For this topic to have anything meaningful you need statistics on demographics, not personal observations.

One reason for why the genre demographic would be heavier on the older side is the age of the genre. Prog emerged around 60 years ago and gathered a lot of fans at the time, many who still live to this day. Some decades down the line, that demographic will be gone and you may see a shift in the demographic.

A quick search found this: https://defectormusic.wordpress.com/2020/04/13/progressive-rock-demographics-2020/

I think, also based on what I posted earlier about the popularity of new progressive releases rising on RYM, that the "future of prog" will be centered around new generations of artists and listeners. Having said that, there is/will continue to be a small nucleus of classic releases that will always be played, albums like DSOTM or CttE are just too good to fade away.

Hi,

May I change this somewhat?

Very few folks start what they do because they wanted to write something, or paint something or play something. Most of them, eventually developed beyond a certain point, which showed a completely different quality from (let's say) a student.

Being young or old, is not exactly a requirement for an artist, although there is a lot that can be said for youth, and its tendency to reject the "rules" (so to speak), in the end, they end up becoming the folks that create a new set of "rules" ... and few of them are varied enough to continue being a rebel when they are in the 60's or 70's.

The main issue, is our ability to be able to find out who "has it" and "who doesn't" (and is just faking their way through it) ... and there are many ways .. some believe in numbers, and some don't. Some folks don't need the numbers and stand out ... for what they do, and you can always use someone like a Frank Zappa as a perfect example ... and they end up creating the numbers that no one believed in!

In the end, there is some "magic" (gosh I hate using that word!!!) in the work that makes us come back to it, and enjoy it ... we still hear Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and so many others, because of that "magic" and we use it the same way for a lot of pop music, jazz music and other examples. That "magic" is hard to define since there is no specific definition to it, but somehow we look at it ... sort of like the bird brain woman that can see you in any spot in the room! 

To me, numbers, are for people that lack the beauty of the totality of the music ( in this example), because they are not going to listen, or rate anything else but the top 10 songs (so to speak) they like ... which in terms of "progressive music" is extremely regressive. But try to say that to a megalomaniac! They are just following the commercial/industrial mode of it all ... because, I suppose, they know about nothing else!

Who do you think this applies to? I have listened to 254 releases of 2023 (for example), and most of those were really low-profile artists, far from any "top 10" list. It seems ironic to me to say that "I'm not going to listen", if indeed this is meant to apply to me. 

The albums of the 70's have more than proven that they will stand the test of time. Nothing can destroy them. Quite the contrary, the Internet and YouTube have enormously helped and promoted them. 

The big decline has already taken place, in the 80's and 90's, when there was no way to promote the music. But the Internet fixed and changed all that permanently. 70's prog. availability and promotion is stronger now than ever, due to the universal availability of the Internet, and previously rare and out-of print music firmly available.

The music and technology have guaranteed permanence, and there is no reliance on age, memory, and word-of-mouth.

I thought the "future of prog." topic would deal with the changes in prog. since its glory days. There's an obvious lack in originality with new prog. compared to the original innovators who created everything from scratch. To me at least, the future of prog. won't be in new bands, but continuing to celebrate the originals of the 70's.

Yep.  Ya know it when you hear it. 

We can't hear it all though.

So much out there, that much of it just passes us by, and on into obscurity.

60 years of prog, you'd think every tree has been climbed. No?

I see hope for the future in avant-garde, krautrock and eclectic prog. But it's not really prog proper IS IT?

I personally don't care if it is or not, I'm glad this site represents all that's new and Magical and INTERESTING.

Prog Metal to a degree, for the younger bunch.

What an uninformed opinion. Someone belongs on RegArchives (for regressive rock). If you're stuck listening to The Flower Kings, then sure, there is a lack in originality. But get beyond the bands aping the 70s and there's a wealth of originality in prog rock (and beyond just prog "rock") of the present.

I view the classic material, including the best things coming out since the '70s, the way I view classical and Jazz. I routinely go back to music as early as the Elizabethan era because John Dowland was the original rock star. Much of my current exploration focuses on newer prog releases, classic Jazz, and filling in the blanks in my classic collection. Charlie Parker, Django Reinhardt, and Ornette Coleman are every bit as relevant today as they were when they were active. Popularity fades, but quality art has timeless durability. As long as quality music remains available, it will be explored by the adventurous.

Moonshine sonata?!  I don't know that one. Was Beethoven a bootlegger? 

I wasn't trying to correct you, accidental humor is awesome. 

