating mental landscapes and emotions in our minds.

but that's a big digression from the OP 

I would say that yes, much of modern rock music (though certainly not all!) had a cultural aspect, surely not of Biblical proportions, but it had some cultural background associated with it. The Flower Power, Psychedelia, Hard Rock, Prog, Glam, Punk, New Wave, Hip-Hop... all of this genres did actually represent the musical side of a wider cultural scene in their followers which included aesthetics, leitmotifs and lifestyle elements. Perhaps the reason why modern rock and the modern progressive music is lacking steam (at least in the opinion of some) is that it lacks that cultural substrate. All of the aforementioned genres I can identify with some visual and cultural aspects with which they were associated, but if you ask me which cultural current are the modern progressive bands manifesting, I have no idea. 

Today, we expand and tear apart the music and make it difficult for the general public to understand what it is we are talking about. We created a label system that sub-divided all rock music into smaller categories based on structure, song writing, influence and what instruments are being used. It could be we made it way too confusing for the general public to follow our music and make it popular again...I mean I think this website would explode if King Crimson and Pink Floyd were to be called rock/pop music.

Yes and no, I guess what the OP meant is whether complicated music could become popular again, and for that to happen no labels are required.

I have to take umbrage with two of your conclusions:

First off, jazz hadn't gotten anywhere near academic in the late '60's. That was more an invention of the '80's and beyond. Jazz in the late '60's included fusion, free jazz, acid jazz... truly out of this world stuff. And those jazz fans who didn't like that instead lapped up the last of the great modal and post-bop albums.

Second, never ever undersell hip hop and EDM. Those genres have undergrounds, and I know for a plain fact that underground rap is as vibrant and varied as prog. And so it is in much the same place as prog - Dalek and Matt Martians have their own experimental and unique music like Beardfish and Senogul, but as well the same fat chance of ever hitting the mainstream. Mainstream rap is, then as well, much like mainstream rock.

In the end, then, I'd say that any unique underground album from prog, indie, hip hop, wherever, could, if they hit the chord at the right time, get mainstream success, but they aren't going to drag a whole bunch of subgenres up with them.

For instance Radiohead - Paranoid Android is the last time I remember a prog track making the British Charts, Its a very rare occurence . Something like Kayleigh is not really prog imo.

The Sweet were the first band I loved and I still enjoy some of their music. The long version is a bit longer but not that much. Another big hit around that time was Ram Jam Band - Black Betty. I only discovered a few years ago a long version of this track. Worth checking out for the manic 'southern boogie' mid section that was cut out on the single edit.

Ah, indubitably?    I'd like to know exactly how DT with their clumsy lyrics are more intellectual than Fiona Apple.  How's Kansas more intellectual than Magazine?  Let's not get too carried away just because prog seems to appeal to a small minority of listeners.  I do believe prog appeals more to geeks because they would actually be able to patiently listen to long tracks of music.  Besides, a lot of the appeal of prog is kind of mathematical, as in how is the music organised, how are the time sig changes managed, etc, again something that is more likely to appeal to geeks.  I don't seem to feel any need ever to want to make out that I just do what everybody else does.  What's liberty for if you don't exercise it?   Who cares what people want to label you as for listening to prog? 

 

Why shouldn't there be? Kanye sampled King Crimson's 21st Century Skchizoid Man, lol. He has actually sampled quite a lot of prog & prog-related in his music: Sing Swan Song by Can (1972); In High Places by Mike Oldfield feat. Jon Anderson; You Are - I Am by Manfred Mann's Earth Band (1979); Iron Man by Black Sabbath (1970); Kid Charlemagne by Steely Dan (1976); plus Queen, Phil Manzanera...

 

H did a bit of rapping (not very good) on the Marillion track Quartz.

 

To be honest, I'd *much* rather hear rap prog than metal prog...

 

You couldn't possibly change the world of Prog by giving it media coverage/promotion in 2015 ..when the actual art form of melodic composition no longer exists on the same level AS it did in the 60's and 70's AND possibly in the 80's as well when many "New Wave" bands emulated the "British Invasion" with an attachment of The Kinks premature "Punk Rock" style. The art form revolved around a different concept totally. In the 70's, Elton John would write a song ...which became a number one hit and in the song...you might hear a chord progression reminiscent of what Gary Brooker from Procol Harum would play. Many "Top 40" hits in the 60's and 70's contained snippets of musical elements often found or LATER to be found in Progressive Rock. Just the idea to play more progressive in MOST music during the 60's and 70's was the basis for the art form. That doesn't exist anymore as a goal, production, experiment, or never mind your own goals ..but to change the future of music. This approach to the art form in the 60's and 70's was ridiculously vast and now it seems less and less. The most important act would be to attempt changing society first. I don't know if Prog could be sold to generations of people who have over decades developed a short attention span for music that's taken for granted and compared to the commonly routines of someone walking their dog or brushing their teeth..

altaeria wrote: Skullhead wrote: What would have to happen for modern prog to compete with the likes of today's pop stars like Gaga, Beiber, Miley, Swift? I think Miley or Gaga would have to actually release an album with an extended prog epic or two.  Maybe Miley's next identity crisis could be based on her questioning her own artistic integrity??   They both seem eccentric enough for something like this to happen...

I think that after their 'sex" appeal, a lot of it will disappear for them. Sooner or later it will be about that big one for one of them and the threesomes and foursomes for the other, ragardless of who is who. I doubt, at that point, that they will be as "important" as entertainers as they are right now, where the alluring appeal is more valuable than the reality behind it. Not to mention that not all women, after childbirth all have teenage bodies with which to entice you or the audience, and that tennagers will still be looking at it as some kind of inspiration. You can see this, really well, in Madonna, and how all of a sudden she is not as vital or important to most folks out there, ragardless of what they do musically.

