Exclusionsist or Inclusivist?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=97895
Printed Date: April 27 2024 at 14:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Exclusionsist or Inclusivist?
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Subject: Exclusionsist or Inclusivist?
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 05:35
|
Just an exploratory poll to attempt to get the feel for
where the good folks on PA feel the site should be heading to ensure its
survival into the future. I'm an old man (51) and would happily concede
that I have probably been left behind by many of the developments in
modern progressive music e.g I still believe that what constitutes Prog ceased
to exist circa 1979. I was an Admin on PA for about a year and during
that time I discerned a palpable dichotomy between the (mostly but not
exclusively younger) members who believed that Prog should
encompass developments in contemporary Rock c/f the (mainly but not
exclusively older brigade) who held fast to the idea that Prog was
a historic phenomenon. Given that Krautrock, Neo prog, Canterbury Scene
and RPI are historic evaluations of prevailing styles of music should
PA perhaps bite the bullet and decide if what is avowedly an archive
should encompass the contemporary?
------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 05:58
| I believe that current Prog bands are still building on the foundations led by the 70's giants. Why I would make such a statement ?? Perhaps if I present an example here : Thieves' Kitchen. I don't recall ever hearing this direction of Prog, the impeccable level of performance, and such cerebral arrangements as what I hear on 'One For Sorrow, Two For Joy'. It relies a lot on classic Fusion, but it heads somewhere totally different ; symphonic, folk, avante etc. To me, fresh and exciting. Maybe I'm crazy....... |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 06:03
|
No, I certainly don't think you crazy and thanks for your response. I just wanted to try to get some sort of feedback to where we're going in the future i.e. is PA a museum or is it a weather chart of where the progressive wind is blowing?
-------------
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 06:08
|
^ Where the progressive wind is blowing.... for sure. There are so many new exciting progressive bands out there. I don't think prog has ever suffered since 1979, we just understand it better and it's evolution has been a pleasure trip to witness. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Aussie-Byrd-Brother
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 06:09
|
Progressive winds are blowing stronger than ever! Not only with bands aligned to the kind of styles that orginated in the vintage years, but others incorporating modern inluences to be truly progressive. I think both are amazing, and we should consider ourselves so lucky to have endless interpretations of `prog' and `progressive' music to enjoy! `P.A' is cetainly not a museum! It's a ever-expanding document to what's come before and what is to come! 
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 06:28
| Yes, Prog has changed, deal with it! |
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 06:28
|
I presume it's a Poll to see who are those who have stopped listening to Prog in 1979 and those who have continue... I am a inclusivist because i hate everything that makes me think of death... ------------- Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness. Emile M. Cioran |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 06:32
|
I am old enough to have seen Abraham and some huge dinosaurs walking the earth, so there is a certain temptation to state that prog has ceased to be sometime during the late 1970's. Nevertheless I think there is evidence that prog is not an embalmed entity to be revered by a new generation of devotees, but still alive and kicking. A band like Deluge Grander, for instance, does not sound very much like one of those 70's giants to my ears. So I go for option #1. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 06:39
|
I agree with some of the people who stated before me that prog hasn't stopped to develop itself. I vote for option 1. Having said that, I don't like much of the prog that has been made after, let's say, the early nineties. Granted, there's some stuff from the last decades that I enjoy, but what really pleases me is mainly old prog.
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 06:44
|
Option 1. That said, it's been distinctly noticeable to me over the last few years that there's been an increasing number of people who, if not strictly limiting themselves to 70's prog, will only listen to that which is very clearly and closely derived from the 70's bands. Either that or those with a far broader definition of prog have left here/are ignoring this website. I'm not saying the bands described by the former are bad or wrong, far from it I quite enjoy many of them, but the people who will go far beyond that seem to be in ever decreasing numbers and I've increasingly become to feel like I'm on the musical fringes here (on a prog website, oh the irony!) (admittedly this has probably been exacerbated by my markedly decreased expenditure on music over the last few years).
------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005  |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 06:44
Your hatred of death would never make it past 'archives' and would have Dark Side of the Moon evicted from the site as inadmissible pronto, but the so called old brigade did not suffer from collective deafness post 1979, it's just we started to wonder if this thing we are listening to has maybe ceased to be Prog and evolved into a different creature? -------------
|
rdtprog wrote:Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 06:55
|
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 07:00
But i am sure this new creature would be something related to Prog. I think that Prog went on a break in 1979, but came back in the 90's and continue as today. Call it Retro Prog, Neo Prog, Post-Prog, it's still Prog. We have to be always careful with the word evolution especially in a Darwinism sense. ------------- Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness. Emile M. Cioran |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 07:06
|
Classic prog undoubtedly reached its zenith in the 1970s in terms of popularity and I remain certain that many of the bands active then justifiably remain amongst the most revered in the genre. But did prog die then? No way! The new wave of symphonic prog bands who emerged in the early 80s (Marillion, IQ and the like), bands like Mostly Autumn, Riverside, Iona, Big Big Train and others too numerous to mention all brought something new to the table and I listen to them a lot, deriving huge enjoyment. Many other bands also appeared, some of which I personally do not enjoy, do not consider to be true prog or even prog related at all, but are here because others do and have chosen to put them on here; I guess prog was always a pretty broad church anyway so I can cope with it. I would actually say the opposite to Sleeper - I find far more discussion of more modern trends in prog now than when I joined this site; some of the classic 70s bands seem to be mentioned far less frequently now than then. Bad thing? No - there's room for all tastes here, so long as people never forget where it all started. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 07:07
Yep, that a valid perspective. I just want to try to attempt to arrive at some sort of consensus on where we're at on this potentially divisive issue -------------
|
Posted By: twosteves
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 09:06
| I suppose the first choice but I'd be curious to know how many modern prog bands really label or think of themselves as "prog ". |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 10:22
| There always will be some new style(s) of rock music what people will call prog(ressive); prog is what "we" (audience) declare that this is prog. |
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 10:23
| Here's another example of a modern Prog band thinking outside the box - Panzerballett. Who'd have thought of melding Fusion with Tech Metal ?? Somewhat at odds with each other stylistically, but this is something totally new and brings a big smile to my face. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 10:46
Maybe the greatest quality of a solid piece of contemporary progressive rock is just that it does not have anything to do with the late 60s / early 70s (symphonic) prog; In fact, the most important thing is that progressive rock - at least in a part - is separated now from the old forms, and the fact that it's already recognized by the audience as progressive rock aswell. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 10:54
|
Option 1 however I do believe that we have to question very carefully what is included in this inclusivity (I've had to include that word into Chrome's spell checker, oh the iron knee) and not lose complete sight of where it came from and what it is (this "Prog" thing). Contrary to popular belief, Prog is not evolving, it is our acceptance of what can be considered to be Prog that is changing with time, which is why there is this dichotomy between "Classic Prog" of the 1970s and everything that came after. If there was a nice unbroken linear evolution in Progressive Rock over the past 40 years then we would not be having this poll, or the hours of debate over the past 10 years of this site about whether band "Y" or band "Z" are "prog enough" to be included, or whether Extreme Metal, Post Rock and Math Rock should be here, or whether Avant, Zeuhl, Canterbury and Krautrock are Prog subgenres, or whether Electronic Prog has any validity at all... or condescending ellipsis-riddled posts on the adjectival use of progressive in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_phrase" rel="nofollow - noun phrase Progressive Rock. So, I'm all for inclusiveness but I think we can go too far in the rush to add anything and everything that sounds just a tad left of centre.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 10:58
Hear hear!!
