Why do prog artists peak out?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=69234
Printed Date: April 25 2024 at 14:10
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why do prog artists peak out?
Posted By: Isa
Subject: Why do prog artists peak out?
Date Posted: July 14 2010 at 23:51
|
Why is it so common (and we all know it is) that so many of even the
greatest prog bands and composers get better, peak out, then slump in
their discography? Wouldn't your compositional skill improve with age? I ask this because in my studies in music history, most of the classical greats, especially Beethoven, Bach, and Handel, only got better at composing as they got older, and many released their most profound works just before they died. This seems even true for most of the great jazz artists, like John Coltrane, Miles Davis (before he sold out), and Herbie Hancock, all who continuously put out highly acclaimed works and played with great groups their whole lives. I'm certainly not trying say these two genres are superior to prog. I'd say prog is anything as diverse and innovative in composition techniques as they are. But why do prog bands, even the greatest and most commercially successful, burn out overtime, almost seemingly more often than not? Certainly there are some exceptions, but it seems more a general rule to peak at a certain point in the band or composer's career and the several albums after that never get better. Maybe prog bands tend to have more friction between members? Then why not the jazz groups? Does prog try so hard to be unique and innovative that composers run out of their innovative ideas to fast? It's certainly a relevant and interesting question. ------------- The human heart instrinsically longs for that which is true, good, and beautiful. This is why timeless music is never without these qualities. |
Replies:
Posted By: TheOppenheimer
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 00:06
|
it seems to me its the "lack of ideas" syndrome. they put all they've got in their first work, and then they just compose whatever they find. plus, they live in real life, after being 20, most of these guys get a job, a family, and so. but still, id rather have it like that, that to listen to sh*tty music forever ------------- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// A veces es cuestión de esperar, y tomarte en silencio. |
Posted By: Kazuhiro
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 00:15
|
If we become the professional musicians and the activity of music is done, musician's feelings might be understood. However, I reject this opinion at once here. The peak and the decline of the activity by the musician might be related to the market and the age concerning music. Of course, there might be friction and a dissension by the member, too. Diversity by various exchanges and projects is felt by me for Jazz. Bands who announce only one album and dissolve are the perhaps street points. Or, there might be a part of which it burns out. This is a guess. However, the fan and the listener make the existence a legend. The album that is not CD is a problem of the copyright and musician's intention perhaps. Or, when the person who owns the copyright is missing and a death. These might be one of the elements to do in the legend.
|
Posted By: Isa
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 01:10
I was more referring to prog's "prolific" artists. Why can Beethoven or John Coltrane make a masterpiece at midlife and continue to have outputs afterward their whole lives that are hailed as the great works of their genre, whereas Yes, Rush, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd (especially), and a slew of other bands loose steam? Aren't you supposed to get better and more experienced at composition as you get older and do it more? It just really puzzles me.  ------------- The human heart instrinsically longs for that which is true, good, and beautiful. This is why timeless music is never without these qualities. |
Posted By: Kazuhiro
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 01:30
|
Please do not deteriorate feelings I cannot use English. All English that I use is done by the translation function. Therefore, time is necessary to understand me. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 02:47
|
Well it's not fair to compare Beethoven and Coltrane to the vast majority of prog, because they are some of the rare geniuses of history, and unlike most musicians, their vision got more advanced and complex as they aged. Running out of ideas as you age past your 20s and 30s is much more the norm for the musicians of history. And you should also keep in mind that a lot of famous musicians tend to die young, so that skews your sample set. If you're an evolutionary psychologist, your suggestion would be that making music is a skill developed for finding a mate, and as you age you have less need for a mate and therefore your skill in music diminishes. But if you're an evolutionary psychologist you're probably also an idiot, so maybe that's not really relevant. ;-) One thing to point out about the in-fighting of jazz versus rock, besides that jazz is the superior form of music :P, is that jazz tends to be much more focused on an individual's vision, and this is even more true for classical composers. It's easier to reduce friction when one person is the clear leader, and his name is on the cover of the album and if you don't like it you can leave. So Elvin Jones left Coltrane, and Mingus and Miles were jerks to their fellow musicians, but it's not the same as a power struggle in Pink Floyd.
------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 02:59
|
Agreeing with Henry's point above, a lot of bands' sound relies on their ability to collaborate. And the most brilliant results of collaboration are often painful experiences for the individuals involved - ask any great band if they would want to go through what it took to write their greatest work all over again, and they usually say no. Peter Gabriel composes pretty much on his own, and the quality of his work has been consistent - I'm sure there are other examples as well...Neal Morse, perhaps... ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: cobb2
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 03:15
| Over time everyones mind becomes 'junctified' and creative juices solidify... |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 03:23
I think musicians know when they peak but their passion to create surpasses what critics have to say. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
jplanet wrote:Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 03:46
|
I reject the premise out of hand. It is not at all an established fact that all or most good prog musicians hit a plateau and deteriorate.
