Why classic prog faded?

The uprising of punk and disco killed it in 1978 and 1979.

In the early 80s the sound changed to electro and synth. 

Gone are the epics and weirdness to make way for the new 80s sound. New Wave bands flourished such as Visage, Ultravox, Depeche Mode, Toyah and Gary Numan. I loved it at the time but it was killing prog.

In 1982 Signals by Rush was about as good as it got at this point.

In 1982 the top prog albums were 4 - Peter Gabriel, Time To Turn – Eloy, Fact and Fiction – Twelfth Night, Five Miles Out – Mike Oldfield, Enter K – Peter Hammill, Ship Arriving Too Late To Save A Drowning Witch – Frank Zappa, Eye In The Sky – Alan Parsons Project, The Broadsword and the Beast – Jethro Tull. Signals by Rush was prog album of the year.

In 1983 it was Marillion. The debut for Marillion is a milestone album that virtually started the Neo Prog genre single handedly and also kept alive the prog scene during the difficult 80s. Prog took a nosedive after the glorious 70s and bands like Rush and Marillion were the saviours of the genre.

In 1984 it was Grace Under Pressure by Rush.

Here is a short exploration of the 80s. The bands that were producing the best prog albums of the year 1984 were neo proggers, Marillion ("Fugazi", and the live "Real to Reel"), eclectic pioneers, King Crimson ("Three of a Perfect Pair") and Solaris ("Marsbeli Kronikak"). Others that were making some sort of impact were Uzed ("Univers Zero"), Pallas ("The Sentinel") and Camel ("Stationary Traveller"). Queensryche were beginning to make progress ("The Warning") as were Los Jaivas ("Obras De Violeta Parra"), however progressive rock was being phased out gradually with the uprising of manufactured synth and electronica. I am not talking about the innovative prog electronica of Kraftwerk, this was a crystal clean sickly sweet saccharine sound adopted by 80s pop icons such as Prince, Culture Club, Chaka Khan, John Waite, Duran Duran, Thompson Twins, Sheila E, Cyndi Lauper and Eurythmics. The hit singles were dominated by the power ballad, noteworthy were 'Oh Sherrie' by Steve Perry, and there were the curios too of one hit wonders such as '99 Luftballons' by Nena. This is what Rush were contending with and few people were interested in the prog epic or songs with odd time signatures. Even classic prog icons Yes sold out with their album "90125" and Genesis who had a hit with 'That's All'. And metal was being split in half, mellowing to synth patterns with Van Halen's 'Jump' and ZZ Top's 'Legs' making it big on the mainstream charts, and becoming more defined and popular with such albums as Metallica's "Ride The Lightning" and Iron Maiden's "Powerslave". A year of transformation you might say.

Edited by AtomicCrimsonRush - November 19 2012 at 07:31

HackettFan wrote: ...   Later on in 1975, I think Punk did not really replace Prog. It replaced Glam, and as Dean said, Prog just continued underground. ...

I think the neo prog fans need to get real..

Look at the underlaying form and construction of the music.  Strip off the stucco, strip off the side and look at the framing.
What I am talking about is the RHYTHM SECTION.

It's the rhythm section that defines a band.. NOT THE MELODY!  This is why Metallica can cover Girl from Ipanema .. or a band can do a Reggae version of Whole Lotta Love. 

Does anyone here know what the rhythm section of a prog band is supposed to be doing?

If I hear "things just change" or "bands where just keeping up with the times" one more time I am going to vomit.  If you don't know what I am talking about.. then you need to put your ears on the rhythm section of the great prog bands and educate yourself.  If you still can't hear it... then put down your ipod and earbuds and get a decent analog stereo system so you can hear it.  There is  a protocol here... both for drummers and bassists as individuals but also how they work the root note of a bass line to the kick drum.. the placement of the snare hits, and the dynamic of the playing for starters.

This is what differentiated prog from pop. 

