I'm not that familiar with Radiohead and Talk Talk, but they very well could have played the game-sell lots of records, make the record company happy, build a large following and be in a position of strength that then allowed them to start writing the kind of music they wanted to with fewer of the pressures from the record companies.

Just my thoughts. I may be way off!  

that time. Those who did, mainly the Heavy school (Whitesnake Blackmore ect.) was considered totaly outdated.

And personally i think Plant (who changed) made himself much more interesting, when you look back, than those just staying with what made them famous.

You may claim that the way Crimso Gabriel and Eno transformed into the 80's, was more artistic and maby even better, than Genesis/Yes,  but the change itself was impossible to avoid at the time.

 

Talk Talk, Radiohead ect. transformed in a time where lots of diffrent music is accepted at the same time.

Very hard to compare.

 

 

 

I dont agree with you and I dont want talk about many of bands that you listed before. I want to talk about MARILLION. You said MARILLION tired of doing 20 min songs and then they write concise and pop songs. SO. can you tell me wich of MARILLION's songs is "complex 20 min" song? And what era you talked about? FISH era or H era?

I read this topic question again and then read your post and I think your mean is:

MARILLION tired of doing complex 20 min songs IN FISH ERA and write more concise pop songs IN H ERA. is it correct or I'm wrong? Can you explain your mean about MARILLION? Thanks.

Maybe an exaggeration - Genesis only had one 20 min song and I only know of one long Marillion one and that's Grendel (don't think it's 20 minutes though).

Are you saying that pop/commercial music isn't creative? Please, there is quite a bunch of innovative pop music out there. Bjork, Massive Attack, Yeasayer...

Money and age are important factors. That guy wasn't Syd Barrett, of course. 

Which is sort like a lot of second tier prog?   And are you saying Discipline is not a creative album at all, it does have strong commercial overtones.

I think that by the time that Genesis went pop music, it probably was ... we've been at this for 10 years, and finally ... we have a dollar to show for it! ... considering how hard they went to the extend they did, to all of a sudden come down to simpler music and a few dollars ... I'm not that corrupt'able, but it's possible! ... tempt me some more, will you?

 

YES, I don't know ... but I do think that they were kinda destined to get there, because they had a very singular voice at the front, and they had already defined their music fairly well (1st - Time and A Word - Yes Album) ... to the point that when one of their pieces hit from the Yes Album ... the rest was history. And Fragile was an excellent album and massive upgrade from the previous album.

 

The other bands, are from a different time and place ... in those days, 40 years ago, there wasn't the massive advertising and chance to get the music around like there was for Talk, or Radiohead or any of the more recent bands, and that was a two edged sword ... you could be more "yourself" and not have to listen to others ... by comparison today, too many of the bands listed here, are simply listening to each other and just playing a different note or instrument ... now go back to Yes and see if you can see the same thing around them on that same day and time ... yep ... not a whole lot!

 

Again, the time and place is the difference. I do think that "fame" ruined YES ... they may have all the money in the world, but they really have some of the saddest family history of any band out there, including ripping off musicians and what not. That is simply not cool.

Don't forget The Beach Boys!!

Success and fame may be nice but you have less and less control over your life the more famous you are (including the music you make).

 

Do it all independently and you have absolute freedom but no income.

 

Such is the dilemma for the working musician........ how bleak!

 

I think that the situations are a bit different. And Peter Gabriel had mentioned this on his massive interview with Melody Maker when he left Genesis.

 

All in all, he got tremendously dissatisfied with the fact that people (at the time), specially many rock crap music critics, did not like the work they were doing. And Peter didn't say it, but you could feel it, that the lack of respect for artistic work, was getting out of hand. Sadly, Peter never did another conceptual piece!

 

And I think that the others in the group eventually said to themselves ... might as well make some money for it all. I don't blame them when you work so hard for 10 years, tour everywhere, and still don't have a house to live on!

 

YES, got trashed so hard for "Taels of Topographic Oceans", even though their concerts were sold out.... but you could see the reaction was not favorable ... everyone sat and listened to the new material and then the audience exploded for Roundabout ... in other words, most people came to see another hit band. It wasn't about the music or the respect for the excellent work that those 5 people had put together! And in many ways, I thought that "Relayer" was a reaction to it, by making it louder and stronger.

