Print Page | Close Window

Why classic prog faded?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Discription: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=90502
Printed Date: September 16 2014 at 12:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Why classic prog faded?
Posted By: Neelus
Subject: Why classic prog faded?
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 16:16
Looking at the latter part of the seventies. We all know Gabriel's costumes got bigger.  The ELP crew got enormous.  The bigger the show, the better.  
Did the evolve from musical experimentalism into overblown stage antics during this period cause prog's demise against the punk movement?
Why would the huge show that never ends fail? Were there other factors involved that ended classic prog?



Replies:
Posted By: Earthmover
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 16:28
Well, people got bored of it, I think.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Bequeathed" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 16:37
Because prog wasn't a genre of music then really, it was just a gimmick rock musicians were trying out to in order sell records and as soon as it quit selling, they moved on. I'm not saying there wasn't talent or there's no good classic prog, but lets call a spade a spade here.

-------------


Posted By: Sumdeus
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 16:39
It's normal for musicians to stop being as ambitious and interesting as they get more comfortably snug in fame and wealth. it's also normal for musicians to just run out of steam and ideas as time goes on unless they're really really good. that's pretty much why i think the classic bands all fell apart. and I think the disillusion caused by the way the prog giants fell along with the overall social changes at the time is the reason why the classic sound wasn't continued by new bands that much. the youth didn't have that magic hope for otherworldly futures, they were accepting the grim realities of the world hence why i think punk and metal rose up in the next period of time


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 17:12
A fairly similar thread here:

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=86209&KW=punk


-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 17:47
corruption, boredom, experimentation, popular music changing, etc.

-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 19:17
Originally posted by Neelus

Looking at the latter part of the seventies. We all know Gabriel's costumes got bigger.  The ELP crew got enormous.  The bigger the show, the better.  
Did the evolve from musical experimentalism into overblown stage antics during this period cause prog's demise against the punk movement?
Why would the huge show that never ends fail? Were there other factors involved that ended classic prog?



Record companies became more involved in shaping what was allowed to be marketed and played on the radio. At some point it became obvious that prog was a bit of a niche market and didn't necessarily have mass appeal. Sure, Yes and ELP and maybe a few others sold lots of albums but it was always a bit of a hard sell and the longer songs meant less airtime for other artists especially when punk came on the scene. Punk and new wave (and to a lesser degree disco)pushed prog in the background and ultimately under ground. Prog was barely visible in the 80's except to those who went out of their way looking for it. At some point, people started to become interested again when old prog albums(even obscure ones)were reissued on cd. It was still underground at this point but catalogs started to appear and then the internet happened which helped to make prog visible once again although still mainly to those who went looking for it(at least at first).


But, getting back to your initial statement there were things that the press jumped on and used as fodder to badmouth prog. Rick Wakeman eating chicken curry on stage while performing, Greg Lake's persian rug, Gabriel's "superman" costume(and others), double albums with outrageous concepts or few long songs, the list goes on and on. Purists thought prog was ridiculous or at least became more ridiculous. Greg Lake once said in an interview "of course we were pretentious." Comparing prog to punk is like comparing a filet mignon to a mcdonald's hamburger. 


Music as it's marketed in mainstream music media such as the radio is almost always going to be viewed as fashion. Fahion's come and go. I'm not sure if the internet saved prog or that it resurrected prog since it never really died but it did make it easier for many people to be aware of it.


-------------


Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 19:20
Originally posted by mister nobody

Well, people got bored of it, I think.



There's that. More specifically, the wrong people got bored of it(ie music critics and music industry execs).


-------------


Posted By: silveraindrop75
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 19:34
all movements fade and morph. nothing stays the same. it never faded, it just changed, and so did the mediums used to present it. you could just as easily stay that it's still here to some degree, and argue that it never faded completely.


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 19:48
Maybe because of the rise of Progressive metal in the last 20 years?

-------------
Belhold the power and gift of BEARD! As Damian Wilson sports a beard now his voice somehow got even better than it already was. :)


Posted By: Surrealist
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 20:17
The classic Prog bands simply stopped making great albums.. so did many of the great rock bands.
The bands that kept making great albums survived.

I disagree that it was required that bands stayed with the times and did cheesy 80's pop.  Look at Van Halen or Metallica.
The Cure and U2 did artsy albums with a lot of Darker material.  Ozzy did fine without going Flock of Seagulls.

Let me ask this question..

Did any Classic Prog bands release a great album in the 80's?

I would say YES got lucky with their pop anthem..

To me Fripp is the only one that rode the wave and kept things interesting right up into the mid 2000's. 




Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 20:36
Originally posted by Surrealist

Did any Classic Prog bands release a great album in the 80's?


Rush - Moving Pictures
King Crimson - Discipline
Genesis - Genesis

to name a few


-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 21:03
It wasn't just punk. There's disco as well, which was massive and outsold everything else. (And in retrospect, didn't suck as much as we all thought it did at the time - at least, not all of it) In the late 70s, Blondie and Chic's Nile Rodgers got together to play and somehow in the process "Rapper's Delight" was created, and voila, rap as a mainstream phenomena was born. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rappers_delight" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapper%27s_delight  )
 
And it's also my theory that the American musical press exercised a great degree of hegemony over the British press (because of economic factors? Or some Anglo-transatlantic arse-kissing? or perhaps because of the financial power of American consumers? all of the above?), and thus dominated discussions about what is "cool" and determined trends in music (and let's face it, all the great prog bands were British and European, and from other places as well - but hardly any from the U.S.).


Posted By: prog4evr
Date Posted: November 07 2012 at 23:26
Originally posted by Surrealist


To me Fripp is the only one that rode the wave and kept things interesting right up into the mid 2000's. 
THIS...


Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 00:11
Originally posted by smartpatrol

Originally posted by Surrealist

Did any Classic Prog bands release a great album in the 80's?


Rush - Moving Pictures
King Crimson - Discipline
Genesis - Genesis

to name a few



Don't forget Yes 90125 and Drama. Also a few more by Rush and Emerson Lake and Powell.





-------------


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 00:32
^ He said "a great album in the '80s", not ... "an album in the '80s".

-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 01:21
Originally posted by Surrealist

The classic Prog bands simply stopped making great albums.. so did many of the great rock bands.The bands that kept making great albums survived.I disagree that it was required that bands stayed with the times and did cheesy 80's pop.  Look at Van Halen or Metallica.The Cure and U2 did artsy albums with a lot of Darker material.  Ozzy did fine without going Flock of Seagulls.Let me ask this question..Did any Classic Prog bands release a great album in the 80's?I would say YES got lucky with their pop anthem.. To me Fripp is the only one that rode the wave and kept things interesting right up into the mid 2000's. 


GENESIS's DUKE album is an absolute slam dunk    I mean that album is the Perfect blend of pop and prog tied together. Never thought it could work, bug it certainly did. Genesis pulled that one off

-------------
Belhold the power and gift of BEARD! As Damian Wilson sports a beard now his voice somehow got even better than it already was. :)


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 01:44
Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

^ He said "a great album in the '80s", not ... "an album in the '80s".
 
indeedLOL
 
The bands that made prog recognisable simply got old and the bands that should have replaced them were largely ignored after punk. Be Bop Deluxe and Lone Star were two interesting bands that just stopped around 1978 for commercial reasons yet had made some really interesting music. Coloseum 2 were another example. ELP,Yes and Genesis just didn't evolve at all and very few people believe there later albums get close to their earlier albums. Therefore the writing was on the wall regardless of punk happening or not. The baton was never passed on.


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 01:55
Originally posted by richardh

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

^ He said "a great album in the '80s", not ... "an album in the '80s".

 

indeedLOL

 

The bands that made prog recognisable simply got old and the bands that should have replaced them were largely ignored after punk. Be Bop Deluxe and Lone Star were two interesting bands that just stopped around 1978 for commercial reasons yet had made some really interesting music. Coloseum 2 were another example. ELP,Yes and Genesis just didn't evolve at all and very few people believe there later albums get close to their earlier albums. Therefore the writing was on the wall regardless of punk happening or not. The baton was never passed on.


I think GENESIS evolved immensely. As the 80's loomed forth GENESIS ushered in a new and fresh sound by blending pop and prog together. I said it once and I'll say it again, DUKE is a masterpiece because it shows the promising evolution of GENESIS all together. In my opinion, GENESIS evolved greatly

-------------
Belhold the power and gift of BEARD! As Damian Wilson sports a beard now his voice somehow got even better than it already was. :)


Posted By: Surrealist
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 02:08
Rush - Moving Pictures
King Crimson - Discipline
Genesis - Genesis


I think all three of those albums were released in 1980.  So technically they were probably written in the 70's!

Genesis of course fell apart... Rush never made another great prog album.  Crimson did some fantastic stuff later on.

Yes is not really a great Prog band without Steve Howe and Wakeman. 

I just think it is very odd that nearly all of the great Prog bands fell away from their roots and strengths as soon as the 80's arrived. 

Giant for a Day?
Cured?
We Can't Dance?
A?
I can see your House from Here?

I do think Deep Purple made a respectable record in the 80's (Perfect Strangers)
What would Zeppelin have done in the 80's?  Maybe that is good that didn't happen.






Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 02:33
People got fed up with the same ideas getting recycled I guess, and the music that continued the progressive path was either part of the punk scene or it was too weird for most to follow. I am thinking about the RIO avant scene, which was thriving in the 80s.

Makes one wonder just how long generic hip hop and over the top saccharine pop can manage to hold the interest of mass media. Fortunately more and more are looking to the internet for music, and just taking a look at RYM unveils how much diversity that's going down.

Getting back to the premise of the thread, I am glad 'classic prog' didn't endure and keep at it. It wouldn't be classic if it had kept dishing out the same tired formula all through the 80s, and we probably wouldn't be talking like this on this board. I would have missed all the fantastic music that transpired in the 80s as well, which I gather grew out of progs "dying" embers, although it never really died... It became fertilizer for things like art punk and as mentioned before RIO and avant.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 03:12
Classic prog never faded, it was just rumored to have.


Posted By: Lord Jagged
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 03:46
Capes. Definitely the wearing of capes caused its downfall. That and Rick Wakeman eating a curry during a Yes concert.

-------------
Dead Souls In The Rear View Mirror Hitch A Ride For A While..


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 07:09
^ I thought the curry eating was just in the studio. Shocked

-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: KingCrInuYasha
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 09:51
^ No, that was on stage. In his memoirs, Wakeman was telling a roadie that he was thinking of going to an Indian restaurant to get some curry after a concert. The roadie misheard Wakeman and brought the food from said restaurant. Seeing that it was impossible to get the food to a fridge, Wakeman decided it eat it onstage.

