The Single Non-Event that Changed Prog Rock ?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=64804
Printed Date: July 19 2025 at 08:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Single Non-Event that Changed Prog Rock ?
Posted By: uduwudu
Subject: The Single Non-Event that Changed Prog Rock ?
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 17:34
Ok then. Funny how things go. First why is accusing a prog band of grandiosity an accusation? Funny how rock and roll is the only music where being good at playing can be seen as a bad thing. No wonder punk died in it's own spittle. The public are not that stupid! Not that much all the time anyway. Our poor old prog bands were touring madly releasing classics by the bushel and by the time the punk era happned generally had watered down. ELP were tired, Yes were confused and Genesis in control completely. Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull were at a high tide mark (or another one) - Gentle Giant were losing control but were not that huge commercially, Crimson (also not that huge but possibly a more significant technical source than GG) non-existent as Fripp has better foresight than Nostradamus and sneaked out to create his own version of new era popular music. But Yes were the most visible of the lot. Outselling Zeppelin concerts and still creative (more or less). (Those Paris sessions much of which appeared on the new CD issue of Tormato and are curios only.) They make Tormato sound like Relayer - well not quite. But I make my point I hope. Had JA come back to Yes I feel reasonably certain if Trevor Horn produced and ceded vocals (nothing I've read makes me think he would not have gladly done so; then a Jon fronted yes: Drama (the album we now know might be outtakes) would then have happened. So we have consequences. After that it's problematic. Had that version of Drama stiffed (which I doubt) then 90125 Yes and the commercialisation of prog to pop (and they were very ggod at it) would have happened anyway. Had it gone huge or created a wave then the Neo prog underswell might have been bigger. Not sure how the disintegration of PF would have effected things. PF are and were more visible to the media influenced masses than Yes. But what of Yes' influence on Genesis, if any? And the remergence of Crimson along with Jon-Yes and Drama. No Asia? Or someone other than Howe on guitar? Hackett perhaps. No GTR unless he and Howe got together and did a non-pop GTR? It comes own to record company sales and frankly none of them (record companies) looked after the longevity of their acts (except Genesis who were too smart for drugs and food fights.) See it all comes back to Jon - not Jon. A turning point visible only with 20 / 20 hinsdsight ... and I need new glasses anyway! |
uduwudu wrote:Replies:
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 17:41
|
I smell a screenplay. |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 20:50
| Yup. A Drama. (cough!) |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 20:53
| I'm sorry, what was the question? |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 20:57
|
What? No. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 22:38
Sorry. I'm not practised at introducing topics. This was about how Jon Anderson departing and not returning (for too many years) to Yes and how this Thing that did not happen affected prog substantially and generally. |
Posted By: theBox
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 01:29
|
I believe that if the press continued to care about prog circa 77-80, there wouldn't have been a punk emergence or a turn of the prog bands to other forms of music.
------------- |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 02:24
|
Did punk have significance after then? At least as far as Yes were concerned? Jon Anderson did not leave Yes because of Punk Rock or the press. He left because the music they were writing was so awful that for once he and Wakeman agreed. Then Squire Howe and White got theiract together, found Downes - fine on keyboards - music partner Horn who acquitted himself well on vox but might have been better as producer / engineer. Perhaps there would ahve been a punk rock. There was pub rock after all. Prog is the art form of rock music and the basic roots level needed expression. Possibly if you were a down and out disaffected youth in 1977 lisyening to All In A Mouse's Night might not have rocked your world. But Jon leaving Yes... and not returning in 1980. What if he had returned? It's speculation but there we go... |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 05:42
I don't know where you got that from... Zeppelin had about 200,000 people each night at Knebworth in 1979, and during their previous tour, the American tour of 1977, they set a new world record audience at an indoor solo concert with 76,229 tickets sold (the previous record was held by The Who). |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 06:36
|
I think your topic title is very much right, as a turning point in prog Anderson leaving Yes is very much a non-event. All the major prog bands of the 70's were getting quite tired by the end of the decade and the press were really starting to push punk, or anything else they could find for instant gratification. The changing lineup of Yes had no effect. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 06:46
|
The join of Yes and Buggles was quite a big thing at the time. I had a lot of friends who were big Yes fans at the time and the loss of Anderson and Wakeman to be replaced by the duo who had recorded "Video Killed the Radio Star" was quite a shock.
