What was wrong with 70's Prog?

[JKL2000]

It's not "agendas". Singular is agendum, plural is agenda.

If you're speaking or writing Latin. If you're speaking or writing English, Agendas is fine, as is Agenda for the singular. Unless you happen to follow some restrictive style guide for your speech or informal writing, which most people don't do.

[arturs]

We got less than 10 years of great 70's style prog. Many other genres of music get decades, some even centuries.

While I don't agree with Skull on the old vs. new prog question, he raises an interesting broader issue. Prog fell fast and hard after only 6-7 years as a mainstream art form. Why so short a time frame?

And it seems to me that all the vitriol directed at prog was only because of three albums:

1) Yes - TFTO. Everyone seemed to make fun of this. Don't know why... Sure it overreaches in terms of concept but what a great album when you actually spend time with it.
2) Rick Wakeman - King Arthur and the performance on ice in particular. Totally over the top, on the one hand, but still it is just basically dressed up show tunes. Critics need to relax. And it is not like most people actually saw the ice thing anyway. Someone posted it here on a RW thread a few months ago
3) ELP Works Vol 1 and 2. Alright, four albums total. These aren't to my taste at all I admit.

But that's it AFAICT. Any glaring omissions? I just find it amazing that the whole genre was toast by '78 just because of three, er, four, albums.

[Lopez]

What was wrong with 70s Prog? Not a damn thing!

[Trane]

Can't we talk about something that isn't so divisive, like abortion?

Sure...

Kids never asked to come to life on this dirty fucken planet

[Firth]

While I don't agree with Skull on the old vs. new prog question, he raises an interesting broader issue. Prog fell fast and hard after only 6-7 years as a mainstream art form. Why so short a time frame?

And it seems to me that all the vitriol directed at prog was only because of three albums:

1) Yes - TFTO. Everyone seemed to make fun of this. Don't know why... Sure it overreaches in terms of concept but what a great album when you actually spend time with it.
2) Rick Wakeman - King Arthur and the performance on ice in particular. Totally over the top, on the one hand, but still it is just basically dressed up show tunes. Critics need to relax. And it is not like most people actually saw the ice thing anyway. Someone posted it here on a RW thread a few months ago
3) ELP Works Vol 1 and 2. Alright, four albums total. These aren't to my taste at all I admit.

But that's it AFAICT. Any glaring omissions? I just find it amazing that the whole genre was toast by '78 just because of three, er, four, albums.

Prog wasn't done, unless you sucked punk rock cock

[ytserush]

While I don't agree with Skull on the old vs. new prog question, he raises an interesting broader issue. Prog fell fast and hard after only 6-7 years as a mainstream art form. Why so short a time frame?

And it seems to me that all the vitriol directed at prog was only because of three albums:

1) Yes - TFTO. Everyone seemed to make fun of this. Don't know why... Sure it overreaches in terms of concept but what a great album when you actually spend time with it.
2) Rick Wakeman - King Arthur and the performance on ice in particular. Totally over the top, on the one hand, but still it is just basically dressed up show tunes. Critics need to relax. And it is not like most people actually saw the ice thing anyway. Someone posted it here on a RW thread a few months ago
3) ELP Works Vol 1 and 2. Alright, four albums total. These aren't to my taste at all I admit.

But that's it AFAICT. Any glaring omissions? I just find it amazing that the whole genre was toast by '78 just because of three, er, four, albums.

I don't know, I've seen more hate for Love Beach (which I quite like by the way) than for those Works albums (Which I happen to love.) Um...In The Hot Seat anyone?

The low point for me with Yes was Tormato. I thought they recovered quite nicely with Drama and 90125.


But maybe nobody could handle all the money that was pouring in at the time and then stopped almost without warning.......

[Digital_Man]

From what I understand the record companies just came to the conclusion that prog was becoming more of a hard sell because of the changing trends in music(namely disco, punk and new wave but especially punk). They didn't want to invest time in promoting it because they would rather spend time and money promoting things that would make them more money and in the end who could blame them? Still, it's a shame there was no internet back then or way to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Technically prog didn't really die of course but for the most part it did become really deep underground for about fifteen years or so.

[Digital_Man]

What was wrong with 70s Prog? Not a damn thing!

Capes and mellotrons and wizards oh my!

[BigSixFan]

How many more of these circular threads covering the same ground before you just start the 'I have no interest in listening to music recorded after 1978' thread and have done with it?
I get it. You like a narrow seam of music stuff made in the 70s. Glad it's working out for you.

Personally, I think the OP has a valid point, and I also wonder why the more modern prog tends not to breathe like the heyday bands did. I gather it is due to the modern production standards. Then again, how many bands, prog or otherwise, had more than a 6-7 album run of music at their peak before either the steady decline and/or a change in style?