However, I think prog can be trickier to keep going because the number of ideas ratio is higher for prog than other bands. Many prog bands to in six minutes what another band would take 20-30 to do, by which I mean a conventional bands would take each 1-2 minute "segment of a compartmentalised epic and add bridges and repeat choruses/hooks and so on to make it its own song.
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 04:13
Indeed. I dont think it's any more complicated than that. Of course some bands just get lazy, or want to dumb down to appeal to a larger audience. I wont mention any names, but Genesis springs to mind.. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 04:16
^ You mean Dumbing Up ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 04:18
|
^^^ Do I? ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 04:32
becouse prog bands consists of more then one guy, and all want their inputt on the creativety three, four or five different voices are ought to be heard, wile youre mentiond classical and jazz musicians were solo artists which had only themselvs to relay on not a band or symphnonie, and they had only themselvs to improve not three, four or five others. it is more logical to compere those atists with solo singer/sonwriters like Elton John, David Bowie, Meat Loaf, Joe Jackson, Paul Simon, and their likes which have only themself to relay on.
|
Posted By: friso
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 04:59
|
Very interesting discussion here! There are a lot of different explanations for different artists I suppose. Some might really run out of ideas, but I think there is often more to it. When reading interviews with members of famous prog-bands I often read that there are one or two members in a band that really want the music to be progressive and innovative. Most of the time other band-members have little interest in innovation, they want to make a living by playing music. The selling-out behavior of bands has always been disliked in this community, but for smaller bands it's a way to keep doing what they like. It's almost impossible to be a band like early VdGG with several near-bankruptcies whilst creating some of the best prog ever. Prog often isn't practical at all! Many musicians in the classic prog period had to make a change in direction, otherwise they would have had to search for normal jobs outside the music-biz. Yes really severed from the eighties and would have lost their contracts if they refused to go commercial, Genesis was torn apart by essential members leaving (and having Collins willing to sell out), Pink Floyd feared becoming a relic of the past, Gentle Giant was torn apart by the lack of a market for their music and even Jehtro Tull changed their music to fit in with the new desires of the public. Conclusion. Their's a need for a certain environment in which progressive groups are encouraged to be innovative. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 07:02
|
An artist's peak is subjective anyway e.g. it may be generally accepted that Yes peaked at, say, CTTE but some people might think they peaked with "Magnification".
I suspect age is another factor. Beethoven et al were composers rather than touring performers.
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 07:05
Agreed. Bands need to move with the times to some degree in order to survive commericially. Some bands are better at this than others, in that they remain fairly innovative. I think Yes are a good example of this. Whatever anyone thinks of 90125, it sounded fresh, contemporary, and at the same time nothing else sounded like it. Genesis failed in this regard with some of their 80's efforts. There was a few good songs on those pop albums, but by and large many of them were interchangeble with Collin's solo output. Although Banks insisted the Genesis trademarks were there if you 'looked for them' I think that was the problem; one had to go 'looking' for them. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: tarkus1980
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 08:09
|
"There was a few good songs on those pop albums, but by and large many of them were interchangeble with Collin's solo output. "
"Many" is a vast overstatement; the issue of Collins' solo career bleeding into Genesis didn't become a serious problem until We Can't Dance (when the issue became inescapable). In the other 80's albums, how many of the songs could have really passed as Collins solo, regardless of quality? From Duke, there's probably "Misunderstanding" and "Please Don't Ask." From Abacab, there's just "Man on the Corner." From Genesis, there's the middle section of "It's Gonna Get Better" and maybe "Taking it All Too Hard," maybe. And from IT, putting aside production issues (which is where the Collins similarities are greatest on that album), there's "In Too Deep" and ... pretty much nothing else.
So really, there's a grand total of half a dozen tracks from the 80's albums that could have been Collins solo, and even those aren't all 100% certain. ------------- "History of Rock Written by the Losers." |
Posted By: Anonamoose52
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 08:54
| 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. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 09:18
Ok, many was an exageration, but there are more than you mention, imo. 'Throwing it all away' 'Anything she does' 'No reply at all' 'Alone Tonight' and even the verses of 'Fading Lights' (great song all the same). I think Collins even covered 'Behind the Lines' on a solo album. But, the whole character of the bands sound and approach to songwriting did change, and one of those principle changes was a relative simplicity in the arrangements which when married to that horrible production, came across as pop music which was a million miles from their prog output. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: tarkus1980
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 11:00
|
"Ok, many was an exageration, but there are more than you mention, imo. 'Throwing it all away' 'Anything she does' 'No reply at all' 'Alone Tonight' and even the verses of 'Fading Lights' (great song all the same). I think Collins even covered 'Behind the Lines' on a solo album"
"Throwing it All Away" - Rutherford ballad, Collins had little to do with it.