Still, "Drama" turned out to be a great album but Trevor Horn couldn't quite reach the high notes and the union was short-lived.
Did it change prog? Not really, punk had already happened and put the mockers on it and Asia weren't that much of a prog band anyway.
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 06:56
|
If Anderson had stayed for Drama, who says it would have lasted further than that? I still think Yes would have split up and Asia would have happened anyway. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 07:25
I agree with this. The golden era was over for prog. Anderson leaving Yes wouldn't have had that much bearing on progressive music as a whole. I bet Yes even acquired a few more fans, by 'merging' with The Buggles...  ...and probably lost a few too, but what the hell, I think Drama is better than Tormato!
------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 13:07
|
Punk did virtually nothing to destroy prog, excepting in the eyes of the trendy & fashionable media, a silly trait that lasts to this day in most music publications, although, of course, they never bleat on about just how sad it is that The Pistols reform or UK Subs crawl around pubs & clubs still The bands we love still continued, and, indeed, continue to this day, to sell out conert halls or stadiums, sell truckloads of records, and inspired a whole new generation of great bands. Punk did NOT kill prog  ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 13:52
| Punk did not destroy prog, but it did hurt it commercially. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 17:59
|
Hi,
There never was an event, or non-event that created prog ...
Or you are going to ignore history ... one or the other ...
So drugs had no effect on longer music (... they did in San Francisco) ... and then classical training and influences did not help anyone in England (they did and they all pay their tributes to it!) ... and no one knew anything about theater and film in Germany (they did ... and these folks were in the middle of it all) .... and then ... worse of all ... no literature ever influenced ... ANY ... music ...
If you really want to place progressive music in a pedestal ... you might start with the idea ... no London in the midst ... because these ideas and discussions are getting really boring and silly. It also shows the lack of the ability to hear other musics, study history and other cultures ... and I guess you are a good Christian or something ... everything comes from Adam and Eve and you only know one book?
Give it a break ... write something that will get you an A for a paper ... and might actually have some musical relevancy. It is so simplistic as to be insane ... and impossible ... and Jon Anderson has absolutely nothing to do with "prog" whatsoever! And neither does Genesis or Peter Gabriel!
But some people won't quit! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 19:32
Very well said. Punk failed to kill prog. But it did harm the media's perception of it. A stupid trend that lasts to this very day. The mainstream music mags still rave about punk like it was the second coming, pretend nothing existed before 1977, and rave about the latest trendy emo bands. Prog is still disparaged in most of the so-called 'guardians of music taste' mags.
I also agree with you about the hypocrisy. So its OK for people to rip off Television or the Pistols in new bands, but if anyone tries to revive the sound of Yes or Pink Floyd, it gets derided? It's fine if 50 year old Johnny Rotten pretends to be angry in front of crowds of 200,000, but if Yes do a tour, it's a bunch of sad old men? Double standard. ------------- Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while... |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 04:51
I remember an interview with Danny Baker (a british TV presenter and former journalist for the Melody Maker) He said, things changed big time in 1977. The results for the readers polls started coming in, and as usual is was the big rock and prog rock bands of the day, that were winning. The editor was furious at this, and decided things needed to change, so he told the team to lie about the results, and put the new punk bands at the top of the polls. Of course these days, an editor of a magazine would be prosecuted for this kind of thing, back then no one gave a monkeys. The Melody Maker team knew that many young people would listen to anything, if you told them it was the new thing, and was 'cool' ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 05:14
|
Moshkito is mean (as usual, sorry) but makes a good point in there. Then again, I wouldn't assume Uduwudu is so completely unaware - probably just spoke simply for the sake of daring to start a discussion. Btw, kudos to the posters on the Lazland-to-Kashmir75-to-Blacksword direction above. -------------  Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 06:12
The reply is to all posts above actually. First of all, I think Prog pretty much killed itself. It didn't need punk at all. Sure Prog still exists but it is mostly only relevant to it's fanbase. Only recent bands like PT, Opeth, Mars Volta,... manage to break out into the 'mainstream' (whatever that is these days) And of course, any rock journalist denying the existence or quality of any rock-genre didn't do his homework. |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 13:15
Hmmm. I remember Wakeman stating that the first ABWH album shifted a million copies with barely any media mention at all. Also, there are a lot of prog or prog related bands really hitting the commercial heights these days - DT, Muse, Radiohead and so on. Also, many of the old bands still sell out large arenas and the innovation shown by bands such as Marillion and others on the internet has created a brand new and highly successful cottage industry. Prog did not kill itself nor fall up its own backside - this was the media lie and perception. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 07:08
|
I don't quite see how Punk had anything to do with the slump of Prog music. Somehow Prog just seemed to have ground to a halt.
