Print Page | Close Window

The longevity of prog (and rock) music

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=97573
Printed Date: December 22 2014 at 09:02
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The longevity of prog (and rock) music
Posted By: The T
Subject: The longevity of prog (and rock) music
Date Posted: March 18 2014 at 10:37
What will happen with the prog rock we hear today in, say, 100 years? Will it still be here? Will it still be known? I ask because as of right now it's difficult to ascertain the longevity of any artist or genre in rock music in general. The oldest truly popular rock artist today might be Elvis and he's still not really that old or that popular anymore. Yes, our bands like Yes, Genesis, KC, etc, are still revered and popular among prog fans but at least a good percentage of the people listening to them are people who were fans from the start, in those bands' heyday. 

I'm talking right now about levels of longevity like the ones that some classical composers (check my avatar). Even if few people will still listen to music composed by them, even in 100 years they will probably still be studied and their music still used, if only in academic settings (I certainly hope not). 

But what about rock and prog artists? I think The Beatles might be the ones legitimately aiming for immortality, true immortality (like in "everybody who watched us perform live is dead and their children too" immortality). Opinions? 


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



Replies:
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: March 18 2014 at 10:44
Interesting question I have thought about a fair but myself.

My take is that the way that music is not only recorded, but, crucially, retained now in digital format, makes it far more likely that digital age music will last a lot longer than much of the analogue age.

Having said that, there is a truism. Classic culture, be it poetry, prose, music, art, whatever, always stands the test of time, and will always be enjoyed.

Therefore, I truly believe that in some 200 years time The Beatles, Floyd, and other massively influential artists will still be listened to and discussed and played.


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


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: Prog 74
Date Posted: March 18 2014 at 10:55
Good question.  One of those "time will tell" situations.  Some of the original Rock & Rollers from the 1950s have already been forgotten.  What used to be the local "Oldies" station now won't play anything earlier than about 1965 simply because of the aging demographic and the need to appeal to slightly younger listeners.  They are far more likely to play Hall & Oates rather than Little Richard.  The big band jazz singers my grandparents used to listen too haven't been on the radio in decades.  It's always out with the old and in with the new.  Forget what came before you, it's today that matters.  If not for this wonderful website I would not have half the Prog bands in my collection that I do now.  There are so many good bands I had not even heard of until discovering PA.  If not for us loyal followers of a music that many shun it would most likely disappear.  A sobering thought indeed.  I love classical music too, but the city I live in (Kansas City) doesn't even have a classical music radio station!  There are few people I know who actually enjoying listening to it.  I'm sure the music will always be there to be studied as you indicated though. 


Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: March 18 2014 at 11:09

I'd base my answer to that question not only on the quality but on the quantity of prog music having being released over the last 40 or so years alone.

It would be very hard to suppress or forget music that has been produced in such vast amounts, even in 500 or more years' time.

The debates about quality could very well still persist even then, but even, say, if it was by then universally rated as rubbish (I'm sure it won't be though), its existence would still have to be acknowledged.

So, yes, I believe it will still be talked about. Personally, I could imagine that classical music could have been, by then, relegated to a very far back seat, believing that prog music by then would possibly be rated as superior, quality wise.

Just as an aside on that point: I personally quite dislike classical music (at least the 'mainstream' classical) because firstly, it lacks any groove (personal opinion), but secondly (and much more importantly) it lacks any musical surprises. In 99% the harmonies used are in no way surprising or outrageous in any way. To put an even stronger point on it: I find classical music to be just as boring and uninteresting as radio driven pop music for exactly the same reasons: chord progressions and harmonies are absolutely predictable and kept within very narrow margins. This does not apply to 'modern classical', but I doubt that this will have any mass appeal, even in the future.

Prog is the only music that transcends predictability and avoids well-trodden paths while remaining very listenable.

So, yes, I believe prog will be a larger issue in the future than any other music style.

Apart from that I'm fairly certain that the future will contain its fair share of Brintneys, Gagas and Justins for the masses.



-------------
I like the music of any era, regardless of when it was made.


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: March 18 2014 at 12:20
Hmm...I think the 'will prog rock last ' discussion was done not that long ago on a similar thread but at any rate imho if it's good music, no matter the genre, it will last.

-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 18 2014 at 14:33
As long as there is recorded media there will always be niche interest in whatever has been recorded. 

We have lost so much music from the past 400 years because it was never recorded. Music from the past only stood the test of time because a succession of later musicians perpetuated its popularity or rediscovered and reintroduced it, in the days before recorded media and mass publication of musical score in the form of sheet-music, manuscripts were hand-written and few in number. If a compose fell out of fashion, or wasn't widely known, the chances of any of their work surviving is slim.

With vinyl, tape, CD and digital media we have the ability to not lose anything (though I fear if we put all our faith in teh interweb then we could lose everything), and if it is there then there will be people who want to hear it. 20 to 40 years ago it would be unheard of to find the electronic music of Dr. Samuel J Hoffman (1940s)  or Daphne Oram (1950s) in a record store, but now I can hear them on YouTube and buy the album from Amazon.

And if we can obtain and hear this music then there will be musicians who will be inspired by it. The longevity of a genre is a natural consequence of that genre being created and documented - genres may go in and out of fashion but they are always there somewhere, they never completely die away.


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


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


Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: March 18 2014 at 14:35
A separate question is whether the human race will survive another 200 years.  If we don't, maybe the hardier species remaining on the planet can still enjoy all those Yes and Genesis albums.  Ah. But what will they play them on?  Who will pay for the electricity?  This poses a problem.  I hope it doesn't come to that.

Assuming we do, in all seriousness, I'd say maybe 1% of all the great music today will still be remembered 200 years from now.  Luckily, thanks to Bandcamp, that still comes out to a couple of million bands.


-------------
My other avatar is a Porsche

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.

-Kehlog Albran


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: March 18 2014 at 14:51
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


With vinyl, tape, CD and digital media we have the ability to not lose anything (though I fear if we put all our faith in teh interweb then we could lose everything)

Strangely enough, I was talking about this t'other day, and I raised this.

Like most of a certain age, I started off on vinyl and cassette, and then embraced the cd era.

When the download era started off on teh interweb, I embraced this as well, until seeing you making the (very cogent) argument on this site about the temporary nature of such things. Since then, I have gone back to buying cd only, in other words having a physical copy. I have also converted all of my (legal ) downloads onto CD-r as well, just in case.

The example of MySpace is a very good one here. Shed loads of money and content, all gone. I am sure there are others .i cannot put my mind to, as well.


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


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: March 18 2014 at 18:03
It helps if the instrumentation and talent for playing it survives.  The violin has pretty much stayed the same since Stradivari made his.  However, it remains to be seen if "wire on wood" (Fripp's term for playing electric guitar) will survive in another fifty or 100 years.  Already, we see that electric guitars & basses are being shunned by the youngest generations in favor of computer games & other diversions.  

The phrase "rock is dead" has been bandied about for many years, so I'm far to proclaim it over.  However, all popular musical forms seem to wane.  How many of us go out to hear barbershop-quartet music, for example?  Once hugely popular, this is now very much a niche (I've sung a bit of it, so I know!). 

By the time any of us would have to worry about it, we'll be dust.  I'm very happy to have lived through the original wave of prog music and now its renaissance.  Something tells me that very good music will survive in some form, if not intact as we hear it.  

Much of the music we love is now forty years old, or older.  I sometimes wonder what the lads in the dormitory at college would have done if I regularly played forty-year-old music in 1973?  I think I would have been pitched out of an open window.  The fact that we listen to this stuff DAILY (I just enjoyed "Going For The One," a fantastic work!) speaks for itself.  Also, I'm heartened that younger generations are being turned onto the music.  

Cheers to you all, Charles




Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: March 18 2014 at 19:00
Perhaps rock music will even die long before that 100 years is over, but I think we all know what happens in 2112. Wink


Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: March 18 2014 at 22:03
The classic prog bands won't reach near the level of the great composers, partly because there just wasn't as much music before the 20th century, and partly because they aren't as good. I think their music will last more than anything other than classical, jazz and the Beatles though.


-------------
"It's music, and I like it" - Miles Davis on Sketches of Spain


Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: March 18 2014 at 22:48
Do apes even like music?

-------------
Frank Swarbrick

--
Belief is not Truth.


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 02:19
I bet they do.

-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 02:37
Gentle Giant created a new form of music according to Keith Emerson so I think their music will be studied by academics way into the future. The rest will be regarded as a passing fad imo. The Beatles are not prog so they don't count.


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 04:00

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

The Beatles are not prog so they don't count.


Tongue in your not inconsiderable cheek?Wink

Very good idea for a thread certainly. It should be borne in mind that even in my lifetime (I'm 51) Prog was relegated to that 'unclaimed fart in the elevator' circa 1979 when no-one would be seen dead admitting to liking it (apart from those routinely ostracized and ridiculed for same i.e. Hippy Prog fans) However, as Dean points out, the vagaries of fashion do not change the quality of what is being appraised. Given that the digital realm has now preserved so much of our musical past (though storage mediums still wither) here's a word of warning about the negative side of longevity by way of an anecdote:
Phillip Glass studied under Nadia Boulanger and she told him that  the weakness of American composers was their having no sense of history. Glass responded to the effect that this was their strength i.e. innovation can often be curtailed by an immersion in the past



-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 04:51
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

It should be borne in mind that even in my lifetime (I'm 51) Prog was relegated to that 'unclaimed fart in the elevator' circa 1979 when no-one would be seen dead admitting to liking it (apart from those routinely ostracized and ridiculed for same i.e. Hippy Prog fans)
  
  -
I vaguely recall that; luckily the anti-Disco movement soon swept in with a vengence and saved Prog from total social oblivion (and I guess that pesky Wall album sold a few copies, I think there was a movie, too).


Phillip Glass studied under Nadia Boulanger and she told him that  the weakness of American composers was their having no sense of history. Glass responded to the effect that this was their strength i.e. innovation can often be curtailed by an immersion in the past
  
  -
I would tend to agree with Glass there, though I can't imagine old Phil or any other composer of his class not knowing his historic composers (that is assuming Boulanger was referring to music history and not World history).






Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 06:33
For an approximate idea of how today's (or yesterday's) music will be regarded in 100 years time, just consider how we currently regard the music of 100 years ago.
 