|
Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 11:25
|
I picked option #1. I don't like modern prog, but I would never say that prog ended in 1979, it's still developing and evolving. |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 11:29
|
Prog ended in 1978. (Voice from the past) lol
------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 11:32
The real question is how many of the 70's bands would call themselves "Prog", I'm sure any one of us could find plenty that said they weren't. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 |
Posted By: genbanks
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 11:42
I think that this is a good point. Prog rock seems to be a wide definition. For us (unless for me), the listeners, we feel it (the new "prog" bands) as progressive rock, and I feel ok by this way, but the bands? I don't know. But the music is there and if it fits with the basic parameters that define the genre, so they are. With the seventies the prog rock stopped as a massive thing, but the spirit of this kind of music continues on all this new bands till present, and even in more sophisticated formats sometimes. So the spirit of the prog music is even there, and so the prog rock too. Of course Option 1. |
Posted By: Wanorak
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 12:30
|
Yes!! ------------- A GREAT YEAR FOR PROG!!! |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 12:50
Progressive rock maybe does not evolve, but for sure it multiplies in the dozens of new styles now. Or to put it this way - once you had e.g. one Fripp, one Hillage (as great English prog innovators in their heydays) and so on, now you have a number of them; one can say - more innovators than the listeners. Of course, some of them will not pass the test of time and those who remain will be great masters at their own progland and they will be evegreens, same as the old ones.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 13:58
I doubt that. ------------- What? |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 14:22
|
In the 70s, nearly every great rock band with any interest in musicianship had its prog moments, such as The Who and Led Zeppelin, and even folks like Alice Cooper, Bowie, Elton John, Roxy Music and Billy Joel (for Christ's sake!). Other bands, such as Tull, Floyd and Genesis bounced in and out, chameleon-like. I am not sure the interest is on the same level currently. Certainly, great swathes of the listening public do not listen to what we old farts would consider rock music with the same interest as in that bygone era. Rock music is really not the Billboard juggernaut it once was. Sometimes, I'll listen to a band like Big Big Train (with wonderful albums like Underfall Yard and English Electric I & II), and I begin to wonder if I like the albums because they are very reminiscent to what I listened to as a teenager (and I would suggest that English Electric I would probably be an album I would have listened to in 1976 or 77). Meh, I just don't know. But I do know what I like (in my wardrobe and through my speakers).  ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Rick Robson
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 14:54
This. -------------  "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." LvB |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 16:31
|
A bit of a loaded poll really. Obviously the second choice is stupid. But that doesn't mean we should add every piece of music or band that is slightly odd or quirky, even to go so far as to include non rock acts just because they may be progressive. For the site, I believe we should be more exclusionist, but that doesn't mean I believe prog died in '79. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 16:40
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 16:53
Interesting perception of how the poll is deemed to be 'loaded' given that its creator voted for option 2 presumably on the basis of either his sincere belief or sincere stupidity.  I notice however that you mix the use of Prog and progressive in your post which might go some way towards explaining this confusion but certainly helps identify one of the misconceptions the poll was created in the first place to highlight. I mean it would be very difficult to make an argument that Krautrock, RPI, Canterbury, Zeuhl or Neo prog (OK this flourished for a while in the 80's) etc were actually still evolving to qualify as contemporary in 2014? You say we should be more exclusionist but don't state how we can bring this about i.e. do we continue to use sub genre definitions that are a measure of a historical bygone Prog or should we reevaluate the sub genre definitions to assimilate contemporary developments in progressive rock/ progressive music?. Do people think the existing definitions are wide enough to accommodate modern trends etc That's the sort of debate I wanted to stimulate.-------------
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 20:13
Exactomundo Be Archives and Museum are to be two different things; i.e. an archivist is not a museum's curator. An (prog) archivist collects, acquires, edit, review, evaluate, inventory, categorize archival material. It prepares for the use of interested parties: researchers, fans, young musicians, and others. A museum's curator is strictly oriented to the things that belong to a particular time. The primary role of the archivist is to enable and facilitate access to archival material, to bring closer various categories of users. About how much quality, responsible and conscientious archivists do their job depends largely on how many kinds of resources will be available, and what the future generation to know everything about, in this case, progressive rock of yesterday, today and tomorrow. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 20:20
| Although I voted for option 1, I think the changes in prog since the 70s are more in terms of sound or maybe the domination of guitar rather than keyboard. The 70s already covered a very wide gamut and even if that alone formed the basis of deciding what bands today could be called prog, it would still be a very inclusive term because it would include symph, avant prog, prog metal (basis the inclusion of Rush), jazz rock, etc. While I am from the younger brigade, I am sympathetic to what it is that those who think prog died in 1979 are grappling with. Prog as a concentrated scene of music seems to have collapsed by the end of the 70s. Today it's more about new bands with members who grew up listening to prog wanting to make some prog of their own and these bands are scattered across the globe catering to smaller fanbases. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 20:47
|
There are almost as many as yet undiscovered prog bands from the '70s
and '80s as there are modern ones, and every time I think we've found
every dusty old group no one cared about then or now, yet another one
floats to the surface. There's plenty new & old to keep us all
busy for a long, long time. Should PA consider new rock bands that are progressive? Sure we should. But we'll also continue looking behind us because without that history, we're nothing. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 21:04