Liking the 1970s stuff is not incompatible with listening (and liking) the newer prog efforts. It isn't a zero-sum game.

Bob

[trurl]

It's because it's im-fucking-possible to be a band like that, that's why. Grown men can't spend 6-8 hours a day 6 days a week jamming and gigging. We have families. We have jobs. It's a f*king miracle we make albums and gig at all for the most part. Younger kids can still have full-time bands but they aren't making the music the noisy people here want, for the most part. They will either be very into the metal side of things, not prog at all, or way off the deep end of the RIO/experimental side and reaching for a small audience. Do you not think I want to practice all day every day, write music and go into a recording environment playing new tunes hot off of 2 months of gigging them in front of people. Of course I do. Life's a bitch. We do what we have to do You want an album the old way, pay me $100,000 up front, we'll all quit our jobs for a year and we'll get right on it. It will be pretty damn amazing, I promise.

Now over their in yer socialist Sweden with the grants and gub-ment money maybe it works all different, I don't know

BTW, and this is a blatant plug, but on the new GH album coming out in 2 weeks I think we took a HUGE leap back towards that kind of vibe. It was tough to do *lol*

[BigSixFan]

While I don't agree with Skull on the old vs. new prog question, he raises an interesting broader issue. Prog fell fast and hard after only 6-7 years as a mainstream art form. Why so short a time frame?

And it seems to me that all the vitriol directed at prog was only because of three albums:

1) Yes - TFTO. Everyone seemed to make fun of this. Don't know why... Sure it overreaches in terms of concept but what a great album when you actually spend time with it.
2) Rick Wakeman - King Arthur and the performance on ice in particular. Totally over the top, on the one hand, but still it is just basically dressed up show tunes. Critics need to relax. And it is not like most people actually saw the ice thing anyway. Someone posted it here on a RW thread a few months ago
3) ELP Works Vol 1 and 2. Alright, four albums total. These aren't to my taste at all I admit.

But that's it AFAICT. Any glaring omissions? I just find it amazing that the whole genre was toast by '78 just because of three, er, four, albums.

Look at many of the bands' original material (not live sets, except when they are original works) of the 1970s. Most had a run of popularity of 6-8 albums (not for fanbois, who love every minute of Tormato, Love Beach, etc). Of the prog bands:

* ELP had a run of 6-7 albums before running dry with Love Beach.

* Yes's peak ran 6 albums from The Yes Album to Going For The One (yes, Drama has its moments, but so does ELPowell, and not many consider ELPowell to be ELP).

* Pink Floyd's prime prog years were the 6 album run from Meddle through The Wall before hitting ground with The Final Cut (essentially a RW solo effort).

* Genesis's peak ran (arguably) from Trespass through And Then There Were Three (7-8 albums), while gradually changing their style after Steve left;

* King Crimson's peak runs ran to 2-3 albums before changing their structure.

* Jethro Tull? They left the blues behind after Benefit (or Stand Up), and started their run from Aqualung through Songs From The Wood as their peak in popularity.

Of other top artists?

* Alice Cooper: Love It To Death through Muscle of Love (5 albums)

* Elton John: Elton John through Captain Fantastic (some would say Goodbye Yellow Brick Road) (6-8 albums)

* Led Zeppelin: Led Zeppelin through Physical Graffitti (6 albums) - I do like the last two, but they seemed thrown together.

* The Who: From Sell Out through Who Are You (6 albums)

* The Rolling Stones: IMO, from Beggar's Banquet through Goat's Head Soup (6 albums)

* Rush: IMO, from Fly By Night (or even 2112) through Signals (6-8 albums)

* The Beatles: After they transitioned from a Boy Band to a more mature sound, their run went from Rubber Soul through Let It Be (yes, I know Abbey Road was their last recorded studio effort) ( 7 albums)

Personally, I think the prog era ended when the labels demanded popular hits, rather than artistic expression.

Bob

[Digital_Man]

[ They will either be very into the metal side of things, not prog at all, or way off the deep end of the RIO/experimental side and reaching for a small audience]

There are some younger prog bands(members in their late teens or twenties)but they are in the minority for sure. The ones that make it big are usually just on the cusp of being prog(Muse, Coheed and Cambria etc).The majority of younger bands either aren't interested in making prog or just don't see it as very lucrative(which it really isn't). Or maybe they haven't discovered "Close to the Edge" or "Red" in their father's closet yet.

[Steve F.]

The majority of younger bands either aren't interested in making prog or just don't see it as very lucrative(which it really isn't). Or maybe they haven't discovered "Close to the Edge" or "Red" in their father's closet yet.

There is a TON of bands in their 20s making very interesting, very cool, PROGRESSIVE music.

It just isn't 'prog' if you need prog to actively reference stuff that peaked 40 years ago.