When was the last time you listened to Caruso?


-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 06:47
as in Enrico?


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 07:51
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

as in Enrico?

Or Robinson?LOL


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


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 08:12
*groan*

LOL


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


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


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 08:15
Originally posted by Stool Man Stool Man wrote:

For an approximate idea of how today's (or yesterday's) music will be regarded in 100 years time, just consider how we currently regard the music of 100 years ago.
 
When was the last time you listened to Caruso?
Well, Enrico was a performer, not a composer. 

We (at least those in the classical world, and academia, etc) still listen to Bartok, Stravinsky, Etc, the music of 100 years ago (well, around 100 anyway). Even the bad-trend-setting Schoenberg Second Viennese school is still heard (or studied at least, as it's very close to unlistenable sometimesTongue


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


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 08:58
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Stool Man Stool Man wrote:

For an approximate idea of how today's (or yesterday's) music will be regarded in 100 years time, just consider how we currently regard the music of 100 years ago.
 
When was the last time you listened to Caruso?
Well, Enrico was a performer, not a composer. 

We (at least those in the classical world, and academia, etc) still listen to Bartok, Stravinsky, Etc, the music of 100 years ago (well, around 100 anyway). Even the bad-trend-setting Schoenberg Second Viennese school is still heard (or studied at least, as it's very close to unlistenable sometimesTongue


I know squat about what they teach in conservatoires these days but as far as the longevity of certain composers go, ain't those who devise the curriculum going to dictate who stands the test of time?


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 09:27
A "time will tell" situation in the music business also revolves around things that have little to do with music. Radio, television, and the publications industry all get a piece of it. They form a representation for an artist which sticks in the minds of the public. Over the last few decades Nick Drake began to surface. A new generation of youths became fixated on promoting him. Suddenly , T.V. wonderful of emptiness got a hold of Nick Drake and his song "Pink Moon" was being used for a Volkswagon commercial. So if Prog ever did vanish...it would have a good chance of returning ..however...I can't see it ever fading to that extreme and even over a hundred years. People will always be interested in Syd Barrett. You might ask..."What does Syd Barrett have to do with Prog?" A hundred years from now...people will remember the household name Pink Floyd and have an understanding that it connects them to a wide spectrum of music that was relevant during that time. Some composers will always remain to be more popular than others. A percentage of that music being the reason why the hype exists, but a much larger percentage of popularity/growth that is cemented and unforgotten in history implies that an industry was seeking investment in it. Paganini was hyped and piegon-holed as a dark ..tall..thin  man who was mysterious and in league with the devil. That still raises the interest of young musicians who wish to adapt his music to their own.


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 09:32
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Stool Man Stool Man wrote:

For an approximate idea of how today's (or yesterday's) music will be regarded in 100 years time, just consider how we currently regard the music of 100 years ago.
 
When was the last time you listened to Caruso?
Well, Enrico was a performer, not a composer. 

We (at least those in the classical world, and academia, etc) still listen to Bartok, Stravinsky, Etc, the music of 100 years ago (well, around 100 anyway). Even the bad-trend-setting Schoenberg Second Viennese school is still heard (or studied at least, as it's very close to unlistenable sometimesTongue


I know squat about what they teach in conservatoires these days but as far as the longevity of certain composers go, ain't those who devise the curriculum going to dictate who stands the test of time?
To a point. But normally what is chosen is what probably will more surely be of enough academic value to be useful for students. If you plan your curriculum on musical theory and composition around Justin Bieber I doubt classes will last too long, be too useful, or be actual classes in any way. Tongue

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


Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 15:23
It's hard to tell if prog will survive, actually its practically impossible to know for sure.

Good music, however, tends to stand the test of time, so I hope this will hold true for prog.


Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 18:51
...I tend to think that Prog will likely hold up better than Justin Bieber...

Sorry, just my typical JB slam!  LOL


Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 20:40
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

...I tend to think that Prog will likely hold up better than Justin Bieber...

Sorry, just my typical JB slam!  LOL


LOL I don't think we'll ever get to see a JB tribute band. 

Seriously, I think that's a good measure of what will last for another 50+ years at least, the amount of tribute bands dedicated to prog artists like Pink Floyd, Genesis and Yes. It's not just us oldies that amuse ourselves going to their gigs, I see lots of young kids joining in the fun as well. Even David Gilmour himself hired the Aussie Floyd to play on his 50th birthday party. 


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 21:08
If the genre wasn't found dead at the time of punk & new wave hysteria, it will survive the next hundred years for sure.







Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 21:24
Call me cynical, but it would seem the human race is becoming stupider with every generation (the movie Idiocracy, although mediocre in delivery, is so rich in ideas about humanity basically breeding out intelligence that it is more terrifying than funny). That being said, In 100 years I doubt very much there will be music as we know it, and that would include classical, prog, rock, bluegrass, etc. Those musical genres of antiquity will be relegated to the few schools of higher learning left that include such studies as art, literature or music (literary works will be written in a variant of Internet shorthand and phonetics, with brightly colored pictures). Guitars will be right up their with lyres in regards to playing popularity.

People will be fed live-streaming pop (called "pap", a mix of tribal beats, Chinese/Hispanic/Urdu doggerel rap and droning electric rhythmic elements) directly into their cranial cortex via a chip installed at birth (that includes GPS, video capabilities and health monitor).

Fortunately, I will be dead. Thank God for Guinness and cigarettes.


-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 21:56
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

In 100 years I doubt very much there will be music as we know it, and that would include classical, prog, rock, bluegrass, etc. Those musical genres of antiquity will be relegated to the few schools of higher learning left that include such studies as art, literature or music (literary works will be written in a variant of Internet shorthand and phonetics, with brightly colored pictures).
I doubt it.  

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:


People will be fed live-streaming pop (called "pap", a mix of tribal beats, Chinese/Hispanic/Urdu doggerel rap and droning electric rhythmic elements) directly into their cranial cortex via a chip installed at birth (that includes GPS, video capabilities and health monitor).
Isn't that pretty much what we have now?



Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 22:25
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

In 100 years I doubt very much there will be music as we know it, and that would include classical, prog, rock, bluegrass, etc. Those musical genres of antiquity will be relegated to the few schools of higher learning left that include such studies as art, literature or music (literary works will be written in a variant of Internet shorthand and phonetics, with brightly colored pictures).
I doubt it.

Why doubt it? One thing you should never do is underestimate human greed...or our amazing capacity for stupidity. The arts, already underfunded in many curricula, will eventually be defunded in schools as an unnecessary expense. Rap has all but eliminated blues, jazz and R&B in the black culture, and that trend is spreading. A century from now? No one will be able to write a grammatically correct sentence, let alone attempt a Vivaldi concerto.    

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:


People will be fed live-streaming pop (called "pap", a mix of tribal beats, Chinese/Hispanic/Urdu doggerel rap and droning electric rhythmic elements) directly into their cranial cortex via a chip installed at birth (that includes GPS, video capabilities and health monitor).
Isn't that pretty much what we have now?
Not quite yet. The GPS chips are still only in our pets. I see that changing with our manic need for miniaturized gadgetry. Who could predict in 1990 that in less than 25 years  whole populations would be completely addicted to handheld devices that do everything but wipe your ass while you engage in acronymic texting while driving? That was only in a 25 year period, mind you. 

Hey, get the chip! How else will you get the perfect 4-D viewing experience? And while you're at it, upgrade your chip to include bank info (no more wearing out the strip on the back of your credit card!), passport, health info (great if you go into anaphylactic shock eating peanuts), and sexual gratification stimulator (ah, the porn inside your head!). 





-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 19 2014 at 22:53
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

In 100 years I doubt very much there will be music as we know it, and that would include classical, prog, rock, bluegrass, etc. Those musical genres of antiquity will be relegated to the few schools of higher learning left that include such studies as art, literature or music (literary works will be written in a variant of Internet shorthand and phonetics, with brightly colored pictures).
I doubt it.
Why doubt it? One thing you should never do is underestimate human greed...or our amazing capacity for stupidity. The arts, already underfunded in many curricula, will eventually be defunded in schools as an unnecessary expense. Rap has all but eliminated blues, jazz and R&B in the black culture, and that trend is spreading. A century from now? No one will be able to write a grammatically correct sentence, let alone attempt a Vivaldi concerto.    

Except I have no doubt a century ago people thought the same thing.   But I'm guessing your response would likely be "And they were right!!"   So I can see this exchange going in circles.   And BTW when has attempting to write a Vivaldi concerto been a benchmark of human culture?; Vivaldi was a benchmark, Vivaldi was a genius.   But there have always been and will always be far more people attempting his accomplishments and falling short.   Therefore what?   Not everyone can be a Vivaldi, sometimes not even a Mozart can be a Vivaldi.



Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 00:40
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Call me cynical, but it would seem the human race is becoming stupider with every generation (the movie Idiocracy, although mediocre in delivery, is so rich in ideas about humanity basically breeding out intelligence that it is more terrifying than funny). That being said, In 100 years I doubt very much there will be music as we know it, and that would include classical, prog, rock, bluegrass, etc. Those musical genres of antiquity will be relegated to the few schools of higher learning left that include such studies as art, literature or music (literary works will be written in a variant of Internet shorthand and phonetics, with brightly colored pictures). Guitars will be right up their with lyres in regards to playing popularity.

People will be fed live-streaming pop (called "pap", a mix of tribal beats, Chinese/Hispanic/Urdu doggerel rap and droning electric rhythmic elements) directly into their cranial cortex via a chip installed at birth (that includes GPS, video capabilities and health monitor).

Fortunately, I will be dead. Thank God for Guinness and cigarettes.


Although I sympathise with this view, it seems more than likely that popular culture would have repelled you at any given point in history. Culture can always be cynically looked (down) upon as a pacifier designed for those either unable or unwilling to articulate their own ideas.
Look on the bright side: if it wasn't for popular culture none of us would have any reason to feel remotely good about ourselves. On a more serious note, there is evidence that the human race may actually be getting smarter as studies by intelligence researcher James Flynn, an emeritus professor of the University of Otago in New Zealand. reveal compelling evidence that this generation significantly outscore previous generations when they undertake the original IQ tests done by the latter. The findings do fluctuate geographically but even out at about 3 extra IQ points per decade. However, I think you've actually answered your own question correctly: it's not dumbness that makes popular culture so crass and venal, it's greed, laziness and being shown that the path of least resistance is the only road that's available (and its got a toll natch)


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 04:21
Yes the recorded work is pllentiful. Even if it all stopped now there is more music than anyone can consume or at least the way album listeners consume that is the listen, re-listen and compare impressions 10,20, 30. 40 years ago pf the same pop songs like Topgrpahic Oceans.

