Is 70's prog a nostalgia thing?

I think a band like Marillion rather dumbed down Prog (I don't mean to be insulting), but it lifted Prog traits (especially from Genesis) while making music that was deliberately commercial-sounding (yes, bands such as Genesis and Yes have done it a lot too).  I don't like melodic rock (AOR) type music much, nor a lot of pop music, and I don't think it blended well or has aged as timelessly or gracefully as classic bands music from the classic period.  Rock was not progressed (expanding the possibilities of what rock music can be and freeing itself from convention) nearly so much past the golden age (oh, there are various more experimental artists/ band who have, but generally speaking).

BaldFriede wrote: A plain no - the music was better back then. It was a lot more daring. There are two factors which are responsible for this.   1) Back in the late 60s and early 70s there weren't that many bands around, and the few record companies that were around almost took on any band that played rock music and let them do whatever they wanted (often swindling them in their contracts, but that's another sad matter). The whole rock music industry was still in the build-up, and they were desperately in need of bands. And they let them more or less play whatever they wanted, just as long as they got an album out of the band. As a result many albums of that time were a lot more daring than today's albums. There are exceptions, but it can be said as a general rule of thumbs.

King By-Tor wrote: I'm 22 and I say that music from the 70s/80s is, in large, better than what we get today. So no.

Not me. (and I'm 25)

Just personally, I find most modern prog to be a lot more of an enjoyable listen.  Not only that, I find a lot of the "It was made first, and is older, which means it's better.  End of discussion." talk that plagues just about every genre of music anywhere really short-sighted and annoying.  There is a lot of nostalgia behind it, and I also get the impression that there are some that would rather live in that time than now.  Not me.

Really? Am I the only person out there who thinks that music right now is at an apex of creativity greater than any the world has ever seen? I mean, sure, the 70's bands were pretty good, but nowadays there are so many new frontiers and innovative trends in music that I don't even have enough time to follow most of it.   

...and I once was 14

By its very nature , music IS nostalgia (unless you are the musician!)

moshkito wrote: The 60's and 70's were an amazing time for innovation in rock-based music (one could say the 50's too of course).  There was a spirit of experimentation and breaking genre confines that I don't think we find to the same extent, generally, today.  I feel like far too many modern bands are just emulating typical Prog-convention rather than being unconventional.  Instead of progressive music, we commonly find regression (what I call gorp) -- looking backwards rather than forwards.  And too many just incorporate classic Prog conventions with an AOR-type sound for my tastes.  A lot of it so predictable and one hears the Prog band influence on the sleeves too much. I think there are many great bands today, but not many innovative ones (certainly not ones that achieve popularity even in prog circles).  There's a lot of prog cliche, and back in the day when Prog was being created, it wasn't yet cliché (though there were many poor imitators "even in the golden age". I think a band like Marillion rather dumbed down Prog (I don't mean to be insulting), but it lifted Prog traits (especially from Genesis) while making music that was deliberately commercial-sounding (yes, bands such as Genesis and Yes have done it a lot too).  I don't like melodic rock (AOR) type music much, nor a lot of pop music, and I don't think it blended well or has aged as timelessly or gracefully as classic bands music from the classic period.  Rock was not progressed (expanding the possibilities of what rock music can be and freeing itself from convention) nearly so much past the golden age (oh, there are various more experimental artists/ band who have, but generally speaking).   I disagree.   I don't think they dumbed down anything. It might be said that their music was not as theatrical or as valuable as what/how Fish was interpreting things, but in the end, I do not think that they are a bad band and have not done nice things since. They have. It is graceful stuff and very well done and designed, and the stuff is tailored to the lead singer's range and abilities. Sadly, he is a singer, not an actor like Fish is, and that is the feeling that is missing in Marillion that makes the music seem not as important, or that lyrics about Microsoft are garbage. That's not true at all. It is relevant stuff for the 90's, not the 70's. But somehow I wonder if we're stuck thinking that the previous incarnation was better, when in the end, the band is its totality, not just Fish's or Steve's!   I think this might be another case of us wanting to hear something that is in our minds, not the reality of what is really there.

Excuse me if I add in the rest of my post as it helps with context since the first two paragraphs relate to the last.  Note that I only mentioned Marillion specifically because the topic starter wrote (and now I'm posting excerpts), "...And today after 30 years of experience we could be bored by listening the music of the Neo Prog bands. If Genesis, KC or Yes didn't exist and all the golden age of the 70's, and we only knew bands like IQ, Marillion or Flower Kings, did we have the same opinions on those bands?...."

I don't think that any of those are up to classic-era Prog standards, and I was actually thinking of Marillion when they got started particularly (and my faves are not the best known from that era -- guess Magma would be the most popular of what I really like from that time) -- I find Fish's theatricality rather excessive, and I'd say the same of Gabriel whom he clearly imitated (and I suppose Gabriel imitated Arthur Brown to an extent).  I was speaking primarily in terms of innovation and adventurousness, as well as breaking free of rock conventions, or at least expanding the possibilities of rock.  I feel that bands such as Marillion adopted certain Prog conventions in an imitative way while adapting it to fashions of the day in a very unchallenging way -- very commercial sounding.  One might have expected Prog to become more sophisticated (intellectual and challenging certainly for those used to pop and rock) as time went on, but I don't see that with Neo-Prog -- not that I think Prog was that sophisticated before. I might have expected it to become increasingly academic with more truly professional musicians/ composers with from classical music and music conservatory backgrounds,.

Not to say that they were that sophisticated, challenging or intellectually stimulating, but I think that RIO movement bands showed considerably more progressive spirit than such bands.

Sorry if I think Marillion less sophisticated  than a great many progressive rock bands of the classic era, and ones past Prog's prime (Bubu for instance).

As for Hogarth, well of course he helped to bring their music to a  whole new level:



I often hear the word emotional attached to Marillion's music, but rarely intellectual.  Maybe some of the lyrics are intelligent, but, I think like most people who listen to progressive rock, it's the music itself that tends to be of interest to me.


Edited by Logan - April 27 2010 at 01:44

In contrast to my previous post, I wanted t touch on the good side of nostalgia.  When I was growig up, I did not have the time or funds to buy every album I wanted and listen to it.  Because of that, there is much I never got to fully experience until later in life.  For a present day example, I have Yes' The Yes Album and Fragile, but I have never owned Close To The Edge.  It was impossible to own every album by every band.  But I am still alive and I still get paid every week.  Through the years, I have picked up those albums I missed the first time around and enjoyed when I got the chance to get around to them.  Not sure if that is nostalgia or just taking a lifetime to catch up with your life.  I guess, for me, the late 60s and 70s still have not ended because there are still more albums I haven't bought yet and listen to for the first time.  For my next paycheck, I am considering buying Close to the Edge because it has been staring me in my minds eye for far too long.  I figure if I continue to buy one album per paycheck, I still won't live long enough to buy every album that came out when I was younger.

elder08 wrote: gottagetintogetout wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: The Quiet One wrote: King By-Tor wrote: I'm 22 and I say that music from the 70s is, in large, better than what we get today. So no.   This. (and I'm 16) That (and I'm 21). This (and I'm 14) this and i'm also fourteen

The thing is not only creativity is what a professor of mine cold dazzling pop platonic ideas of rockand roll.