Back on topic, it's tempting to say that the genre was becoming a parody of itself, but considering there was some good prog still coming out until the end of the 70s, that probably wasn't the biggest factor. Rather, I think the main problem was that a lot of those groups were either unable or unwilling to adapt to the changing times. Rush, Yes and Genesis were able to do it, due to pop being engrained into their music and King Crimson pulled it off after Fripp had absorbed enough New-Wave influences.

After some listening, I find it funny that a lot of punk bands/lovers said that the movement came into being due to the scene becoming stagnant, when I find that the stagnation didn't occur until well after the movement found its feet. If we take 1975 to be Year Zero of this movement - based on the release of Patti Smith's Horses - here's the records that I liked that came out that same year:

Black Sabbath - Sabotage
Brian Eno - Another Green World
Gentle Giant - Free Hand
Jethro Tull - Minstrel In The Gallery
Led Zeppelin - Physical Graffiti
Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here
Queen - A Night At The Opera
Rush - Fly By Night, Caress Of Steel
Steely Dan - Katy Lied
Van Der Graaf Generator - Godbluff
Frank Zappa - One Size Fits All

So, yeah, the scene wasn't that much of a wreck, at least not to me.


-------------
He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball!


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 10:41
Originally posted by richardh

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

^ He said "a great album in the '80s", not ... "an album in the '80s".
 
indeedLOL
 
The bands that made prog recognisable simply got old and the bands that should have replaced them were largely ignored after punk. Be Bop Deluxe and Lone Star were two interesting bands that just stopped around 1978 for commercial reasons yet had made some really interesting music. Coloseum 2 were another example. ELP,Yes and Genesis just didn't evolve at all and very few people believe there later albums get close to their earlier albums. Therefore the writing was on the wall regardless of punk happening or not. The baton was never passed on.

Excellent post.   Prog rock may be a genre or approach or whatever but classic prog was just a phase in music at the end of the day, not unlike its more popular cousin classic rock.   Classic rock too fell apart as LZ broke up and Who and DP faded away.   Prog rock  per se changed and new artists kept it going but the dinosaurs who failed to adapt toppled over.  And some big bands who were probably in a good position to adapt, like Pink Floyd, were beset by breakups and friction.   Most of the big prog rock bands were already past their best irrespective of punk.


Posted By: Surrealist
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 14:07
If there is one element that defined classic prog more than anything it is the drummers.  Prog drummers are simply much better drummers technically than rock drummers.  They can play in odd meter, and they put forth much more energy than jazz drummers. They are a unique breed and sit at the core of the music.

When the drum machine was intevented.. rock could engage perfect metering and perfect sounds.  Nothing is harder to mic than a drum kit, and poorly recorded drums have been a thorn in the side of music producers for decades.  It was appealing at the time, however empty and void of life those samplers are.  That was the death of prog in my opinion.  Then drum quantization happened and that still goes on today.. so the need for Bruford, Collins, Weathers, Barlow, all those guys became trivialized.  It's a shame.

I agree that the lyrical content of men turning into butterflies might have tired to the ears of many.. but there is no reason Prog couldn't have take lyrics in a different direction.  Zappa did.  Crimson did. 


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 15:24
Originally posted by Surrealist

Nothing is harder to mic than a drum kit, and poorly recorded drums have been a thorn in the side of music producers for decades.
 
fragmen crustulam Approve:
LOL
 
But seriously, if you or your sound/studio engineer can't mic-up a drum kit then find someone who can.
 
 
 
....also something else that isn't too hard to learn to do once you put your mind to it:
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/BBcodes.asp" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/BBcodes.asp
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCodes" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCodes  
 
Cool


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 15:33
Nope, its the drums, its in the drums.


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 15:52
Originally posted by Lord Jagged

Capes. Definitely the wearing of capes caused its downfall. That and Rick Wakeman eating a curry during a Yes concert.

OK there's the capes thing, I'll grant you that. You should also throw in the whole synthesizers with lots of patch cords thingy...


Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 16:03
Originally posted by Neelus

Looking at the latter part of the seventies. We all know Gabriel's costumes got bigger.  The ELP crew got enormous.  The bigger the show, the better.  
Did the evolve from musical experimentalism into overblown stage antics during this period cause prog's demise against the punk movement?
Why would the huge show that never ends fail? Were there other factors involved that ended classic prog?

Quite honestly?  It was the election of Ronald Reagan & the ensuing "War on Drugs" etc.  

As a self-confessed pothead through all of the 1970's, I can say that the entire prog scene was drenched in the smoke of marijuana (at least in the USA).  At most concerts, you could barely see the stage due to the billowing clouds of smoke.  

Mind you, I've seen the CTTE tour, LTIA tour (without Miur, sadly), and nearly everyone we talk about on Pa.  All the concert venues in the '70s were the same....open consumption of marijuana.  Harder drugs were rarely seen.  

Beginning in 1980, attitudes changed.  The youth, ever searching for something new, found the energy of New Wave and punk, and so colliding worlds meant that "classic" prog (called art rock in Chicago) was on the decline.  Pot fell out of fashion as a "hippie drug," tight straight-legged pants replaced bell-bottoms, etc.  

Yes, KC and ELP were quickly and efficiently replaced by The Police, Devo, Blondie, U2 and guys like the Sex Pistols.  It happened VERY rapidly (I was a gigging musician at the time).   The classics ran out of steam, lost their way, and the new guys had all the energy.  

Prog never disappeared, and guys who adapted to these new tastes (Bob Fripp especially) even prospered by embracing the energy of the emerging music, but the young wanted to dance, and it is hard to dance through "The Revealing Science of God."  At least, for me it is!   Cheers, good topic! 




Posted By: knumorvid
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 16:15
People got sick of it i guess. i believe that punk was bound to happen. Just as classicism  replaced baroque, romanticism replaced classicism and impressionism replaced romanticism. All movements are full of opposites. 


Posted By: twosteves
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 21:04
Punk made it unfashionable---music became simple and went to the other extreme-- but everything old is new again---


Posted By: Surrealist
Date Posted: November 08 2012 at 21:33
Where Prog really left classic rock was with the drumming.. .much more intricate, dynamic and open to odd metering..
the bass lines .... much more melodic but also carefully constructed closer to the drummers kick.  That in itself gives a sound.. and a feel to the music not necessarily found in classic rock.  Then of course the keyboardists were usually "trained" and had much more sophistication than your typical "rock guy on a Hammond".

I don't agree that the work had to be conceptual or that conceptual was a benchmark of the genre.  The Who were conceptual, Bowie,  Uriah Heep and others.

Prog as a genre was much more in the bricks and mortar.  Prog Metal is a different genre entirely.  I don't see any successful crossovers.  I have heard people suggest Rush was metal prog, but I disagree. 

I think Page was moving Zep into a more progressive direction before he started having his self imposed health issues.
Physical Graffitti has a lot of Prog on it as did Presence (Achilles Last Stand) .... and didn't he later court Chris Squire and Alan White at some point? XYZ?  Page was listening to Prog... you can be assured.

I still don't see that punk and new wave replaced Prog..  I think they replaced disco and Leif Garrett.  It would have been interesting to see one of the great prog bands just keep grinding out the great stuff right through the 80's and 90's.

While Prog is ambitious.. sure.. but not anymore than the great classical music composers whom many did their best epic works well into the later 1/3 of their lives.  I mean you suddenly can't play your instrument? I don't buy it.  Can't write creatively? I don't buy that either.  The problems run much deeper than that.






Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 03:03
Originally posted by progbethyname

Originally posted by richardh

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

^ He said "a great album in the '80s", not ... "an album in the '80s".

 

indeedLOL

 

The bands that made prog recognisable simply got old and the bands that should have replaced them were largely ignored after punk. Be Bop Deluxe and Lone Star were two interesting bands that just stopped around 1978 for commercial reasons yet had made some really interesting music. Coloseum 2 were another example. ELP,Yes and Genesis just didn't evolve at all and very few people believe there later albums get close to their earlier albums. Therefore the writing was on the wall regardless of punk happening or not. The baton was never passed on.


I think GENESIS evolved immensely. As the 80's loomed forth GENESIS ushered in a new and fresh sound by blending pop and prog together. I said it once and I'll say it again, DUKE is a masterpiece because it shows the promising evolution of GENESIS all together. In my opinion, GENESIS evolved greatly
actually I'm very fond of Genesis in that immediate post Gabriel era inc up to Duke. I nearly cried when I first heard Abacab and hated Mama.
The thread title is about classic prog and Duke is rarely thought of as that. It was even the butt of a joke in the film American Psycho where Christian Bale's character hales it as their masterpeice. I can't help but sn****r a little. (sorryWink)


Posted By: Nov
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 05:00
Originally posted by Neelus

Looking at the latter part of the seventies. We all know Gabriel's costumes got bigger.
This doesn't make sense.

The Lamb tour finished in May 1975 and he left soon after. Hardly the "latter part" of the 70s. In the late 70s he stripped things right back.




Posted By: Nov
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 05:02
Originally posted by Prog_Traveller

Gabriel's "superman" costume(and others), 
Do you mean "Slipperman" costume?




Posted By: Nov
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 05:06
Originally posted by richardh

ELP,Yes and Genesis just didn't evolve at all
Shocked

Whether you liked it or not, Abacab was incredible evolution at the time and shocked the majority of their 70s fans. They evolved into a stream-lined pop/rock band and became massive as a result.




Posted By: Nov
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 05:07
Originally posted by silveraindrop75

all movements fade and morph. nothing stays the same. it never faded, it just changed, and so did the mediums used to present it. you could just as easily stay that it's still here to some degree, and argue that it never faded completely.
Agreed.


Posted By: Nov
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 05:10
Originally posted by Surrealist


Genesis - Genesis


I think all three of those albums were released in 1980.  So technically they were probably written in the 70's!
Nonsense.

It was released in 1983 and none of it was written in the 70s.


Genesis of course fell apart
Confused

Fell apart? During the 80s they became one of the biggest bands on the planet.




There are some very strange mis-conceptions about Genesis in this thread.




Posted By: Nov
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 05:15
Originally posted by richardh

[I nearly cried when I first heard Abacab and hated Mama.
I agree with you about Abacab to some extent but I think that Mama is easily their best track of the 80s. I thought it was stunning when it came out and still do.




Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 05:40
There seems to be an idea floating around in this thread that bands like Genesis and Yes "failed to adapt" to the 80s. The opposite is true. They adapted better than any other prog band and made their most commercially successful albums as a result. Whether or not you like these albums is irrelevant to whether or not they adapted. A band that fails to adapt is one that continues as if nothing were.


Posted By: Terra Australis
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 05:48
Originally posted by Nov

Originally posted by richardh

[I nearly cried when I first heard Abacab and hated Mama.
I agree with you about Abacab to some extent but I think that Mama is easily their best track of the 80s. I thought it was stunning when it came out and still do.