Queensryche had an interesting poibt about attention spans quickening. This is indicted by something I read a while back by someone who wasn't familiar  with Pink Floyd. ... ??!... yes. Anyway he downloaded the catalogue and the next evening or so gave his opinion of the Screaming Abdabs as were as "a pretty good band with some interesting music". The whole lot downloaded, head, assimiled and opined upon inside 24 hours or so.

We've been dumbed down for years, we are supposed to be passive consumers, unthinking droids that do as we are told and not to think anything unless we have been instructed. Inspite of the pap pop, the graphically obscene yet dull rap, dance music that has no syncopation making it even easier for the half body bob up / down there is still cerebral voracity that our governments and their media cannot stem despite their most dedicated attentions. But government achieves the opposite of what it intends so often.

It may be that prog will actually be assimilated by mental appetites frustrated by the dearth of intelligent content to such an extent that box sets will be consumed like singles. But it's the meaning and significance of music in popular culture relevance that is important. Academic archiving is not popular culture (unless it intersects like The Beatles). Music defines our personal and cultural significance and human egos need that acknowledgment of appreciation.  Music was my major and I had a v. good look at it all for that perspective.

It may be that popular culture in the near future will be very divided but the prog  / classical quotient will be very underground. I went to a Stravinsky gig a while back and while I wasn't the youngest, the amount of people watching Symphony In C and Oedipus Rex were in an aging minority ( a half full town hall).

Interestingly, (to me) the popularity of Abba and '70s pop acts in pubs and discos has not decreased. Girls not even a twinkle in their old man's eyes back then are drunkenly singing Dancing Queen... bit like their mothers used to... timeless breeds odd bedfellows...  plus ca change plus c'est la memchose n'est  pas?


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 06:57

The Industry will do all they can to press for new styles and new artists to become popular, just as with fasion anything news is good news, people listening to what they allready paid for is bad, it generates no money. I dont think they care the last little bit what style it is, as long as you pay money, by magasines, and merchandise.Media seems to follow the same trend, more or less directly sponsored by the industry.

Without doubt they will be succesful with that strategy in the future, as they have been in the past, remember they have nothing against indie or alternative styles, they just bye there way into those too.
 
So besides those few collecters, that will keep a niche alive in their basement (just like a few people today still have
a lot of recordings with 20's swing Jazz, early 50's rock ect.) The majority will know those bands that have influenced the next generations (like Hendrix - Zeppelin - Floyd - Beatles today), and it is impossible to say, if Amon Dull II, will be one of the main inspirations of bands playing in 2114. But i dont think that a lot of Prog bands, will be remembered by many people. 


-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 07:02
When you point out that we still listen to some Classic composers, its the same thing, those are the few, out of hundreds and hundreds of now forgotten composers, that are remembered. From time to time a composer get a revival, but at the same time others are slowly forgotten.

-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 07:17
^ scarcity alone confers a value on anything: if we have a surfeit of composers and their music can be heard, only the very best are remembered. If we have a dearth of any recorded music in any style, what can be heard, irrespective of quality is afforded a value. Twas ever thus.


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 07:21
I dont get your point - do we have a dearth of any style ?
The only style i can come up with should be Reggae, not that many good artists to chose from, and basicly only 1 is remembered.

-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 07:45
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

I dont get your point - do we have a dearth of any style ? The only style i can come up with should be Reggae, not that many good artists to chose from, and basicly only 1 is remembered.


I'm not a fan and would happily admit to being pretty clueless but I know Reggae is much, much bigger than just Bob MarleyWink

Perhaps not currently but all I mean is that in the very distant future, depending on what music has been preserved and is therefore still available will determine the longevity of any art. No matter how good you think something is now (like I know you love certain Krautrock) if that is not preserved for posterity it will be forgotten. Were it not for the exhaustive field trips undertaken by the likes of composers Bartok and Kodaly throughout eastern europe before WW2 transcribing gypsy/peasant music etc that entire vocal/unwritten  tradition would have been lost forever. Just because we are in the digital age does not immunize us from the danger of losing contemporary artifacts forever. You can back up your media till you are bluetooth in the face, but the successful retrieval of data rests upon a physical and therefore perishable server.


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 08:41
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

I dont get your point - do we have a dearth of any style ? The only style i can come up with should be Reggae, not that many good artists to chose from, and basicly only 1 is remembered.


I'm not a fan and would happily admit to being pretty clueless but I know Reggae is much, much bigger than just Bob MarleyWink

Perhaps not currently but all I mean is that in the very distant future, depending on what music has been preserved and is therefore still available will determine the longevity of any art. No matter how good you think something is now (like I know you love certain Krautrock) if that is not preserved for posterity it will be forgotten. Were it not for the exhaustive field trips undertaken by the likes of composers Bartok and Kodaly throughout eastern europe before WW2 transcribing gypsy/peasant music etc that entire vocal/unwritten  tradition would have been lost forever. Just because we are in the digital age does not immunize us from the danger of losing contemporary artifacts forever. You can back up your media till you are bluetooth in the face, but the successful retrieval of data rests upon a physical and therefore perishable server.
We totaly agree, a lot of things, and most likely niche music like Kraut, will be lost. There is a tiny tiny tiny possibility that the future will be Krautish, and therefore Amon Dull or Popul Wut Cool, will be remembered, but then again there is also a teoretical possibility there will one day be peace in the middle east.  


-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 09:16
Originally posted by Stool Man Stool Man wrote:

For an approximate idea of how today's (or yesterday's) music will be regarded in 100 years time, just consider how we currently regard the music of 100 years ago.
 
 
Here's the wiki page for music in 1914:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914_in_music" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914_in_music
It includes a list of 93 popular songs published that year. Only 19 of them have a wiki page of their own.  Let's take that as an indication of the other 74 songs having been forgotten nowadays (I duuno how else to measure such a thing, except if it has its own page then it's remembered)
 
Trying again but with the music of 1913:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913_in_music" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913_in_music
73 published popular songs, of which only 12 have their own wiki page. 
 
Once more, with 1915:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1915_in_music" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1915_in_music
84 published popular songs, of which only 10 have their own page.
 
Total for three consecutive years: 250 popular songs published, of which only 41 are suffieciently remembered now to have been given their own wiki pages.  That means 83.6% of those songs have been largely forgotten (there'll always be fans of those old songs, of course, just as there'll always be fans of the more obscure composers.


-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: Prog 74
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 09:24
Sadly one does not need to be able read, write or play music anymore in order to make it.  As long as you have a microphone, some vulgar lyrics and a turntable you're all set!


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 09:25
To make things worse i bet that list only hold a fraction of what was published those years.

-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 10:44
Out of those 250 songs Irving Berlin has 39 song writing credits. That's pretty amazing for a three year period. His name will probably be remembered for another 100 years.
There's no business like show business. LOL


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 11:06
Originally posted by Prog 74 Prog 74 wrote:

Sadly one does not need to be able read, write or play music anymore in order to make it.  As long as you have a microphone, some vulgar lyrics and a turntable you're all set!
And then for some reason once you make it big and become a start you need 5 people to make your three-minute songs that are even simpler than the ones you made with your mic and turntable Dead

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


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 12:10
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Prog 74 Prog 74 wrote:

Sadly one does not need to be able read, write or play music anymore in order to make it.  As long as you have a microphone, some vulgar lyrics and a turntable you're all set!
And then for some reason once you make it big and become a start you need 5 people to make your three-minute songs that are even simpler than the ones you made with your mic and turntable Dead


You can make music with a stone and a piece of wood, or any kind of tube.
But you need a powerplant to record it.


-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 12:43
Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

...I tend to think that Prog will likely hold up better than Justin Bieber...

Sorry, just my typical JB slam!  LOL
Maybe if Chris Squire and Keith Emerson threw eggs at people's windows ..they would be remembered in a hundred years.


Posted By: Prog 74
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 13:24
Originally posted by TODDLER TODDLER wrote:

Originally posted by cstack3 cstack3 wrote:

...I tend to think that Prog will likely hold up better than Justin Bieber...

Sorry, just my typical JB slam!  LOL
Maybe if Chris Squire and Keith Emerson threw eggs at people's windows ..they would be remembered in a hundred years.
Nice!  LOL  Or they could get high with their fathers and berate stewardesses.


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 21:23
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

In 100 years I doubt very much there will be music as we know it, and that would include classical, prog, rock, bluegrass, etc. Those musical genres of antiquity will be relegated to the few schools of higher learning left that include such studies as art, literature or music (literary works will be written in a variant of Internet shorthand and phonetics, with brightly colored pictures).
I doubt it.
Why doubt it? One thing you should never do is underestimate human greed...or our amazing capacity for stupidity. The arts, already underfunded in many curricula, will eventually be defunded in schools as an unnecessary expense. Rap has all but eliminated blues, jazz and R&B in the black culture, and that trend is spreading. A century from now? No one will be able to write a grammatically correct sentence, let alone attempt a Vivaldi concerto.    

Except I have no doubt a century ago people thought the same thing.   But I'm guessing your response would likely be "And they were right!!"   So I can see this exchange going in circles.   And BTW when has attempting to write a Vivaldi concerto been a benchmark of human culture?; Vivaldi was a benchmark, Vivaldi was a genius.   But there have always been and will always be far more people attempting his accomplishments and falling short.   Therefore what?   Not everyone can be a Vivaldi, sometimes not even a Mozart can be a Vivaldi.
When I said "attempt a Vivaldi concerto" I meant perform one, not compose one. 

As far as people a century ago saying the same thing, I don't believe they had quite the grasp of technology we do, nor did things move at such an accelerated pace. A century ago, many young people listened to what their parents listened to, and their parents before them. 1914 could be seen as an end of an era, though, but no one could really come to grips with the monumental changes that would occur over the next few years, save in hindsight. Some spent their whole lives coming to grips with the Great War.