I like the term "Magic" you are using. That magic is what makes us play a song/album/symphony, etc. over and over again. That magic inspires other artists to continue pushing the envelope and coming up with new ideas/sounds/genres etc. That magic, that pure genius is what separates great music/artists, from the rest, and that's what keeps the wheel going around. That's the magic I'm sure will never disappear. 

How many of those are going to be any good though?

We need young musicians who actually listen to classical music (as the great prog musicians of the 70's did) and understand what makes a coherent composition. Absent that, you get a lot of the technical w**kery and "avant-garde" nonsense that we hear in recent years. The musicians may be very skilled, but they have no compositional sense.

Hi,

Or from the copies, and supposedly inspired by someone or something. In the end, the "magic" comes from within, not without!

The only strange thing is that I have always thought that music was always "progressive", as if the Stravinsky's and other 20th century composers did not move from the more standardized stuff into more adventurous material, only for the "music" to go backwards with the C. Berry's and such ... and then in the 1970's we finally decided that the new stuff out there was progressive. In essence, they came back to something that all music had lost due to the commercial era that would only play the simplest of melodies and songs for the audience.

All in all, for me, it has always been progressive, and that is the reason why sometimes I do not review or discuss many works, which to me are not really special in the history of it all. The only saddest thing is when an artist goes "backwards" because of bizarre comments by reviewers ... and while I can understand the need for a dollar or two, in the end, I tend to wonder where the heart truly lies ... repeating itself, instead of maintaining an independent creativity.

Dowland is definitely worth checking out-he’s one of Steve Howe’s major influences. Paul O’Dette is a lutenist who did a very elaborate rendition of his catalog on the Harmonia Mundi label. The Boston Consort does good renditions of the vocal works. 

Liner notes and other texts discuss the meaning of the lyrics (entertaining ribaldry) and recount Dowland’s antics in Elizabeth’s court and elsewhere, which nearly got him beheaded a few times. If he were alive today he’d probably be a metaller.

Maybe you haven't listened to the best releases? I agree that although for example 2023 was a magnificent year for prog, some many albums were (and are still being) released that it is more difficult to find the outstanding ones. 

This take is nonsense as it assumes that many young musicians who play music in the prog sphere don't listen to classical (many do, and "classical" is a pretty wide umbrella genre), AND that one HAS to listen to it to make good prog (many don't and the music is just as good). So widen your scope, not only of what newer prog you listen to, but of what qualifies as "prog" or "good prog" or even "good" music. If you can't handle a little experimentalism and prefer more structure, or just prefer older recording/production techniques, then just admit that it comes down to your taste rather than lambast musicians of my generation with uninformed opinions.

Agreed. Also, young and future composers will still want to write conceptual works, and if they do this in a rock mode, they may accidentally write and release prog albums.

If you take any notice of ratings and rankings then PA's top 30 list is mostly 1970's albums. That's when it happened. Latterly it's hard to pin down what it is although even now there is a rewriting of history as to what prog was in the 70's with the likes of Roxy Music, 10CC and Supertramp lumped in somehow. It's not so much that the music evolves it's just that everyone wants to talk about music that is 'creative' and then apparently it all becomes prog. We either draw the boundaries or not. The less we draw them the more we are just talking about music generally and what is good and what isn't. Most agree that manufactured pop music is carp but that's about it. 

If you don't have the understanding of Classical that I'm talking about, you get Mars Volta and black midi instead of KC, GG and Yes. Some may be fine with that, but I'm basically saying those newer bands are infected with a kind of "Punk" attitude which compromises their Prog aspects. This attitude is basically "it doesn't matter how much you know about music, just be creative bro". It's a poison that is ubiquitous in modern music. Take a look at any recent yearly chart on RateYourMusic. I think the main reason it's 95% total trash is for the very reason I'm saying. The approach appears to be more "let's throw cool sounds at the wall" than any kind of real attempt at composition or songwriting.

So no, it does matter that you know the fundamentals of music and have an acquaintance with the masters of Classical, especially if you're making Prog. Where's the broader view of musical history? If all you do is listen to a bit of KC, Zappa, GG and Mr. Bungle and think you can make prog now (black midi), you're going to be limited in what you're capable of. Experimentalism is fine so long as the fundamental composition is solid. It can't be a replacement for actual musical depth. For the most part, it should be a "spice" rather than the main dish.

Have you looked into the Black Midi musicians and what their musical background is?

HI,

I'm not sure that the "background" is that important, although I would not argue that it does help to a degree. However, there are many musicians that are self taught that made it very big, and in some ways, it's like the work they did is not valid as we don't have a "background" ... 