Once again, the history of progressive rock can not and should not be viewed only from the perspective of the British progressive rock movement (scene). |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 21:14
Has anyone made that argument or even implied same throughout the entire thread so far?  -------------
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 21:36
IMO, if someone say that progressive rock died in 1979, that one can have in mind that creative disaster of the bands who belong to British progressive rock movement only. Btw, I prefer to call it 'British' coz of Ian Anderson who is Scottish, however probably I'll not call it 'British' after 18th September 2014.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 21:58
|
I hear bagpipes... ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 22:07
| Up until the late-90's, I was strictly a 70's Prog-Snob, maybe into the 80's with Marillion. Then I was introduced to Porcupine Tree and things looked very interesting. Now, I am totally immersed in modern Prog, with the whole 'retro' thing for good measure, and subsequently/consequently spend more time with the here-and-now, with nostalgic re-visitations to the 70's faves. Those who say Prog died in '79 obviously have a different perception of Prog/Progressive music, to myself. |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 22:58
Hey man, I only used your terminology.  And perhaps I misunderstood the poll then. When reading the question, I didn't think this was a prog vs progressive discussion. For the record, I think there is plenty of room on PA for both the style and the spirit of prog/progressive (assuming it's still rock/rock based of course). And since you asked, I like the subgenres the way they are (for the most part...I certainly wouldn't sack them...except prog-related ). ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 23:19
| Hmmm, 'prog related' is questionable, though Wishbone Ash fit the bill perfectly, and I think they deserve to be here - could always be shifted to Crossover ?? |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 23:33
Pl read what I actually wrote rather than use something that is said to forward a pet agenda. I never said that prog died in 1979. I said I can sympathise with the viewpoint of those who think so because the scene as such collapsed. There is a significant difference between the words 'collapsed' and 'died' and I don't like to see these nuances being ignored and reduced to oversimplified positions just to make it convenient to argue against. The prog scene is much more scattered today than in the 70s and this has a lot of implications for the amount of influence it is able to exert (which is limited) on music culture as such compared to the 70s. To acknowledge this does not imply that there were no prog artists working in the 80s or subsequent decades. Thank you for assuming I do not know what Zappa did in the 80s when it was I who had pointed to Zappa's role in shaping prog as a genre in the 60s in the other thread.
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 23:39
Fair enough and thanks for the feedback. I could have framed the question better perhaps but it's not really a Prog v progressive debate, although that's maybe a part of it. I just wanted people to ask themselves if the avowed aim of the site had changed over time i.e. is Prog still extant as an evolving phenomenon now or is it merely indicative of the sort of music being created now that was inspired by the Prog bands of the 70's? -------------
|
Posted By: Sagichim
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 23:52
| If prog died in 79' then what are all those "prog" bands since are playing? |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 12 2014 at 23:53
That's interesting. I also enjoy much of the so-called modern Prog but would ask if you consider the likes of Transatlantic, Wobbler, Areknames Big Big Train and say Black Bonzo to be Prog? as you could make a very cogent argument that the foregoing for all their unimpeachable talent and skill are tantamount to a very affectionate and brilliant homage or even pastiche of vintage 70's Prog. I'm not denigrating these bands as I have bought and enjoyed many of their albums but I couldn't help but echo the sentiments posted by The Dark Elf
Liking something should be sufficient so I guess we needn't beat ourselves up about justifying our enjoyment of this stuff but just how forward thinking is backwards looking music? -------------
|
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 00:24
|
Wobbler, Black Bonzo, Transatlantic, Big Big Train etc. I do have many of their albums - 'Prog' - indeed, 'Progressive', in the true sense, probably not. This is the PROG archives, as opposed to Progressive Rock Archives, even though it's the 'definitive resource for Progressive Rock'. Go figure ??? It comes back to that tough one - Prog vs Progressive. Radiohead seem to be Progressive, but I wouldn't call them a Prog band......(man, this is doing my head in.....) where does one draw the line ?? |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 01:48
I did not mean to say that you said that it's progressive rock A small problem there was that the British progressive bands could not sounds fresh and innovative anymore, as many of them went to a commercial prog style. To this day, many of old British prog rockers are still in business, and some of them done some good things recently. So I have no sympathy for the claim that we need to say "Prog is ceased in 1979" just because some of British progressive bands in the late seventies began to seriously cashing their brand names, and due to one's desires to reject almost all of the new, contemporary progressive rock bands who are coming from all over the globe. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 01:58
| I have read very detailed recollections of forum member TODDLER capturing how prog got relegated to a sideshow in the 80s, of how it became difficult to play Zappa songs in clubs...in America, mind, not just Britain. The album sales figures speak for themselves and I don't need to reiterate it. Only Marillion achieved telling success on that front and they still could not approach the success of Floyd or Tull. Moving Pictures would appear to be the last blockbuster prog rock album for a very long time, to be beaten only by OK Computer nearly two decades later. I am not convinced the collapse was restricted only to Britain. The scene began to dwindle in Italy as well. What prog was left in Europe was mainly the avant/RIO groups. A parallel development was the relegation of jazz in America. So it wasn't just prog, long winded improvisational music generally began to face a tough time. To believe that prog was as healthy and robust a music scene in the 80s as in the 70s is to deny this seismic cultural shift in music happened at all. None of this is to support an overly British centric view of prog, especially the one that holds symph prog as the basis of all prog. I am making neutral observations based on various articles and reflections such as TODDLER's that I have read about the time. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 03:01
|
^ I think everyone thought it would just keep getting better; more great music, more progressive, more innovations. I mean why would things become less creative? It didn't seem possible music would revert to the pablum of previous years. And then suddenly Duran Duran was the high standard in popular music. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 03:05