-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 21:48
^ Bollocks.

They had the same grasp of whatever "technologies" were a part of their lives.

This attitude reflects the absurd notion that humans who lived in the past or during deprived times somehow didn't have the same intellectual or creative potential that people who came later had.   It is utter nonsense and indicates a lack of historical understanding.



Posted By: Jzrk
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 22:03
There are a lot of good thoughts in this thread.the music will be available because of the digital age.
The question will be will people still find it appealing many many years to come?
I would argue that now most of the younger generation isn't interested in prog.But that doesn't mean it will die off.I see a lot of sub genres being picked up and played by young bands.I still see rock bands,blues,Blues rock,metal,still continuing on.So hip hop didn't kill as much of the past music forms off as much as rock did in the sixties.
I see high school kids wearing Hendrix,Zep ,and Beatles t shirts so some music is still having an impact way past it's inception.Now you never know if a new type of music comes along and renders everything else passť like rock did for popular music for the youth in the sixties and 70s.As far as prog goes I think for the foreseeable future it will still survive .The quality of the music will appeal to many more coming of age .Granted it may be a smaller nitch.


Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 22:10
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:


What will happen with the prog rock we hear today in, say, 100 years? Will it still be here? Will it still be known? I ask because as of right now it's difficult to ascertain the longevity of†any†artist or genre in rock music in general. The oldest truly popular rock artist today might be Elvis and he's still not really†that†old or†that†popular anymore.†<span style="line-height: 1.2;">Yes, our bands like Yes, Genesis, KC, etc, are still revered and popular among prog fans but at least a good percentage of the people listening to them are people†</span><i style="line-height: 1.2;">who were fans from the start, in those bands' heyday.<span style="line-height: 1.2;">†</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.2;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 1.2;">I'm talking right now about levels of longevity like the ones that some classical composers (check my avatar). Even if few people will still listen to music composed by them, even in 100 years they will probably still be studied and their music still used, if only in academic settings (I certainly hope not).†</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.2;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 1.2;">But what about rock and prog artists? I think The Beatles might be the ones legitimately aiming for immortality,†</span><i style="line-height: 1.2;">true†<span style="line-height: 1.2;">immortality</span><i style="line-height: 1.2;">†(<span style="line-height: 1.2;">like in "everybody who watched us perform live is dead and their children too" immortality). Opinions?†</span>


The T, hello!

Good question.
The T, hello!
I donít know if any of us can really answer that. The Beatles certainly have stood the test of time so far and so has Elvis, however to me it seems that at first prog artists were let down by the music industry (corporate suits), currently most if not all have a day job to support their family because being prog musicians certainly is not enough to pay their bills, right now techno and rap fans seem to be more united and pro-active. Unless we start to promote and become more welcoming of new comers I really donít see any future in prog and this would be a big shame. Prog music has no comparison to the other ones I mentioned as I donít consider that music really.
Another hug to you

-------------
When playing strip poker, make sure you are wearing a lot of clothes! or google will ban you ;)


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 22:24
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

^ Bollocks.

They had the same grasp of whatever "technologies" were a part of their lives.

This attitude reflects the absurd notion that humans who lived in the past or during deprived times somehow didn't have the same intellectual or creative potential that people who came later had.   It is utter nonsense and indicates a lack of historical understanding.

Double bollocks back at ya, bud.

Where exactly did  I say "that humans who lived in the past or during deprived times somehow didn't have the same intellectual or creative potential that people who came later had"? Don't tell me I lack historical understanding -- your perspective is entirely skewed, and you have an annoying habit of making things up as you go along (wonderful if you are a fantasist, but not so much while attempting sentient dialogue). Like your dim diatribe regarding Vivaldi.

Most of the world's population 100 years ago did not have automobiles, owned horses as a means of conveyance and lived a rural agricultural lifestyle -- without radio, television, and in many instances electricity -- like generation upon generation before them. Hell, serfdom in Russia was officially abolished in 1861, but did not end in some provinces until 1892. It had nothing to do with people's intellectual capacity, but their circumstances and their means of economic survival.

It is inane to think that people pre-WWI had the same outlook, technologically speaking, as anyone living today, because the necessity for such technology was unnecessary for the time. The pace of life has accelerated in lock step with the pace of technological advancement. I remember my grandmother crying as we watched the lunar landing on TV in 1969. She was amazed, and started to recall taking a horse cart with her father to market in downtown Detroit. It really affected her in a bewildering way that I, who grew up watching the space race on TV, could not then comprehend.


-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 22:41
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:


Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

^ Bollocks.They had the same grasp of whatever "technologies" were a part of their lives.This attitude reflects the absurd notion that humans who lived in the past or during deprived times somehow didn't have the same intellectual or creative potential that people who came later had.†† It is utter nonsense and indicates a lack of historical understanding.

Double bollocks back at ya, bud.
Where exactly did †I say "<span style="line-height: 1.2;">that humans who lived in the past or during deprived times somehow didn't have the same intellectual or creative potential that people who came later had"?†</span><span style="line-height: 1.2;">Don't tell me I lack historical understanding -- your perspective is entirely skewed, and you have an annoying habit of making things up as you go along (wonderful if you are a fantasist, but not so much while attempting sentient dialogue). Like your dim diatribe regarding Vivaldi.</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.2;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 1.2;">Most of the world's population 100 years ago did not have automobiles, owned horses as a means of conveyance and lived a rural agricultural lifestyle -- without radio, television, and in many instances electricity -- like generation upon generation before them. Hell, serfdom in Russia was officially abolished in 1861, but did not end in some provinces until 1892.†</span><span style="line-height: 1.2;">It had nothing to do with people's intellectual capacity, but their circumstances and their means of economic survival.</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.2;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 1.2;">It is inane to think that people pre-WWI had the same outlook, technologically speaking, as anyone living today, because the necessity for such technology was unnecessary for the time. The pace of life has accelerated in lock step with the pace of technological advancement. I remember my grandmother crying as we watched the lunar landing on TV in 1969. She was amazed, and started to recall taking a horse cart with her father to market in downtown Detroit. It really affected her in a bewildering way that I, who grew up watching the space race on TV, could not then comprehend.</span>


I have to disagree with you both, i.e. it has been proven/well known that people who lived East Germany conformed to their life's, everyday same thing thus no ambition whatsoever however West Germany were focused in progress each individual trying to exceed the other (as stressful as it might seem) they had a goal/purpose. When both sites united one was way more advanced compared to the other.

I truly believe that the brain needs to be challenged and conquer to become more creative.

-------------
When playing strip poker, make sure you are wearing a lot of clothes! or google will ban you ;)


Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 23:01
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:


Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

^ Bollocks.They had the same grasp of whatever "technologies" were a part of their lives.This attitude reflects the absurd notion that humans who lived in the past or during deprived times somehow didn't have the same intellectual or creative potential that people who came later had.†† It is utter nonsense and indicates a lack of historical understanding.

Double bollocks back at ya, bud.
Where exactly did †I say "<span style="line-height: 1.2;">that humans who lived in the past or during deprived times somehow didn't have the same intellectual or creative potential that people who came later had"?†</span><span style="line-height: 1.2;">Don't tell me I lack historical understanding -- your perspective is entirely skewed, and you have an annoying habit of making things up as you go along (wonderful if you are a fantasist, but not so much while attempting sentient dialogue). Like your dim diatribe regarding Vivaldi.</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.2;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 1.2;">Most of the world's population 100 years ago did not have automobiles, owned horses as a means of conveyance and lived a rural agricultural lifestyle -- without radio, television, and in many instances electricity -- like generation upon generation before them. Hell, serfdom in Russia was officially abolished in 1861, but did not end in some provinces until 1892.†</span><span style="line-height: 1.2;">It had nothing to do with people's intellectual capacity, but their circumstances and their means of economic survival.</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.2;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 1.2;">It is inane to think that people pre-WWI had the same outlook, technologically speaking, as anyone living today, because the necessity for such technology was unnecessary for the time. The pace of life has accelerated in lock step with the pace of technological advancement. I remember my grandmother crying as we watched the lunar landing on TV in 1969. She was amazed, and started to recall taking a horse cart with her father to market in downtown Detroit. It really affected her in a bewildering way that I, who grew up watching the space race on TV, could not then comprehend.</span>


I have to disagree with you both, i.e. it has been proven/well known that people who lived East Germany conformed to their life's, everyday same thing thus no ambition whatsoever however West Germany were focused in progress each individual trying to exceed the other (as stressful as it might seem) they had a goal/purpose. When both sites united one was way more advanced compared to the other.

I truly believe that the brain needs to be challenged and conquer to become more creative.


Anyway this is so obvious also in terms of Darwin's natural selection, if your life is consistent and easy there's no need to change/evolve. In the West is very much Darwinism too, it's the survival of the fittest, those who can succeed above others in a certain sense, all being a stressful competition.

-------------
When playing strip poker, make sure you are wearing a lot of clothes! or google will ban you ;)


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 23:24
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

^ Bollocks.

They had the same grasp of whatever "technologies" were a part of their lives.

This attitude reflects the absurd notion that humans who lived in the past or during deprived times somehow didn't have the same intellectual or creative potential that people who came later had.   It is utter nonsense and indicates a lack of historical understanding.
Double bollocks back at ya, bud.

Where exactly did  I say "that humans who lived in the past or during deprived times somehow didn't have the same intellectual or creative potential that people who came later had"? Don't tell me I lack historical understanding -- your perspective is entirely skewed, and you have an annoying habit of making things up as you go along (wonderful if you are a fantasist, but not so much while attempting sentient dialogue). Like your dim diatribe regarding Vivaldi.

Most of the world's population 100 years ago did not have automobiles, owned horses as a means of conveyance and lived a rural agricultural lifestyle -- without radio, television, and in many instances electricity -- like generation upon generation before them. Hell, serfdom in Russia was officially abolished in 1861, but did not end in some provinces until 1892. It had nothing to do with people's intellectual capacity, but their circumstances and their means of economic survival.

It is inane to think that people pre-WWI had the same outlook, technologically speaking, as anyone living today, because the necessity for such technology was unnecessary for the time. The pace of life has accelerated in lock step with the pace of technological advancement. I remember my grandmother crying as we watched the lunar landing on TV in 1969. She was amazed, and started to recall taking a horse cart with her father to market in downtown Detroit. It really affected her in a bewildering way that I, who grew up watching the space race on TV, could not then comprehend.