Progressive material, however, did have quite a few folks that were fairly well educated when it came to music, and the Berlin folks is probably the one spot where there were a lot of modern composers that helped influence a lot of the new music. Both Schulze and Froese, and all members of CAN (except Damo), were very highly educated folks as well ... and we don't have to check their background to know they put together an amazing amount of music.

England might differ a bit, but some of the areas were definitely educated, Canterbury being the one area where folks were musically more advanced than half the folks in rock music at the time. 

For America, just about all of it is reactive and against the establishment in some ways when it comes to the start of the progressive/psychedelic days. But they made it clear to a lot of people that it was about how it all felt, not how much it was studied ... and to this day, folks still wonder/say ... wtf was Jack Casady doing on that bass? And he is rarely anointed with a nice compliment. I don't know much about their "education" but based on the playing, I would think that JC was fairly well educated. The Grateful Dead is another story ... in the end, JG came off as very well educated musically, but no one or any biography discusses that much, and his later years doing solo and duet shows totally improvised once or twice weekly and that is probably how he studied his instrument ... 

We should not trash "self-taught" a whole lot ... I suppose that many of us will sit here and think most rap is not good because there is no education behind it (usually), but that would be a nasty generalization about a race, and is not fair. There is some value in their "voice" ... even if we do not consider it progressive. And then we can go back to Gil Scott Heron (The Last Poets) and I would say that a lot of their stuff was actually very well educated!

I attempted to like this version.  

A little bit late in responding but thanks! 

Mark my words.

You keep saying things that newer bands/artists do like they are bad things (and it's erroneous to assume that all, or even most of them, do, but that's another issue). You also claim to know that all the classic era musicians you listed actually have that much of a background in Classical music (which, again, is a brooooaaaaad genre, that covers many styles that Zappa and Fripp enjoyed, but you'd probably label as "experimentalist cr@p"). Many of them did not, and if they did, didn't actually receive formal training. Which shouldn't matter. And many of those artists see it as an upside to not have that training so as not to pigeonhole their own creativity. 

None of it is good or bad, it just is. Once again, it's ok to not like it, but just admit that it comes down to your taste and not the talent of the musicians. For every band that actually reaches for something, like black midi, Bubblemath, you get some band that professes to love Mussorgsky and Yes and it just sounds like rehash after rehash (Karfagen, Karmakanic, etc.).

To me, this all seems silly. Just listen to a release and you'll know, intuitively, if you found it to be bad, good, great or even awesome. Listen to it again after some time, maybe also under different circumstances, and your feeling about it may change. You can add some analysis on top, but IMHO the best we can do is to just listen and communicate how we felt about what we heard.

Hi,

With one HUGE difference. The young tend to do their own thing, not someone else's!

You really think Stravinsky would have gotten where he did by doing some other local, and known music of the time? 

It's not, necessarily, about being young ... it's about being "stubborn" enough to do your own thing, and not give a cahoot about anything else. Weird that you STILL don't see that in the ranks of Progressive Music, specially in the late 60's and early 70's ... very few of them played covers, and just went out their own way. I kinda do not think of The Nice, or later ELP playing "covers" in fun stuff that gave them a mental break! 

The really special progressive folks NEVER played covers or anyone else's material!

BTW: Stravinsky had all sorts of musical influences, Tchaikovsky for example.

Hi,

I lived with a band for 6 months and played with them a wee bit while learning. They were specially good, doing their own material which the bass player and the drummer had written, and not bother with any other anything. The bass player was inspired by Roger Waters and Rush ... but the concept piece that he had written, was over an hour long and was special and had some neat moments. They stuck to it for the most part, and you could see the value of getting to know their own material, instead of the stuff that you hear at the Hotel circuit in America, which is mostly top ten ... the musicians involved are not likely to go very far.

When they did not get the reception they wanted one time, some members of the band kinda gave up and decided they needed some covers to get the audience going. The band was over 3 months later!

If you had been around so many writers, as I was when young, you would notice a very distinct difference which is the mark of an "artist" ... and many folks, stood up for themselves with a very strong palate and discussion about talent. Gabriel Garcia Marquez might have read others, and been influenced by someone else ... but he knew the secret to his work, was his own vision. Pablo Neruda is the same thing, and ended up, inadvertently becoming a voice for some freedoms that were being taken away in Chile. Albert Camus, even went so far as to say that he hated most folks that thought they were writers, and all they were doing was creating pulp fiction. Jean Genet, turned things around some so one could not really tell what he was about in reality ... but by the time you read "Our Lady of Flowers" and a couple of other things, you realize quickly that he is intentionally throwing a finger at a lot of machinations and commerciality of it all. 

