Did Prog Kill Prog?

All:

Paco Fox adds an aspect missing from my analysis, and I agree that "critics" played some role in prog's decline.

Aztech: Thank you for your wisdom and support.  My question re "fashion" is: is it a "natural" phenomenon or is it "pre-determined" and then "foisted" upon the populace?  Both are probably correct in different ways, at different times.  But if the later applies, then you are absolutely correct.

Dude: I agree (sometimes) with the notion that music is (or can be) a "reaction" to other music.  Certainly many "punk" artists stated that, in as much as their music was a "reaction" to other music (as opposed to society or culture as a whole), it was a reaction to "mainstream pap" or "prog pretention" or otherwise.

However, as you correctly note, "what comes around, goes around."  When "new wave" came out of "punk," it added some of the very elements that punk rejected, including non-standard instruments (notably mandolin, violin, flute and percussion), some "keyboard" (beyond piano), and more "mature" production values.  It could be argued that neo-prog (certainly post-mid-80s) took "new wave" and added most (if not all) of the elements that originally made prog "prog": layered synths, non-standard time signatures, textured atmospheres, and, let's be honest, at least some "bombast."

By the way, I would reject the notion of Zep as "poseurs" of anything.  They were one of the (if not the) greatest heavy metal blues bands ever.  And although they may have "stumbled upon" prog sensibilities in songs like Kashmir, Achilles Last Stand, etc., this does not make them "poseurs" - it makes them "creative."

Peace.

I have always thought that "punk" was a REACTION   to what young people at that time saw as "musical pretention"(eg prog, poseur bands like Led Zep etc and lets face it there is a certain pretention to prog that can help to define it although an argument could be made  that complexity, is mistaken for pretention) hence a return to a basic more "raw" sound of "The Clash" "Sex Pistols" etc mind you i personally think that "pretentious" aspect returned somewhat when punk evolved into the new wave and "new romantic" sound of the early-mid 80,s "what goes around comes around"(something like the material shunning hippies of the 60,s becoming the business leaders of today.) what do you  fellow proggers think?

Edited by dude

My two cents worth:

I'm not entirely sure that anything "killed" prog.  I could make the argument that music goes through "periods," and that no period lasts forever.  Nothing "killed" doo-wop or Motown or rock'n'roll, etc.  (Just as be-bop didn't "kill" swing, which didn't "kill" dixieland, etc.)  Part of it is (as Ulf notes) that culture - tastes, styles,  etc. - changes.  There is nothing necessarily "nefarious" about this.

However, there certainly were a number of factors that had an effect on the prominence of prog.  The break-ups (or major personnel changes) of the seminal bands was one, though I'm not sure to what degree.  I think the far more major change - which affected not only prog, but almost everything else - was the conglomeration of the music industry.

In the 1960s, when rock was young, promoters and producers were supporting anything and everything in "rock," since no one knew exactly what would "stick" when thrown against the wall.  So they threw everyting at it.  Eventually (i.e., by the late 60s), the industry - vis-a-vis rock - settled into a handful of genres, including "black" music (Motown, Stevie Wonder, etc.), "heavy metal" (Cream, Zep, Sabbath, etc.), "folk-rock" or "songwriter-rock" (Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Cat Stevens,etc.), "prog-rock" (Crimson, Floyd, Yes, Genesis, Tull, etc.), and "mainstream rock" (most everything else).  There were others, but these seemed to be the main five.

Back then, because it was all still "new," artists were "nurtured," and given the time to "progress."  Often, an artist wouldn't really "hit" until a third, fourth or even fifth album.  For example, Genesis didn't hit until Foxtrot, their third album.  Same with Yes (third album).  And Floyd didn't really "hit" until Dark Side - their sixth album.

As these various artists started bringing in serious money (through both albums and tours), record companies started to get greedy, and see dollar signs instead of artists - and they no longer wanted to wait for their money; i.e., they no longer saw the benefit in "nurturing" artists through careers (which almost always fell off earnings-wise), when they could obtain major short-term capital via a major debut album.  By the late 70s/early 80s (if not earlier), record labels were looking for the "fast buck": if an artist couldn't "produce" by their second album, they were often dropped.

In addition, as a result of the kind of money that some artists were generating for their labels, record companies started to view each other as serious competitors.  So a wave of agglomeration started.  Consider that even when I sent out my first demo in 1983 (pretty late in the game), there were 30 major labels.  By 1995, there were only eight.  By 2000, there were only five.  And if the proposed merger occurs, there will only be four.  And, of course, by now all those companies are no longer run by people with "ears," but by "bean counters," for whom the bottom line is not "creativity," but earnings.

Ultimately, the industry limited choice by focusing on short-term capital.  What is ironic about this is that it actually eventually hurt the industry.  This is because it is not short-term capital that keeps the industry afloat - even with debut albums that sell 13 million copies.  Rather, the industry survives on the artists who had long-term careers - what are referred to as "deep catalogue artists."  (These are the artists whose albums almost never go on sale: Floyd, the Stones, Bowie, Zep, etc.  The reason is that the industry knows that people will always buy those albums.  There is no coincidence that Floyd's Dark Side spent 20 years on the Billboard Top 200.)

This was proven the hard way in 1982.  That year, the music industry was expected to post its first major loss in over 15 years - of over $500 million (which was alot back then).  Yet three albums released later that year actually brought the industry out of the red and into the black.  If memory serves, two of them were Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A."  I forget the third (it might have been Bowie's "Let's Dance"), but all three were by "deep catalogue artists."

As we all know, these days music is mass-produced and mass-marketed to the lowest common denominator.  If they can't pigeon-hole you and sell you as "the next" whoever, there is little chance you will ever get a contract.

Such are the vagaries of the music industry - which I believe was the largest factor in the "death" (or at least sidelining) of so much great music.

Peace.

Over-indulgence? Kind of the same thing happened to Hair Metal in the 80's. Too many Steve Vai's and too many notes. (Tumeninotes - Steve Morse, ha ha). Bit of both, I think. Disco had sex appeal (Read Jim Garten's take on Raves). Punk had social backlash. Prog had intellectuals. Nerds lose every time. Or do we? Prog went "underground" and survived. Not everyone wants 4/4 timing and love songs.

"Killed" is probably not the correct term. Something like, stagnated, is more appropriate. As Greg Lake was so astute to say, "C'est La Vie."