Hit a nerve, did I.   Well that's life on the streets, buddy.




Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 23:25
Very good points by The Dark Elf.  I think we greatly underestimate the effect of technology on our lives, the ways in which it has transformed the world. In my opinion, without technology, pop/rock music could have never supplanted classical music in popular culture.  Not only recorded music but the means to transport record units quicker than before, whether by road or air, the swift dissemination of information through mass media, especially television, all played an important part in allowing pop/rock to overthrow conventional ideas about musical hierarchy and capture the imagination of listeners in numbers that classical no longer could.  And the lesson to be learnt from jazz's subsequent 'relegation' to a form of serious music with relatively fewer, if more 'elite', followers is also that the pop music business by its nature favours some measure of dumbing down.  It just has to be concise and 'with it' to give record labels the best chance of securing a hit.  There is no point in bringing bands like Magma into the argument here.  They may be non classical for the purposes of categorisation but they are way too complicated to satisfy the need to be entertained of most rock/pop listeners. Note that there is still great jazz music, for instance, for those who want to look for it. But it's no longer something the media would decorate as an 'event, as something people in general need to know about.  That is a crucial difference between pre-20th century or the first half of the 20th century and the subsequent period.     

So, our best hope to reverse this process of dumbing down, ASSUMING that is what is desired, is that the music business itself collapses on its head.  That will probably also mean music becomes drastically less global in nature and has to depend much more heavily  on patronage of live performances within the neighbourhood, i.e., as it did before the recording era.  I don't know that that is desirable or at least is something people who have grown up in the recorded music era would relate to.

The recorded music era as such is very distinct from previous eras in that sense.  It is the most organised, most business-like that music has probably ever been.   


Posted By: Kati
Date Posted: March 20 2014 at 23:50
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


Very good points by The Dark Elf. †I think we greatly underestimate the effect of technology on our lives, the ways in which it has transformed the world. In my opinion, without technology, pop/rock music could have never supplanted classical music in popular culture. †Not only recorded music but the means to transport record units quicker than before, whether by road or air, the swift dissemination of information through mass media, especially television, all played an important part in allowing pop/rock to overthrow conventional ideas about musical hierarchy and capture the imagination of listeners in numbers that classical no longer could. †And the lesson to be learnt from jazz's subsequent 'relegation' to a form of serious music with relatively fewer, if more 'elite', followers is also that the pop music business by its nature favours some measure of dumbing down. †It just has to be concise and 'with it' to give record labels the best chance of securing a hit. †There is no point in bringing bands like Magma into the argument here. †They may be non classical for the purposes of categorisation but they are way too complicated to satisfy the need to be entertained of most rock/pop listeners. Note that there is still great jazz music, for instance, for those who want to look for it. But it's no longer something the media would decorate as an 'event, as something people in general need to know about. †That is a crucial difference between pre-20th century or the first half of the 20th century and the subsequent period. † ††
So, our best hope to reverse this process of dumbing down, ASSUMING that is what is desired, is that the music business itself collapses on its head. †That will probably also mean music becomes drastically less global in nature and has to depend much more heavily †on patronage of live performances within the neighbourhood, i.e., as it did before the recording era. †I don't know that that is desirable or at least is something people who have grown up in the recorded music era would relate to.
The recorded music era as such is very distinct from previous eras in that sense. †It is the most organised, most business-like that music has probably ever been. ††



Awww Rogerthat

I donít think recorded music is most organized compared to previous eras and certainly not compared to classic music which all music notes were written on paper in contrast to most current music releases namely pop and hip hop which are based on heavy bass sound and fake ezdrummer sounds all manipulated by software inc. vocals. I must add that many current prog bands are the real deal.   
A big hug to you,

-------------
When playing strip poker, make sure you are wearing a lot of clothes! or google will ban you ;)


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 00:05
Sorry, I should have been clearer.  I meant that it is more organised in the commercial sense.  For the first time, you had whole corporations, some with interests (again, used in the financial sense of the term) in film/television, employing an army of executives to decide which albums would be made, which artists would get a chance to record.  The activity of promoting an album or selling it say in record stores or online also became highly professional.  Substitute all music or music related terms here with a word like cars or cosmetics and the above sentences would probably still make sense.  And that is what I am getting at.  Even if the music business in some sort of sense may have been centuries old, it was the quantum leap in technology in the 20th century that allowed music to be sold worldwide as a PRODUCT that fulfilled a NEED.  And that has a very significant impact on the kind of music that gets pushed to the forefront of culture.  The industry will make every effort to get you to listen to what THEY want you to listen to.  Because they are just like any competitive organisation being run for money.  We are still reluctant to acknowledge this even as the music business marks a decade of a steep decline in album sales (i.e. lurching perhaps towards it demise at least in its present form) because we do not like to believe our tastes could be manipulated by invisible corporations.  But it is undeniable, just as in any other walk of life today.  We have corporations competing to fulfill our needs and purporting to offer readymade products to satisfy those.  It takes a conscious assertion of our ability to make our own choices to step back from the marketplace and decide that we will only pay for albums we want to listen to and not necessarily the ones the industry wants us to listen to.  But they obviously bank on the fact that such people are bound to be in a minority and there will be enough listeners who are casual enough to be content with what is advertised in the billboards and on the TV channels as 'good music'.


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 00:14
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Interesting question I have thought about a fair but myself.

My take is that the way that music is not only recorded, but, crucially, retained now in digital format, makes it far more likely that digital age music will last a lot longer than much of the analogue age.

Having said that, there is a truism. Classic culture, be it poetry, prose, music, art, whatever, always stands the test of time, and will always be enjoyed.

Therefore, I truly believe that in some 200 years time The Beatles, Floyd, and other massively influential artists will still be listened to and discussed and played.

It's enjoyed by specialists; the general population moves on.

Sad to say, but much of the music we enjoy is temporal and fleeting; if a few people are still listening to it in 50 years, that itself is amazing. To ask for more than that is wishful thinking...


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 00:19
Originally posted by HolyMoly HolyMoly wrote:

A separate question is whether the human race will survive another 200 years.  If we don't, maybe the hardier species remaining on the planet can still enjoy all those Yes and Genesis albums.  Ah. But what will they play them on?  Who will pay for the electricity?  This poses a problem.  I hope it doesn't come to that.

Assuming we do, in all seriousness, I'd say maybe 1% of all the great music today will still be remembered 200 years from now.  Luckily, thanks to Bandcamp, that still comes out to a couple of million bands.

And if the human race *does* survive for the next 200 years, another important question is: Do the Chinese or Asians care all that much about 1970s (UK) prog music? LOL Because if they don't (and let's face it, most here in PA don't care and aren't interested in the music that's been made in China), then, yeah, probably prog's not going to be all that warmly loved in the year 2214.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 00:24
Hey, I did buy both Hatfield and the North CDs from a local store.  On a serious note, yes indeed, apart from the names of PF, JT and Rush, prog hardly makes an impression in the second most populated country in the world.  And even those three names only resonate with the small ( and largely metropolitan) minority who listen to a little bit of Western music.  And we don't attach the same importance to preserving the past as the West seems to. So forget about prog rock, I don't think the work of R D Burman, Ilayaraja or A R Rahman would be remembered in 2050.  If I am still alive and so is PA, I will let you know whether I got it right.  Wink


Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 03:58
Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Out of those 250 songs Irving Berlin has 39 song writing credits. That's pretty amazing for a three year period. His name will probably be remembered for another 100 years.
There's no business like show business. LOL


Nah, that was Ethel Merman. Immortalized on two Genesis live albums though apparently mixed out of the new version of Three Sides Live. Shame...

Speaking of Irving I heard one of his numbers (a pro-Republican US political thing called I Like Ike)  - Eisenhower, not Willis. Anyway, it was beautifully composed, arranged,played, thoroughly detailed and technically interesting and very musically correct and yet, still one of the most unbearably tedious things I have heard in a long time (stupid as well, lyrically, "I like Ike and Ike likes the mike"...). That I regret to say will stay in the memory for longer than I care. Confused




Posted By: Prog 74
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 09:31
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Sorry, I should have been clearer.  I meant that it is more organised in the commercial sense.  For the first time, you had whole corporations, some with interests (again, used in the financial sense of the term) in film/television, employing an army of executives to decide which albums would be made, which artists would get a chance to record.  The activity of promoting an album or selling it say in record stores or online also became highly professional.  Substitute all music or music related terms here with a word like cars or cosmetics and the above sentences would probably still make sense.  And that is what I am getting at.  Even if the music business in some sort of sense may have been centuries old, it was the quantum leap in technology in the 20th century that allowed music to be sold worldwide as a PRODUCT that fulfilled a NEED.  And that has a very significant impact on the kind of music that gets pushed to the forefront of culture.  The industry will make every effort to get you to listen to what THEY want you to listen to.  Because they are just like any competitive organisation being run for money.  We are still reluctant to acknowledge this even as the music business marks a decade of a steep decline in album sales (i.e. lurching perhaps towards it demise at least in its present form) because we do not like to believe our tastes could be manipulated by invisible corporations.  But it is undeniable, just as in any other walk of life today.  We have corporations competing to fulfill our needs and purporting to offer readymade products to satisfy those.  It takes a conscious assertion of our ability to make our own choices to step back from the marketplace and decide that we will only pay for albums we want to listen to and not necessarily the ones the industry wants us to listen to.  But they obviously bank on the fact that such people are bound to be in a minority and there will be enough listeners who are casual enough to be content with what is advertised in the billboards and on the TV channels as 'good music'.
This is right on the money dude.  What is considered "good" or "popular" is indeed very much manufactured by corporations and we are manipulated into believing it to be so.  It's really part of the brain-washing & dumbing down of society that keeps most folks from taking a step back and conscientiously objecting to what they are hearing or seeing.  If MTV says that in order to be popular and hip you need to buy the latest Katy Perry album then people will, by the hordes.  A complex, intelligent band like the Flower Kings can't compete when the game is rigged against them.  People don't want to think, they want to dance damn it! 