| Ha ha ha, well said. From my local perspective, I have similar views on the Ilayaraja phenomenon; never looked like he would be knocked off his perch and so he was. Happens everywhere. I have learnt that people can in fact ultimately get tired of very innovative, very challenging, demanding music in copious quantities, though logically it seems impossible. And then, they will develop pangs of nostalgia for the very thing that they had started shunning but by then, it's too late. Reversing it back to complex seems to be harder than introducing simplicity under the "breath of fresh air" pretext. |
Posted By: Neo-Romantic
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 03:09
|
Fortunately all the music now seems to be in top form and continuing the upward trend, the way I see it! There's a lot of great stuff out there, and more innovative options are always coming into being. I'm definitely feeling blessed to be alive in this decade where I can appreciate prog both old and new, and it both be awesome! I'll say the progressive idiom is not dead, as I continue to hear stuff that's never been done before in the modern days. And the stuff that is inspired from prog groups of old, in reality that's just a realistic expectation to have. After all, there's no music that didn't come from some past inspiration. Much like the evolution from Bach to Mozart to Beethoven to Chopin to Liszt to Scriabin to Prokofiev to many modern composers whose works sound nothing like the past masters but still shares a common starting place up the family tree, we can see prog has a similar tendency. And since the dawn of creation and the first musical traditions on the planet, there's been nothing but advancement and sharing of ideas that has only become more concrete and developed as time has gone by. So it's a pretty unrealistic idea to say that a group of bands got together to create something unrelated to all musical traditions of the past and then killed it off within the span of roughly one decade, give or take a couple years on either side. That would be completely counterintuitive to the way music has developed in the time humanity has occupied the earth and shared, cultivated, and elaborately developed musical traditions. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 03:20
Have to agree with almost all of this. Of course many prog bands who had been hugely successful in the 70's were forced to jump ship when the topographic oceans got a bit choppy and played a stripped down, mainstream Pop/AOR music. Some were very good at this (Genesis and Yes) while some sucked heinously at it (ELP and Gentle Giant) The point being that by say 1979 or 1980 no-one was playing undiluted Prog fresh from the source any longer and given that any sub genre of Rock is a product of it's time, Prog's shelf life had clearly expired. This is why some of us (precisely 4 at this juncture ) feel that Prog ceased to exist circa 1979. The set of circumstances that led to the creation of so much daring, experimental and innovative music in the late 60's and early 70's was a conflation of social and cultural events that are unlikely to be ever repeated again. I don't think someone like Yes even knew what they were really doing when they created Close to the Edge or that ELP thought Karn Evil 9 was Prog or not, they just went ahead and did it because the market was receptive to that sort of ambition and could support it financially. Compare that with say Transatlantic, who deliberately write bespoke Prog Rock epics clearly inspired by the likes of the two examples I've provided. I enjoy Transatlantic hugely but how can what is a stylistic tribute band qualify as original Prog or a continuation of Prog in 2014? Similarly, there are loads of great Punk, bands still plying their trade, many composers writing excellent neoclassical, Gregorian chant and baroque compositions and millions of trad and big band jazz ensembles all producing music that are valuable additions to their respective oeuvre (but just don't try telling me that any of this is innovative, forward thinking or progressive. Art is a product of history and it stands to reason that stripped of the history, the resultant Art is merely a replica)If push came to shove and someone were to ask me how I would classify the newer end of bands like the Mars Volta, Radiohead, Porcupine Tree/Steven Wilson, Coheed and Cambria etc I'd probably say they were highly original and skilled purveyors of progressive rock. That might come across as damning with faint praise or pedantic but it's NOT the intention, I just don't think of such as being Prog -------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 03:33
| ^^^ Nail on the head. We basically have a menu of time tested, carefully chosen favourite flavours (and I mean what generally passes for rock and pop music, not just prog). Most of it is not stuff that really challenges established perceptions of what is possible within a given genre. Here and there, there may be artists who still take risks, say a Fiona Apple experimenting within the boundaries of American songwriting traditions, but it's not a wave anymore. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 03:33
Nobody was collapsed but there was a huge commercialization of British (symphonic) progressive rock e.g. Genesis.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 03:38
Yep ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 03:44
Clearly no one knew what they were really doing, and just went ahead and did it. Maybe that's what was lost. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 03:44
|
Sventonio: So what about Gentle Giant, Renaissance, ELP (and many other bands actually that hit a dead end in the 80s)? So they all sold out and therefore I must ignore them as examples and focus only on the few who managed to keep going? The exact time, whether it is 1979 or 1980s proper, is not of essence here. What is is the change in music culture in the 80s, some of which had begun to make an impact in the late 70s already. If Yes wasn't making prog albums, what exactly stopped other bands from keeping symph prog not just alive but just as popular as it was in the 70s? And symph prog was hardly the sole preserve of Britain. There are very well regarded 70s bands from the rest of Europe as well as America in that genre. What happened to that? Why did it become necessary to identify a new niche as prog metal that was connected to Rush but not the first wave of prog (and, again, first wave here includes everything, not just British prog)? As you would be aware, prog metal is primarily a metal genre though it has been slyly appropriated as part of the larger prog umbrella. Would there have been any reason for any of this if nothing changed from the 1970s to 1980s? Obviously a LOT changed, the bands that enjoyed popularity in the 80s vis a vis the 70s and the kind of music they played attests to this.
And you would do well to actually read TODDLER's comments carefully instead of going whatever on it. He is obviously a passionate prog rock fan and a musician and is as appreciative of 60s psychedelic rock as he is of British prog (which you seem to view as the source of all problems?