"Anything She Does" - Banks song, Collins had little to do with it.
"No Reply at All" - Way, WAY too awkward and bizarre (in a good way) to fit in on a Collins album.
"Alone Tonight" - Rutherford ballad, Collins had little to do with it.
"Fading Lights" - Again, I was referring to pre-WCD songs
"Behind the Lines" - Collins "covered" the song by removing everything interesting about it
"But, the whole character of the bands sound and approach to songwriting did change, and one of those principle changes was a relative simplicity in the arrangements which when married to that horrible production, came across as pop music which was a million miles from their prog output. "
What Genesis did in the first half of the 80's was refract their natural prog instincts through 80's New Wave, larging taking it upon themselves to be the godfathers of synth pop, pushing in the weirdest directions it could go. This idea that the band somehow abandoned its progressive ideas, when they were still putting out weird stuff like "Duke's Travels," "Dodo/Lurker," "Home by the Sea," "Domino," "The Brazilian" and others is just bizarre to me.
The production doesn't bother me until IT; the albums before it sounded way too classy for me to complain about them. ------------- "History of Rock Written by the Losers." |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 11:04
|
I've often thought about this question, and my answer is that age isn't the problem but rather fame a fortune. Most classical composers were rather poor and unknown at the time of their death, whereas rock artists make a lot of money and get a lot of critical praise. This probably makes them lazy and uninspired. Anyway, that's my theory.
------------- 
|
Posted By: OT Räihälä
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 11:34
|
Henry, Friso (and a few others) have had many good points. Basically, in classical music and jazz, composers/musicians are individuals, whereas prog bands (or any bands) are usually collectives. If they are not, they break up, or the leader continues with changing line-ups. One point that to me seems quite important is the nature of the music, especially what comes to classical/contemporary art music. It takes a lifetime to learn to do things, and apart from quite few child prodigies (Mozart, Mendelssohn, Prokofjev, Shostakovich) most musicians have matured slowly, and at some cases they find their feet only in later years. A prime example is Leos Janacek, who had written a few quite successful works, and then hit the jackpot with his late works, when already aged over sixty. In rock/pop music and prog people very seldom push the borders to the extreme. They rather work on paths, that have already been stamped by somebody. In such cases it is very hard to make really lasting, original art, as it is hard to do anything original in general. Just my tuppence worth... ------------- http://soundcloud.com/osmotapioraihala/sets" rel="nofollow - Composer - Click to listen to my works! |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 11:54
|
I was listening to Hackett's new album on the way home from work tonight, and I would venture to suggest that here is one artist who has most certainly not peaked out. The composition & musicianship is supreme. There are other examples - Marillion, for example, consistently come up with fresh & ezxciting material, whilst the last two IQ albums have been, IMO, the peak of a long career. As ever, it depends upon the artist(s). The references to Gabriel are a little unfair, I think. Up was a great album - I just wish he could produce a new original work to prove all the doubters wrong  ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 12:26
Hackett did go through a slump phase where he tried to make more commercial accessible albums, but fortunately got over it.  But yeah, there are a lot of musicians that were around in the '70's and made great prog for a while, but seem a lot less inspired these days. So if I were to explain it, after an inspired burst, sometimes they just lose it. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 12:58
I don't think this can be generalized, but the answer is quite simple: (though I would not call it "burnout"). You have to develop as an artist. if you don't develop then what you have is stagnation, and that#s the real problem, not burnout. Some people, including musicians, are afraid of the changes that come with developing. -------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 15:07
In general yes.
However, you have to consider the context ... a Guernica makes no sense by itself, except a weird/damaged mind. But in the middle of the Spanish Civil War ... it's another story! The same with music. And film. I actually find that surrealism as exemplified by Dali/Bunuel was much more of a snapshot of the war in Spain than anything else ... where else are you going to see such savage imagery except in the middle of dead bodies and animals?
The atmosphere helps define a lot of things. The atmosphere in London, artistically, is one of the biggest reasons for it all to happen, and it had its start in the 50's in film and theater, and it kinda "ended" with the progressive and excessive nature and ... drugs! Everyone loves Epitath, and it is one of the biggest anti-war anthems ... and it makes massive sense when you find out that it was written right in the middle of the IRA stuff and massive anti-VietNam demonstrations in London ...