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 09:39
I wouldn't say people would necessarily be reluctant to step up in terms of attention span or accepting complexity in music.  Lots of them may be but nevertheless an even bigger problem is most people would not like to have to look hard for any product they need because that is the modern way.  Our lifestyle pampers us to no end so we have a subconscious need to get what we want without having to look for it, even when it comes to works of art.  I used to resent the idea of having to find out about good music that I might like rather than being told about it in the papers or TV...that is, until I found out what all I was missing.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 09:49
Hi,
 
I've been mentioning this for several years in quite a few of my posts.
 
The history of the music itself, is debatable today, and we won't be there in 100 years, so it's all conjecture. However, we have one precedent that we did not have before, and it is a massive amount of music that was recorded, in the past 75 years, and this is something that "classical" and any other "music" did not have until 1925/1930 or thereabouts. Film, created a "history" and a "snapshot" of that time and place, and how people thought, and saw things. Music, added to it, and it was just a matter of time before music could be recorded, like film was doing to the visual and eventually adding the sound strip to the celluloid.
 
All that is left of the history of music from 500 years, let's say, is what has survived in the librettos and the scores of music, that some teachers kept for their students and such. This was their "recording" of the time, but it did not exactly tell us a whole lot about that day and age, like rock/jazz music has in the 20th century. The advent of "rock'n'roll" as a form of anti-social behavior would not have been accepted in any music form until the 20th century as a historical document in the 16th or 17th century for example, when so much of music was dominated by the upper class, and pretty much stating that the lower classes had no talent for the arts, which was strictly something that the upper classes enjoyed and the lower classes couldn't!
 
Advertising and the media, killed the upper class controls of the arts, and it continues to do so, except that today, "upper class" means super rich, and Mick Jagger fits better the whole thing than any of the classical music stars! Better wines and food, if you will!
 
I seriously believe that the line between the "classical" and "popular" music will be almost gone in another 50 years! In the sense that the time and place will be remembered more for the music that we love and respect, than it will any "classical" music, that died when the ballerina fell over and banged her head! Even Ian thought that the future was not classical music, but what we were doing and appreciating!
 
You got to see that "editorial" and its subtle comment.
 
I see "progressive" as a possible leader in the attempt to show that "popular" music, deserves just as much respect as "classical" music, specially when it shows its quality and talent, like so few classical folks are doing in these days, courtesy of the bad instructors in academic areas of music. Why would you go see some flute guy, when you can see Ian Anderson? Why would you go see some violin guy when you can see Jean Luc Ponty? Why would you go see some Soprano out there, when there are far better singers in rock and jazz out there? Why wouldn't you want to see a guitar maestro like Jon McLaughlin? Why wouldn't you want to see a Keith Jarrett? These guys are far more versed and talented than just about anyone on the "classic music" horizon and only a stuck up bunch of jerks would not appreciate their musicianship and talent!

In some ways, the "long cut" might not exactly be the measure of what might become as a "standard", but it should differentiate it from the top of the pops material, which is fun stuff that sells, but not considered "serious music" per se as the stuff that we discuss.
 
I think that VdGG, Genesis, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Yes, will be the well known "composers" (definition will be refined I guarantee you!) of this time and place, and this is not all about pop music! And I'm one of those fighting that battle. This is the classical music of our time, and even Sir Paul agrees with that assessment!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Prog 74
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 10:13
You make some very valid points Moshkito.  Part of the problem classical music has is that they keep re-recording the same stuff over and over.  Every conductor feels compelled to record the 9 Beethoven symphonies, though there are hundreds of recordings of his symphonies already in existence.  It becomes tiresome and stale after awhile.  More focus should be spent on new works or works from relatively unknown composers.  One of the main reasons VdGG, Genesis, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Yes and any other band we enjoy remain so popular with us is that they are creating their own, original body of work.  If they were more or less forced to keep re-recording 50s rock songs over and over rather than new and exciting works of art then we would not be listening to them now.     


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 11:11
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Hey, I did buy both Hatfield and the North CDs from a local store.  On a serious note, yes indeed, apart from the names of PF, JT and Rush, prog hardly makes an impression in the second most populated country in the world.  And even those three names only resonate with the small ( and largely metropolitan) minority who listen to a little bit of Western music.  And we don't attach the same importance to preserving the past as the West seems to. So forget about prog rock, I don't think the work of R D Burman, Ilayaraja or A R Rahman would be remembered in 2050.  If I am still alive and so is PA, I will let you know whether I got it right.  Wink

I saw a map recently in my Facebook feed from Neptune Pink Floyd, and it broke down which countries per capita listen to Pink Floyd the most. (I just did a quick search and couldn't find it - if someone else locates it on the Web, could you post the link here?) That map may discourage many people here. If I remember correctly, a greater percentage of Americans listen to Floyd than anyone else. A few other countries listen to Floyd a bit; but generally, most of the world hardly listens to them at all. I wish I could find that article and map... Not sure about the methodology, or how scientific it really is...


Posted By: Prog 74
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 11:19
I'm an American and listen to Pink Floyd a whole helluva lot.  Big smile


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 11:48

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Sorry, I should have been clearer.  I meant that it is more organised in the commercial sense.  For the first time, you had whole corporations, some with interests (again, used in the financial sense of the term) in film/television, employing an army of executives to decide which albums would be made, which artists would get a chance to record.

The equivalent 400 years ago was the "upper class" that determined what was important or not in music, and there is not enough popular music history for us to make a fair appraisal, like there is today!

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

...
 The activity of promoting an album or selling it say in record stores or online also became highly professional.  Substitute all music or music related terms here with a word like cars or cosmetics and the above sentences would probably still make sense.  And that is what I am getting at.

This is all a part of the rise in "advertising" in the 20th century. I am not sure that "advertising" in the old days reached as many, even in a comparative sense, as it does today. And this became a massive tool to develop the business which controls the arts today. All arts, not just music.

The main difference 50 years later is that the Internet is helping develop the "individual" business, for any/all artists, and this might, YET, make a massive difference in the whole process. I am inclined to think that the "upper class" control, or "media" control of most of the arts will probably dissipate for a while, and might change the structure of it all, but we won't see it so soon, until the internet is better developed. Right now, the "corporate" side of things is too visible, with the Google, Yahoo, and the like. Hopefully their "influence" will die down considerably!

Quote ...What is considered "good" or "popular" is indeed very much manufactured by corporations and we are manipulated into believing it to be so.  It's really part of the brain-washing & dumbing down of society that keeps most folks from taking a step back and conscientiously objecting to what they are hearing or seeing. 

Glad to see that I am not the only one saying this. So much literature for hundreds of years has been about this "control" and people revolting to it, and still ... we put together a top ten, and deny the better listen to other things! To counter the might makes right thing, that even PA uses, I would have listed the bands as "composers" and their "listing" would entail their catalogue, not just one album! This way, if we don't think the rest is as good, they won't get the mention! We do that for so many classical musicians, it's not funny!

We're a kiss-as$ society. We have the same issue here. Folks agreeing immediately because they do not have anything else to add to the thread. That's just like the very system of advertising that we deplore, but they don't see that! They also do not see how the original folks that went on to become "progressive" were working on a form of change on many things, of which the arts was their part. There were also other changes at the time socially and what not, a lot of which was swept under the carpet, but you and I already know that is the history of the world.



-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Kobaek
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 12:02
Planet Earth becomes uninhabitable in 2084 anyway and there'll only be one guy left alive. I hope for him they have prog on Mars...


Somebody had to do it Wink


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 12:28

Originally posted by Prog 74 Prog 74 wrote:

You make some very valid points Moshkito.  Part of the problem classical music has is that they keep re-recording the same stuff over and over.  Every conductor feels compelled to record the 9 Beethoven symphonies, though there are hundreds of recordings of his symphonies already in existence.  It becomes tiresome and stale after awhile.

We have the same thing with radio and "classic rock", so I'm not sure I would exactly trash the classic areas, though I have been known to trash the Portland Symphony, specially after a long article by some goon complaining about the low attendance for their shows!

So I wrote a letter back, and said go ahead and keep getting those washed out pieces and bring over Pink Martini, so you can get more bored with them than they already are, and maybe one of us will show up! And then I wrote that maybe he should pay more attention to the number of folks going to the Rose Garden and other venues around town, and maybe they might like to bring over a few of them, but not with over dressed old ladies whose attraction is quite questionable! And then I dropped the bomb. That maybe when they start giving some credit to someone like Frank Zappa and other more modern conductors, specially in America, that their fortunes might improve.

You really think they read it? Nahhhh ... the same folks are still there and in charge, and as I said, this is the bad/old folks that are in charge of the academic side of things in the arts, specially the music departments across the country, when they are not even checking out or appreciating the very stuff that the kids have on their own iPods!

You really think many kids are going to Berklee and other schools of music to learn crap they have no interest in? Very few ... VERY FEW! But those folks have "tenure" and will get paid until they die on the job! And the arts suffer ... it's been like that for hundreds of years!



-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 12:35
Originally posted by Prog 74 Prog 74 wrote:

I'm an American and listen to Pink Floyd a whole helluva lot.  Big smile
 
I may be wrong, but my impression is that (white) Americans look back more. So many radio stations are 'oldies' stations and 'classic rock' stations. I don't know enough about UK radio stations, but it does seem to me that the UK and many other European countries are less interested in the past, and more interested in new-ish stuff, and even newer genres (e.g. electronica). I could be wrong; I wonder what others have to say about this.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 13:16
Originally posted by jude111 jude111 wrote:

Originally posted by Prog 74 Prog 74 wrote:

I'm an American and listen to Pink Floyd a whole helluva lot.  Big smile
 
I may be wrong, but my impression is that (white) Americans look back more. So many radio stations are 'oldies' stations and 'classic rock' stations. I don't know enough about UK radio stations, but it does seem to me that the UK and many other European countries are less interested in the past, and more interested in new-ish stuff, and even newer genres (e.g. electronica). I could be wrong; I wonder what others have to say about this.
 
FAIR assessment about radio and tv in America.
 
However, I would remind you that America does not have 400 years of history of the arts, because the white folks that took it over a few years back spent their time killing off the folks that had all the art in them! All they left behind was some forms of religion because many of those "arts" were evil!
 