). He has produced first hand accounts of how the music scene changed in the 80s from the point of view of a disillusioned prog rock lover. I am inclined to attach a little more weight to that than you seem to want to. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 04:20
Svetonio, I'll have to disagree, up to a point. Although one can't use the year 1979 as the end-all, be-all milestone for the death of prog, one can certainly see that rigor mortis set in around that year. Pink Floyd released The Wall in 1979, but went straight to hell after that. Tull released Stormwatch in 1979, but that was the last album of their classic releases, and the last of their classic lineup. ELP was already done by 1978 (can you say Love Beach?), Yes released Tormato in 1978 (and the equally dreadful Drama in 1980), Genesis was well on their way to being commercial shells of their former selves (Hackett left in `77). King Crimson would not return until 1981 with their Talking Heads tribute album Discipline, and Gentle Giant, VdGG and Camel were already irrelevant (if they ever were relevant). You mention The Who, but from an album standpoint, their greatness as a band died with Keith Moon (Who Are You was released in 1978) as did sometime-proggy Led Zeppelin when John Bonham died (In Through the Out Door, 1979). As for Frank Zappa, his last gold-selling album (gold in Canada, mind) Joe's Garage, Part I was released in...you guessed it....1979. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 04:29
|
I cannot agree that prog ceased circa 1979. I just believe three major things happened 1) Record company's got more assertive on band's direction to compete with the onset of punk/new wave etc 2) The traditional hard line prog had evolved and yes, softened somewhat with the onset of 80's synths but only in certain bands 3) The music enthusiasts taste evolved as well. Those of us lucky enough to grow up in the 60's and 70's with the pioneers of prog changed just as the bands changed. Not all of us, but I wager most of us. But lets look at some great 80's work. Rush---Just listen to Power Windows or Signals now and some of that production is jaw dropping. Camel - Nude, Stationary Traveller. Caravan and Strawbs died a death in the 80's but resurfaced better in the 90's but then the emergence of neo prog in Marillion, initially scorned as a Genesis clone band ( how wrong we were), Crossover- Mike Oldfield, Vangelis, Peter Gabriel ( was f&%king awesome) in the 80's, Yes - Drama ( 1980,ok), 90125.King Crimson's Beat or Three of a Perfect Pair.... Then we have prog related like Talking Heads, Remain in Light ( umm Rolling Stone poll anyone)......anyway I am just getting started. I have not even begun to scratch the surface with Space rock/Krautrock/Avante/Jazz fusion etc. Prog like the Big Bang is still expanding....We are so friggin lucky to be around at this time and to be witnessing the sixth decade of Prog music. Sorry if I did not count the 50's!! Anyway alive and well in 2014 too. Big Big Train, Gazpacho off the top of my head. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 04:33
Discipline a Talking Heads tribute album?......Get real!!!!\ Camel - Irrelevant?...........  Who - greatness died with Keith Moon? Smoke another ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 04:55
|
What changed? Perception. 1977, UK punk, prog and the British media. As has been indicated Yes, Genesis were selling big time while the Pistils played to 200 in the 100 club. ANd would have been copletely ignored but for the fashion giving the press (a voracious animal needing constant food) grst to theri mill. A hack could be hip at a new wave gig but not dine backstage with Genesis. Better, drugs and a chance of getting laid. Plus punk and pop are easy to assimilate and write about and get to the pub on time. There was a sea change. Tull nearly withered as A had to marketed under the Tull name, not Anderson's. Even now he is Jethro Anderson to many. Genesis kind of split (Collins / divorce / Vancouver, 1979) and reconvened under a changing direction (1980, Duke). Yes split, became Cinema as Atlantic finally figured out what to do with Trevor Rabin. Say hello to Chris Squire. But breaking in a new name? Ertegun might have been worried about hat but probbbaly more concerned at the requisite vocal identity (required in, er, pop music. What to do with you know who? Say hello to Trevor and Chris, Jon, they have an idea. ELP called it quits as did Gentle Giant. Even Plant felt Zeppelin's time was up in '79 / 80. Deep Purple were a fake band, Sabbath were falling apart and Heep were the heap in '80. Realy only Floyd were going and that was more due to Roger's energy than the normal PF lethargy. Plus his lyric on Animals were socially spot on and in a sophisticated way. He even got into the spitting thing. Punk Floyd. You see it is still rock and roll, and / or pop and All In A Mouse's Night did not quite cut the street value God Save The Queen had. The times changed as heavy rock shed the blues (as symphonic rock immediately did in the 60s). It was really the art rock side of pop rock that kept the levels of sophistication going (Bowie, Roxy to Magazine). Rock still had it's ambition and the new art rock was called New Wave. Then the Neo Prog Scene emerged as some new wave acts got this new romantic thing and some bands wanted to be more intellectual. Which is why you can have Duran Duran and Marillion in the same record collection in 1986 - but not if you were a King Crimson fan from 1974. Many names in prog are curios to the public now and the audiences reflect that. I mean I saw a Kiss vid earlier today (2 numbers). Grey haired baldies. (Not Kiss, that's all under wigs and make up - smart guys from the beginning!) but the audience. Not teenyboppers as they were 40 years ago when these tunes first appeared. Rock is always about the audience. Without whom drug dealers, record company execs, the press oh, and bands would fade away. Maybe we can get too hung up on what is prog and all that. I remember when The Ladder got released and the shop staff had no idea who it was and put it under L. Oh yes, the band was - and is - Yes. Do Muse fans care about Yes? Maybe some, but probably not many. Oh and this idea that Radiohead are a prog band is one of the odd consequences of that 1977 divide. Radiohead would be best associated with punk, new wave, indie rock but most certainly not prog (except maybe Kid A which seemed to have hijacked and recycled the European RIO and avant music for it's ideas). Porcupine Tree, absolutely, psych, art rock, symphonic as well as keeping it's orientation toward people (from In Absentia onwards anyway) . The amusing sight of SW (Rockpalasst) taking 10 mins to describe what kind of band P Tree are was amusing. In rock, people understand pop, metal, disco, rap, reggae, kazz, jam band, country. indie rock, rockabilly usw as labels. But prog? Nah. If your definition takes more than 2 words and as long as a drum solo you're a prog band. There's no identifying fashion. I mean no one in the prog audience can define it. I just call it sophisticated rock if any one asks (they don't). And it's all generation oriented. Classical music isn't. Rock is because it is all about the pop sounds of your life. That's over by the time the new kids are in town and all the audience have got married, jobs and have no time for records and associated activities. (Poor beggars). The active life of a pop or rock band if good can go for what? 5 years on average? 10? But people have a relationship with music and a proximity to artists which had not happened before. Old age rock is in it's infancy still. And I don't mean the Net proximity. "Old" bands are around because of the timeless quality of being a "pop" fan. If they are doing what they are doing, people don't have to acknowledge their own impending decay and demise. So I don't. There's a lot to this question and the prog audience are not excluded from this perpetual change so it's best to deal with it. It's a process like all writing. Evolve or die. P.S. there's a lot to brand names. David Gilmour could not sell a 175 seat cinema show in the '80s. As the one who was Pink he ruled the world a year or so later. Asia provided symphonic rock in a form that pop fans may like but the old Yes fans hated because attention spans were geared to 20 minutes per "song" not 4. Oddly this still meant Topographic Oceans is disliked because it was 4 x 20 minutes which is like a whole CD's worth of music man and caused so much strife. In a world of pay for play it's evolve or die. Amidst the huge confusion that is human perception but it's lowest common denominator thinking (socially generated money oriented activities) that rules contemporary music. Possibly sad, but true. We deal with it. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 05:08
|
Great comment there. As a younger fan, I can vouch for the fact that I had never heard of these names like Yes or ELP in the so called non prog circles. Floyd, JT and Rush were the only ones I knew already before I heard that Floyd was supposed to be a prog rock band and, getting curious, read about prog rock on wikipedia and got directed to progarchives.com! It may be a hard swallow for some of the older fans but a whole chunk of rock history, namely 70s progressive rock, is basically wrapped up and tucked away out of sight for the younger generation. No, 70s simply means Led Zep, Who, Sabbath, Floyd, KISS, Aerosmith, Queen, Eagles, only classic rock, no prog except the unvavoidable Floyd or Tull. Very astutely observed about old age rock too. We are living in times where the people who liked these bands in the 70s get to watch them perform all over again. And yet, the 'outside world' is oblivious to their presence. I think that in some ways the expansion of old age rock has also slowed rock's own momentum. Even when I was getting into rock more from the metal end of things in 2005/06, there were still big new bands hitting the circuit and quickly developing a huge following. Metalcore for instance was more of an early noughties phenomenon and Lamb of God were one of the biggest metal bands around the time I referred to earlier (not that I ever liked metalcore but just referring to the vibrancy of the scene). That seems to have become a bit difficult now because the older bands have a readymade, assured audience and are probably regarded as more reliable by promoters. And yet, many of these older bands either aren't doing much studio work at all or it pales in comparison to what they used to do in their heyday.