Compositional skills don't always improve with age. And the best example I can give you is the very bands listed here ... barely a handful of them did more in time, than just repeat themselves. And that is the best example I can give you. Sometimes "fame" stinx.
Music in those days, was vastly different. It had not, and would not, and did not, consider or use a lot of "popular" works per se ... and this is something that the 20th century brought to the table. The radio, LP, Cassette and CD, busted the definitions of music and will continue to do so for the next 50 years ... no longer will EVER music be define by the "elite" standards that have been their staple for hundreds of years. You have to see that bigger picture ... the history of music and where rock/jazz/popular blew out the old stuff is much more visible and linear if you draw the line on the blackboard ... and you can write down ever 50 years some musical specialties ... you can see where the formula for music was breaking down even more in the 20th century ... and I really think that jazz, rock and blues were the most important factors in that equation.
While there are very nice things, these folks are no different than any other composer or musicians when it comes to repeating themselves. Miles' greatest asset was that he didn't care where he went ... and his bad boy attitude helped create some very nice musical moments.
Superiority is only in the mind of the moron that is defining it -- because he thinks that savages, or others, don't do music! Sometimes I really think some of these "progressive" boards are this insensitive, because no one from Mexico, Colombia or Chile can do "progressive" music, but a band that is 3rd rate in London can!
The only way you can "burnt out" is when you are not doing something that is the true you, and an image of yourself. The day you have to change your "image", you and I are not going to like it and they are no longer "progressive (for example), and that is the biggest issue. In general, one of the reasons why I never considered ELP "progressive" was exactly that ... it became an image of themselves and their fame, and the music was not the focus anymore ... their fame was ... and that is the biggest example of what megalomaniac and egocentric behavior will do for you!
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. Without saying it, the seeds were already set for "fame" ... and he wanted the freedom more than the fame at the time. What he didn't tell us is that he just wanted to do his own material, not anyone else's! And his own material was not any more progressive, though it did a little more with external musicians and world folks, which is nice. And was certainly more "with it" and educated than what Genesis did from that point on with watered down lyrics and songs.
Friction is everywhere. And it is one of the things that helps create good music in a group sometimes. When the group is not willing to work beyond their personal stuff, the friction kills the group. But you must remember that music history has been about "one composer" and in the past 75 years it has been almost exclusively to a "group" ... and this is also going to change the concept of "composition" and "creativity" ... all of a sudden "mozart" is not one person ... it's 4 and is called "beatles" or "genesis" ... or whatever!
"Peak'ing" is an illusion that is more for the commercial benefit of "fans" than a reality. I have been writing poems for 30 years. I have a favorite or two. But there is no "peak" in what I do. To me that's even "stupid" and only shows how much someone does not know the arts ... and are only considering the commercial aspects of it all! --->>> The same fault that befals the list of the top 100 in this board!!!
From my point of view you're going to have problems with the idea and concept if you don't define the old concepts compared to the new concepts in music. There are very few "single" composers today, and you are not discussing Mike Oldfield, Vangelis Papathanassiou, Riuichi Sakamoto or Klaus Schulze, which means you are walking into an academic trap. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 15:21
|
^ You've been blabbering on and on for ages, yet all of your posts are equally -->>> "unreadable"... and pointless! |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 15:24
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 ... ------------- 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 |
Posted By: KingCrimson250
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 16:36
I also think that it has to do with the fact that once you're in a band, you're more or less shackled to one or two particular sounds. Most of the jaaz and classicals mentioned here would often get new inspiration from checking out something else, either they'd go to a foreign nation and hear something cool, or some new fad would catch their eye, etc. The problem is that as soon as you're in a band setting, you've got to be able to convince the other people you're playing with that your new inspiration is something worth chasing after. "Hey guys, I just got back from France on vacation, and some of the bands there are doing these amazing things with jazz/prog metal!" "French fusion? Go to hell, man. We don't play that kind of thing." This is kind of how I imagine it when bands try to re-invent themselves. Disclaimer: I have no idea if French bands are actually making amazing jazz/prog metal or not. |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 17:02
|
A lot of what is regarded as classic prog was recorded in the early seventies. This was a natural time for innovation and pushing boundaries. Technology was moving forward quickly and there was a hunger for progressive music. Bands were inspired and competed with each other to produce that jaw dropping masterpeice. This created almost a distorted view of prog and the musicians involved. Once you get past the seventies the whole ball game changes as progressive music becomes less in demand. Bands seem to be more consistent but less inspired. So there is more of a plateau affect rather the crashing over the edge of a cliff (creatively speaking) that happened to a number of bands at the end of the seventies. |
Posted By: Marcusmax
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 18:45
|
Again, some very interesting reading here. In simple terms, I agree that the issue is probably mostly to do with the group vs. the individual. It's very hard to sustain real quality of artistic output when that output depends on several individuals collaborating, because relationships are forever changing and the resulting dynamics are not always suited to the creative process. There are several individual composers within the broad spectrum of progressive music who have continued to produce good work through the years. Many have been mentioned already but I would also add Kate Bush (I think Aerial is a masterpiece), David Sylvian and probably David Byrne among others. Emerson's latest CD, mostly composed by himself with some collaboration from Mark Bonilla, was brilliant in my view. Some of these started as members of bands, like Gabriel too, but had the strength/commitment/talent to keep composing as solo artists. 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. Of course in modern music there have been great examples of collaborative creativity such as all the bands we know and love but I think this by its nature is doomed to be short-lived whereas an individual can keep going for years if so inclined. Also, the collaborative thing probably works best when you're younger. The older we get the more fussy, particular and idiosyncratic we generally become, making collaboration more difficult. Hope I'm not doing too much pointless blabbering here!