Mama is a great song and was progressive (after 'In the Air Tonight'). 


-------------
Allomerus. Music with progressive intent.
http://allomerus.com" rel="nofollow - http://allomerus.com


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 06:10
you can get 100.000 albums, from the 70's, isent that enough ?
Im happy things did change, made a lot of diffrent experimental music possible.
You dont have to listen to the 80's+  albums from Genesis Yes ect., if you dont like them.  


-------------
My Music: www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com
My blog: www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 06:25
Depending on your viewpoint as to when 'year zero' is in the history of "progressive rock" (I'll take mine to be 1967), by 1987, this 'new' genre had been around for 20 years.

Every band, if it's lucky enough to still be recording 20 years after inception, will have changed, as will its audience & attitudes toward the band by fans who were there at the very beginning, but does this necessarily mean the original band/genre "faded"?

Personally, I don't think classic prog faded, it just changed - I may not have liked a lot of the changes (after all, for every 'Signals' there were 2 or 3 'Under Wraps' ), but does that say more about the direction the bands took, or my attitude toward the direction?


-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012


Posted By: Terra Australis
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 06:32
Originally posted by tamijo

you can get 100.000 albums, from the 70's, isent that enough ?
Im happy things did change, made a lot of diffrent experimental music possible.
You dont have to listen to the 80's+  albums from Genesis Yes ect., if you dont like them.  

I wasn't happy with the change in the 80s but now I am, the internet has opened up whole new areas of prog that I didn't know existed, even during the 80s. There are possibilities for music now that were not possible back in the days.


-------------
Allomerus. Music with progressive intent.
http://allomerus.com" rel="nofollow - http://allomerus.com


Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 06:44
Exactly - the 'classic' bands may not be around still, or those that are may not be doing what I want them to, but there are more than enough 'new' bands around (ie, been around less than 25 years ) to more than satisfy.

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012


Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 07:56
Everything fades with time, so is no surprise that prog went also the same way. That does not mean it disappeared, like some things do, but it lost it's popularity with the mass of people, or at least with a lot of young people who used to be into it, and who, as they got older, lost their interest.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 09:19
Originally posted by Surrealist

Where Prog really left classic rock was with the drumming.. .much more intricate, dynamic and open to odd metering..
the bass lines .... much more melodic but also carefully constructed closer to the drummers kick.  That in itself gives a sound.. and a feel to the music not necessarily found in classic rock.  Then of course the keyboardists were usually "trained" and had much more sophistication than your typical "rock guy on a Hammond".

I don't agree that the work had to be conceptual or that conceptual was a benchmark of the genre.  The Who were conceptual, Bowie,  Uriah Heep and others.

Prog as a genre was much more in the bricks and mortar.  Prog Metal is a different genre entirely.  I don't see any successful crossovers.  I have heard people suggest Rush was metal prog, but I disagree. 

I think Page was moving Zep into a more progressive direction before he started having his self imposed health issues.
Physical Graffitti has a lot of Prog on it as did Presence (Achilles Last Stand) .... and didn't he later court Chris Squire and Alan White at some point? XYZ?  Page was listening to Prog... you can be assured.

I still don't see that punk and new wave replaced Prog..  I think they replaced disco and Leif Garrett.  It would have been interesting to see one of the great prog bands just keep grinding out the great stuff right through the 80's and 90's.

While Prog is ambitious.. sure.. but not anymore than the great classical music composers whom many did their best epic works well into the later 1/3 of their lives.  I mean you suddenly can't play your instrument? I don't buy it.  Can't write creatively? I don't buy that either.  The problems run much deeper than that.

Prog faded for many reasons, all of them valid.
 
Music is sold mainly to teenagers and Prog in the 70s was no different. As teenagers grow older their priorities change - they get jobs and get married and take on responsibilities of careers, mortgages and providing for their families - their interest in the latest music wains. They are replaced by the next generation of teenagers, who have their own musical interests.
 
Most popular music is made by the younger generation for the younger generation - we listened to Yes and Genesis because they were of our generation - we didn't listen to the music of our parents or elder siblings. The new generation does not want the hand-me-downs of the previous generation, they want the new music made by the artists of their generation.
 
It is the role of the older generation to "rubbish" the music of the younger generation. Our parents did it to our music and we do it to our kid's music - that is the way it must be. We are, however, permitted to skip a generation and venerate the music of older generations, such as the Punks did with the music of The Velvet Underground and the MC5s.
 
The music business wants to sell to the demographic with the most disposable income, they want to sell to the new generation of teenagers because the older generation has stopped buying - they will inevitably invest more in the artists that appeal more to the new generation. The people who made Prog music are no longer saleable items, the younger bands who persist in making Prog music do not get signed (only a small fraction of the English Neo-Prog movement of the early 80s ever got record deals - bands like Jadis, Mach One, Haze, LaHost, Quasar struggle on self-released cassettes).
 
The music press wants to sell music newspapers and magazines, and the people who buy them will be the new generation with their new music - it is inevitable they will support the newer artists with their new music. The journalists whoo write for those papers quickly jump upon the latest bandwagon and discard the older generation of music.
 
Some of the older generation of musicians would like to maintain a living, so will adopt some of the latest trends in order to stay viable, while others will adapt their music to the different buying trends of their old fans. Jon Anderson cuts his hair and swaps kaftan for a Don Johnson/Miami Vice pastel suit, Phil Collins shaves his beard and becomes a pop star. 
 
Prog faded because the people who buy music stopped buying it.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: twosteves
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 10:43
I have an old Melody Maker where Jimmy Page sites Yes and Tales as a place where Zep could do something more complex and arty and Physical Graffiti came out.


Posted By: questionsneverknown
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 11:45
The notion that punk killed prog has definitely been overstated.  In fact this was a bit of puffery conjured by papers like the NME.  As Hegarty and Halliwell point out in their book, Beyond and Before, music critics who in a number of cases became music academics tended to turn this notion into an orthodoxy.  One thing to keep in mind is that in the second half of the 1970s bands like Yes, Genesis and Pink Floyd still did very well on their tours, especially in America.  Epic-scaled arena rock grew and expanded, rather than diminished, as that decade went along--again, especially in the States.  The notion that a concert should be a big theatrical event never went away.  The capes may have, but the light shows, for instance, only got bigger.  
Prog's fading surely has more to do with a cycling of tastes--sometimes enforced by the music industry, sometimes by critics, sometimes by fans--and then, more complexly, with changing socio-economic and other historical factors.


-------------
The damage that we do is just so powerfully strong we call it love
The damage that we do just goes on and on and on but not long enough.
--Robyn Hitchcock


Posted By: Surrealist
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 12:19
Music is sold mainly to teenagers and Prog in the 70s was no different. As teenagers grow older their priorities change - they get jobs and get married and take on responsibilities of careers, mortgages and providing for their families - their interest in the latest music wains. They are replaced by the next generation of teenagers, who have their own musical interests.

I get this... I really do..
HOWEVER...

How was it that 13 year old kids from my generation.. (I was 13 in 1977) could be swallowing, digesting and become inspired and enamored by such complex music as early Genesis, Yes, ELP etc...  If you look just at the musicianship compared to the nonsense that goes on today... it is really like kids are a different species of mammals.  I remember being in junior high and there was this kid who sat next to me who would wear a Genesis shirt with Gabriel in the flower.  I didn't know who Genesis was at the time as I was into Zep, Sabbath, Scorpions, and UFO.  It wasn't until an older "dude" explained to me hanging out at a friends garage that I needed to listen to the drummers and that great rock was all about the complex rhythyms and being able to alternate fills in odd metering, and that the bass players really had to stretch out to accommodate.  My friend had a mountain of JBL speakers and it was all vinyl and tube amps and we could really feel the music.  Lot's of good pot and deep discussions about the meaning of the lyrics and where it was all going.  Lot's of deep conversations about the meaning of life, metaphysics, science, and we were f#$^#*ing 13!!!!

By the time I was 15 I had digested every classic Prog album and was playing in a band covering stuff like La Villa Strangiato.  Guys in high school were learning to really play guitar with tone and feel.  My friend was nailing the live version of Schenker's Rock Bottom, and Joe was playing Eruption note for note.  I mean, kids were practicing HARD to learn this stuff. 

My parents were of  different generation, but they also were musicians and could site read and could play very complex music.  Mom was a pro trumpeter at 19 and played "Flight of the Bumblebee" on National TV.  They didn't like Woodstock stuff because they thought there was too much drugs going on and worried about youthful rebellion damaging the establishment... but they were good musicians and could sing and play (dad sung opera).. so there was always a striving for some element of virtuosity in music... even in the older generation.

But what about 13 and 15 year old kids now?  What are the intellectuals of this generation listening too? Radiohead?
All these silly vocal contest shows.. and the band is nowhere in sight.  What is this generation learning?  Kids spend all day staring down at a hand held device and don't even talk to people anymore.  Texting, and their whole life is wrapped up into digital social media?  

If I played "Tales" for a typical kid today.. it would be like a deer in headlights.  I might expect a comment like "that's wierd".  I don't think there is any chance of getting into a deep conversation about the stucture, underlaying form of the music or the metaphysical lyrical content which actually is very thought provoking.    I understood where my parents where coming from.  I respected their music and can enjoy it today. 

I still try to get out once in a while and listen to what the youth are into these days.. and need I say more?  I really doubt there has ever been this big a disconnect from one generation to another in the history of humanity.




 


Posted By: Neelus
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 12:45
This is what young people get up to today where I am from.  I promise you their conversation is also quite metaphysical.

[TUBE]SB9HD9mamWE&feature=related[/TUBE]



Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 12:56
^I've been to countless of those electronic parties/festivals, albeit slightly less mainstream, and I can honestly say that the talks you have with some of the people you meet, after dancing with them for a couple of hours, are most interesting.

Some of the ones I have attended felt like a modern day Woodstock. Even met a guy who was in his 50s who enjoyed the experience immensely. I promise you, there was no signs of a "gap" between the generations. In fact, now that I think of it, I have met a lot of folks over 40 at these things. Also, here at PA we have a large gathering of teenagers present. I don't feel the gap.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Neelus
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 12:58
^ You certainly get it Wink


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 13:08
Originally posted by Neelus

^ You certainly get it Wink




Why thank you good sir.

I guess it's all about seeking out the right company. I could of course also attend great big commercialized pop festivitas with thousands of teens that all dream about being up on stage in a fabulous outfit wailing their lungs out like Mariah Curry, but I have no interest in that.
Maybe that is where Surrealist went to form his opinion?

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Neelus
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 13:15
Originally posted by Guldbamsen

Originally posted by Neelus

^ You certainly get it Wink




Why thank you good sir.