Europe has a massive history of all the arts and it is well known and validated! America is still trying to figure out what the word "art" is all about, so that allows for Andy Warhol's to get big and make fun of the whole thing at your expense!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 13:19
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

 
I see "progressive" as a possible leader in the attempt to show that "popular" music, deserves just as much respect as "classical" music, specially when it shows its quality and talent, like so few classical folks are doing in these days, courtesy of the bad instructors in academic areas of music. Why would you go see some flute guy, when you can see Ian Anderson? Why would you go see some violin guy when you can see Jean Luc Ponty? Why would you go see some Soprano out there, when there are far better singers in rock and jazz out there? Why wouldn't you want to see a guitar maestro like Jon McLaughlin? Why wouldn't you want to see a Keith Jarrett? These guys are far more versed and talented than just about anyone on the "classic music" horizon and only a stuck up bunch of jerks would not appreciate their musicianship and talent!


The way i see things Its not one or the other, Franz Liszt and Rick Wakeman, NiccolÚ Paganini  and Jean Luc Ponty,  Mauro Giuliani and Jon McLaughlin they all compliment each other, and Classical music can be a way into both Prog and Metal, as well as the other way around.  



-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 19:57
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

I may be wrong, but my impression is that (white) Americans look back more. So many radio stations are 'oldies' stations and 'classic rock' stations. I don't know enough about UK radio stations, but it does seem to me that the UK and many other European countries are less interested in the past, and more interested in new-ish stuff, and even newer genres (e.g. electronica). I could be wrong; I wonder what others have to say about this.
Interesting observation, it may be so, hard to say.   There is a nostalgic vein that runs through US culture, even among people as young as 20.



Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: March 21 2014 at 20:05
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

^ Bollocks.

They had the same grasp of whatever "technologies" were a part of their lives.

This attitude reflects the absurd notion that humans who lived in the past or during deprived times somehow didn't have the same intellectual or creative potential that people who came later had.   It is utter nonsense and indicates a lack of historical understanding.
Double bollocks back at ya, bud.

Where exactly did  I say "that humans who lived in the past or during deprived times somehow didn't have the same intellectual or creative potential that people who came later had"? Don't tell me I lack historical understanding -- your perspective is entirely skewed, and you have an annoying habit of making things up as you go along (wonderful if you are a fantasist, but not so much while attempting sentient dialogue). Like your dim diatribe regarding Vivaldi.

Most of the world's population 100 years ago did not have automobiles, owned horses as a means of conveyance and lived a rural agricultural lifestyle -- without radio, television, and in many instances electricity -- like generation upon generation before them. Hell, serfdom in Russia was officially abolished in 1861, but did not end in some provinces until 1892. It had nothing to do with people's intellectual capacity, but their circumstances and their means of economic survival.

It is inane to think that people pre-WWI had the same outlook, technologically speaking, as anyone living today, because the necessity for such technology was unnecessary for the time. The pace of life has accelerated in lock step with the pace of technological advancement. I remember my grandmother crying as we watched the lunar landing on TV in 1969. She was amazed, and started to recall taking a horse cart with her father to market in downtown Detroit. It really affected her in a bewildering way that I, who grew up watching the space race on TV, could not then comprehend.

Hit a nerve, did I.   Well that's life on the streets, buddy.



No, you didn't hit a nerve, but to use another tired old idiom, you missed the boat. I don't even think you are at the right dock. Perhaps you should just stay in the tub with your rubber duck and blow fart bubbles..


-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: March 22 2014 at 05:49
I'm under the impression that while it's still something of a niche, there is something of a market today for popular music (mostly folk and jazz) from the dawn of the vinyl era in the 1920s. So who knows?


-------------
"I'd throw the towel in, but they stole my damn towel." - Ann Sterzinger


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 22 2014 at 05:54
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

I'm under the impression that while it's still something of a niche, there is something of a market today for popular music (mostly folk and jazz) from the dawn of the vinyl era in the 1920s. So who knows?


A much bigger niche I'd hazard than any misplaced nostalgia for blown fart bubbles from as recently as two posts ago (It was just a passing fad)Clown


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: March 22 2014 at 05:58
Yeah, it seems like it's mostly the recording media issue that keeps popular music before that from having an audience. Of course, in the case of folk music it helps a lot that the fanbase has a more traditionalist approach to things rather than preferring things to evolve and stay relevant than is the norm.

-------------
"I'd throw the towel in, but they stole my damn towel." - Ann Sterzinger


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 22 2014 at 13:26
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

Yeah, it seems like it's mostly the recording media issue that keeps popular music before that from having an audience. Of course, in the case of folk music it helps a lot that the fanbase has a more traditionalist approach to things rather than preferring things to evolve and stay relevant than is the norm.
 
In the case of "folk music" I would say that "regionalism" is more important, than anything else. Something that is big in NY will not necessarily translate to SF and vice versa.
 
The media thing, is all about numbers, but we fail to see that. So, NY, with its huge numbers can sell 100k albums in 1 or 2 days, and Variety and Billboard, will immediately say it's a number one seller, and the first thing you do is ... go check the damn thing out! It's almost we don't even bother to learn what the music is about ... and automatically accept it as "important" because NY  sold that many!
 
Longetivity will likely survive longer because of the media in these big cities, but that will never help a progressive band from Podunk, New Mexico, because you will never bother checking it out, since it didn't sell, which means it might not be good, anyway.
 
In the end, this is ALL, about US ... not anything else. I don't think, that we have the aesthetic knowhow and ability to understand this and figure it out a bit better. If we did, top ten would be dead in this web site and most "progressive" websites, because it is the very process that hurts us more than anything else!
 
Remember ... we don't have the "numbers", but we have the most important part of it ... the music! You decide what is more important!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Jzrk
Date Posted: March 22 2014 at 18:34
Originally posted by jude111 jude111 wrote:


Originally posted by Prog 74 Prog 74 wrote:

I'm an American and listen to Pink Floyd a whole helluva lot.† Big smile

I may be wrong, but my impression is that (white)†Americans look back more. So many radio stations are 'oldies' stations and 'classic rock' stations. I don't know enough about UK radio stations, but it does seem to me that the UK and many other European countries are less interested in the past, and more interested in new-ish stuff, and even newer genres (e.g. electronica). I could be wrong; I wonder what others have to say about this.

I don't know about Europe but your on the money when it comes to American radio.Outside of top 40 ("music")ahem,you will not hear a lot of new good rock,prog ect.Radio is all corporate and pander to what's left of the major labels.So it is up to an individual to seek out music on his /her own.I know a lot of friends who still don't have hardly anything new in their music collection in the last 20 plus years.I am the one playing new stuff to try to turn them on to new artists.Maybe I am just a much bigger music lover?


Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: March 22 2014 at 18:35
Originally posted by Jzrk Jzrk wrote:

Originally posted by jude111 jude111 wrote:


Originally posted by Prog 74 Prog 74 wrote:

I'm an American and listen to Pink Floyd a whole helluva lot.  Big smile

 
I may be wrong, but my impression is that (white) Americans look back more. So many radio stations are 'oldies' stations and 'classic rock' stations. I don't know enough about UK radio stations, but it does seem to me that the UK and many other European countries are less interested in the past, and more interested in new-ish stuff, and even newer genres (e.g. electronica). I could be wrong; I wonder what others have to say about this.

I don't know about Europe but your on the money when it comes to American radio.Outside of top 40 ("music")ahem,you will not hear a lot of new good rock,prog ect.Radio is all corporate and pander to what's left of the major labels.So it is up to an individual to seek out music on his /her own.I know a lot of friends who still don't have hardly anything new in their music collection in the last 20 plus years.I am the one playing new stuff to try to turn them on to new artists.Maybe I am just a much bigger music lover?
It depends on the age group too.


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: March 22 2014 at 18:56
.


Posted By: WeAreKin
Date Posted: March 22 2014 at 19:02
I hold the feeling that I'm not sure that it's particularly important as long as the musical landscapes created and history generated have been absorbed and reinterpreted into something new. Just for example if Beethoven or Mozart were alive today they would be spotting their music in nearly everything out there from a western composition.

All I hope for in particular is that something that moved me like the middle section of 'Ripples' by Genesis will move others still, or at least something is created that is influenced by it which moves someone and so on..

Be lovely though if Gentle Giant was heralded as the greatest band to emerge from the western civlisation in a thousand years time.. Tongue


Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: March 22 2014 at 19:51
Originally posted by jude111 jude111 wrote:


Well, my feelings on the matter seem to get other people angry, but I'll just go ahead and state it, haha. A lot of the 'new'ish white/indie stuff coming out of the US is pretty musically conservative, and steeped in the past. It's not just oldies radio playing old music; it's also grunge bands recycling the riffs of (largely British) 70s rock bands. Even the riff for  "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is Blue Oyster Cult's "Godzilla" sped up. I remember in the early 1990s when the classic rock stations in Baltimore began to incorporate grunge bands in between tracks by AC/DC, Sabbath, Led Zep, and Lynyrd Skynyrd - it was a seamless transition.

The 'hippest' American band in the past year, according to 'hip' American indie webzines, is Vampire Weekend, whose biggest inspiration as far as I can tell is Simon & Garfunkel. Meanwhile, you've got Fleet Foxes and Bon Iver, who, like country indies bands such as Wilco and Neutral Milk Hotel and before them, are strumming guitars in full beards and playing campfire songs and channeling John Denver. The previous hippest American band, Animal Collective, was channeling Beach Boys and Grateful Dead.

And maybe this is all good, and people like that continuity and music steeped in tradition. I kind of like though how a lot of UK music isn't afraid to reject the past altogether and to forge new genres.

My theory's actually related to linguistics. There is much greater linguistic variety - and much quicker dynamic change - in the "mother" country than in former colonies. You can go from one neighborhood to another in the UK and find greater linguistic varieties than you'd find in the entire continental US. Additionally, the English language is more dynamic and admits greater varieties of slang and changes in the UK than in the US.

If music is a form of language - and a recent report came out saying that the same part of the brain is used for both - then perhaps there is a link... And it might explain why  American music (particularly white American music) tends to be more traditional and conservative, slower to change, slower to embrace changes, and less musically diverse.