 |
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 19:09
|
Could it be, maybe, just possibly, that many of our exalted artists are not the geniuses our fanboy tendencies make them? That they have a certain talent the pursuit of which offers some rewards? Rock is a popular medium and even though some artists we celebrate on this site are not willing to sacrifice quality for commercial sales I will wager there is not a one of them (or at least very few such as Syd Barrett but then again he went off the deep end) who would not be overjoyed at becoming a commercial success. In the world of popular music, Prog is the exception rather than the rule. If it had not become popular 40 years ago very little of what is listened to on this site would exist today. So a musician may be talented, but not a genius.
I reject the notion that Prog artists lose their compositional edge as they age. Maybe their inspiration, yes, and inspiration counts for much in Rock, but some of the more recent releases by Vangelis, Hackett, and Oldfield, for three examples, have displayed to my ears a great deal of compositional skill they did not have earlier in their careers. Vangelis' Mythodea is generally not highly rated by members of this community, but it has a maturity to it that only comes with time. I think it is the best piece of music he has ever recorded. It is not, however, my favorite. Artists who have tasted success in the past tend to want to maintain it, if not increase it. Thus, the music they release moves with the times to greater or lesser success commercially and artistically. Take Ian Anderson for example, poster boy for the burned-out has-been, resting on his laurels. Yes, he has rehashed a lot of old music recently, but compare the way he plays flute now to his playing in the 70s. Much, much better. Compositions like Griminelli's Lament were just not within his grasp thirty-five years ago, both as a player and as a composer. Unfortunatley, the old stuff sells better.
So, are we listening to the music from the perspective of a writer/composer/musician, or are we listening as a fan? The two are really very different. ------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: Marcusmax
Date Posted: July 15 2010 at 20:02
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.)
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: July 16 2010 at 04:25
 ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: friso
Date Posted: July 16 2010 at 05:52
Luckily we have nice forum members like you who can revive these discussions with great comments. |
Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: July 16 2010 at 08:41
|
I think age has an effect on energy and creativity levels. It's easier for a jazz or classical musician to age gracefully than a rock musician, especially if they make high energy music like ELP or Yes. Genesis were always a bit more sedate so maybe time is kinder to them. Eric Clapton said that when you get to around 35 you've got something that you lose, and I certainly can't think of any of the rock bands I like making their best music after that age. ------------- "And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!" "He's up the pub" |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 16 2010 at 11:49
There's some truth in that, although there are exceptions for me. Porcupine Tree spring to mind. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: July 16 2010 at 17:05
|
It´s certainly interesting, and I have a related question. How come a lot of great musicians, whom in their youth released and wrote a ton of music as they get older just stop doing it... What happend? How come great musicians of their day just don´t care anymore to keep on writing? Is it just a fluke? Don´t they feel the need to make new music? It seems everytime these legendary artist do put out a new album it´s years apart from the latest and I can´t but help the record company had much to do with that. I guess some do get tired but, and yes, you can relax when you are in your 60´s and 70´s... but a lot just fully stop, ar maybe just tour old material. I can´t wrap my head around that way of seeing things, it´s as they don´t care that much anymore. It´s a bit harsh what I say but... c´mon Waters, pick up a guitar and write some more songs, Fripp seems to be always active but ...with what? Bowie, I´m waiting! It has something to do with the main question of this thread, but instead of lesser quality I ask about lesser amount of music produced. ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: July 16 2010 at 17:10
Yeah, I think there is something there. ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
Posted By: natewait
Date Posted: July 16 2010 at 17:18
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 ------------- Please check out my Progressive Music Blog: http://leviathanprog.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Leviathan . |
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date 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. |
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: July 16 2010 at 22:00
------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: silversaw
Date 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..." |
Posted By: Pankot
Date Posted: July 18 2010 at 05:54
Good thread.  (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. |
Posted By: Gentlegiantprog
Date 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/ |
Posted By: OT Räihälä
Date Posted: July 18 2010 at 07:58
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.