The hard part of a lot of rock music, and its attempt to make it, is more about the success of the band financially, than it is about any artistic definition of their work ... and we forget how much the folks that we love and are inspired by that became known as "progressive" ... in fact did not exactly do covers in a bar. There are always exceptions, of course, but Jimi went out to blow the whole thing ... the writing was great but the voice that created it did not help the song come alive ... and Jimi's version became the watchtower for us to realize how important some things can be and how much it mattered and was valuable.

Again, influences are fine, but if you wanted to make it in the world with a band, you would be doing your own material and make sure that you could improve on it, to be noticed ... go ahead and do covers and see if anyone is going to pay attention ... to me that is the definition of a musician or an artist. The musician gives in to things around him/her and the social everything ... the artist? Nope ... I paint what I see. I play what I hear. I write what my movie shows. 

It becomes the intuition, rather than what we, as FANS, think it should be. 

Hi,

Actually, two of us worked in the same place, in a house of pies and bakery. We turned the garage into a studio.

Now that's re-imagined!!... Killer!

    And the classical 70s prog, obviously, is among the lowest of low in the hierachy of rock due to its issues like being too difficult to start with and being too bourgeois or elite-like. What's more, I think prog's mission to influence musicians has come to a halt these days. When we talk about 70s music, definitely, King Crimson, Genesis, Pink Floyd, ELP are big names we can't avoid whose influence was still carried into the 80s when Talking Heads, Marillion, Rush stepped up to the forefronts whith their legacies. (Btw: We can also make a bold claim: no prog in 70s, no Bohemian Rhapsody.) Math rock, opera rock, to name a few, all inherit prog's boldness in blending different musc elements. Even Kurt Kobain received KC's power of Red and started the legend we all know. But, now just tell me, besides new prog, have any famous rock stars during the two decades after 2000 specially mentioned 70s prog as the greatest impact and gained predominance over pops or massive popularity Dream Theatre, Tool, and the likes once had who can ascertain their roots back in 70s? Pretty rare. And the strak reality is, many new young fans are drawn to prog simply because of the publicity of JoJo's Bizarre Adventures instead of modern rock bands.

   There's another fact. I keep in contact with many rock fans. Some of them like prog but hate Keith Emerson especially. Their thinking is very simple: who the hell will be insterested in rock interpretation of classical songs that nobody actually listens to or even cares, which will take back to my aforementioned point on rock and classical music.

    But, what people must admit is that if someone delves into quintessential rocking music, rather than electrical pop sh*ts, those big names of prog are inevitable. They just stand there. Nobody can circumvent. The Beatles designed a blueprint of rock music and prog was one of the most outstanding pioneers to reinvent it. Their musicianship decides their characters: they are not postitutes to give pleasure, rather the cynical Diogenēs to push limits, explore boundaries. So, that is why when ELP started to embrace extravagance during mid 70s, their doom was inevitiable. And all classical prog bands died soon. 

   Still, new tech and interpretation of music helps to inspire kids to develop new prog of thier own. They put a completely different complexion over prog and ensure its continuity. Prog is not going to be doomed in the future. It just lives in another form we might not be familiar with.

I resemble that remark! 

I have a Mellotron app on my iPad that is drop-dead AMAZING!!  In fact, it is the same one that Fripp & Company used onstage when I saw their "An Evening with the Elements" show at Chicago's Vic Theater!  

It is an amazing time for making music, but just making squeaky little sounds is not enough.  There has to be a modicum of talent behind it, honesty, and dedication to craft.  

The future of prog is secure.  

https://forum.audiob.us/discussion/33911/photo-of-fripp-and-his-ipad" rel="nofollow - https://forum.audiob.us/discussion/33911/photo-of-fripp-and-his-ipad

Oh, I don't know....ELP's "Pictures at an Exhibition" was one long cover, yes?  

Sometimes a cover can be played progressively, like Yes' cover of "America" by Simon & Garfunkel.  That was recorded on the upswing of their progressive evolution as a band, not on the decline. 

I rarely hear young musicians playing covers, except for either practice or for kicks.   I do notice quite a bit of innovation going on, and experimentation.  

To make way for the young, the old gotta die. 

Nice reply!  Don't forget, our "heroes" had to record quite a few "mediocre" releases before they hit paydirt with LPs like CTTE, LTIA, Foxtrot and so forth.  

Thanks to this website, I find quite a few gems, hidden or in plain sight, in music.  Some of the new prog from Scandinavia is very impressive for example!  