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 05:30
|
Voted for inclusive. I do think the main site is too inclusive in some regards, but at the same time I don't buy the other extreme of identifying progressive rock solely with the British prog scene of the 1960s and early 1970s. Even then, there are a lot of artists who started their career in the 1980s and 1990s who do continue that tradition but in the context of more modern styles. (Primus, Tool, late-eighties Voivod etc. just to name some most obvious examples) ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 05:39
|
^^^ Great post
^^ I don't think we should underestimate modern day listernership of prog. I have three kids who love Dylan, Floyd, Rush and even Yes....( Yes...cosmic induced Yes!) to name a few. Sure Mum & Dad helped educate them, but since the turn of the millennium they have been accessing prog plus current musical trends via CD/internet. Their mates appear well briefed too and. One of my son's favorite live gigs was seeing Steely Dan...he was 13. We should not underestimate modern listener's knowledge. Beside how do we measure sales in prog, if most kids have burned their parents music too or share the iCloud I digress somewhat but referencing new generations being oblivious to the late 60's/70's prog experience, does not sit well with me. It is all by association anyway.  ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 06:04
A fair few factors involved there. Creating a new album of music takes alot of energy. Getting new material in the public psyche is very diificult. In the olden days Deep Purple (a great example) would the airplay and tour (and still tour incessantly. I'd hate to be a collector of all their bootlegs.... But a new album ... older fans hate change (Yes 90125, 80s Genesis). Some people have no idea Peter Gabriel was in Genesis while some clamour for a reunion. Fans of the same band? More or less. New music in metal? Sometimes. Metal is great example of rock evolving to survive. There is also a collective marketing image (as one glance at CD covers in your city's CD store will reveal. It does in mine. Bit like how DVD comedies are all on a white background. It is one way of generated a market /audience. None of this is all really new. Many classical composers had fairly short shelf (concert) lives in the pre-recording days as audiences remain perpetually fickle. Oh, and a new album means platinum sales are what? 20,000 copies sold. The millions are gone as the other factor a permanently flat economy, record companies issuing mega size box set editions of albums against the public armed with the Net and a PC. The music biz set themselves up in direct competition with the public who told them to get stuffed and promptly pirated everything rather than pay for it all again and again. CD-Rs sound just as good as a CD. A new album costs a lot and sales may not cover it. So touring (Yes and their Prog Love Boat concert type novelties) help to "structure" (assess / guarantee) income. It says a lot when it's merchandise that is the big generator rather than tickets and albums. There's the failure factor. If you are Led Zep used to selling ship loads of records and sales dwindle to sod all then that's what the audience will get. (There are many consequences to piracy). Hence an overly hyped, marketed reunion - resulting in Celebration Day. One concert that lasted five years (marketing wise) and then got released to keep that going. I must admire PP and J for then touring the world saying they are not going to tour the world. Another thing that's gone - if some ever knew it existed is rock mystique. Now a band must grovel for emails, and be sycophantic. What's worse they are really found to be the miserable bunch of lecherous, drunken, addicted swine (probably back to Kiss again here but a glance at Guns And Roses) just so their personality matched audience can relate to them. Tweets, "like"s on Facebook and be as real as an "ordinary" person. That's not good. The mirage has dissipated. The evolution is still calling. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 06:05
| Chris: Fine, it doesn't sit well with you and I can't help that. But I speak as one of the so called 'kids'. Yes, there are young guys here and there who know about these bands but at a larger level, oblivion is the word. We cannot form generalised impressions about larger socio-cultural trends if every exception is held up as if it disproves the statement. My dad named me after one of his favourite composers from down here and I ended up liking the work of said composer too. Doesn't necessarily follow that everybody else in my age group does or even a lot of people for that matter. There needs to be much more media coverage of classic prog rock; only then would we see an overall high level of awareness of these bands. And as I said earlier, the media, for whatever reason, has something against prog and chooses not to give it much prominence no matter what prog's significance back then was. They don't care. From what I have seen from 90s to the present day, one thing that hasn't changed across age groups is people in general prefer the music to walk up their doorstep on the radio, or youtube, or maybe a 'share' on a social network. So if it's left up to youngsters to read up on prog all of their own or count on the happenstance of being born into a household with prog fans, only a minority will end up following prog. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 06:14
Yup. 100% agree with this and most of your comment as such. To draw a parallel to this, in my country, back in the 70s, filmstars considered it beneath their dignity to appear on TV commercials as they felt it would dim their aura. Today? They are all over Page 3 of the gossip papers, twitter, facebook and anywhere else where they can garner eyeballs. If a filmstar makes a 'guest appearance' on a TV show, be sure it's because their film is releasing this Friday. I have mixed views on this trend. Yes, it means there is no mystique about famous personalities anymore so a certain elusiveness that made the experience of discovering their work exciting is gone. But at the same time, is a cultivated air of mystique around a person who is in fact in many respects a normal dude healthy at all? Why should people fall for it anyway? I think it's just the arts are coming full circle now where a successful musician doesn't necessarily lead a princely lifestyle. It's probably going to happen in sports going ahead too. I respect that a professional sportsman deserves to be paid a lot more than the amateur because of both his physical and mental skills. But as of now, the multiplier is an insane one and I wouldn't mind if it were corrected a bit. Maybe then people would start paying a little more attention to the stories of people who actually make a worthwhile social contribution and improve the lives of people in a substantial sense rather than being irrationally attached to stars who may be good at what they do for a living but may quite possibly be rotten people in many other ways.