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. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/osmotapioraihala/sets" rel="nofollow - Composer - Click to listen to my works! |
Posted By: daslaf
Date 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 |
Posted By: sleeper
Date 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  |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 18:56
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 |
Posted By: richardh
Date 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!
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 20:42
|
HI,
This is good ... fairly good observation and points.
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!
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!
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! ------------- 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 |
Posted By: tdfloyd
Date 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!
|
Posted By: tdfloyd
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 23:06
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.
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: July 22 2010 at 15:22
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! ------------- 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 |
Posted By: crickleymal
Date 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. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date 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...
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: July 24 2010 at 02:47
|
Posted By: Fieldofsorrow
Date 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 |
Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: July 25 2010 at 16:04
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?
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: July 26 2010 at 05:56
|
^You missed out the part where he likes to re-wright history as well. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: July 26 2010 at 21:33
Oh my gawd ... another astrophysicist to join us with Brian May! ------------- 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 |
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: July 28 2010 at 09:26
|
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
-------------  
|
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: July 29 2010 at 09:24
I can't seem to recall this happening to Classical composers centuries ago. Maybe that old science of heredity was a breed of an extremely higher level, as most great innovative proggies emulated Classical composers works. |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 03:39
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. |
Posted By: Ruby900
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 07:40
How very prophetic! ------------- "I always say that it’s about breaking the rules. But the secret of breaking rules in a way that works is understanding what the rules are in the first place". Rick Wakeman |
Posted By: Lozlan
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 11:06
|
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. ------------- Certified Obscure Prog Fart. http://scottjcouturier.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle |
Posted By: GY!BE
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 17:41
|
Society and its evolution definitly have something to do with the peaking.
------------- It is all a dream, a dream in death... |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 17:50
My name may be Brian however I am not astrophysical. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 18:17
|
Kind of thinking the answer is obvious, people get old, inspiration wanes. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Formentera Lady
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 19:25
I would like to put more stress on this:
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 - 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.) |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 19:50
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. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Tengent
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 22:21
|
^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. |
Posted By: Cygnus567
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 01:46
| It's called the 80's. The 80's ruined every genre of music. The 80's is the great sell-out period. |
Posted By: Ruby900
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 03:13
------------- "I always say that it’s about breaking the rules. But the secret of breaking rules in a way that works is understanding what the rules are in the first place". Rick Wakeman |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 14:32
On the one hand, this is a reasonable point. But on the other hand, classical musicians (and in the early modern era, jazz musicians) produced far more music than pretty much any rock musician without losing steam in many cases. Now they didn't have to worry about recording the damn things and, like with Bach, they were often looser about reusing material. But I think they may have suffered even more stress since they often relied on the opinion of a single person for their money. Def Leppard may have been stressed about Hysteria, and of course they had other personal problems as well :P, but they could probably have lived off the royalties from their back catalogue alone for the rest of their lives. If Beethoven pissed off the people who were his patrons, that was kind of it.
No, not even close. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 14:37
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. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: tarkus1980
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 14:56
It wouldn't often happen with a composer's output on the whole, but composers would very frequently take a lengthy break in a particular form and come back with something that represented a substantial leap forward in that form. Beethoven had a couple of these lengthy breaks in the course of churning out his piano sonatas, as well as with his string quartets. ------------- "History of Rock Written by the Losers." |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 30 2010 at 05:42
You had to be there. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: CloseToTheMoon
Date Posted: September 30 2010 at 21:29
|
Think about the shift in cultures from 1965-1985. There isn't much of a precedent for that. Especially for something so polarizing as progressive rock. It had to surface to the mainstream to survive and it was just bad timing that punk and new wave reared their heads. Rush and Genesis were probably the most fortunate...if you look at it that way.