It's fine if that is what you like, but WHY would you expect 20-somethings to do THAT?

Why would someone in their 20s want to actively ape something that happened 45 years ago? How impressed would you all have been with Yes or Genesis if, in 1973, they were actively aping something from 1930?....

PLUS it is completely NOT lucrative.....

P.S. to Turl: is GH really reaching anything other than a small audience? I assume (and hope) GH does what you do because it is what you want to do....

[Digital_Man]

[Why would someone in their 20s want to actively ape something that happened 45 years ago? How impressed would you all have been with Yes or Genesis if, in 1973, they were actively aping something from 1930?....]

Not really sure what age has to do with it to be totally honest. I don't think anyone at any age is going to try to deliberately "ape" something although I'm sure there are exceptions. If someone is influenced by a particular sound or genre they will usually want to put their own spin on it. Who said anything about aping? I was basically just agreeing with what TRUL said. Sure there are probably lots of younger bands(prog or not) doing experimental music but maybe they aren't deliberately trying to be prog(not that that really matters in the end). I really don't know. Do you?


[PLUS it is completely NOT lucrative..... ]

Tell that to Transatlantic, Mars Volta or Porcupine Tree, Steve Wilson etc.

[trurl]

P.S. to Turl: is GH really reaching anything other than a small audience? I assume (and hope) GH does what you do because it is what you want to do....

Well no, in the grand scheme of things. But we have a pretty decent audience in the world of prog. I really should have left the genre breakdown out of the argument, but the main point for me is basically what you're saying- kids are going to (we should hope) make completely new music. It's not going to have that throw-back vibe that the op is talking about.

Unless you're in Sweden, then maybe.

[JKL2000]

I'd be interested to see some bands mentioned that people think are "actively aping " the 70s bands. I'm not disputing that it happens - I'm just interested to see what bands people are thinking of.

How about Wobbler, or Zombi? Are they doing that?

[Steve F.]

I'd be interested to see some bands mentioned that people think are "actively aping " the 70s bands. I'm not disputing that it happens - I'm just interested to see what bands people are thinking of.

How about Wobbler, or Zombi? Are they doing that?

One man's aping is another man's brilliant updating.

having said that: Zombi? No.

[Steve F.]

[PLUS it is completely NOT lucrative..... ]

Tell that to Transatlantic, Mars Volta or Porcupine Tree, Steve Wilson etc.

You think Mars Volta and Steve Wilson are aping 40 year old progressive rock?

Influenced? sure. Aping? no.

No more so than, say Time of Orchids, Upilson Acrux, Cardiacs, Thinking Plague, North Sea Radio Orchestra, Cheer-Accident, Flying Lutenbachers, Guapo, Don Caballero and a lot of other bands that are modern and influenced by progressive rock (as well as many other things) that the original poster of this thread would hate.

The only difference between, say, Mars Volta and who I listed is that Mars Volta caught on and sold a lot of records. But they are no more 'prog' than Time of Orchids and possibly less so.

so what's your point?

[JKL2000]

My 16 yr old son and his friends are into Zeppelin, Queen, The Doors, Floyd. They seem to feel the newer music that they know of isn't really worthwhile.

[Steve F.]

But we have a pretty decent audience in the world of prog.

So do some 'experimental/RIO' bands; I release their albums and some have hit 10K. Yes, you should have left the genre breakdown out.

[Digital_Man]

You think Mars Volta and Steve Wilson are aping 40 year old progressive rock?

Influenced? sure. Aping? no.

No more so than, say Time of Orchids, Upilson Acrux, Cardiacs, Thinking Plague, North Sea Radio Orchestra, Cheer-Accident, Flying Lutenbachers, Guapo, Don Caballero and a lot of other bands that are modern and influenced by progressive rock (as well as many other things) that the original poster of this thread would hate.

The only difference between, say, Mars Volta and who I listed is that Mars Volta caught on and sold a lot of records. But they are no more 'prog' than Time of Orchids and possibly less so.

so what's your point?

I never said they were aping. Please don't put words in my mouth. You are the one who keeps using the word "aping." I implied they were lucrative(or at least more than most prog). That was my point regarding that particular comment.

[trurl]

So do some 'experimental/RIO' bands; I release their albums and some have hit 10K. Yes, you should have left the genre breakdown out.

I don't know why it feels like we're suddenly in an argument. I agree with you.

[arabicadabra]

... just that the musicians started to care about popular success....

[Shadow]

How impressed would you all have been with Yes or Genesis if, in 1973, they were actively aping something from 1930?....

The people from the 1930's would be impressed just like the people from the 1970's would be impressed today.

[señormoment]

Technology didn't necessarily help. Like Emerson phasing out the hammond/moog combination in favor of a Yamaha polyphonic synthesizer GX1. To my ears, not a good trade.