Nobody heavily into Punk could have been really musical, otherwise they wouldn't have listened to it. It was just for fartarsing about to, so they weren't syphoned off a possible Prog audience.
I'd think it more likely that Punks took off a slice off the Disco scene, that's just as daft musically.
As strange as it seems, I think the 'end' of Prog and the beginning of Punk were pretty much coincidental with both being on entirely different planets.
|
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 07:18
 ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 07:29
And amen to that ! I wonder how we can still fall into the trap of the 'punk killed prog' stereotype (so we're all here to worship a corpse?), when we should know all too well how the media love to put up new idols and tear them down in the space of a few years (or even a few months).
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 07:37
I clearly remember a number of people at school around the time of Punk completely renounced all other types of music practically overnight and "went Punk". After that every other sort of music was rubbish, according to them.
|
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 07:42
|
And yet... Prog never died, but something definitely went underground in the late seventies, early eighties. In the eighties I was subscriber to a Dutch prog rock magazine, which started in the early eighties with yellow leaflets and is now a big full colour monthly magazine (after several name changes). In the eighties there was litte talk about Italian bands, Canterbury etc. and the magazine was often filled with AOR bands, because even the writers of the magazine didn't seem very much aware of the rich heritage of prog from the seventies. Neo prog was being covered, but apart from that... It was hard to find good prog in the eighties. Now that's all changed. There is a flood of prog releases nowadays, and enormous attention to the heritage of prog from the seventies. CD and internet helped out enormously, I'm sure. Prog never died, but prog and its audience seemed to drift apart for some time, for some part. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 07:52
This is true.....Punk was anti music "establishment" and they hated Led Zep and all stadium acts. And disco. They were all "boring old farts". I was a punk too. Kind of.
 ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 10:14
I find that an absolutely horrifying piece of knowledge that I sure didn't want to know.  |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 11:04
Thanks for telling me I was a BOF at the age of 14.
 |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 15:54
|
Ok, so punk did not kill progressive rock. If prog rock killed itself then what was the single event that triggered it? Jon Anderson not returning to Yes (IMHO). Zeppelin and Floyd notwithstanding Yes were very much THE band that prog rock hinged. As they did not achieve Dramatic success in 1980 then that was the single event that ensured industry takeover and the demotion of art rock to roots rock. Cut 'em down to size etc. Nothing wrong with roots rock by the way, but it's the (media prompted) resentment of progressive or the art form of rock that prompts a certain elitist attitude. Prog elitists versus punk elitists. Quite funny really. I think one reason the media hates prog rock so much is that it makes their job so hard. Imagine reviewing and understanding Tales and Lamb. Much easier to champion the easy to understand and easy to review, go with a fashion get your copy in by deadline time and off to the pubs for a view from the bar. Sells more copies to those who prefer to have the tabloids do their thinking for them. Oh, yes, ask the punks (they are still around) that if punk was so great then why was the industry so thankful for Floyd and Zep? (Both of whom saved it's bacon in 79 and 80.) But if Jon's Yes had gone supernova in 1980 then thigs may have been very different. |
Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 16:27
|
^ Ok, to get to the point. It's a bit too optimistic to try to explain the rise and fall of prog by one single event. That's not how things work usually. If you look in the thread, there isn't even a consensus whether Prog has fallen nor not. So this thread might take a while longer to reach any kind of conclusion.  I tend to think Yes and ELP had taken the format as far as they could around 1974. They had arrived at a dead end. Obviously there's been tons of good stuff ever since. But that was other generations carrying it on. |
Posted By: Elcroft
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 17:44
There was a very good article by David Hepworth in Word Magazine a couple of years ago about punk, titled: "It's Like Punk Never Happened ... That's because for most people it never did and as for the rest of us, isn't it time we got over it?" He basically exposed all the nonsense around it, describing it as a "media-driven fashion movement" that produced an almost totally malign influence on music and spawning the biggest con in music ever, the "indie" movement. He also made the point that some of the most popular and acclaimed albums of all time were made in the mid-1970s, when punk's adherents would like you to believe nothing good was happening.
|
Posted By: Elcroft
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 17:56
I don't think an editor would be prosecuted for that today. Most magazine's still deliberately ignore prog bands, even if they are popular. A perfect example of this is when a Q journalist chose Marillion's Afraid of Sunlight as one of the best 50 albums of 1995 but the magazine refused to interview the band because they weren't "cool" enough for the magazine.