I wonder if the new King Crimson clone "Beat" is going to make some original music?  I wish they had selected Michael Keneally instead of Steve Vai.  I saw Keneally solo over Fripp's Soundscapes in concert, he was brilliant!!  We'll see!

I say the world is heterogeneous and will still be. Cultural unification and diversification are going on at the same time. Certain music may survive through small minorities who are interested, while the big business will go elsewhere, at it has already done for a long time.  Some of these minorities will die out, some won't (it won't help that the generations who saw prog taking off will vanish, but we can be rather optimistic about somebody carrying on the torch). The old prog rock vs. progressive discussion is also important here, but actually to some extent both sides of the coin may survive, classical 70s prog rock may continue having some small but dedicated following, and the innovative part of the younger generations will progress, but chances are they will not necessarily progress in the directions where the older generation would want them to go. Whether what comes out would still be associated in any way with "progressive rock" is anyone's guess, but that has already been a broad church in the seventies, which was and is a good thing for sure, and helpful for survival

Of course most minor bands will be forgotten but then there may be the odd exception, maybe a few hundred people worldwide who still fly the flag of, say, Zeuhl or whatever, in 2100, and be it just for taking pride of being different.

Conclusion: What do I know? 

That'll be my kids one day for sure 

Maybe English is not your first language but that is still a truly great post nevertheless. 

Hi,

Bizarre notion .. to say the least, and it just shows how much "music" so many rock aficionados look at music history ... there are no less than at least 20/25 recordings of the whole thing that can be discussed, all of them, (many times) considered different interpretations, but all with the same title and "complete".

If there were versions by Leonard Bernstein or Herbert von Karahan, I would have them in my collection. 

It's tough saying this ... and when you see the live performance of Jeff Beck doing one of the best known arias, we still can not appreciate it, and still look at it as just another rock song solo and what not.

Please show how well versed you are in music ... instead of delineating something that is only a "cover" in rock terms because we dislike classical music and tend to shine on any band doing it. And before ELP's version, The Nice had also done many pieces of classical music.

cstack3 wrote: ... I rarely hear young musicians playing covers, except for either practice or for kicks.   I do notice quite a bit of innovation going on, and experimentation.   To make way for the young, the old gotta die.

Innovation and experimentation has very little to do with age. There are just as many (comparatively speaking) experimenting, today, that are young and old all the same. Innovation has to do more with your internal person, than it does "music", or some kind of colorful bullmerde, that folks might think explain what the experimentation and improvisation is all about ... 

The real issue is the education, and places like PA ... posting stuff that is demeaning to the "talent" that likes to improvise and experiment ... because in the end, it tends to intimidate the artist, into thinking that what he/she is doing is not right, and needs to be redone with a more "recognizable" style and (worse ... !!!) some lyrics so folks know what is going on!

But most of us here, are afraid to say something about experimentations and improvisations, because the words for it are difficult to come by ... in general, if you can not FEEL, and LIVE in these pieces, your ability to say something interesting or of value won't show up!

Please help the music ... not make it look like it is a left over ... that you throw at the dog or cat, or chickens, or pig! 

Don't take them so seriously 

How well-versed am I in music?  Not sure how to answer.  University studies in music (University of Illinois), former bandmate with Robert Fripp's GuitarCraft student (the amazing Lon Jones), I eschewed a career in professional music to pursue science and research.  Both exist comfortably in my mind.  I'm as good on electric guitar as many who are mentioned on this website.  

PA is not an academic research site, M, but a public forum.  Do you deny that ELP's "HoeDown" is a cover?  

I don't post past musical works online since I would need permission of many people to do so.  Let's just say that, when I pick up my Rickenbacker bass guitar, I warm up by playing Chris Squire bass lines such as CTTE.  

You are, hands down, the most negative person in this forum when it comes to judging musicians and their fans.

EDIT: At least that's how I perceive it. You do you of course, but sometimes I think you could filter out some of the negativity in your posts and focus on the positive aspects.

Hi,

Depends on which side of the mirror you stand! Some folks are afraid of that mirror!

Negative, for the sake of negativity, is wrong and down right bad. I am not exactly being negative, as much as I am trying to challenge the status quo ... which has a tendency to not say anything and make a comment on a thread that is unnecessary.

You didn't get to see a lot of what I did in the history of rock music ... Roger is not the only one that doesn't like it, and he has a point ... when folks are beating each other up for a piece of the pig. And then you make personal statements, because ... well ... I don't know ... maybe you have nothing else to add to the thread!