I guess it's all about seeking out the right company. I could of course also attend great big commercialized pop festivitas with thousands of teens that all dream about being up on stage in a fabulous outfit wailing their lungs out like Mariah Curry, but I have no interest in that.
Maybe that is where Surrealist went to form his opinion?


He must just learn that the same message can come in different forms.  The old generation is not the only ones that "got it", the medium of conveying it just changed shape.  I happen to like the old way too (classic prog), but I am not blind to whats happening.  Modern times have cool things too Big smile


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 13:22
Originally posted by Neelus


Originally posted by Guldbamsen

Originally posted by Neelus

^ You certainly get it Wink




Why thank you good sir.

I guess it's all about seeking out the right company. I could of course also attend great big commercialized pop festivitas with thousands of teens that all dream about being up on stage in a fabulous outfit wailing their lungs out like Mariah Curry, but I have no interest in that.
Maybe that is where Surrealist went to form his opinion?
He must just learn that the same message can come in different forms.  The old generation is not the only ones that "got it", the medium of conveying it just changed shape.  I happen to like the old way too (classic prog), but I am not blind to whats happening.  Modern times have cool things too Big smile



Exactly. Dancing on a desolate beach somewhere in Denmark - watching the sun appear in a fiery red is one of the most spiritual things I have ever experienced. The dance itself at these things tend to go metaphysical. You 'talk' to each other with it, get to know all these interesting folks by moving to the music - sometimes even without uttering a single word. That may sound rather meh, but when you stumble into them again, you know them and pick up where you left it last time. You may not know their fave colour or their shoe size, but you know them in a different and altogether more appreciative way.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 13:33
Originally posted by Surrealist

Music is sold mainly to teenagers and Prog in the 70s was no different. As teenagers grow older their priorities change - they get jobs and get married and take on responsibilities of careers, mortgages and providing for their families - their interest in the latest music wains. They are replaced by the next generation of teenagers, who have their own musical interests.

I get this... I really do..
HOWEVER...

How was it that 13 year old kids from my generation.. (I was 13 in 1977) could be swallowing, digesting and become inspired and enamored by such complex music as early Genesis, Yes, ELP etc...  If you look just at the musicianship compared to the nonsense that goes on today... it is really like kids are a different species of mammals.  I remember being in junior high and there was this kid who sat next to me who would wear a Genesis shirt with Gabriel in the flower.  I didn't know who Genesis was at the time as I was into Zep, Sabbath, Scorpions, and UFO.  It wasn't until an older "dude" explained to me hanging out at a friends garage that I needed to listen to the drummers and that great rock was all about the complex rhythyms and being able to alternate fills in odd metering, and that the bass players really had to stretch out to accommodate.  My friend had a mountain of JBL speakers and it was all vinyl and tube amps and we could really feel the music.  Lot's of good pot and deep discussions about the meaning of the lyrics and where it was all going.  Lot's of deep conversations about the meaning of life, metaphysics, science, and we were f#$^#*ing 13!!!!

By the time I was 15 I had digested every classic Prog album and was playing in a band covering stuff like La Villa Strangiato.  Guys in high school were learning to really play guitar with tone and feel.  My friend was nailing the live version of Schenker's Rock Bottom, and Joe was playing Eruption note for note.  I mean, kids were practicing HARD to learn this stuff. 

My parents were of  different generation, but they also were musicians and could site read and could play very complex music.  Mom was a pro trumpeter at 19 and played "Flight of the Bumblebee" on National TV.  They didn't like Woodstock stuff because they thought there was too much drugs going on and worried about youthful rebellion damaging the establishment... but they were good musicians and could sing and play (dad sung opera).. so there was always a striving for some element of virtuosity in music... even in the older generation.

But what about 13 and 15 year old kids now?  What are the intellectuals of this generation listening too? Radiohead?
All these silly vocal contest shows.. and the band is nowhere in sight.  What is this generation learning?  Kids spend all day staring down at a hand held device and don't even talk to people anymore.  Texting, and their whole life is wrapped up into digital social media?  

If I played "Tales" for a typical kid today.. it would be like a deer in headlights.  I might expect a comment like "that's wierd".  I don't think there is any chance of getting into a deep conversation about the stucture, underlaying form of the music or the metaphysical lyrical content which actually is very thought provoking.    I understood where my parents where coming from.  I respected their music and can enjoy it today. 

I still try to get out once in a while and listen to what the youth are into these days.. and need I say more?  I really doubt there has ever been this big a disconnect from one generation to another in the history of humanity.
I used the term "teenager" quite loosely to denote a generation - I guess more accurately it would cover the age-range from high-school and university and of course there is an wide over-lap within that range so when I was 11 or 12 I was associating with older kids and listening to the music they were playing (such as Van der Graaf Generator and White Noise) and when I was older younger kids of my generation were listening to the music I was playing. There wasn't a unilateral switch-over from one generation to the next on a fixed date in 1977 - I mean, how the hell would anyone organise such an event? It was a gradual change with some kids listening to the older stuff and some listening to the newer stuff and some where listening to both - just as some of us were still listened to The Beatles and The Move back in 1973 between spinning the latest Floyd or Caravan album or delving into the latest Krautrock or Italian Prog albums that were arriving on our shores.
 
However, I think you are grossly generalising the current generation of music fans in your post and that is unfair and inaccurate - just take the time to talk to and LISTEN to the younger people on this forum - not every youngster listens to Dream Theater, not every youngster plugs their ears into an iPlod and not one single youngster here listens to vocal-bands and the latests X-factor/America's Got Simon Cowell franchised wannbie famous now overnight one-hit wonder.
 
I would also not be so dismissive of today's youngsters and their ability to play and appreciate music - last week I was at a memorial concert for the head of music for our local community college who sadly passed away in September at a too young age ( http://www.martinreadcomposer.com/" rel="nofollow - http://www.martinreadcomposer.com/ ) and the level of music ability in his students was impressive (as was their love of Jazz, which doesn't appeal to me, but it did to them). I know several young guitarists, keyboardists,singers and drummers in my local area who are very talented and very capable- and we are not the exception - there is talent everywhere.
 
here's one of them:
[tube]QCaMWc-wBis[/tube]
 
Radiohead is of the previous generation - really, OK Computer is 15 years old - fortunately that's not like me listening to an album released in 1955 back in 1973 (because that was never going to happen) because "intelligent" music is crossing generation boundaries more now (even if it is sadly a one-way process), but there are many other bands that have adopted the mantle of "intelligent" music since them.
 
Play "Tales" to a typical kid back in 1973 and most of them would have been dismissive of it (because many of them were - I know because I was there) - even among die-hard Yes fans you would have struggled to get "into a deep conversation about the structure, underlaying form of the music or the metaphysical lyrical content" regardless of how "thought provoking" you find it now... those conversations never happened at the time just as they don't happen today - really - I've never had a thought provoking conversation about the metaphysical lyrical content of 'The Revealing Science of God' and I don't intend to have one any time soon.
 
 


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Neelus
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 13:33
Originally posted by Guldbamsen

Originally posted by Neelus


Originally posted by Guldbamsen

Originally posted by Neelus

^ You certainly get it Wink




Why thank you good sir.

I guess it's all about seeking out the right company. I could of course also attend great big commercialized pop festivitas with thousands of teens that all dream about being up on stage in a fabulous outfit wailing their lungs out like Mariah Curry, but I have no interest in that.
Maybe that is where Surrealist went to form his opinion?
He must just learn that the same message can come in different forms.  The old generation is not the only ones that "got it", the medium of conveying it just changed shape.  I happen to like the old way too (classic prog), but I am not blind to whats happening.  Modern times have cool things too Big smile



Exactly. Dancing on a desolate beach somewhere in Denmark - watching the sun appear in a fiery red is one of the most spiritual things I have ever experienced. The dance itself at these things tend to go metaphysical. You 'talk' to each other with it, get to know all these interesting folks by moving to the music - sometimes even without uttering a single word. That may sound rather meh, but when you stumble into them again, you know them and pick up where you left it last time. You may not know their fave colour or their shoe size, but you know them in a different and altogether more appreciative way.


Breaking down boundaries Big smile


Posted By: Neelus
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 13:41
Dean...WOW video...seriously


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 13:52
Classic Prog has faded because music is strongly a generational thing altogether. I know this for a fact because of certain recommendations I've given friends, who differ in age considerably.

-------------
Belhold the power and gift of BEARD! As Damian Wilson sports a beard now his voice somehow got even better than it already was. :)


Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 14:00
Originally posted by Dean

[QUOTE


Prog faded for many reasons, all of them valid.
 
Music is sold mainly to teenagers and Prog in the 70s was no different. As teenagers grow older their priorities change - they get jobs and get married and take on responsibilities of careers, mortgages and providing for their families - their interest in the latest music wains. They are replaced by the next generation of teenagers, who have their own musical interests.
 
Most popular music is made by the younger generation for the younger generation - we listened to Yes and Genesis because they were of our generation - we didn't listen to the music of our parents or elder siblings. The new generation does not want the hand-me-downs of the previous generation, they want the new music made by the artists of their generation.
 
It is the role of the older generation to "rubbish" the music of the younger generation. Our parents did it to our music and we do it to our kid's music - that is the way it must be. We are, however, permitted to skip a generation and venerate the music of older generations, such as the Punks did with the music of The Velvet Underground and the MC5s.
 
The music business wants to sell to the demographic with the most disposable income, they want to sell to the new generation of teenagers because the older generation has stopped buying - they will inevitably invest more in the artists that appeal more to the new generation. The people who made Prog music are no longer saleable items, the younger bands who persist in making Prog music do not get signed (only a small fraction of the English Neo-Prog movement of the early 80s ever got record deals - bands like Jadis, Mach One, Haze, LaHost, Quasar struggle on self-released cassettes).
 
The music press wants to sell music newspapers and magazines, and the people who buy them will be the new generation with their new music - it is inevitable they will support the newer artists with their new music. The journalists whoo write for those papers quickly jump upon the latest bandwagon and discard the older generation of music.
 
Some of the older generation of musicians would like to maintain a living, so will adopt some of the latest trends in order to stay viable, while others will adapt their music to the different buying trends of their old fans. Jon Anderson cuts his hair and swaps kaftan for a Don Johnson/Miami Vice pastel suit, Phil Collins shaves his beard and becomes a pop star. 
 
Prog faded because the people who buy music stopped buying it.
[/QUOTE]

Amen to that.
Certainly true for me. I got so busy with life in the eighties, I stopped listening to new music. It's only now, in my mature age, that I've started to pick up the threads again.
And what a wonderful time we live in, with this interweb, everything is served on a silver platter. A forum like this, Youtube and Spotify, wow! 
 



Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 14:02
Sorry Dean for my sh*tty quoting. Forgot to preview. Embarrassed


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 14:12
Originally posted by Neelus

Dean...WOW video...seriously
try http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DHLLQhk4KmYQ&ei=I2OdUL36HqzO0AX24oGQBA&usg=AFQjCNGCx_Q2WUznKhYan4DCpqn7tzHYnw" rel="nofollow - this one (I'll not post it directly it, this isn't the place for that)

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 14:22
Originally posted by silverpot


Originally posted by Dean

[QUOTE

Prog faded for many reasons, all of them valid.

 

Music is sold mainly to teenagers and Prog in the 70s was no different. As teenagers grow older their priorities change - they get jobs and get married and take on responsibilities of careers, mortgages and providing for their families - their interest in the latest music wains. They are replaced by the next generation of teenagers, who have their own musical interests.

 

Most popular music is made by the younger generation for the younger generation - we listened to Yes and Genesis because they were of our generation - we didn't listen to the music of our parents or elder siblings. The new generation does not want the hand-me-downs of the previous generation, they want the new music made by the artists of their generation.

 

It is the role of the older generation to "rubbish" the music of the younger generation. Our parents did it to our music and we do it to our kid's music - that is the way it must be. We are, however, permitted to skip a generation and venerate the music of older generations, such as the Punks did with the music of The Velvet Underground and the MC5s.

 

The music business wants to sell to the demographic with the most disposable income, they want to sell to the new generation of teenagers because the older generation has stopped buying - they will inevitably invest more in the artists that appeal more to the new generation. The people who made Prog music are no longer saleable items, the younger bands who persist in making Prog music do not get signed (only a small fraction of the English Neo-Prog movement of the early 80s ever got record deals - bands like Jadis, Mach One, Haze, LaHost, Quasar struggle on self-released cassettes).

 

The music press wants to sell music newspapers and magazines, and the people who buy them will be the new generation with their new music - it is inevitable they will support the newer artists with their new music. The journalists whoo write for those papers quickly jump upon the latest bandwagon and discard the older generation of music.

 

Some of the older generation of musicians would like to maintain a living, so will adopt some of the latest trends in order to stay viable, while others will adapt their music to the different buying trends of their old fans. Jon Anderson cuts his hair and swaps kaftan for a Don Johnson/Miami Vice pastel suit, Phil Collins shaves his beard and becomes a pop star. 

 

Prog faded because the people who buy music stopped buying it.
Amen to that.Certainly true for me. I got so busy with life in the eighties, I stopped listening to new music. It's only now, in my mature age, that I've started to pick up the threads again. And what a wonderful time we live in, with this interweb, everything is served on a silver platter. A forum like this, Youtube and Spotify, wow!   [/QUOTE]

extremely well said. You touch upon the generational point so well by how CLASSIC prog has faded because of the change in music values from a consumer and artist point of view. Very well said. Anyway, I'm glad you in particular don't forget your music roots and are coming back to them. Happy listening to you kind sir!!

Also. I will never forget my music base Roots either. It's inspiring what you have said.

-------------
Belhold the power and gift of BEARD! As Damian Wilson sports a beard now his voice somehow got even better than it already was. :)


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 15:19
Originally posted by richardh

Originally posted by progbethyname

Originally posted by richardh

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

^ He said "a great album in the '80s", not ... "an album in the '80s".

 

indeedLOL

 

The bands that made prog recognisable simply got old and the bands that should have replaced them were largely ignored after punk. Be Bop Deluxe and Lone Star were two interesting bands that just stopped around 1978 for commercial reasons yet had made some really interesting music. Coloseum 2 were another example. ELP,Yes and Genesis just didn't evolve at all and very few people believe there later albums get close to their earlier albums. Therefore the writing was on the wall regardless of punk happening or not. The baton was never passed on.
I think GENESIS evolved immensely. As the 80's loomed forth GENESIS ushered in a new and fresh sound by blending pop and prog together. I said it once and I'll say it again, DUKE is a masterpiece because it shows the promising evolution of GENESIS all together. In my opinion, GENESIS evolved greatly


actually I'm very fond of Genesis in that immediate post Gabriel era inc up to Duke. I nearly cried when I first heard Abacab and hated Mama.

The thread title is about classic prog and Duke is rarely thought of as that. It was even the butt of a joke in the film American Psycho where Christian Bale's character hales it as their masterpeice. I can't help but sn****r a little. (sorryWink)


I remember that part in American Psycho!! Laughed my head off! I believed he used the words intense or trancedental meditation to describe DUKE. lol. Anyway. I love Duke and will always defend its honor, but that was a cracking good joke!!!

-------------
Belhold the power and gift of BEARD! As Damian Wilson sports a beard now his voice somehow got even better than it already was. :)


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 15:30
Originally posted by Nov


Originally posted by Surrealist

Genesis - GenesisI think all three of those albums were released in 1980.  So technically they were probably written in the 70's!
Nonsense.
It was released in 1983 and none of it was written in the 70s.
Genesis of course fell apart
Confused
Fell apart? During the 80s they became one of the biggest bands on the planet.
There are some very strange mis-conceptions about Genesis in this thread.


Yup. Misconceptions Indeed

-------------
Belhold the power and gift of BEARD! As Damian Wilson sports a beard now his voice somehow got even better than it already was. :)


Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 15:38
I loved that part in American Psycho. Literally couldn't stop laughing for a minute. Great movie. And great album, too!


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 16:28
I have found this thread only now that there are already 4 pages of comments. If you look at what happened worldwide in the same period not only in music, I think it all has a single name: restoration. 

It's well known that, especially the western world, is heavily influenced by the big finance and the so-called hidden power. Look today: The European Bank director, the Italian and Greek premiers were all in a period of their lives on Goldman Sachs books. 

Back to about 1974 now. It'sw more or less when the great impulse to freedom in general and maily in costumes was naturally decreasing in intensity, but in the same time in all the aspects of our lives media and politics gave start to a worldwide campaign for standardisation. Punk was just an episode, probably out of control, but the disco first (Saturday Night Fever was a milestone) and mainly the 80s were in some way "imposed". 

I remember people looking for "modern sounds" meaning the Yamaha DX7 or the Fairlight, and classic bands like Genesis, Camel and Yes trying to adapt themselves to those sounds (with different results). Also the Pink Floyd started using 4/4 with The Wall. Another brick but mainly Run Like Hell are "disco friendly".

There wasn't internet yet and indies didn't have the possibility of being known. Things like MTV didn't kill the radio star but gave a big contribution to the standardisation also in terms of look and dressing. 
I believe also that the great diffusion of hard drugs like heroin had something to do with restoration. It was the easiest and more remunerative tool to transform the summer of love into a winter of death.

Classic prog faded because everything was coming from the 60s faded in the same way. 


-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 09 2012 at 21:18
But if it was actually sustained by drugs, then it was probably not very sustainable at all.   So that means prog was simply the soundtrack to a freewheeling generation...which makes sense, because the 70s were the only period in which prog (rather, some prog) was popular.  

By the way, Mastodon's The Hunter reached no.10 on the Billboards last year so it's not as if the industry's mission to standardize culture has entirely succeeded.  Dean made an elaborate post about the impact of digital media in freeing musicians from the industry's stranglehold.  So now people get to choose what they want to hear but that also means it's much harder for an album to go platinum.  

     


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: November 10 2012 at 18:36
Originally posted by Prog_Traveller


Originally posted by mister nobody

Well, people got bored of it, I think.
There's that. More specifically, the wrong people got bored of it(ie music critics and music industry execs).

Exactly this, I think. It was the music critics and music industy execs who were bored with it. Progressive rock was still pretty popular around Buffalo, NY in the 80s. It was in the 80s that "Genesis Rael", for instance, got spray painted on a building near our school (and no, it wasn't me). There wasn't a lack of interest in Prog here, only a lack of product. To the extent that there still was stuff on the market (Frank Zappa, Pink Floyd, Peter Gabriel, Rush, Marillion) it was well supported there in the 80s. So from our perspective it seemed as though the music industry was just not responsive to us. I'm not sure how to characterize other regions. The common narrative that punk rock pushed Prog aside is a head scratcher for me because punk never caught on in the least bit, I don't think anywhere in the US. It was always just a British thing. I also don't get the notion bandied about that teens aren't interested in the music of their older siblings. For myself and everyone I grew up with, we always wanted to be more adult. No, it wasn't lack of interest or changing interests. It was those with the stranglehold on the record deals that were the agents of change.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 10 2012 at 19:58
Originally posted by HackettFan

. I also don't get the notion bandied about that teens aren't interested in the music of their older siblings. For myself and everyone I grew up with, we always wanted to be more adult. No, it wasn't lack of interest or changing interests. It was those with the stranglehold on the record deals that were the agents of change.
I didn't say they weren't interested in the music of their older siblings, I said they wanted the new music made by the artists of their generation. Of course this is difficult to prove or demonstrate, especially since 40 years later we tend to see "the 70s" as one single time period when in reality it wasn't, and that Prog was the dominant music force when in reality it wasn't.
 
I bought Voyage of the Acolyte when it was released - I was 18 at the time - if you were my 9 year old brother would you have listened to it then in 1975? (I'd be impressed if you did, but slightly annoyed as that would make the rest of this paragraphy pretty meaningless). Or did you first hear it when you were 14? or when you were 18? or even later? And when you did first listen to it (whenever that was) do you think you would have been interested in listening to the music I would have been listening to at that time? If you were 17 then I would have been 26 - still an avid music fan and record collector, but now living in an expensive rented flat in London while desperately saving for the deposit on my own house - I bought exactly 5 albums in that year - 2 of them were Prog.
 
I also have to ask what drives the record labels to become the agents of change - if they already had a fatted calf then why kill it off? While the record labels do actively go looking for new talent, that is a gamble for them, they would prefer to keep making money on the "dead certs" that have sold well in the past. Labels do not start new trends in music, they follow them.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 10 2012 at 20:13
It's very hard to play.



Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 00:50
^ He said "a great album in the '80s", not ... "an album in the '80s".





No kidding. And you think my choices are worse than the self titled Genesis album from 1983? Confused


-------------


Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 00:55
Originally posted by Nov

Originally posted by Prog_Traveller

Gabriel's "superman" costume(and others), 
Do you mean "Slipperman" costume?





Maybe. Smile


If that's the one that looks like a giant mutated turnip then yeah. Tongue


-------------


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 00:56
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by HackettFan

. I also don't get the notion bandied about that teens aren't interested in the music of their older siblings. For myself and everyone I grew up with, we always wanted to be more adult. No, it wasn't lack of interest or changing interests. It was those with the stranglehold on the record deals that were the agents of change.

I didn't say they weren't interested in the music of their older siblings, I said they wanted the new music made by the artists of their generation. Of course this is difficult to prove or demonstrate, especially since 40 years later we tend to see "the 70s" as one single time period when in reality it wasn't, and that Prog was the dominant music force when in reality it wasn't.

 

I bought Voyage of the Acolyte when it was released - I was 18 at the time - if you were my 9 year old brother would you have listened to it then in 1975? (I'd be impressed if you did, but slightly annoyed as that would make the rest of this paragraphy pretty meaningless). Or did you first hear it when you were 14? or when you were 18? or even later? And when you did first listen to it (whenever that was) do you think you would have been interested in listening to the music I would have been listening to at that time? If you were 17 then I would have been 26 - still an avid music fan and record collector, but now living in an expensive rented flat in London while desperately saving for the deposit on my own house - I bought exactly 5 albums in that year - 2 of them were Prog.

 

I also have to ask what drives the record labels to become the agents of change - if they already had a fatted calf then why kill it off? While the record labels do actively go looking for new talent, that is a gamble for them, they would prefer to keep making money on the "dead certs" that have sold well in the past. Labels do not start new trends in music, they follow them.

I take your distinction, Dean. But I have to testify otherwise. I listened very little to music from musicians of my own generation. The only artists I went to see live in highschool were at big venues. Most of the big artists playing big venues were older simply because they had to be somewhat well initiated to make it to a big venue. I saw Genesis, Jethro Tull, and Van Halen in highschool. Even Van Halen were quite a bit older than me. I had a friend in highschool who was big into Yes, and I think he saw them live. I knew others who went to see the Moody Blues. Later while I was college one of the dominant radio platforms in the 80s was regurgitated 60s and 70s classics. During this period I distinctly remember young teenagers scouring through, not their older sibling's records, but their parents'.

I was indeed 9 in 1975. Good guess. I hadn't discovered Voyage of the Acolyte until I was much much older. I did have a friend my age who bought the Lamb Lies Down on Broadway and played it for me when it first came out. He was admittedly pretty hip about music for his age. By the time I was 17 or 18 I was partying around bonfires with my friend's older brothers and sisters. They played lots of Zeppelin and Tull, and some occasional miscellaneous Prog and folk rock. I went as a group with them twice to see Shawn Phillips. There could be a cultural difference, but I always regarded older people as just plain cooler. They could drive. They could drink. And they had seen Steve Hackett live way before I did. I would certainly have been interested in what you were listening to during a good portion of my youth. And now too.

As far as the music industry goes I really don't perceive them as simply reflecting what people want. I think they mould and shape popular music more than any underground scene does. I can't prove this. It's just my perception. Admittedly, I might have been influenced by having read too many Robert Fripp interviews.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 01:02
About the influence of the industry on music, new wave for instance wasn't necessarily something they shaped and pushed heavily to 'replace' prog.  Sparks had anticipated many aspects of new wave as early as 1973/74 and ABBA too emulated some of these aspects.   By the mid 70s, the industry was ready to sign on new bands playing in what would come to be known as the new wave style.   When the industry exerts its influence, it is typically in a conservative light, as in promoting divas in the late 80s and 90s.  It seems to take time for the industry to accept a new sound and understand that it might have a bigger audience than they believe it does.  Metallica was the biggest rock band of the 90s, I guess, and they had released four albums before they were kind of persuaded to streamline their sound for a larger audience.  In fact, they went to the Grammys in 1988 with arguably their most ambitious album, And Justice for All.  


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 02:07
Originally posted by Prog_Traveller

No kidding. And you think my choices are worse than the self titled Genesis album from 1983? Confused
Confused ... That's not what I said AT ALL! I said "... he said 'a great album in the 80's', not 'an album in the 80's'." As far as I can see, "Yes 90125 and Drama" and "a few more by Rush and Emerson Lake and Powell" are not widely regarded as "great albums".

-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 05:48
Originally posted by HackettFan

Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by HackettFan

. I also don't get the notion bandied about that teens aren't interested in the music of their older siblings. For myself and everyone I grew up with, we always wanted to be more adult. No, it wasn't lack of interest or changing interests. It was those with the stranglehold on the record deals that were the agents of change.

I didn't say they weren't interested in the music of their older siblings, I said they wanted the new music made by the artists of their generation. Of course this is difficult to prove or demonstrate, especially since 40 years later we tend to see "the 70s" as one single time period when in reality it wasn't, and that Prog was the dominant music force when in reality it wasn't.

 

I bought Voyage of the Acolyte when it was released - I was 18 at the time - if you were my 9 year old brother would you have listened to it then in 1975? (I'd be impressed if you did, but slightly annoyed as that would make the rest of this paragraphy pretty meaningless). Or did you first hear it when you were 14? or when you were 18? or even later? And when you did first listen to it (whenever that was) do you think you would have been interested in listening to the music I would have been listening to at that time? If you were 17 then I would have been 26 - still an avid music fan and record collector, but now living in an expensive rented flat in London while desperately saving for the deposit on my own house - I bought exactly 5 albums in that year - 2 of them were Prog.

 

I also have to ask what drives the record labels to become the agents of change - if they already had a fatted calf then why kill it off? While the record labels do actively go looking for new talent, that is a gamble for them, they would prefer to keep making money on the "dead certs" that have sold well in the past. Labels do not start new trends in music, they follow them.

I take your distinction, Dean. But I have to testify otherwise. I listened very little to music from musicians of my own generation. The only artists I went to see live in highschool were at big venues. Most of the big artists playing big venues were older simply because they had to be somewhat well initiated to make it to a big venue. I saw Genesis, Jethro Tull, and Van Halen in highschool. Even Van Halen were quite a bit older than me. I had a friend in highschool who was big into Yes, and I think he saw them live. I knew others who went to see the Moody Blues. Later while I was college one of the dominant radio platforms in the 80s was regurgitated 60s and 70s classics. During this period I distinctly remember young teenagers scouring through, not their older sibling's records, but their parents'.

I was indeed 9 in 1975. Good guess. I hadn't discovered Voyage of the Acolyte until I was much much older. I did have a friend my age who bought the Lamb Lies Down on Broadway and played it for me when it first came out. He was admittedly pretty hip about music for his age. By the time I was 17 or 18 I was partying around bonfires with my friend's older brothers and sisters. They played lots of Zeppelin and Tull, and some occasional miscellaneous Prog and folk rock. I went as a group with them twice to see Shawn Phillips. There could be a cultural difference, but I always regarded older people as just plain cooler. They could drive. They could drink. And they had seen Steve Hackett live way before I did. I would certainly have been interested in what you were listening to during a good portion of my youth. And now too.

As far as the music industry goes I really don't perceive them as simply reflecting what people want. I think they mould and shape popular music more than any underground scene does. I can't prove this. It's just my perception. Admittedly, I might have been influenced by having read too many Robert Fripp interviews.
Then I'd say you were the exception rather than the rule (or rather the exception does not disprove the rule), in my experience the musical taste of teenagers is influence more by their peers than their elders. If we were all influenced by our elders then musical styles would never change and we'd still be listening to Glenn Miller (okay, that's a gross exageration, but you get my drift). Even Neo-Prog was a generation thing - in the 80s old Proggers treated Marillion with distain (Genesis clone tag started then and persists today) and Marillion fans at then time were very unreceptive to Peter Hammill when he supported them.
 
Record labels picked-up on emergent trends, such as Punk, New Wave, Thrash, Grunge, Nu Metal, etc..they did not create them - in every case they were either reluctant or slow to pick them up, but once it seemed they could make money out of them there was a feeding frenzy in signing new bands.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 05:57
Originally posted by rogerthat

About the influence of the industry on music, new wave for instance wasn't necessarily something they shaped and pushed heavily to 'replace' prog.  Sparks had anticipated many aspects of new wave as early as 1973/74 and ABBA too emulated some of these aspects.   By the mid 70s, the industry was ready to sign on new bands playing in what would come to be known as the new wave style.   When the industry exerts its influence, it is typically in a conservative light, as in promoting divas in the late 80s and 90s.  It seems to take time for the industry to accept a new sound and understand that it might have a bigger audience than they believe it does.  Metallica was the biggest rock band of the 90s, I guess, and they had released four albums before they were kind of persuaded to streamline their sound for a larger audience.  In fact, they went to the Grammys in 1988 with arguably their most ambitious album, And Justice for All.  


I was not talking about creating new styles. I was talking about creating momentum and eliminating momentum for one as opposed to another as an effort to over simplify and overgeneralize the market. The only change I was specifically talking about was the lack of interest in Prog. My opinion was that the disinterest in Prog in the music industry was out ahead of the disinterest of consumers. I implied that the music industry was perhaps not all that knowledgable about what the public wanted, at least as I could see things from my neck of the woods. For instance, the Genesis tribute band, Over the Garden Wall, got numerous gigs all over Toronto and Buffalo in the 80s. How did they do this if no one wanted to hear that music anymore? It didn't seem to me that some other style of music was responsible for the demise of Prog. Punk is often blamed for it, but it had virtually zero effect in the States. Okay, it wasn't New Wave either. So...


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 06:24
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by HackettFan

Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by HackettFan

. I also don't get the notion bandied about that teens aren't interested in the music of their older siblings. For myself and everyone I grew up with, we always wanted to be more adult. No, it wasn't lack of interest or changing interests. It was those with the stranglehold on the record deals that were the agents of change.

I didn't say they weren't interested in the music of their older siblings, I said they wanted the new music made by the artists of their generation. Of course this is difficult to prove or demonstrate, especially since 40 years later we tend to see "the 70s" as one single time period when in reality it wasn't, and that Prog was the dominant music force when in reality it wasn't.

 

I bought Voyage of the Acolyte when it was released - I was 18 at the time - if you were my 9 year old brother would you have listened to it then in 1975? (I'd be impressed if you did, but slightly annoyed as that would make the rest of this paragraphy pretty meaningless). Or did you first hear it when you were 14? or when you were 18? or even later? And when you did first listen to it (whenever that was) do you think you would have been interested in listening to the music I would have been listening to at that time? If you were 17 then I would have been 26 - still an avid music fan and record collector, but now living in an expensive rented flat in London while desperately saving for the deposit on my own house - I bought exactly 5 albums in that year - 2 of them were Prog.

 

I also have to ask what drives the record labels to become the agents of change - if they already had a fatted calf then why kill it off? While the record labels do actively go looking for new talent, that is a gamble for them, they would prefer to keep making money on the "dead certs" that have sold well in the past. Labels do not start new trends in music, they follow them.
I take your distinction, Dean. But I have to testify otherwise. I listened very little to music from musicians of my own generation. The only artists I went to see live in highschool were at big venues. Most of the big artists playing big venues were older simply because they had to be somewhat well initiated to make it to a big venue. I saw Genesis, Jethro Tull, and Van Halen in highschool. Even Van Halen were quite a bit older than me. I had a friend in highschool who was big into Yes, and I think he saw them live. I knew others who went to see the Moody Blues. Later while I was college one of the dominant radio platforms in the 80s was regurgitated 60s and 70s classics. During this period I distinctly remember young teenagers scouring through, not their older sibling's records, but their parents'. I was indeed 9 in 1975. Good guess. I hadn't discovered Voyage of the Acolyte until I was much much older. I did have a friend my age who bought the Lamb Lies Down on Broadway and played it for me when it first came out. He was admittedly pretty hip about music for his age. By the time I was 17 or 18 I was partying around bonfires with my friend's older brothers and sisters. They played lots of Zeppelin and Tull, and some occasional miscellaneous Prog and folk rock. I went as a group with them twice to see Shawn Phillips. There could be a cultural difference, but I always regarded older people as just plain cooler. They could drive. They could drink. And they had seen Steve Hackett live way before I did. I would certainly have been interested in what you were listening to during a good portion of my youth. And now too. As far as the music industry goes I really don't perceive them as simply reflecting what people want. I think they mould and shape popular music more than any underground scene does. I can't prove this. It's just my perception. Admittedly, I might have been influenced by having read too many Robert Fripp interviews.

Then I'd say you were the exception rather than the rule (or rather the exception does not disprove the rule), in my experience the musical taste of teenagers is influence more by their peers than their elders. If we were all influenced by our elders then musical styles would never change and we'd still be listening to Glenn Miller (okay, that's a gross exageration, but you get my drift). Even Neo-Prog was a generation thing - in the 80s old Proggers treated Marillion with distain (Genesis clone tag started then and persists today) and Marillion fans at then time were very unreceptive to Peter Hammill when he supported them.
 

Record labels picked-up on emergent trends, such as Punk, New Wave, Thrash, Grunge, Nu Metal, etc..they did not create them - in every case they were either reluctant or slow to pick them up, but once it seemed they could make money out of them there was a feeding frenzy in signing new bands.

I would just point out a countervailing tendency for youngsters to aspire to things in advance of their age. Cell phones used to be an exclusively adult thing. Now rather young children are miffed if they can't have one


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 07:03
Aargh! This part is my statement not Dean's:
"I think you're right to a certain extent. I would just point out a countervailing tendency for youngsters to aspire to things in advance of their age. Cell phones used to be an exclusively adult thing. Now rather young children are miffed if they can't have one."

(Sorry, I didn't get to the end of the quote before I started writing. My iPhone doesn't allow me to scroll up and down. Didn't preview the post either.)


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 08:45
Originally posted by HackettFan

Originally posted by rogerthat

About the influence of the industry on music, new wave for instance wasn't necessarily something they shaped and pushed heavily to 'replace' prog.  Sparks had anticipated many aspects of new wave as early as 1973/74 and ABBA too emulated some of these aspects.   By the mid 70s, the industry was ready to sign on new bands playing in what would come to be known as the new wave style.   When the industry exerts its influence, it is typically in a conservative light, as in promoting divas in the late 80s and 90s.  It seems to take time for the industry to accept a new sound and understand that it might have a bigger audience than they believe it does.  Metallica was the biggest rock band of the 90s, I guess, and they had released four albums before they were kind of persuaded to streamline their sound for a larger audience.  In fact, they went to the Grammys in 1988 with arguably their most ambitious album, And Justice for All.  


I was not talking about creating new styles. I was talking about creating momentum and eliminating momentum for one as opposed to another as an effort to over simplify and overgeneralize the market. The only change I was specifically talking about was the lack of interest in Prog. My opinion was that the disinterest in Prog in the music industry was out ahead of the disinterest of consumers. I implied that the music industry was perhaps not all that knowledgable about what the public wanted, at least as I could see things from my neck of the woods. For instance, the Genesis tribute band, Over the Garden Wall, got numerous gigs all over Toronto and Buffalo in the 80s. How did they do this if no one wanted to hear that music anymore? It didn't seem to me that some other style of music was responsible for the demise of Prog. Punk is often blamed for it, but it had virtually zero effect in the States. Okay, it wasn't New Wave either. So...

As far as public taste goes, the commercial success of prog plateaued after around 1975, so if the labels assumed something else would be the 'in thing' and not prog, it would not be a very unreasonable assumption.  Even Fripp had ditched prog by 1975.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 09:18

^ agreed

Originally posted by HackettFan

Originally posted by rogerthat

About the influence of the industry on music, new wave for instance wasn't necessarily something they shaped and pushed heavily to 'replace' prog.  Sparks had anticipated many aspects of new wave as early as 1973/74 and ABBA too emulated some of these aspects.   By the mid 70s, the industry was ready to sign on new bands playing in what would come to be known as the new wave style.   When the industry exerts its influence, it is typically in a conservative light, as in promoting divas in the late 80s and 90s.  It seems to take time for the industry to accept a new sound and understand that it might have a bigger audience than they believe it does.  Metallica was the biggest rock band of the 90s, I guess, and they had released four albums before they were kind of persuaded to streamline their sound for a larger audience.  In fact, they went to the Grammys in 1988 with arguably their most ambitious album, And Justice for All.  


I was not talking about creating new styles. I was talking about creating momentum and eliminating momentum for one as opposed to another as an effort to over simplify and overgeneralize the market. The only change I was specifically talking about was the lack of interest in Prog. My opinion was that the disinterest in Prog in the music industry was out ahead of the disinterest of consumers. I implied that the music industry was perhaps not all that knowledgable about what the public wanted, at least as I could see things from my neck of the woods. For instance, the Genesis tribute band, Over the Garden Wall, got numerous gigs all over Toronto and Buffalo in the 80s. How did they do this if no one wanted to hear that music anymore? It didn't seem to me that some other style of music was responsible for the demise of Prog. Punk is often blamed for it, but it had virtually zero effect in the States. Okay, it wasn't New Wave either. So...

You are seriously understating the effect of Punk and New Wave in the USA - practically every rock music genre that has evolved since then is a direct descendant of what began in CBGB with The Ramones, Television, Richard Hell, Blondie, Talking Heads, The Plasmatics, Kim Fowley, and in other areas with NoFX, The Melvins, Bad Brains, Black Flag... (the list goes on). Thrash Metal is a direct descendant of Hardcore Punk, Grunge is a direct descendant of Punk, Nu Metal is a descendant of Punk and New Wave. I have said many times that Punk did not kill off Prog - because Prog didn't die, it just went back into the underground (background) that spawned it. While some Prog bands found mainstream success in the early 70s, most remained as underground bands, albeit signed to major labels.
 
Tribute bands succeed because the artists they mimic are no longer playing that music, or no longer played the small venues in the small towns and cities through-out the world - Genesis stopped playing Gabriel-era songs (well, there's more to it than that, but that's the gist of it). Over The Garden Wall didn't play stadiums, arenas and other big venues.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 09:33
One theory: Every genre has had a "classic phase" that was over all too soon. I mean, consider punk itself - how soon it arrived in all its abrasive glory, and within 3 years tops evolving into new wave (which itself was good at times, and then quickly evolving and then over just as quickly).
 
A second theory: The 80s killed off all the great genres, not just prog. 70s classic soul and funk and r&b were maudlin pap by the 80s; jazz fusion was gone as well. Punk itself was over by 1980 (even if some of the great punk bands still had some good albums in them).


Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 10:59
Originally posted by richardh

Originally posted by progbethyname

Originally posted by richardh

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

^ He said "a great album in the '80s", not ... "an album in the '80s".

 

indeedLOL

 

The bands that made prog recognisable simply got old and the bands that should have replaced them were largely ignored after punk. Be Bop Deluxe and Lone Star were two interesting bands that just stopped around 1978 for commercial reasons yet had made some really interesting music. Coloseum 2 were another example. ELP,Yes and Genesis just didn't evolve at all and very few people believe there later albums get close to their earlier albums. Therefore the writing was on the wall regardless of punk happening or not. The baton was never passed on.


I think GENESIS evolved immensely. As the 80's loomed forth GENESIS ushered in a new and fresh sound by blending pop and prog together. I said it once and I'll say it again, DUKE is a masterpiece because it shows the promising evolution of GENESIS all together. In my opinion, GENESIS evolved greatly
actually I'm very fond of Genesis in that immediate post Gabriel era inc up to Duke. I nearly cried when I first heard Abacab and hated Mama.
The thread title is about classic prog and Duke is rarely thought of as that. It was even the butt of a joke in the film American Psycho where Christian Bale's character hales it as their masterpeice. I can't help but sn****r a little. (sorryWink)
Wasn't Invisible Touch Genesis' undisputed masterpiece according to Patrick Bateman?

-------------


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 11:04
Originally posted by mister nobody

Well, people got bored of it, I think.
 
I am not sure that boredom had a lot to do with it ... but I do have a couple of ideas here and there.
 
1. The media. This goes back several years, specially the 60's with the media attacking the youngsters, and making many of them look bad, and ignoring the art.
 
2. The record companies. For the most part, the record company thing was always about control, and it is not too hard to extend this to controlling the public as well. The music tastes were "controlled" by top ten, and still are. Thus, when someone did something different, that was not put together by one of the biggies, then it was naturally trashed as not important, and over the top ... except of course, a 20 foot penis on the stage for Mick Jagger to ride on! That should tell you a lot more about it all than anything else ...
 
3. Inspiration. Feeds on itself. When someone sees one person do this, another wants to do it and it keeps going. If not enough folks do it, not many will try it. This is the biggest issue on a lot of music today, that is good, but little of it is above and beyond the area where they are totally out there, and everyone is going to copy them! A lot of this, again, might have to do with the media ... since too many media outlets only like to support the bands they promote and own ... check out USA Today one of these days ... it's all the folks that they are associated with in one way or another ... and independents will not get a word in or a chance! This is, in America specially, part of the "corporatization" of America ... only the corporate goodies can be discussed and sold!
 
4. Education,, or lack of. In general, there are many music scenes that started totally out of frustration with the current status ... you can go back to the history of the arts for the past hundreds of years and you can see reactions to the previous status quo ... and then you get something like The Sex Pistols and that is the total opposite ... that does not have, necessarily, to do with anything else ... except their own battle!
 
5. Europe has a better place that allows for more music experimentation. But America does not believe, or exactly support the "wprld market" thing, and that means that not enough folks will buy the foreign product as much ... and the tastes for the arts, music and everything else suffer, quite often ... you can see it here, in the local symphony, playing the same stuff over and over and over again ... and still not having the guts to even do a Frank Zappa piece! ... thank the Boston Pops for their rich insularity!
 
It's a tough bit to discuss ... but in the end, you have to know, and have one thing going for you ... that you can not have in a social milieu ... yourself! ... and if you don't know the difference, this line will not mean a whole lot to you. If you do it for you, and your life, you will stand by it ... and you and the art piece have a chance to grow, like a child ... otherwise ... it's just sex, right?


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 11:08
DON'T TOUCH THIS ALBUM Angry

Yes 90125 album cover


-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 11:58
Are we not counting post 1975 things like Wind & Wuthering, Wish You Were Here, and Sheik Yer Bouti?


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 12:15
Originally posted by The Bearded Bard


Originally posted by richardh

Originally posted by progbethyname

Originally posted by richardh

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

^ He said "a great album in the '80s", not ... "an album in the '80s".

 

indeedLOL

 

The bands that made prog recognisable simply got old and the bands that should have replaced them were largely ignored after punk. Be Bop Deluxe and Lone Star were two interesting bands that just stopped around 1978 for commercial reasons yet had made some really interesting music. Coloseum 2 were another example. ELP,Yes and Genesis just didn't evolve at all and very few people believe there later albums get close to their earlier albums. Therefore the writing was on the wall regardless of punk happening or not. The baton was never passed on.
I think GENESIS evolved immensely. As the 80's loomed forth GENESIS ushered in a new and fresh sound by blending pop and prog together. I said it once and I'll say it again, DUKE is a masterpiece because it shows the promising evolution of GENESIS all together. In my opinion, GENESIS evolved greatly


actually I'm very fond of Genesis in that immediate post Gabriel era inc up to Duke. I nearly cried when I first heard Abacab and hated Mama.

The thread title is about classic prog and Duke is rarely thought of as that. It was even the butt of a joke in the film American Psycho where Christian Bale's character hales it as their masterpeice. I can't help but sn****r a little. (sorryWink)
Wasn't Invisible Touch Genesis' undisputed masterpiece according to Patrick Bateman?


no it was DUKE. Described it as Transcedental meditation. Still makes me laugh!!

-------------
Belhold the power and gift of BEARD! As Damian Wilson sports a beard now his voice somehow got even better than it already was. :)


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 12:34
Originally posted by rogerthat


As far as public taste goes, the commercial success of prog plateaued after around 1975, so if the labels assumed something else would be the 'in thing' and not prog, it would not be a very unreasonable assumption.  Even Fripp had ditched prog by 1975.

Sorry, Progbethyname, I was actually referring to RogerThat's comment, which I quoted this time. I agree with you about Duke.


Posted By: The Bearded Bard
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 12:39
It was Invisible Touch.
[TUBE]gUytEXTdx9A[/TUBE]


-------------


Posted By: Rottenhat
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 14:04
Looking at the latter part of the seventies. We all know Gabriel's costumes got bigger.  The ELP crew got enormous.  The bigger the show, the better.  
Did the evolve from musical experimentalism into overblown stage antics during this period cause prog's demise against the punk movement?
Why would the huge show that never ends fail? Were there other factors involved that ended classic prog?

Maybe the lack of belief that the world would turn into some kind of utopia?'

 Didn't the social scientist in the 60's believe that the future would be some kind of holiday resort where nobody was working and nobody was poor?

When this didn't happen, punk happened.




-------------
Language is a virus from outer space.

-William S. Burroughs


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 14:54
Originally posted by octopus-4

DON'T TOUCH THIS ALBUM Angry
Yes 90125 album cover




-------------
Belhold the power and gift of BEARD! As Damian Wilson sports a beard now his voice somehow got even better than it already was. :)


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 15:14
If you have to..... touch this instead.



-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: Surrealist
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 15:29
In Prog, generally speaking, you have this idea of a virtuoso at each position in the band.  Would any anyone really argue that Prog drummers are typically much better trained drummers who can play and solo in odd meters etc compared to a typical rock drummer who is just driving the down beat in 4/4 time? 

The Prog bassists were almost always playing more melodically, and much more interesting note selections than someone banging on the E string for 20 minutes. 

The presence of classically train or Jazz trained keyboards are much more prevelant in Prog that pop rock or straight up rock.

The guitar players were usually to some degree classically trained or player much more artfully than just learning a couple of blues scales and repeating the same sequences over different chord changes which was pretty typical. 

If you went to see Robin Trower (whom I love) you basically went to see Robin play blues music.  Two other guys in the band doing nice contributions.. but it was the Robin show.  Same for UFO... I mean it was the Micheal Schenker show.  Even a Progger could appreciate Schenker shredding his epic guitar solo in Rock Bottom or Lights Out.

But in Prog... you might have 5 people there to see and get off on any of the guys in the band.  I have a bassist friend who just worshipped Squire and bought his ticket based upon which side of the stage he was likely to be set up on.
Same for Wakeman and all his caped fans... and the Bruford fanatics, and Steve Howe was God to the technically minded guitar players.  I took a guitar class in University as an easy elective and the entire class was required to learn excerpts from "Mood for Day".  This was in 1983.

ELP... there would be arguments about each one of them being the best in the world at what they did individually.

So what really separated Prog from other genres of rock was the complete virtuostic nature of each position in the band being filled by a real expert.  I remember even Roger Waters being voted "bassist of the year".  

It was the super group mentality..... and on top of that.. the notion that the sum would STILL be greater than the parts...
and this ideology was supported perfectly by the "YES" solo albums.  "Fish out of Water" good, but not YES.  Howe's Beginnings "excellent but don't let him sing another note please!"  "Olias of Sunhillow", spiritual, but definitely missing the other guys virtuostic touches. 

But as drum machines came into vouge, and the silly quest for perfect digital production.. it enabled any band to sound "perfect" using quantization and so on.  These perfect sampled sounds, and midi and all that sounded amazingly tight to the public ear, and it really was a big smoke and mirrors job.  People liked those clean tight sounds, drum machines and so forth.. and that really killed prog.  The Prog bands felt they needed those sounds too.. and they all explored them to their demise.  Then you had the metal scene that said nonsense to those sounds and just went heavy on the low end with lots of flashy guitar solos and hairspray... and they picked up some Prog fans because of the slick solos and such.  Nirvana called them out on that and basically just did Dylan with distortion and fast drumming.  Then the whole coffee house hippie girl with a guitar stuff... Jewel.. etc.  then all the techno and rap and blends of R and B and just rehashing everything from the last 30 years. 

So I will give the Dream Theater has the everyone is a virtuoso thing.. it is Prog Metal and not Prog as a classic genre.

But what the Classic Prog bands did so well was work together... and put the music first and foremost.  Genesis was every bit as much about Collins as it was Hackett.  Crimson was never about Fripp posing as a rock God playing epic solos while standing in a white hot spotlight.  The Classic Prog offerings were much more based upon the idea of an orchestra than a bunch of flashy jazz musicians trading solos. 

The great Prog bands always felt to me a bit understated in what they actually could be doing.  It was about being tasteful, experimental but also very stylish.. which is the main thing that has been missing from most Prog for a long time.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 18:30
Where do all these Prog Musicians go to get their magical powers that are not available to normal musicians? Confused

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 18:49
Originally posted by Dean

Where do all these Prog Musicians go to get their magical powers that are not available to normal musicians? Confused

EarthQuaker Devices Rainbow Machine. It has a dial labeled 'magic'. Gotta get me one.


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 11 2012 at 20:04
Originally posted by Surrealist

In Prog, generally speaking, you have this idea of a virtuoso at each position in the band.  Would any anyone really argue that Prog drummers are typically much better trained drummers who can play and solo in odd meters etc compared to a typical rock drummer who is just driving the down beat in 4/4 time?  The Prog bassists were almost always playing more melodically, and much more interesting note selections than someone banging on the E string for 20 minutes.  The presence of classically train or Jazz trained keyboards are much more prevelant in Prog that pop rock or straight up rock. The guitar players were usually to some degree classically trained or player much more artfully than just learning a couple of blues scales and repeating the same sequences over different chord changes which was pretty typical.  If you went to see Robin Trower (whom I love) you basically went to see Robin play blues music.  Two other guys in the band doing nice contributions.. but it was the Robin show.  Same for UFO... I mean it was the Micheal Schenker show.  Even a Progger could appreciate Schenker shredding his epic guitar solo in Rock Bottom or Lights Out.But in Prog... you might have 5 people there to see and get off on any of the guys in the band.  I have a bassist friend who just worshipped Squire and bought his ticket based upon which side of the stage he was likely to be set up on.Same for Wakeman and all his caped fans... and the Bruford fanatics, and Steve Howe was God to the technically minded guitar players.  I took a guitar class in University as an easy elective and the entire class was required to learn excerpts from "Mood for Day".  This was in 1983.ELP... there would be arguments about each one of them being the best in the world at what they did individually.So what really separated Prog from other genres of rock was the complete virtuostic nature of each position in the band being filled by a real expert.  I remember even Roger Waters being voted "bassist of the year".   It was the super group mentality..... and on top of that.. the notion that the sum would STILL be greater than the parts...and this ideology was supported perfectly by the "YES" solo albums.  "Fish out of Water" good, but not YES.  Howe's Beginnings "excellent but don't let him sing another note please!"  "Olias of Sunhillow", spiritual, but definitely missing the other guys virtuostic touches.  But as drum machines came into vouge, and the silly quest for perfect digital production.. it enabled any band to sound "perfect" using quantization and so on.  These perfect sampled sounds, and midi and all that sounded amazingly tight to the public ear, and it really was a big smoke and mirrors job.  People liked those clean tight sounds, drum machines and so forth.. and that really killed prog.  The Prog bands felt they needed those sounds too.. and they all explored them to their demise.  Then you had the metal scene that said nonsense to those sounds and just went heavy on the low end with lots of flashy guitar solos and hairspray... and they picked up some Prog fans because of the slick solos and such.  Nirvana called them out on that and basically just did Dylan with distortion and fast drumming.  Then the whole coffee house hippie girl with a guitar stuff... Jewel.. etc.  then all the techno and rap and blends of R and B and just rehashing everything from the last 30 years.  So I will give the Dream Theater has the everyone is a virtuoso thing.. it is Prog Metal and not Prog as a classic genre.But what the Classic Prog bands did so well was work together... and put the music first and foremost.  Genesis was every bit as much about Collins as it was Hackett.  Crimson was never about Fripp posing as a rock God playing epic solos while standing in a white hot spotlight.  The Classic Prog offerings were much more based upon the idea of an orchestra than a bunch of flashy jazz musicians trading solos.  The great Prog bands always felt to me a bit understated in what they actually could be doing.  It was about being tasteful, experimental but also very stylish.. which is the main thing that has been missing from most Prog for a long time.


Being innovative, stylish and tasteful still exists today even with in the prog metal genre.
Albums like OPETH's STILL LIFE, IQ's DARK MATTER and FREQUENCY and of course DREAM THEATER's METROPOLIS PT2: SCENES OF A MEMORY are all tasteful, stylish and innovative. All carry a very unique and intimate sound of their own.

-------------
Belhold the power and gift of BEARD! As Damian Wilson sports a beard now his voice somehow got even better than it already was. :)



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz - http://www.webwiz.co.uk