Prog bands are woefully under-represented in the music press. With a lot of papers, it's as if they still don't exist. There's a media agenda to hype up indie bands and keep prog bands in the shadows.
|
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 19:56
|
^That Melody Maker story is disgraceful. Can't believe they got away with such a thing. Even today, most mags refuse to give any coverage of prog. The current editor of Rolling Stone is apparently a PT fan, yet the new album got only a tiny review in the mag. ------------- Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while... |
Posted By: RalphWaldo
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 21:52
|
I would venture to say that prog as a MUSICAL genre exists and will continue to exist and to be created anew. The temporal fall of the amazing prog groups in the late 70's was a consequence of the success (financial, psychological) on members of diffrent prog band and the impact of this success on the relationships with themselves and others. It's hard for magical combinations of brilliant musically collaborating minds to stay in a vacuum of continued original musical production. Unfortunately the world around them changed them back. It's like a sociological cycle. ------------- A record is a concert without halls and a museum whose curator is the owner - Glen Gould |
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 22:12
|
Will the cycle ever completely turn back, though? Back in the early 70s, prog was all the rage. It would be great for that to happen again. As long as the media continues to champion punk (will they ever get over that?), most of today's prog bands won't get the mainstream exposure they deserve. ------------- Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while... |
Posted By: RalphWaldo
Date Posted: February 08 2010 at 22:38
|
Will the cycle ever completely turn back, though? Kashmir, that is a very good question. I wish I were a musicologist to be able to dissect and compare different musical forms through history and their reappearance. I think I'd be generalizing it to say that prog is a musical form, but I believe that key elements of prog are sustainable in different re-incarnations in the future. And this new music with a similar combination of elements would probably appeal to us - and maybe the whole world again! You can tell I think the glass is half full. ------------- A record is a concert without halls and a museum whose curator is the owner - Glen Gould |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 01:09
|
Ok, I think we get the message that it is a rather tired and glib attitude to say that 'punk killed prog' but when I was growing up Scotland during the late 70's, such was the Maoist fervour of 'year zero' punk converts both from my own peer group and those in music journalism whose views I hitherto respected , that 'Prog' was roped off as a crime scene for anyone between the ages of say, 16 to 25. It's equally glib and disingenuous to pretend that such pressures exerted on vulnerable (working) adolescents with money in their pockets is not going to have a significant impact on any marketplace. Prog certainly didn't disappear after 1977 but should you wish to see the collateral damage report inflicted by the 'phantasm' and 'media lies' of history you might wanna check out Tormato, And Then There Were Three, Love Beach, Giant For a Day, Passpartu, A (Tull), I Can See Your House From Here etc as betraying evidence of a patient whose vital signs you have diagnosed as healthy while the relatives and loved ones scour their wardrobes for black apparel. For all its faults Punk gave the music industry the huge kick in its loon patchouli pants it had long deserved i.e. it scattered the output of complacent hippies to the underground margins where their brand of smug cosmology could only be enjoyed from the privacy of their own pampered fantasy worlds. Punk too in a very short time degenerated into another dissolute train-wreck fuelled by speed instead of weed where Tales From Topographic Oceans was supplanted by the equally obese Sandinista. However for a few fleeting months (probably similar to the musical climate of halycon 1969) there was a genuine mood in the air that popular culture just might actually manage for once to mirror the thoughts and feelings of its audience. We keep gettin' fooled again and again ------------- 
|
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 05:00
This is very true. If you'd like to look at the situation from a non-anglocentric point of view, punk's DIY spirit also encouraged dozens of young & lively bands to spring up in The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany, most which put out recordings IN THEIR MOTHER TONGUE (Dutch, French, German). This had been comparatively rare until then. As for punk's influence on prog, the sudden change in fashion was more than a media-generated storm. If you look at most of the late 1960s/early 1970s generation of British prog bands (Yes, Genesis, Caravan etc.), it seems undeniable that they had nothing left to say. But there were bands who COULD have developed more, e.g. National Health. Only, the public's sudden change in preference for fun & easy bands that could be pogoed to meant that the Health were banished from the UK's club and college circuit virtually overnight. (As explained in Dave Stewart's liner notes to the CD reissues.) Wire, Ian Dury, Elvis Costello, Magazine, Television, Pere Ubu: there are numerous reasons why the mid-seventies Change of the Guard was actually a good thing. (But let's not forget Disco and soft rock probably sold far more than punk or new wave.) But I'll never forgive them for the downfall of Canterbury's best and brightest! 