 

In the end, YES, with its massive problems and egos, had no choice but getting into pop music ... you can not get all that material played properly without a steady band ... and they didn't have one, and that meant songs and songs ... because songs are easier to do and cover than really difficult material ... that requires a lot more work to rehearse and put down ... that too many musicians do not have the patience for ... that's the problem with rock'n'roll ... it's all too easy and no one wants to take it any further ... and there are not enough musicians out there that have the inner strength to stick with their work and defend it.

 

In those days, everyone was dependent on a record company, and radio for the most part ... so the ability of a band to do its own thing and get pressed onto vinyl could be quite limited.

 

But you can see that there was a desire to do something new (as there is today as well) ... but too many opt out for the easier path ... and the easier path is not always the most creative at all.

 

I think there was some evolution ... the problem being that you and I still have not heard all the orchestral stuff and the pieces that are way too far out for everyone here on this board ... because most want to hear the jazz side or the guitar side. I still think that 200 Motels is one of his best things ... and think of it as an orchestral piece, no different than an opera ... and you might see something here ... done with electric instruments.

 

In essence, that is the Zappa strength ... doing "classical" and music as if it were something bigger than just rock music or jazz music ... and that is the part that is really hard for many folks to accept ... let's say, for fun's sakes, that what we haven't heard yet, are the rest of his symphonies ... and yes, they will be electric!

 

But there is one note on the Zappa boards that is very interesting here ... Gail says that he mostly went after session musicians, instead of any one else ... why? ... most of these people were not afraid to rehearse and play what they were asked to do, and that is a major issue ... most rock bands, do not have that ability and what's worse, most of them are not even insterested in getting better or doing more with their work ... it's always about the next song!

We tend to think that what we hear in records is the music which the band naturally wrote and played by their own wishes but I'm afraid that this is often not the case.

Yes,Genesis and ELP all evolved up to roughly about 1973.After that they were just honing what they already did or were breaking it down to be more accessible for a wider audience.

Solo artists are in a very different position as it depends a lot on who they they come into contact with. Kate Bush was able to develop a much more unique sound by having Andrew Powell involved in the early days. She then evolved her own understanding of what could be done in the production studio.

Its actually a very complex issue. Line up changes can help create new momentum as for instance Trevor Rabin did when he joined Yes.The albums he was involved in could be looked at completely seperately from all other Yes albums imo.

Rush have been mentioned and they are almost a unique as a group of musicians that have evolved then broken down their sound and started again on a different evolutionary path.Its probably happened about 3 times. (73- 79) (80 -85) (86 - 98). Thats rare though. To some extent this is down to sheer talent and being able to absorb a range of different influences. They didn't get stuck in hole like so many bands who are frightened of changing in case their fans dissappear.

Exactly!  When I was about 17 years old, I'd get into the jalopy car and turn on the lovely, low-tech AM radio.  A typical playlist on the local Chicago stations would include:

 

Sorry to nitpick, but do you mean the song "I'm Just a Singer (In a Rock and Roll Band)"?

             -from a local Moody Blues fan.

At the end of the day for all these bands, it's their job.  And they have to make a living out of it.

I know that's crass, and flies in the face of the whole 'progressive' ethos, but it's true.

Chances are that the guys in the traditional established prog bands have a sufficient fanbase that whatever they put out will sell in large enough quantities, that coupled with a world tour will keep them solvent (and in some cases, actually rich) They can afford to experiment to some extent, but if they know that going a bit more commercial means that they don't have to spend all the year touring and can spend some time with their families, I can understand it.

But the music business today is very different these days and especially in what we have to acknowledge as a niche market... For the vast majority of bands in this genre, its tough out there.  I know quite a few prog bands on the UK scene.  many of them have to hold down a day-job to pay the mortgage, buy the kids clothes, and, you know... eat.

A few make a living as full time musos but I can think of several who do that by being in multiple bands, guesting on other people's projects, working as producer, recording engineer, etc, just to supplement the meagre income from prog.

You can afford to live in a van, follow your muse wherever it takes you and play to 20 people a night when you're 19.  But school fees, mortgages and things like that kinda get in the way

So it's probably more of a balancing act between satisfying your prog sensibilities against the need to appeal to a larger audience,