You CAN do PROG with just guitar driven music, just as you can do PROG with keyboard driven music... and obviously both. 

You cannot do PROG with a PROG drummer.  You could do prog without a bassist, but you BETTER have one hell of a left hand on the Keyboards. 

While it is never about pedal to the metal complex Prog underpinnings.. it IS always there in varying degrees on any substantial Prog Album

Elton John Good By Yellow Brick Road
Prog album?
Would anyone argue that Funeral for a Friend is not an epic Prog tune?  But he kinda needed more of that on a double album for it to really make the Prog list of great Prog releases. 
Do you think Elton was blind to what was going on around him at the time? 
Does anyone here know that Elton John actually auditioned for Gentle Giant?  True blue stuff!
The Elton John Band could have become one of the great Prog bands of all time... if they wanted to.  They didn't but the musicians had the capability to deliver it as proven.

Rush stopped making great Prog with Moving Pictures.. hits of their former glory would pop up here and there.. that track on Presto.... you know what I am talking about. 

Why would a band try to keep up with the times? To make money? Keep their record deal?

Did anyone ever listen to the interview with Neil Peart about how they were going to get dropped if they did another "Caress of Steel?  They gave the record company the finger, and handed them 2112.  They had a F$^#& you rebel attitude and couldn't care less what the record company or the general public thought of them..

So did Rush sell out in the 80's to keep their career going?  It sure sounds like it to me.  I quite buying their records after Power Windows.. Three strikes and your out in my book.  Sure they picked up a new set of fans.. I would still go see them in concert.. only because they would play a lot of their great earlier stuff. 

I remember once going to a Rush concert in the 90's and they started playing the into to Natural Science.. and I stood up in excitement.. and people looked at me like I was crazy... they had no idea what this song was.. that was a sad day to say the least.

I sure with YES or RUSH would make another great prog album on tape machines.  I mean why wouldn't they?  That really is what they do best.

Researchers have found that  the world population is getting dumber ----this has been going on for years ---evidenced in bad reality shows, bad pop music, bad Broadway, lost of interest in newspapers and real reporting, the symphony, ballet, etc--at least in America this is true----soooooo, it should not be surprising that interest in prog faded too---

moshkito wrote: [All in all, the biggest thing always was that music changed and WE DIDN'T! ... and sometimes we have this thing that we have to be just like yesterday in order to believe that something was happening ... arts, music, film, literature ... they are happening all the time! ... the only difference is that you have your nose stuck on American Idol, or English Idiot ... because of the advertising and you are not "tuned" to hear other things ... that would help you understand and define "progressive" even better.

Surrealist wrote: Would anyone argue that Funeral for a Friend is not an epic Prog tune?

I think we got the "because i said so" attitude going on here from surrealist. When I listen to current music I don't immediately have to compare it to the 1970's. That is just my opinion, because I said so

I recall rockers in my age group during the 70's stating ..."What is all this underground garbage you listen to?" Yet they were standing up at the ELP concerts in Philadelphia and N.Y. attempting to groove their bodies to some off-beat time signature in Tarkus. ELP would usually have a song or 2 that got this commercial style of airplay while songs like "Bitches Crystal" or Tarkus were quite off the wall but had the full attention of rock fans. By '74 Deep Purple had sold a vast quanity of albums for Warner Brothers during this 3 year stretch that ended by '75. ..But when Deep Purple played California Jam in '74...ELP were the headliners. That's actually difficult to believe as I think back. There were other styles of music I listened to such as Avant-Garde. If I was invited to a after hours party in Manhattan I would surely have a drink or 2 with fans of John Cage or Bella Bartok, but not typically in New Jersey. This country always seemed divided into many different sections and the people who lived in those sections desired one style of music which was promoted in their hometown. Europe was the better choice for a musician who wanted personal respect and appreciation for their music. Mike Oldfield was one of these artists and he's probably toured the U.S. only twice in the last 4 decades. It use to be all about money but in the end it is best if prog remains in the underground.

Dean wrote: moshkito wrote: [All in all, the biggest thing always was that music changed and WE DIDN'T! ... and sometimes we have this thing that we have to be just like yesterday in order to believe that something was happening ... arts, music, film, literature ... they are happening all the time! ... the only difference is that you have your nose stuck on American Idol, or English Idiot ... because of the advertising and you are not "tuned" to hear other things ... that would help you understand and define "progressive" even better. I hear this a lot and it doesn't make any sense to me. You cannot make people like what you like any more than you can be made to like what they like. If people like the instant gratification of reality tv and wannabe-famous pop-stars then that's what they like. Back in the day those people didn't like what you liked either - they listened to Top-40 one-hit-wonders and watched soap opera tv and quiz shows just as they do now; they never went to see art-house films or anything that required reading subtitles, they flocked en-mass to see Jaws and Rocky and they were more likely to read Jackie Collins than Wilkie Collins (just as they're more likely to read Suzanne Collins today).   This has nothing to do with mass brain washing or "tuning" or people falling for multimedia advertising and product placement, it's about two different groups of people liking two different things. You can deride and denigrate the kinds of things that people in the other group like as much as you like, but it does not affect you or people like you, it never has and it never will - it's not contagious and it does not make it bad or crap.   People wax lyrical and pontificate from on high around here like Progressive Rock was the biggest thing in the whole universe back in nineteen-seventy-oh-blimey-oh-riley, when the reality was that it wasn't - it did okay, but was overshadowed by Donny Osmond, Abba, Simon and ing Garfunkel and the soundtrack to Saturday Night Fever and all the other stuff that filled the Top-40 chart every Sunday night. Prog was the domain of the slightly better educated pseudointelectual, predominantly white middle-class, male, who a generation before was listening to Johnny Dankworth and Dave Brubeck and a generation after was listening to The Smiths. None of those kinds of people from any generation from the 50s through to the present day would have cared for Rihanna or Ke$ha now or then.   moshkito wrote:   The majority of Admins and well meaning folks in this board, KNOW this ... and yes, all of us still ahve a few favorites ... but we never gave up the ability to hear different things ... and this is the reason why sometimes a lot of the "prog" threads are so .... bummer -- man !!!! ... because many of those threads are just fan-rap ... and that stuff is exactly what will be dead and gone tomorrow, replaced by something else. In general most people who post stuff like this make it up as they go along. I know I do. moshkito wrote:  I had the same issue when discussing this "progressive" thing, in the middle of the "new age" groups ... who thought that Popol Vuh was not cool and hip, because they did not have a picture of an angel in the cover and the lyrics did not talk about crystals! ... and you have to separate the commercial crap ... from the rest ... but if you do NOT have the ear for something different, you will NOT have the desire, thirst, or hunger ... to go listen to something else, and will, consequently, state, that blah and blah was dead ... ohh well, so was Tim Leary and Paul McCartney ... but no one cares anyway! Or it could be that you really don't like it. I like New Age groups, I happen to think that some of them are actually very good musically - I don't believe for one minute that listening to them will re-align my chakras and cure me of anything whatsoever and I find them no more or no less relaxing than listening to anyother album, but in the main I won't dismiss them as crap just because they have an angel on the cover - rather a good New Age album than a bad Prog album any day of the week, I'll play Orinoco Flow a dozen times on repeat rather than listen to some of the Prog albums it's been my displeasure to endure.

Dean, know that, aside from this thread, I find myself usually pretty like minded with you. However, I don't understand assertion that what people like is not contagious. It seems to me it most certainly is. Radio programming I think is very effective in shaping overall likes and dislikes. Of course eventually the musicians and the fan base did in fact lose interest, but I see this as symptomatic of outside pressures, mainly business pressures. Purely internal or home bred loss of interest is valid to an extent, but less compelling to me as the ultimate explanation.

Dean wrote: PS: an afterthought is not an edit.