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 06:19
|
^^ fair comments but we work with the modern day mediums for accessing music.....how do we really measure that? YT hits, how many plays on spotify? We cannot measure listernership anymore so how do we really quantify it. The world population in 1970 was 3.7 billion, we are now over 7 billion. Maybe prog listernership has increased it is just more diluted.....just saying. Awesome poll results so far......85% say yes ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 06:26
Even then, there are recent bands who clearly are rooted in 1970s prog/psych-rock but still have an updated take on that original movement... like Colour Haze for example. They're obviously a continuation of the Kosmische Musik scene but updated with quite a few guitar playing techniques and sounds from newer doom metal styles that popped up in the 1980s and 1990s (Sleep being a clear point of reference) yet the resulting music never approximates it. Then there's the case of certain groups from the Japanese noise rock milieu evolving into a more extreme version of Kosmische Musik, avant-prog or Zeuhl. Acid Mothers Temple, The Boredoms and Ruins are perhaps the prime representatives of this phenomenon. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 06:38
Hmm, as a test case, I looked up the no. of views generated for youtube videos of Roundabout (which was much higher than for Close to the Edge). 3.7 million. Sounds very, very impressive until you compare it to the no. of views for Close to You, the Carpenters version: 16 million! See, I am comparing one of the top (non Floyd) prog rock acts of the 1970s with one of the top pop groups from the same period and there is certainly a huge disparity there. Hotel California: 12 million views. Dancing Queen: 45 million views. Sultans of Swing:11 million, a live version even has 28 million views. Staying alive: 36 million. I am basically listing the songs that define the 70s in the eyes of youngsters today. Stairway to Heaven would sit along side these tracks as would Wish You Were Here or Brick in the Wall. But not Roundabout, not Dancing with the moonlit knight, not Karn Evil 9. Yes doesn't seem to even have their own VEVO channel and while ELP have one, they probably got into the game too late. EDIT: Would like to further add that Dave Brubeck's composition Take Five garners 6.5 million views on youtube. That really puts the relative popularity of Roundabout in perspective, as in, not a whole lot. And what's REALLY, REALLY popular, like viral, on youtube is usually something relatively 'current;. Like Bruno Mars's Just the way you are. 389 million. Rolling in the Deep up even higher at 488 mn. Not even bringing up Gangnam Style.
|
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 06:43
|
Its a no brainer really. Prog progresses on and only the really pedantic approach would suggest it ended in the late 70s. Yes that era was quintessential to prog, but it continues onto this day and has transformed, even reinventing itself. i think Porcupine Tree are just as important to prog as King Crimson. Or bands like Haken measure up to Rush. No problem with that, as they come from different perspectives of the same medium. Without the modern prog scene prog would be dead! We cant live in the past or wallow in nostalgia as it gets tiresome after a while. Its nice to dip the feet into new waters, and broaden the listeneing experience, while still being reverant to the decade where prog originated.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 06:57
|
It's simply a matter of personal opinion. Person A might prefer 21st century prog by any prog acts. Person B might prefer those bands who didn't even exist until after the end of the 20th century. Person C might be into early Neo (quite a few Marillion fans who prefer Fish-era, for example). Person D might like everything that's been released since they first heard prog thirty years ago. All these examples are post 70s, of course. I'm simply saying that no cut-off point (1979 or 1974 or whenever) should be valid.
Tchaikovsky used cannons onstage a long time before Emerson, Lake & Palmer were born. If that's not prog I'll eat my lunch  ------------- rotten hound of the burnie crew |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 08:27
....also an example of that phenomenon is http://thewormouroboros.bandcamp.com/album/of-things-that-never-were" rel="nofollow - The Worm Ouroboros as a young band from Belarus - regarding Canterbury style.
|
Posted By: Neo-Romantic
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 08:31
|
|
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 09:32
Very new wave sounding, and reminiscent of Talking Heads, particularly with Adrian Belew's participation.
Yes. Considering they never had a gold album in the first place, and after 1979 never charted again in the US and never beyond 57 in the UK for two albums released in 82 and 84. They would not even release another album until 1991. That, to me, speaks of irrelevance after 1979 in the public domain. Sorry if that is a mark against your bestest band, but reality trumps blind adherence to a fandom.
The Who reached their zenith with Quadrophenia. The following releases Who by Numbers and Who Are You are fine albums, but not masterpieces. When Keith Moon died, The Who died, but unlike Led Zeppelin, who had the common sense to end the band when Bonham died, The Who muddled on for a couple more albums. Unless you consider Face Dances or It's Hard anywhere near the quality of their previous albums. I don't, and obviously Roger Daltrey felt the same, saying, "It's Hard should never have been released". And if you have valid points, I would suggest they aren't made with cute little emoticons. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 11:54
dig it, The Dark Elf |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 12:05
|
As for the original question: yes I think it still counts as prog. Prog doesn't mean progressive rock anymore, but rather a certain type of music that encorporates some of the stuff people go apefeaces for on this site. As for the actual discussion, I think the real meat lies in the new suggestions forum. It's there we're faced with the "natural" borders of the genre and are forced to look at various bands with supposedly prawk credentials. To me personally, asking any member whether they're inclusive or exclusive relies entirely on the subject matter. What band are we talking about? Which genre - is it electronic, pop prog, punk prog, funk prog or rhumba prog. People often come here to argue their case for personal faves and very often these turn into longwinded fruitless back n forth talks that always end up with the same result: My view of prog is different from yours ie my dad's stronger than yours... I'd be inclusively minded if we're talking outsider artists - a lot of em we already have in Kraut, RIO, Avant and folk - acts that don't really fit the prog sticker as it is yet still deserve to be here. If we were to have a (sic) place to file these things, it'd be allright with me. ------------- The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 12:14
|
That's a great video, Svetonio. The song was written for The Who Are You album, and was played in concert after Moon's death. What is it you are attempting but failing to say? The Who are still trudging on with occasional tours, even though John Entwistle and Keith Moon are dead. Bands vomiting up memorial tours does not mean much to me. It's nostalgia, remembering what they were. It's an enjoyable rerun without all the original performers. It is not the incredible excitement of watching a band in their prime playing something like Quadrophenia or Who's Next for the first time live. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 12:41
The song which was impossible for Keith Moon to play, because he (although a great rock drummer & innovator), was not know to play 6/8; the studio version they recorded with the "steps", and some cymbals were taken from Townshend's demo. There is not Keith Moon in the song. As you can see, there was one band called The Who, and they were the greatest concert attraction in 1979 - without Keith Moon (RIP). |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 12:56