Now, all this collapses when we look at black culture in the US. I remember in my linguistics courses, this was just as true of language in American American communities.... I'll leave it there for now... :-)
Vampire Weekend was the most popular, but by definition that differs from "hippest." Wink

It really depends on the artist. You're speaking of pop/rock releases. As far as UK releases, you might be glossing over a bit. Savages' Silence Yourself, one of the hottest UK releases, was perhaps on of the most retrospective albums of 2013. It sounded right out of the 80s. Of course, there's the whole electronic scene, but when talking of the pop/rock tradition, I'd be hard pressed to find something that wasn't building on the pop/rock tradition. Tongue 

America has also been a hotbed for experimental rock artists. Bands like Swans and Kayo Dot couldn't really be considered in the same camp as Vampire Weekend. Sure, if you were nitpicky, you could find ways in which they were influenced by older artists, but even UK electronic artists (Boards of Canada, anyone?) happen to be influenced heavily by older styles. 

With linguistics, nobody consciously sets out to create more dialects. I don't think unwillingness to change habits is involved in the seeming lack dialects in America. Rather, most dialects are fostered by habits that people refuse to change their own habits based on the generally agreed upon aspects of the English language. 

To make a parallel, most new and "forward-looking" styles are logical progressions from older ones. Kid A, for instance, while initially shocking, was not an illogical progression from OK Computer, and, indeed, rock music in the 90s. The Notwist, for instance, had mixed rock, electronic, free-jazz, and krautrock two years earlier. Even take a look at Radiohead's "office charts" (the music they're listening to posted on the band's website). You'll find Can, traditional pop, modern classical pieces, most of which date before Radiohead's inception. 

It's really not about being retrospective, but the thing at which you are looking at. If you look back at only rock, you'll only be taking inspiration from rock music. Most "innovation," if such a thing exists, happens when bands take influence from the styles that other rock bands aren't really looking at. Folk musics etc. Even then, the most important thing is really just to create an accurate expression of one's self. That's all Kid A was, all Shrink was, all any "retrospective" or "prospective" albums of any value are. 


EDIT: Whoops! I didn't realize you deleted your post. I can delete this one if you wish.


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: March 22 2014 at 20:25
Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:


EDIT: Whoops! I didn't realize you deleted your post. I can delete this one if you wish.

I like what you wrote; I just regretted what I wrote. You're right, I did gloss over a lot. The late 80s in the US was a really innovative period, when you think of bands like Sonic Youth, Pixies, etc. And in the 2000s, there was LCD Soundsystem & the DFA label, etc.



Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 22 2014 at 20:50
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Hit a nerve, did I.   Well that's life on the streets, buddy.
No, you didn't hit a nerve, but to use another tired old idiom, you missed the boat. I don't even think you are at the right dock. Perhaps you should just stay in the tub with your rubber duck and blow fart bubbles..

Wow, I really did rustle your feathers.   Is that the best you got?   Fart jokes? 




Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: March 23 2014 at 04:18
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

In the case of "folk music" I would say that "regionalism" is more important, than anything else. Something that is big in NY will not necessarily translate to SF and vice versa.
 
The media thing, is all about numbers, but we fail to see that. So, NY, with its huge numbers can sell 100k albums in 1 or 2 days, and Variety and Billboard, will immediately say it's a number one seller, and the first thing you do is ... go check the damn thing out! It's almost we don't even bother to learn what the music is about ... and automatically accept it as "important" because NY  sold that many!


Hadn't thought of that, maybe folk music wasn't the best example to use... perhaps jazz is a better one then? It's really difficult to extrapolate how popular music will be received and listened to in the distant future because how much the reception of music listening has changed over the 20th century. First there was the advent of vinyl records, then several paradigm shifts in how the business operated.

Can anyone specify exactly when jazz went from popular music to art music, by the way? I don't have an active interest in the genre but I find it curious to see a music genre jump status that wholesale from "low culture" to "high culture". I'm guessing the 1950s or so.


-------------
"I'd throw the towel in, but they stole my damn towel." - Ann Sterzinger


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 23 2014 at 04:32
^ Great question, you might want to post it at JazzMusicArchives


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: March 23 2014 at 04:42
Short answer : With Bebop in the 40's




-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: March 23 2014 at 08:09
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Hit a nerve, did I.   Well that's life on the streets, buddy.
No, you didn't hit a nerve, but to use another tired old idiom, you missed the boat. I don't even think you are at the right dock. Perhaps you should just stay in the tub with your rubber duck and blow fart bubbles..

Wow, I really did rustle your feathers.   Is that the best you got?   Fart jokes? 


You are completely incapable of replying in context. Your are incapable of paraphrasing or understanding the gist of a dialogue. I don't know if you use English as a second language, but you obviously can't read. So enjoy the rubber duck and fart bubbles, because I no longer take you seriously.


-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 23 2014 at 08:10
When you consider that we are a mix of older people who got into prog when it was happening big in the 1970's, and fans from a younger generation, and music is no longer dependent on media forms that are subject to decay, and there are new bands out there making great new prog...

Well I think the answer is pretty obvious.  (rock) on the other hand.... LOL


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


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 23 2014 at 10:43
Originally posted by WeAreKin WeAreKin wrote:

I hold the feeling that I'm not sure that it's particularly important as long as the musical landscapes created and history generated have been absorbed and reinterpreted into something new. Just for example if Beethoven or Mozart were alive today they would be spotting their music in nearly everything out there from a western composition. 

... Tongue
 
I don't know. If we take a cue from the rock press, any Mozart or Beethoven today would be considered pretentious and overdone!  Embarrassed
 
This happens on many bands that are fairly "busy" and detailed about their work! Though it is 4 instruments and not 25!
 
I'm not sure that we have a good idea, or complete interpretation of what "music" really is, and we're not able to separate ourselves from our preferences, in order to interpret things properly and completely. And this is where I would like to see the definition of "progressive" be more detailed and defined. Right now, it has this and that, and all of those can be found in all music, not just progressive. I don't think that some folks are listening past their "notes" and "chords", into the other part of what really makes music tick! I don't think we know, past moments that trigger memories from our past, as Dean would say, which could be quite correct!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 23 2014 at 10:45
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

...
Can anyone specify exactly when jazz went from popular music to art music, by the way? I don't have an active interest in the genre but I find it curious to see a music genre jump status that wholesale from "low culture" to "high culture". I'm guessing the 1950s or so.
 
I'm not sure I'm the best one at this, but I recommend seeing Tom Dowd's DVD about music and its history. It is fascinating, and it will shine a light on jazz and some experimental music in the late 40's and 50's that the movie companies almost killed accidentally, in favor of their stars.


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, instead of paying for a guru or church or social program!



www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 23 2014 at 21:46
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Hit a nerve, did I.   Well that's life on the streets, buddy.
No, you didn't hit a nerve, but to use another tired old idiom, you missed the boat. I don't even think you are at the right dock. Perhaps you should just stay in the tub with your rubber duck and blow fart bubbles..
Wow, I really did rustle your feathers.   Is that the best you got?   Fart jokes? 
You are completely incapable of replying in context. Your are incapable of paraphrasing or understanding the gist of a dialogue. I don't know if you use English as a second language, but you obviously can't read. So enjoy the rubber duck and fart bubbles, because I no longer take you seriously.

LOL 

Good one--  actually English is my third language.   Not bad for an illiterate, huh?






Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: March 24 2014 at 02:34
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Hit a nerve, did I.   Well that's life on the streets, buddy.
No, you didn't hit a nerve, but to use another tired old idiom, you missed the boat. I don't even think you are at the right dock. Perhaps you should just stay in the tub with your rubber duck and blow fart bubbles..
Wow, I really did rustle your feathers.   Is that the best you got?   Fart jokes? 
You are completely incapable of replying in context. Your are incapable of paraphrasing or understanding the gist of a dialogue. I don't know if you use English as a second language, but you obviously can't read. So enjoy the rubber duck and fart bubbles, because I no longer take you seriously.

LOL 

Good one--  actually English is my third language.   Not bad for an illiterate, huh?

 
Back to topic please


-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: Prog 74
Date Posted: March 24 2014 at 10:02
I think we can agree that rock music's peak years were roughly between 1965 - 1975.  Artists were given the freedom in the studio to virtually do as they pleased and this was encouraged by the record companies.  Music fans bought these experimental and progressive records and radio stations played them around the clock.  Warner Brothers famously signed the Grateful Dead and allowed them to be themselves.  They wisely did not try to "reign" them in and turn them into something more mainstream.  The more original and creative you were the more likely you would be signed and promoted by the record companies.  By the late 70s that began to change.  The music business became a business first and foremost.  Like any business it's aim was to make money and the best way to make loads of money in the music business was to sign bands that had mass appeal.  The more appealing you were the more likely you would have a top 10 hit.  MTV furthered the situation by saying you couldn't merely sound appealing you had to look appealing too.  A hairy, aging band like Jethro Tull would never get a video played if you were judged solely on "looks".  Creativity was stifled.  Wanting to venture beyond the standard 3-4 minute pop song structure was strongly discouraged.  Prog became a joke to many.  A few great prog bands have boldly defied those trends, but in order to survive it needed to go underground where is still exists today.  It's doubtful prog will ever again attain the popularity it had in the early 70s.  It can be done, but the now struggling music business needs to reverse it's stance on creativity & experimentalism.  The Flower Kings should be on the Grammys instead of just Beyonce, Macklemore or Taylor Swift.  Am I truly believe that any of those artists had a more creative, more imaginative album than Desolation Rose?  Absolutely not.  We need to stop dumbing down everything and instead encourage people to want to think and to learn.  Truly good music, be it classical or prog or jazz, requires a certain degree of intelligence that many people find intimidating.  Being smart, being creative, being different are what I find to be truly appealing and the music business should as well. 


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 24 2014 at 20:32
^^  Well, throughout the 70s, no prog rock band won the Grammy for Album of the Year. There are of course a host of genre-specific categories which I am not getting into but Album of the Year was won by Simon & Garfunkel, S Wonder, Carole King, Fleetwood Mac and Bee Gees.


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: March 24 2014 at 20:38
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

^^  Well, throughout the 70s, no prog rock band won the Grammy for Album of the Year. There are of course a host of genre-specific categories which I am not getting into but Album of the Year was won by Simon & Garfunkel, S Wonder, Carole King, Fleetwood Mac and Bee Gees.

The Grammies are American, so American acts usually win. Prog was mainly European, and since the American music press tends to be chauvinist, prog didn't get a lot of love in the press.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk