| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Kashmir75 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 25 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1029
|
 Posted: December 30 2009 at 02:46 |
 Dean wrote:
jplanet wrote:
Realize that the goal of Genesis when they started out was to be a popular band - they had heavily artistic leanings, of course, but they did not want to be obscure and only play music to a small sub-set of rock fans. During the early 70's, prog was very much in fashion -- in fact, ELP was the highest-grossing live act in the world for a while.
So, I do believe that their taste was versatile enough to include a desire to write well-crafted pop songs, so why stay with the old formula when many of your fans have moved on to something else?
Selling out will occur to a degree with any artist - who knows if Porcupine Tree would have become more metal-sounding had it not been for the fact that prog-metal is far more popular than non-metal prog? You can write a page-long list of prog metal acts that tour internationally, see how many non-metal prog acts will be leaving their home continent this year...But I bet that Steve Wilson and his bandmates genuinely enjoy the heavier sound they've been moving towards - I'm sure they also enjoy no longer needing to work day jobs to support it!
|
I'm fairly sure that PTs heavier sound was a direct consequence of SWilson meeting Mikael Åkerfeldt and Opeth and that any increase in popularity as a result was simply coincidental.
Lightbulb sun (2000) -> Blackwater Park (2001) -> In Absential (2002) |
Not quite true. SW claims he was already getting back into heavier music before he met Akerfeldt, and that he wrote most of In Absentia before he produced Blackwater Park. The heavy side of PT was kind of an inevitability, IMO. It just took them six or seven albums to arrive at it. There's hints of the heaviness that was to come on Stupid Dream and Lightbulb Sun (Russia on Ice, Tinto Brass). Maybe even Signify.
|
|
Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while...
|
 |
Kashmir75
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 25 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1029
|
Posted: December 30 2009 at 02:47 |
Dean wrote:
jplanet wrote:
Realize that the goal of Genesis when they started out was to be a popular band - they had heavily artistic leanings, of course, but they did not want to be obscure and only play music to a small sub-set of rock fans. During the early 70's, prog was very much in fashion -- in fact, ELP was the highest-grossing live act in the world for a while.
So, I do believe that their taste was versatile enough to include a desire to write well-crafted pop songs, so why stay with the old formula when many of your fans have moved on to something else?
Selling out will occur to a degree with any artist - who knows if Porcupine Tree would have become more metal-sounding had it not been for the fact that prog-metal is far more popular than non-metal prog? You can write a page-long list of prog metal acts that tour internationally, see how many non-metal prog acts will be leaving their home continent this year...But I bet that Steve Wilson and his bandmates genuinely enjoy the heavier sound they've been moving towards - I'm sure they also enjoy no longer needing to work day jobs to support it!
|
I'm fairly sure that PTs heavier sound was a direct consequence of SWilson meeting Mikael Åkerfeldt and Opeth and that any increase in popularity as a result was simply coincidental.
Lightbulb sun (2000) -> Blackwater Park (2001) -> In Absential (2002) |
Not quite true. SW claims he was already getting back into heavier music before he met Akerfeldt, and that he wrote most of In Absentia before he produced Blackwater Park. The heavy side of PT was kind of an inevitability, IMO. It just took them six or seven albums to arrive at it. There's hints of the heaviness that was to come on Stupid Dream and Lightbulb Sun (Russia on Ice, Tinto Brass). Maybe even Signify.
|
|
Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while...
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: December 30 2009 at 04:48 |
maribor wrote:
ExittheLemming wrote:
maribor wrote:
I can't believe what a bunch of snobs some progressive fans seem to be.
|
We've seen this type of post a million times before and it's really starting to get plain vanilla tiresome. Do you think people who vote differently from you in elections or choose a brand of breakfast cereal you don't care for to be snobs ? (Nah, didn't think so, get over yerself). Without value judgements there wouldn't be either a forum or an archive about artists we deem to be progressive musicians. That's why Britney Spears/Boy Bands/Bay City Rollers/Madonna ain't on PA, it's because they ain't considered progressive, NOT because we're snobs.
|
But you are snobs if you consider other music than progressive inferior. You're just as bad as the jazz and classical purists. Your comments about Phil Collins say that you don't like his music. That's fine, but that doesn't mean it is in fact inferior. That's a matter of personal opinion. I think you're the one who passes judgment on people who think (or vote) differently, not me. Except if you voted for Bush - then you're a complete idiot.
|
I'm not American and live in Australia, so I cannot vote in USA elections and even if I could, they don't appear to stock my brand of idiocy alas. (Does Bush like Phil Collins ? or vice versa ?) Perhaps my original post was a tad harsh but it should be self-evident that the type of communal value judgement re Phil Collin's pop output has already been made (i.e. before you even attempt to post a response along the lines of opinions are not facts - mass appeal doesn't undermine the worth of any music etc ) Collin's solo material ain't included on the site for the simple reason it's not considered progressive music by the current definitions listed under any of the sub-genres e.g. Abba wrote and performed brilliant pop songs that people will be whistling for millennia (including most of us on PA whether we care to admit it or not) and I admire their artistry and skill in composing 'crack addictive' melodic hooks. Our Phil just ain't in the same league as the Swedes IMO and that debate, for what it's worth, is one that should take place on a pop archive similar to PA.  You must realise that PA cannot be other than exclusive because it's only obligation to visitors is to mirror and accommodate the opinions and tastes of all its members. That's why your original post irked my sensibilities i.e. it came across as one of the lions in the Colosseum glancing at the Christians before turning to ask a centurion 'You know there has to be a vegetarian choice on the menu nowadays ?'
Edited by ExittheLemming - December 30 2009 at 08:57
|
|
TODDLER
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
Posted: December 30 2009 at 21:39 |
rpraborn wrote:
Maybe the guy had kids. DT for him and miley for the kids. I remember cds i got for my daughter when she was only 5. I started her on Todd Rundgren. Commercial music always has and always will be the main, at least they create jobs for the musicians. Still amazed at how the average listener goes to a Yes concert or Genesis, etc etc. Thank God they do..
rick |
Todd Rundgren was a creative Commercial artist. 10CC were too. They would write hit songs but the rest of the album would prove to be bizzare.
|
|
Dellinger
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: June 18 2009
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 12858
|
Posted: December 30 2009 at 21:49 |
|
I guess this can be a good combination for prog artists getting good sales: they only need to have 2 or 3 hit singles for an album, and the rest can be just whatever they want them to be; usually the only "good" songs on a traditional pop album are the 2 or 3 hit singles, the rest is unnecessary even for the pop fans. From the hit singles, they don't even have to include them all in the album. This way, they could please both the Pop fans and the Prog fans.
|
|
Treasure
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Location: Bland Street
Status: Offline
Points: 298
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 02:45 |
|
I feel although some bands are selling out in terms of actually making money, that shouldn't affect the overall aspect of the band and how it is perceived. It should be about music and nothing else. Selling out, is pure jealousy and nothing less.
However, I find selling out in terms of progression is huge in the genre. Bands that take prog as a vehicle for 64/32 time signatures and rapid endless solos and time lengths should be labeled as simple minded. I think bands like Dream Theater and Transatlantic and Spocks Beard shouldn't be playing any of that kind of stuff. A lot of that stuff got played in the 70's and it was called progressive because no one had really heard it at the time. These days, we've heard all that stuff. Bands don't really progress anymore. Not the big ones at least.
Bands like Kayo Dot, The old Mars Volta, Jaga Jazzist, The Flaming Lips, King Crimson (Although they were the original prog band, they are the only one from that era that really kept pushing and prodding with their sound. This makes them the true definition of the word.), Ulver, Radiohead, Irepress, Giraffes? Giraffes!, Hella and Tera Melos should be called Progressive. I think Progressive should be a term, not a sound. People shouldn't worry so much about what bands do and just focus on the music. After all, that's what matters, right?
|
|
|
|
Astrapto
Forum Newbie
Joined: January 07 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 37
|
Posted: January 07 2010 at 15:30 |
|
Well, to draw a Dream Theater allegory....
Their album "Falling Into Infinity" was directed by their label to have more of a mainstream sound. Mike Portnoy was enraged at such a prospect, but John Petrucci was fine with the idea. So did John really sell out? Did he compromise his art to appeal to a wider audience? No, he just adapted it.
So what's my point?
The point is that whether or not you consider it "selling out" is based on your attitude. If an external (or internal) force is pressuring you to change your music unwillingly, to comply would be to compromise your artistic vision.
If you decide that you want to make your music more accessible, more power to you - but you do run the risk of angering or alienating the fans you've already won.
|
|
Jesus is real, God and man.
GENERATION 41i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and subtract 1 from the generation. Social experiment.
|
|
verslibre
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 19367
|
Posted: January 08 2010 at 05:10 |
Ellegon wrote:
Evolver wrote:
Becoming popular isn't selling out. Compromising musical values in order to become popular is selling out.
See Love Beach, Giant For A Day, anything Genesis did after And Then There Were Three, for examples. Rush never were completely prog. What they have done over the years has been completely consistant with their musical vision all along. |
You should have said anything after Wind and Wuthering when talking about Genesis!!! That is the point where Genesis became Genesin't
|
Genesisn't...hehe...never heard that before...hehehe... 
I like ATTWT a lot, too.
|
|
|
|
tamijo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
|
Posted: January 08 2010 at 06:01 |
The fack that everyone changed style in the 70-80's transformation, was a direction shift in the hole (music)
Culture, so it is hard to describe it as selling out.
Its more in the line of a hole new music scene was evolving, giving at the time a complet kick !
Crimson made a hole new style too, (not at the time considered prog.) influenced by sound and style from Talking Heads and other wave bands, Fripps league of G was the start of this.
Crimson came back to a more defenite prog rock, but now influenced imho by Metal and other Noicy stuff.
Bowie came from mainstram, but also he moved towards new wave
(rather early infact, and did it to perfection with Eno's support)
Collins / Gabriel / Genesis all influenced by the new styles, less complicated, more straight forward.
Collins/genesis moved more and more towards Soft-rock/Pop
Where PG went Multicultural, but none of em went back to symprock.
Gentle Gaint similar to Genesis, still not as straight POP though.
Even Jethro Tull had a period with a very 80's sound, maby not poppy but very 80's
Yes/Rush allways played some sort of Prog rock, but still the 80's influence is there, with less complicated structures, and a ultra clean (if not cold) studio sound.
So what im saying, they was not selling out, they were just under influence of the cultural changes.
Something an artist will be and should be. Some of them came out fine, others compleetly lost it,
but that is what will allways happen when the times are changing.
Others have picked up fine, and we are not in lack of great music, rather in lack of the time to digest it all.
|
|
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
|
TODDLER
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
Posted: January 08 2010 at 09:22 |
tamijo wrote:
The fack that everyone changed style in the 70-80's transformation, was a direction shift in the hole (music)
Culture, so it is hard to describe it as selling out.
Its more in the line of a hole new music scene was evolving, giving at the time a complet kick !
Crimson made a hole new style too, (not at the time considered prog.) influenced by sound and style from Talking Heads and other wave bands, Fripps league of G was the start of this.
Crimson came back to a more defenite prog rock, but now influenced imho by Metal and other Noicy stuff.
Bowie came from mainstram, but also he moved towards new wave
(rather early infact, and did it to perfection with Eno's support)
Collins / Gabriel / Genesis all influenced by the new styles, less complicated, more straight forward.
Collins/genesis moved more and more towards Soft-rock/Pop
Where PG went Multicultural, but none of em went back to symprock.
Gentle Gaint similar to Genesis, still not as straight POP though.
Even Jethro Tull had a period with a very 80's sound, maby not poppy but very 80's
Yes/Rush allways played some sort of Prog rock, but still the 80's influence is there, with less complicated structures, and a ultra clean (if not cold) studio sound.
So what im saying, they was not selling out, they were just under influence of the cultural changes.
Something an artist will be and should be. Some of them came out fine, others compleetly lost it,
but that is what will allways happen when the times are changing.
Others have picked up fine, and we are not in lack of great music, rather in lack of the time to digest it all.
|
I believe that many bands were under the influence of cultural changes. How else could they survive? It is questionable though if all of them personally wanted to. After all, that all American phrase "The times are changing" is quite misunderstood by many. It's almost realitive to how many people cannot conceive a great musician not being successful in the music industry. Many people understand the ramifications of running a plumbing supply business or being a lawyer or a mechanic. But music? not for the most part unless you are rubbing shoulders with an experienced record collector on P.A. or a musician who understands that music is an art and is very much seperated in reality from success and the times changing.In otherwords, a great musician doesn't have to play for an audience to enjoy himself.
Record executives can't take that away from us. That's for sure. But regarding the times changing, it's not like all of the people who work from 5 am to 5 pm, arrive home to greet their family, watch some TV and go to bed are picking up the phone to call record companies and requesting for a new kind of music or for the times to change. For the most part it is controlled by executives and not musicians or the fans. The record companies are just as much your enemy as your promotional buddies in this particular case. Many fans find this fact to be a lie because of their personal love for music that may fall into a sell out catagory. I am only speaking in reference to the business and through the decades I have received a cold shoulder for that from fans. As I said before, they seem to understand wrong doings in the justice system or a independently owned business like an automotive shop but, they become quite offensive when the truth be told about the music business. This is what causes people everyday to call great musicians who are not successful in the business, failures or losers. The sexual indulgence and the drug consumption is a pre-planned criminal concept that is applied or encouraged by record companies to musicians. The guy who plays a record executive on the Alvin and the Chipmunks movie is very pathetic but extremely realistic. I have actually met people like this and they have no more knowledge than a scholar but are manipulative with their brainwashing street selling concepts to musicians who sell out. If they can't get you strung out on dope or sleeping with groupies they will figure out some other shifty act to apply so they can take your royalties away.
The bulk of your audience is under the assumption that all groupies are from the crowd and that drugs are being freeloaded to musicians from dealers who are hanger ons. Musicians are dope users and whoremongers anyway right? Well, yes. some of them are. But that again just clears the record companies of blame. Or should I ask, why would people in the audience be concerned over these issues anyway? Perfect they are not. That is a wonderful clear pathway made right there for record companies to proceed in their selfish doings. As long as the people don't care, we are basically home free to be criminals. No questions asked. Then they stand in the control booth or over your shoulder telling you that the song is too long because it has a one minute guitar solo. You got to get into the thicket to realize this reality unless you are a prog freak and naturally question the musicians life. The musician gets pigeon-holed as a person in society that is bitter because he was not successful in making it. So whatever the musician says is taken as a defense for himself and all the justifications. But what if the musician is just being matter of fact(so to speak), just being honest. No there is no sympathy trip here. It's reality. I believe that this "Changing of the times" is quite contrived.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Selling Out"