------------- It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. |
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: October 03 2010 at 06:39
| ..you never blow your trip forever.. |
Posted By: Knife
Date Posted: October 03 2010 at 11:08
| Take into consideration the film director Stanley Kubrick. He never really 'peaked out' but he only made a movie every 5-7 years or so. |
Posted By: Stevo
Date Posted: October 12 2010 at 11:16
| One observation about classical that may not have been noted here. A lot of the larger classical pieces were written on commission, in other words, commercial success was not an issue. At the same time a lot of classical musicians also "sold out" by writing tunes for the masses, ie shorter dance tunes and hymns. Over time these became just as important to the ouvre as the grander pieces. |
Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: December 14 2010 at 20:07
|
I think some artists have remained consistent. Some artists have remained at top form (Magma, Hammill, Hawkwind). I may be in the minority, but I'm not too embarrassed by late Yes. They have the spiritual thing down, as do I think Magma, Hammill and Hawkwind. When you lose that, you lose the source of great music. You can't make objects of great beauty unless you are feeling beauty. You can't feel beauty and live in a ratty attitude. ------------- -- Robert Pearson Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: December 14 2010 at 21:18
|
Frank Zappa never peaked out. ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: December 16 2010 at 08:42
|
The band is a lot harder than just the composer thing, i totaly agree is a but part of it.
And, if we talk mostly about those 70's people, Genesis, Yes, Floyd, ELP ect. The fact that they was about to loose a huge audience, and their media platform, due to the general culture change in late 70's early 80's, made them panic quite a bit. They knew if they stayed ground, the train would just pass them by.
So either they lost "that" "It" a bit, or they chose to try follow the wind.
If you take a look at the 80's in general, it was a time of denying the Hippies(60's-70's) and come up with anything new.
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: December 16 2010 at 08:47
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Greenbubbleman
Date Posted: December 16 2010 at 11:24
| I think 'Peaking out ' happens when the band or artist moves on but the audience doesn't...Usually a composer or band will say to themselves " Right, Ive done, that whats next?" The audience thinks to themselves " Right, that was briliant! I want more of the same only better." Pretty often the audience gets what they want, but if they dont then "The band have peaked already" All musicians and composers hope that their audience will go with them on their musical journey, often though the audience have other ideas! and thats cool. Over the last forty years of LP buying I have to say though, I have caught up with LP's that I thought disappointing back in the day. Time can often heal the disparagement's in each ones perceptions. OUCH! where did that one come from ? I need a beer! |
Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: December 16 2010 at 15:17
I don't know, I think a lot of fans would agree post-'85 Hawkwind isn't up 'to the level' but I do know people who swear by Xenon Codex and Electric Tepee.
Some bands probably peak because they refuse to deviate from a particular formula. I think that's why ELP wrote their best material circa '70-'73 and everything else afterward is deemed (arguably) subpar. I, myself, enjoy the ELPowell album a great deal, and the KEB disc with Bonilla is also very good. Lake solo just isn't my cup. I don't think Carl writes much original stuff, he just plays with his own band and in Asia.
Rush has gotten a lot of flak for changing their sound in the '80s and recently with the shift back to a harder sound on Vapor Trails. Apart from a dip in the early 1990's, I think Rush is one of the most consistent bands out there. VT is fantastic, but I didn't like all of the songs on Snakes. Still, looking forward to anything they put out. I like the two new songs.
------------- https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay |
Posted By: idlero
Date Posted: December 17 2010 at 06:28
| I think that if prog will ever have it's own Beethoven, he will not peak up,bottom line it is a matter of genius |
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: December 18 2010 at 20:55
|
...not to be stupid or anything, but the use of drugs, particularly high-grade hashish (Yes) and/or speed (ELP) helped many of these bands to develop their best works! Yes purportedly came up with TFTO during a trans-Atlantic flight, whilst munching on hash brownies! My own creativity and drive decreased markedly when I "cleaned up my act." That, plus family pressures, age & other distractions, reduce the energy level. Relationships also matter! http://www.elephant-talk.com/articles/fripp-yp.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.elephant-talk.com/articles/fripp-yp.htm According to Fripp: ZZ: Why have there always been these changes in Crimson? RF: It's a prima facie case of instability. (Then) Re the first King Crimson, the band was united by the common denominator of intense frustration and animosity towards the world in general, and ourselves in particular. Mike Giles fell in love; which he did for the first time about the beginning of King Crimson, and Ian McDonald for the first time too, and as these relationships developed they found these relationships more satisfying than the band could offer, and as Ian became less frustrated his playing went completely to pot. |
Posted By: Baggra
Date Posted: December 18 2010 at 21:54
|
Okay, I see this thread as being mainly about "wouldnt your compositional skill improve with age?".
(Most notably) concerning solo prog outings, fans complain the artist in question has mellowed and is not composing as cuttingly/challangingly/dynamically as he did in his youth. They posit that, with the advance of time, he has lost some degree of his former compositional prowess.
But do any ever consider the possibility that the artist purposely and LOGICALLY composes more simple stuff in later life purely for the straight PHYSICAL reason of time taking its wretched toll on sinew,muscle and even bone ?
Simply because he can no longer meet the demands of the instrument or the (more youthful) composition - with age he is limited by what his fingers/hands/wrists alone can achieve.
Getting past 50, technical skill may start going downhill and become unable to run side-by-side with creative competence (which ,as you say, may have even become BETTER with the passage of time.)
|
Posted By: AionOscal
Date Posted: December 20 2010 at 23:26
| Almost everyone eventually peaks or goes through a slump. Usually once they do anything after that will not be noticed (or less noticed than the not-slump stuff). I've found that I like a lot of works by older bands that they've come out with today, but fans of the original works refuse to acknowledge anything past their favorite album. It's a combination of comparing everything a band does to their "best" work and the sensation around a record rather than a record itself. Despite prog's whole, "we aren't really a radio band" thing, there is occasional glimpses of radio success. Usually that's the last we'll hear from that artist. I don't think most artists truly peak (even if they have a best, it's not that much higher than the other stuff that they've done), but rather fan's refuse to let anything be better than a certain album. |
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: December 21 2010 at 23:45
Hah! Try telling that to John McLaughlin! That cat STILL blazes! Seems like the jazzers keep on going & going....old-time cats like Wes Montgomery, Joe Pass etc. were productive like, forever, and never seemed to lose a step. Amazing, considering the complexity of their music! The first generation of prog musicians (Fripp, Anderson, Squire etc.) are now entering/well into their 60's, and I'd say that many of them continue to be productive. Touring is a real grind, and as we age, it gets more challenging & less inviting....you'd rather get a good night's sleep every night than get laid constantly!!  It seems like many of these musicians prefer to produce younger bands & musicians, mentor students, or pursue their craft in other creative ways that are not so stressful as being a gigging/touring/recording artist. Eno enjoys his art, Fripp his Guitar Craft teaching, etc. Also, many are mentoring & coaching their children in the field, such as Rick & Ollie Wakeman (although the recent Yes spat involving Benoit David seems to have caused a familial rift!!) Having known quite a few of these folks, I'd say that they are remarkably human & vulnerable, sensitive to an extreme, and nearly all good-hearted. You don't find many filthy-rich proggers out there, believe me! Seek them out, they aren't that hard to connect with at smaller venues, and they truly enjoy high-level, intellectual conversation about music!
|
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: December 22 2010 at 16:24
|
For sure it has to do with fame, money and the pressure of record companies and/or managers.
Jazz and Jazz-Rock musicians are much more free from these things and they usually enjoy much loger and more stable careers, often getting better and better with age, simply look at Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock, Jack De Johnette, Metheny, John McLaughlin and so many others.
In particular regarding the peak-out of the prog "Big Ones" we have indeed to consider the factor that prog was being killed by the late 70's so many of them panicked and started pointing somewhere else, hoping that that would be a way the public would follow. I guess that period was pretty special and more related to the change of culture rather than to a decline in artistic creativity or musical proficiency in itself.
|
Posted By: Greenbubbleman
Date Posted: December 23 2010 at 10:44
| John McLaughlin..........the only guitarist that makes me want to put my guitar down and walk away. |
Posted By: LSDisease
Date Posted: December 24 2010 at 02:54
|
the'lack of ideas' syndrome is something Yes have been always had
|
Posted By: Porcupinetheater
Date Posted: February 26 2011 at 22:18
| You also have to take into account that fact that classical compositions have had the luxury of passed time, and each piece can be judged individually based on its own merit. However, this is inapplicable to modern bands, and generally every band has a fanbase which has come to appreciate certain aspects of a bands sound, and, through the natural progression of time, this sound begins to evolve, mutate, and meld with other styles of music. In its own right, and compared solely to its predecessors, this music may in the end have just as much compositional value as what came before. But this change in sound will inevitable alienate many of a band's principle fans, who have come to expect a certain sound. When this expectation goes unmet, it is inevitable that certain people will look down on what has been made. This problem is furthered in a genre that holds bands that generally go unnoticed by the majority of the music listening community, and most of a band's fans will have already come to appreciate the sound that is regarded as the band's forte. Which is why, new fans to a band will generally love the first album they hear, because they were able to enjoy the sound without previous sentiments on what it should be, and are therefore able to listen without bias. |
Posted By: resurrection
Date Posted: February 27 2011 at 02:20
| They peak out because invention becomes the norm, the musicians head for the centre of the atom and all the outer world around them disappears, all terms of reference become lost. Witness Fripp. |
Posted By: Valentino
Date Posted: March 01 2011 at 17:20
|
How can a progressive rock band continue to progress when the fans almost always want them to return to their "original" sound? |