Of all these, Madonna has the best potential for creating something within the progressive vein, although I sincerely doubt that her ego would allow her to follow up on these ideas, and get away from the popular ideals that have made her so much money and fame.

If, and when, prog returns to the pop charts, is a sort of oxymoron. Most important and early examples of progressive music were all anti-pop and fame, and concentrated on the music or the work at hand, and not anything else. For this to happen, these "entertainers" would ahve to be well off for the lifetimes of themselves and their children, so they do not need to feel forced into another orgy of entrepeneurs that want to make them more money.

Honestly, I'm not looking at Gaga in her 50's in costume, and neither would I find attractive a Miley at 50 trying to show how sexy it can be to show off her buns. The public appeal will likely disappear as their once at a time fans, all get into families and children ... you can only deny your youth for so long!

 

I would probably make a stupid statement like ... you sure they know what prog is?

My neighbors are in a similar situation. They are totally attracted to the 1500 LP's and 2K CD's, but they do not realize that there is "music" in them, and they are not (yet) attuned to music in their lives. 

For them it seems to be just a phase in their lives, and not something important. And this might be where the music itself has to get better and more important and beyond the 4 minute cut, which is not quite happening. There are a few bands out there, that do so, but they are not exactly getting away from a "format" and specially within a creative context that can not see beyond a format, even with something as strange and weird as putting the end at the beginning and the middle parts in the end. which, silly enough as it may sound, would likely make it more progressive than otherwise!

The only hope there is, is a huge underground revolution that overthrows the musical businessmen but obviously there's virtually no chance of that. I guess we'll just have to settle with listening to Nicki Minaj on the radio, and saving prog for a darkened room surrounded by candles and joss sticks 

 

Nothing directly wrong with finding a woman's body attractive. Everything wrong with finding another man's wife attractive if you're acting on it. Sexual promiscuity is not a healthy act and sometimes it breaks up marriages. Although something must be deadly wrong with a marriage anyway if it folds on that account, but then again...a majority of men and women who are into sexual promiscuity and are "playing the field" tend to prey on a married man or woman who display innocence within their character. I believe it's due to sincere innocence being defined as lack of sexual experience by the  man or woman who is out for the count. It is quite often that a shallow person attempting to do no more than getting you into bed for personal satisfaction will "sweet talk" you based on their personal judgment that you are naïve or completely stupied..(one or the other), as opposed to having respect for the confidence you might really have in being a devoted husband or wife...and further more revealing to the sincere person that they do not understand a promise. People who are cheaters are dismissive of anyone in life making a promise to another person. I often arrive to the conclusion that their sexual drive rules over the choice to have true love. I've made this observation over the last 40 years of being in the music business. It's crucial.

 

 

waaaay off topic now, but i'd like to add ..

 

there's 1 right reason for marrying someone.

 

there's thousands of wrong ones ..

and in my experience I've seen very few people marry for the right reasons.

 

the others end up on less than solid footing and fall apart with a tiny bit of temptation or trouble.

also - people change. it happens. So even if everything was right, if one person changes or grows and the other doesn't change or grow to match then they are out of sync.

 

Happy, sane people in great marriages don't cheat.

How do you know this? Most people I know in real life - as well as the ones on PA - are all about the full kahuna, the whole album.....yet they, and I, use phones, Ipods and MP3 players to play the record when away from the old stereo. 

This is how you experience Tangerine Dream whilst walking around in a forest - or similarly Magma whilst skiing. I know all these portable devices freak (some) oldtimers completely out, and in some instances I get their concern (8-18 year old American Idol fans), but the whole notion of carrying your music with you into nature far outweighs the negative. The negative comes from the person using the device, not the device itself. 

 

there's only a few albums I feel I have to listen to as a whole (Misplaced Childhood is one for sure)

a few others ..

 

but for the most part I like the variety.

 

 

 

 

Hell?  been there, done that ..  Ex's face is on the t-shirt :)

I have to disagree, I've never met anyone who thinks something avant-garde is cool but doesn't think that progressive rock is cool. To those in the 'mainstream' crowd, for lack of a better term, anything that isn't generic pop or rock is uncool I presume. Maybe I've just been lucky as far as who I meet, but most of the people I know like metal, prog rock, and the like. Also, I've heard more people who think prog rock is cool then Krautrock, most of the people I know don't even know what it is. 

I assume by progressive rock, you're not counting prog metal, because Tool is prog metal. 

Progressive music is progressive music, sure there are different ways of being progressive, but as long as you're expanding the boundaries of music and creating a unique and innovative sound you are a progressive band. And of course Tool doesn't sound like Dream Theater, then they wouldn't be progressive. However, even if a band isn't progressive doesn't mean they're bad. 

 

so very true

I see where you are coming from, I guess we have different meanings of the word progressive. I honestly don't use 'progressive' as a genre, I use it as an adjective to describe rock or metal bands that create something new and fresh. Due to this there are a lot of bands on this site that I don't call progressive, and a lot of bands that aren't on here that I do call progressive. Bands like Haken, and some neo-prog bands, I don't call progressive because they aren't doing anything new. Yes, they are copying the works of previous progressive artists, but that makes them not progressive.

Yup, genres can work for and against the listener. Good to see we're on the same page now 

''Progressive'' is more about an attitude to create and not copy

 

neither definition can presuppose that what is being presented is either good or bad.

Prog and Progressive mean the same thing, 'prog' is just an abbreviation of Progressive.

Nope. Prog and Progressive rock mean the same thing.