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 05:05
No you're ok...you were a Jam fan!  ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 05:36
Yep, some excellent points there certainly and you do highlight the totalitarian nature of fashion. I think I get irritated by some proggers refusal to accept that even allowing for the rabid brainwashing of the music press, consumer sovereignty dethroned the Prog genre and that it was mostly intelligent/discerning music fans who stopped 'fattening the golden calf' Our stubborn mantra that 'fads can't hurt us, the music will survive on its own merit' is just plain delusional from even a pragmatic economic perspective. Only the top tier of 1st division prog bands could absorb a seismic shift in the market as extreme as that of Punk. As you also point out, integrity never appeared on a balance sheet and offers scant consolation to bands or artists who cannot get a gig or record deal in a prog-unfriendly climate. Boy, am I grumpy today !? (Time to cuddle the cat methinks)-------------
|
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 05:36
Will the public taste turn back to finding pleasure in being truly challenged? Folks, that's what the early 70s were - all sorts of things in music and film and print, people exited about finding new things. And not because the people were heavily marketed to (or at least that was not the main reason, a fact so lost on today's taste-makers and capitalists). Forget 'prog' necessarily, but just really great music made at an effort and listened to with an effort. Will they want that again? ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 09:07
WARNING! RANT ALERT!! Looked at from an anglocentric point of view (sorry!) I think punk was just about the worst thing that could have happened to the UK music scene. It's true that most of the old wave bands had passed their peak and new blood was needed, but punk was not the solution IMHO. It's year zero approach was narrow-minded in the extreme, and it damaged a culture of ambition, imagination and good musicianship in favour of image, attitude and a short term fix. The US, from being highly receptive to UK bands, eventually lost interest in the stream of over-hyped mediocrity (Oasis anyone?) being shipped over to the extent that in recent years it's not unknown for the Billboard top 100 albums to feature no UK artists. None of the punk bands (the Jam, the Clash, the Pistols) became a global commercial phenomenon like Floyd, Zep, Yes etc, and anyway I always thought the original US 'punk' bands (The Stooges, MC5 etc) were much better and more powerful than the rather quaint sounding UK variety. The Stranglers were one of the best and most imaginative UK new wave acts and they got grief from the punk fundamentalists for being too proficient (and 'ideologically unsound'). They say history is written by the winners and punk must have won its 'battle' with prog (if there was one) since it continues to get a much better press in the mainstream media. A lot of journalists tout it as a musical revolution that over-turned all that had gone wrong before, yet ten years later we had the pap of Stock, Aitken and Waterman dominating the charts. Perhaps the need for Rick Astley was "Why Punk Had to Happen"? You can still see this form of narrow-minded fundamentalism being practiced today with the reluctance of the "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" to induct proggers. Still with the advent of the internet and sites like this, music commentary is being democratised and I don't think the NME, Rolling Stone et al are quite the bibles they once were - so things are looking up! Sorry for the rant (quiet day at work) ...off for a nice relaxing cup of tea now. ------------- "And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!" "He's up the pub" |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 09:14
| Just a question for you and others... Are the mainstream media really that important? Is being praised by them really the highest accolade one can receive - not to mention being inducted in that joke that is the R'n'R Hall of Fame? As we all should know by now, this is a world that rewards shallowness and mediocrity at all levels. Let them set up their idols and tear them down in the space of a few months - we will continue to enjoy what we want, regardless of what the 'majority' thinks of it. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 09:20
Well...The Jam weren't a punk band. But The Clash had massive worlwide success. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 09:28
"Rock the Casbah", anyone ? |
Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 09:36
Hi Raff. As I said in my post the "media" is thankfully getting less important (after all we writing on the internet are the media now). The fact that 'prog' is not quite the four letter word it used to be is evidence attitudes are changing - people like Steven Wilson don't have to be so worried about having the label applied to them for fear of the commercial harm it might do. I think my point (if indeed I had one!) was that a lot of damage was done over many years in the post-punk period. Again I'm probably getting anglocentric here and thinking of the UK but. I think due to punk's 'scorched earth' policy and the media attitudes that pervaded afterwards, plenty of young musicians would have been discouraged from pursuing anything ambitious (and in my view interesting) that might be labelled 'pretentious' in the prevailing orthodoxy. Still at the end of the day punk 'fundamentalism' was only a musical phenomenon rather than a political one, no one lost the vote because of it, and as you say we are all free to enjoy the music we like!  ------------- "And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!" "He's up the pub" |
Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 09:42
They had some hit singles but I don't think they sold anything like the number of albums Pink Floyd or even Yes did. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though. Surely the Jam were punk at least in spirit and in terms of being part of that movement (always preferred the Style Council myself). ------------- "And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!" "He's up the pub" |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 09:49
Yes, that's a valid perspective Raff and I do agree that it really shouldn't matter a discarded fig what the prevailing media view of your favourite music is BUT: If the marketplace is skewed sufficiently so that it ceases to become viable for aspiring prog artists/bands to pursue careers it does effect our ability as consumers to source the types of new/fresh prog that we seek. Do you remember trying to buy jeans that weren't narrow in circa '77 ? (Quantum Calculus would have been easier )-------------
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 10:01
What you say is very true, but I'm afraid it is a reflection of the way the whole world is going. If you think about it, nowadays everything is much more about quantity than quality. While in the past you bought things (cars, electrical appliances, furniture, clothes... you name it) that were built to last for a long time, nowadays you are lucky if you can keep anything for five years before you have to chuck it away. China has become a world power because of that. I believe the same is true about music and art in general - the market is mostly structured to accommodate one-day wonders, and the real quality stuff is unfortunately fated to be little more than an underground phenomenon, even if occasionally emerging from near-obscurity. |
Posted By: American Khatru
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 10:50
Okay... apologia/rant begin... So, the sentence I bolded above is what I wanted to follow up on. This is true in a very real sense for me, and it took me ages, and a bit of 'therapy', to come to admit it. I was born in the late 60's and, thanks to an older brother's record collection, grew up listening at a very young age to the great music that was current then, all known as Rock though now we call much of it some variant of Prog. I was enthralled with the likes of KC and ELP and Genesis and Yes and Zeppelin and DP and Miles Davis and Tull and, the list goes on, you get the picture. I taught myself guitar by playing along with these albums, got rather good; thought outside just the guitar too, drumming along with Bruford and Bonham as best I could there in the old basement, and thinking along strictly theory lines, trying to write things. Though it's a nice personality quality, perhaps unfortunately for me I am a sensitive person; and not so good for me is the fact that I was also pretty impressionable and needy as a boy and teenager. So, though I grew up on the brightest and most titillating music I think there was, when the late 70's and especially early 80's came along (the time this Punk business filtered to me where I was) I was made to feel like a freak or something by all my peers (I had one buddy, but that was it, and he was real stuck on being cool so was mainly only into the heavy side), and my brother didn't help either. I only realized it in recent years - around 40! - that I had let that social influence oppress my pursuit, as a musician and man, of my favorite music. Unable to stomach punk in any real way, I tried to find solace in things like Sonic Youth and Talking Heads, but I can see now that it never lived up. I never made the conversion through heavy metal to Marillion and their ilk (no loss in my opinion, sorry). I went naturally to Classical music, the stuff that is expected to challenge (I see my reason now: here I would not be criticized for listening to complexity and long forms). Still, I would secretly listen to prog - yeah, secretly! The discouragement you (Cactus Choir) bespoke in your post was probably the largest culprit, so strong and ultimately subtle as to grind me down in this way. Then, one day not many years ago, I woke up. I said, what am I doing?! I resolved to fully embrace that past, and to make it into my present if I could. Now I'm excited to say that a composer friend and I are working to make 'symphonic prog' music and to form a band. We have a number of rather ambitious numbers already that greatly excite us, and which I believe should attract other musicians of quality to join us on our little quest, when we're ready. And every now and then - and likely for the rest of my life - I ask myself, how did I let this country and world's social-critical machine, one I so often criticize and see right through with its appetite for destruction and pablum, how did I let it grind my heart down for so long? ------------- Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 12:41
|
One major ground for optimism: all those brave artists who write, record, produce and even sell their own music!