Check your source material. It is not that Keith Moon "did not know how to play" in 6/8 time, which is a ludicrous assumption; it is, rather, because his health had deteriorated so much that he "could not play" the song in total: "(Keith) was so sad about it. He was so upset. He used to cry. Nobody knew more than Keith (that his drumming had deteriorated). It used to break his heart." --Roger Daltrey You are wrong. Try again. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 13:22
Aside of his alcoholism, Keith Moon was not know to play jazzy groove. Due to Keith Moon's alcoholism, what Roger Daltrey explained as well, the band had a serious problem with his drumming at entire WAY, but 6/8 he never played because he simply didn't know to play it. He was a rock'n'roll drummer. His favourite band was The Beach Boys and his favourite genre was surf rock. He never practice, he never did reherseals. He couldn't be a studio and (or ) fusion drummer. But, Keith Moon is the legend.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 13:43
------------- What? |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 15:00
 Jon Astley, the producer of WAY:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may05/articles/classictracks.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may05/articles/classictracks.htm
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 17:10
|
...or... ------------- What? |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 19:05
Yes, that does sound like a brilliant piece of Keith Moon drumming on "Love Reign O'er Me", and in 6/8 time. But besides the whole 6/8 time question that is utterly consuming this thread (after all, I've been accused of taking discussions off-topic), the more cogent bit that I was trying to get at is that Tbe Who, along with Zeppelin, Tull, Genesis, ELP, Yes, Gentle Giant, VdGG, Pink Floyd and nearly every other notable progressive band from the "Golden Age of Rock and Roll" (if I may quote Mott the Hoople) were considerably greater and, might I add, considerably more proggy (or proggier, if you prefer) prior to 1979 than after. I don't believe one can defend an opposing point of view. I graduated high school in 1978, and entering college I can say that campuses (we partied at many) were decidedly punkier and new wavish, from both the music in dorms and apartments on turntables (where we used to play round vinyl discs known as "records") to the college radio stations. There was a decided difference in what one heard at the close of the 70s -- a palpable change in the air, as it were -- and thousands of college kids were turning elsewhere than prog for their listening enjoyment. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 20:36
|
It is not that prog "died" at a certain time. Bands are still making interesting and exciting prog today. But there is an unfortunate tendency among prog fans to assume that, because they like it, it must be prog. This has led to abominations such a Jefferson Airplane, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin et. al. being included on this site under a false flag, when they have little or nothing to do with prog. Prog is here and now, but to find it on this site you need to use some discrimination and some common sense. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 20:39
------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 20:53
| Halford used to struggle with Painkiller live. Not saying he never nailed it live but have noticed him struggle with it on several occasions. Even the great Dio often bailed out of the unbelievable "Bloody angels fast descending" (Neon Knights) part live and changed the melody slightly to sing it lower. It does not make the musician in question incapable for that reason alone. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 13 2014 at 21:13
|
^ Correct, and like Moon, it's no secret Bonzo had drug and alcohol problems but he was also the consummate pro, probably the tightest of the four. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 14 2014 at 06:36
|
One of the strongest themes in the entire debate so far
is the acknowledged seismic shift in the market place that took place
circa 1980. It's no happy accident that MTV emerged and blossomed during
this time (I mean ELP might have had a stripper in a till, a gypsy queen in vaseline, seven virgins and a mule but even they couldn't hope to make Karn Evil 9
fit the bite size pop video format). Suddenly the old big shifters of units (album bands with squat singles) were replaced by the new big shifters of units (singles bands with albums with loads of hit singles) I've always thought that such
developments were indicative of the game changing when record companies
discovered how to exploit branding as a marketing ploy. Here's
the plan: the execs thought that if they could foist an engineered brand
loyalty onto consumers akin to that experienced by the followers of
sports teams then they could sell snow to Eskimos. Artists like Hendrix,
the Nice and King Crimson (one of those is not a Brit, rabid
sniffer dogs at Ethnocentral Police HQ) exemplified the belief that
music was an indivisible whole and that
attempts to draw artificial boundaries between its league of nations was
the antithesis of any trailblazing pioneering ethos. Once the nascent
marketplace realised the leverage to be gained by a demarcation process
kicking in, it foisted this engineered 'brand patriotism' onto its
consumers
which would lead to the 'phony' wars that are still being waged from
within the forums of this very website. In short PRE circa 1980 you
could hear Jazz, Blues, Rock, Metal, Classical, Folk, Ballad, Avant
Garde and formless weird sh*t on the one album. POST circa 1980 you had to buy at least 9
different albums. I'm Scottish, I care deeply about unnecessary
expenditure....
-------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 14 2014 at 10:10
| ^^^ I think the idea of strict genre-based demarcation of music products goes back earlier than MTV in USA. For instance, it seems labels found it hard to convince radio stations to play Minnie Riperton's songs because they couldn't decide if it was rock or R&B (and therefore what would be its target audience). When you listen to the songs, the idea that they would find it so difficult to slot very accessible, straight up music defies logic! But, yes, it has gradually spread to other markets. Punk possibly offered them a great chance to ignite cultural wars and then keep them going. There was another - and imo very silly - war between so called 'true' metal bands like Metallica and glam metal bands in the 80s. It's also no coincidence that one hit wonders proliferated in a much bigger way in the 80s. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 14 2014 at 10:21
That's disputable. Wikipedia lists 273 US one-hit wonders for the 1980s but 350 for the 1970s. Out of interest, it list 261 for the 2000s. Now obviously Wikipedia list are not necessarily definitive but it does suggest that the 1970s are far and above the most prolific years for the one-hit wonder. ------------- What? |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 14 2014 at 10:23
| lol, I saw this coming the moment I wrote it. Maybe I just recall more hit songs of these one hit wonders from the 80s. Or maybe they have got more sustained airplay on radio/TV. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 14 2014 at 10:47
I think the honest answer is that they were better and thus more memorable. The 1970s singles charts were dire even through rose-tinted spectacles. ------------- What? |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 14 2014 at 10:49
| ^^^ Based on the two times I heard the Coast to Coast show on road trips (a local radio station somehow thinks it's a great idea to re run old episodes of that show), I did feel that, yes, 70s top 20 was pretty boring. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: April 14 2014 at 11:40
|
I almost envy people who think prog ended in the '70's. They have set up a finite universe. For those of us who haven't stopped there, there is too much out there.... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 14 2014 at 15:03
There is however, a whole lot more to my musical universe than just Prog -------------
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 14 2014 at 16:34
I disagree. e.g. in 70s, the female hit-makers were sexiest and didn't play bad rock'n'roll at all... ...aside from 70s glamour, there was so many great and memorable hits... ...and awesome ballads too; nothing like that in 80s. |