The first example that springs to mind is Dan Britton. Not a mainstream artist, not even a mainstream progger (i.e. less well-known than the Mars Volta or Porcupine Tree), but his recordings with Deluge Grander and Birds and Buildings are some of the most daring of recent years, and THE FORM OF THE GOOD reached the No 1 "Best Progarchives Album of 2008" position (based on ratings and reviews) just a few days ago. And deservedly, too! |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 12:44
| Oh my gosh! It's actually Birds and Buidlings that got to the top spot! But never mind - it's still Dan Britton! |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 14:28
That's about the best discourse I have seen about the modern throwaway society I have seen in ages. Also witness the interminable and frankly obscene obsession with so called celebs who dominate virtually every facet of the media, even extending to the old quality press. However, I do take a very healthy and positive attitude to the whole debate. Witness the number of young, intelligent, and discerning people who contribute to this and other forums. They are proof positive that quality music, art, political debate, and civilisation itself is in safe hands. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 16:15
| I'm glad that both "mainstream" prog and classic rock didn't keep their high profile in the late 70s and what was to follow. They were too "tired" in regards of creativity. Thank God for punk and the change in taste. I wish punk would have wiped out AOR and hair-metal too, though. |
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 20:42
|
The thing with some modern prog bands is: Do Muse or Mars Volta fans bopping along at Wembley Arena think they're listening to prog? I imagine a lot of Muse fans who are young and not necessarily clued up about music history think Matt Bellamy and co. are just an indie rock band, and might not pick up a Yes or Genesis album. There's no doubting their prog credentials of course. Rick Wakeman has given Muse the thumbs up. Robert Fripp and Rush have given PT the seal of approval. ------------- Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while... |
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 20:47
That was indeed the best discourse on disposable culture that i've seen in a while. Totally agree about the repugnant media obsession with vapid celebrities who take up way too much airtime and page space. The only music mag I still buy is Classic Rock Presents Prog. Yes, its Anglocentric, but I think it's great there's finally a mag on the shelves which celebrates the music I actually care about. I sometimes buy the parent Classic Rock mag as well, but over there, I've noticed an increase of stories about rock hedonism and Mick Wall's salacious adventures, rather than writing about the music. I came late to the prog party (I was born in 1982), and I think its excellent that there's a generation of young people, bored of mainstream tripe, who are helping progressive music survive. ------------- Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while... |
Posted By: Pekka
Date Posted: February 09 2010 at 23:58
Didn't grunge do just that? ------------- http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=42652" rel="nofollow - It's on PA! 
|
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 02:06
It must have done, since hair-metal was predominantly a 1980s genre. "AOR", on the other hand, never seems to have gone away. Anyhow, sometimes I wish people would forget about metal in ALL its incarnations.  The party won't go on forever, you know! It's just that nobody can predict what will come in its place...
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 03:25
Well at least in the States, The Clash were pretty huge, selling loads of albums. To me, at least, The Jam are not true punk. But hardly anybody sold as many albums as Pink Floyd....from whatever field of Rock. Don't know about Yes though. I bloody loathe Style Council btw! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 04:10
Imagine them wiped out at the very beginning in 1977-78 instead of wiping them at their end, one decade later. The world would have been a better place. |
Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 04:33
A Jam purist eh? You're missing out Snow Dog, Cafe Bleu is a great album! ------------- "And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!" "He's up the pub" |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: February 10 2010 at 11:39
|
What do you make of Paul Weller's recent hairstyles, Snow Dog?
I saw the Jam play Brussels right after "A Town Called Malice" was released. A large contingent of English fans had travelled all the way from the UK just to see them. They were incredibly big in England at the time. I was never into punk but I dug the Jam because they reminded me of the early Who, which I only knew from albums. |
Posted By: sigod
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 09:28
You can't fault Bruce Foxton for playing one of THE most iconic prog instruments on the planet, The mighty Rickebacker Bass. 
Ironically the rise of punk, new wave and the indie scene actually drove Prog back into the underground where it had originally came from. Prog today might even have a better claim at being the real alternative to mainstream music as it owes it's continued existance to the support of it's fans rather than the huge PR and media machines that sustain todays stadium acts. ------------- I must remind the right honourable gentleman that a monologue is not a decision. - Clement Atlee, on Winston Churchill |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: February 12 2010 at 15:36
|
Yeah, punk and prog just switched places. Both were strictly an English (not British) phenomenon. I wonder if there's any significance in the virulence of asttitude toward either from both becuase of that. Was it really 'cause all these art rock bands played so well. I was just giving a spin to a Magazine promo compilation yesterday (New wave was the punk equivalent of prog rock, it''s artistic side, as prog rock was to psychedelia - which wasn't that sophisticated generally (IMHO.) Anyway Magazine were a terric band. Quality muscianship although no showing off now (permaeted all the way to Radiohead.) Motoercade and Shot By Both Sides among many others have power drive and melody. And they are not poppy. Although Magazine originated from the Buzzcocks which had quiet an anolmay. Have You Ever Fallen In Love With Someone? A great melody and a punk tune. As mentioned The Jam were also a good band. Great rhythm section. Imagine having a band like that and breaking it up. To play soul instead. Why not as well as? Humph. Was that a progression... or diversion? Still the Style Council were very successful so plased lots of people. And that is a good thing. |
Posted By: Kashmir75
Date Posted: February 13 2010 at 20:10
So true. It's such an irony that much of today's 'indie' music is on major labels. Prog is the real alternative music. ------------- Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while... |
Posted By: DangerousCurves
Date Posted: February 16 2010 at 11:01
My former house mate is a mega Muse fan and he cringed when I called Muse prog. I'm not sure he thought they were indie, I think he thought they were a rock band who were a bit different. I used to tease him by showing him Classic Rock Presents Prog magazines with them in, especially when they were on the cover!
|
Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: February 16 2010 at 11:41
Prog truly is "The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name". Steve Hillage always makes me laugh with his efforts to deny associations with the genre, stating he's "Not happy with the prog tag" in seemingly every interview I've read with him in the last few years (this from a man who was in Gong and made albums like L and Fish Rising). In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he actually changed his name to Steve "I'm not Prog" Hillage.------------- "And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!" "He's up the pub" |
Posted By: Bitterblogger
Date Posted: February 16 2010 at 14:37
|
I'll agree that had Anderson not left Yes in '79/'80, then no Asia. And pop-prog might've had little more than Genesis to carry it on, which may or may not have launched Collins' solo pop vocal career.
But the collective musical world was more interested in new wave or punk or disco. Prog was definitely seen as old hat, was understandable given the poor efforts of the Prog big acts (Tormato; And Then There Were Three; Octave) from 1978, when these other movements really hit their stride (and when smug MSM music critics congratulated themselves on how they'd been right to tell the readers to disdain it for years now).
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: February 16 2010 at 22:24
|
I waded through all of this to see if anybody mentioned it, but I didn't see a mention. When Genesis released Duke it seemed like that gave most progressive artists permission to explore more popular music.
Of course one could make the case that Camel was a year ahead of them with I Can See Your House From Here. ------------- 
|
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: February 16 2010 at 23:58
| I wonder if Jon Anderson was in the same musical realm as Yes... just thinking of his work with Vangelis while Drama was being toured. Melodic stuff but not exactly trendy Top 40 disco was it? (Thankfully IMO) Mind you Yes were a hard edged prog outfit with Drama. But only Yes fans cared - one way or another. |
Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: February 17 2010 at 19:47
No, No, No No No, Agreed, Punk didn't kill Prog. Prog did get cut off as an ascending art form quite severely at the end of the 70s though. This was done not by Punk, but the social/historical forces which brought punk to prominence. I'm becoming extremely interested in the question of historical progression of music and art lately, and I've not got much out of it so far except that the progression (or regression) of music is extremely forceful, quick and hard to attribute to any one thing. You see how so many fads are created and how so many apparently fruitful trends hit the ceiling very dramatically. Its only speculation at this point, but I think it is wise to see the sixties musical direction in Rock and the Progressive Rock trend proper as one movement, and to identify them with cultural modernism which we identify as "60s spirit" and to identify Punk and the 80s music trends as part of a post-modernist cultural backlash (reflected in politics so acutely by the rise of Thatcher/Reagen, that's just one example in one area). I think this model is a good start to understanding the change over, and the evolution and reflection of all the minor trends into quite different trends which are related in non-obvious ways. Make sense? I'm not suggesting my model should be adopted but its the sort of thing that should be worked towards, "Punk Killing Prog" doesn't say much, I think we all agree |