On being an ageing prog act

[Jay.Dee]

Discipline vs. 90125: both great albums by bands that started under new names before acquiring the old name, and both a shift in style for the old band.
Union vs. THRAK: both disappointing returns more reliant on mimicking older styles that had worked for the band in the past, and on misleading rhetoric (the "union" when the album was made separately; the "double trio" as a concept Fripp dreamed up after the fact that barely came through in the music).

So, you're saying the two bands are basically the same...?

No, I am saying that both bands tried to update their sound around the same time.

In case of the 80s shift King Crimson used Talking Heads music as a blueprint, while YES adopted Asia-like approach. Discipline's greatness is comparable to that of Remain in the Light, whereas 90125's virtues are similar to those of Asia's debut album. And this very difference in aesthetic appeal and artistic goals of each album defined the type of audience for both bands for all subsequent decades.

As for the 90s Union's double quartet was a marketing trick with no added music value whatsoever, whereas Thrak's double trio was a genuine attempt to enhance the band's sound and open new possibilities. You may regard both as failed endeavours, but you can only consider them equal if you can see no difference between corporate marketing and artistic exploration.

[wilcox660]

No, I am saying that both bands tried to update their sound around the same time.

In case of the 80s shift King Crimson used Talking Heads music as a blueprint, while YES adopted Asia-like approach. Discipline's greatness is comparable to that of Remain in the Light, whereas 90125's virtues are similar to the ones of Asia's debut album. And this very difference in aesthetic appeal and artistic goals of each album defined the type of audience for both bands for all subsequent decades.

As for the 90s Union's double quartet was a marketing trick with no added music value whatsoever, while Thrak's double trio was an artistic attempt to enhance the band's sound and open new possibilities. You may regard both as failed endeavours, but you can only consider them equal if you can see no difference between corporate marketing and artistic exploration.

I saw both acts at venues that have also featured Barry Manilow and any boy band of your choice. Say what you will, both Yes & KC have at least a firm handshake with corporate marketing. Let us not be naive.

[bob_32_116]

I remember back in the good old days when Yes wasn't a nostalgia act.

[Skullhead]

Why did most all the excellent prog bands of the 70's start making crap albums at the end of the 70s'?

For most it was a disaster. What would have happened if they had just released another gem? An equal disaster?

[Booba Kastorsky]

Good topic!
If you look at other threads here, you will see 16 ( wow!) disks set THRAK. Wow again! Is it just me that founds it a bit funny and ridiculous?
I honestly glad for all those great old men that still can earn money playing and publishing their music.
But I'm concern a bit that most prog fans spend lion share of their money on endless reissues and concerts instead of supporting modern artists!
Really, how many times do you want to hear Roundabout or Firth of Fifth or Aqualung performed by old guys with cracked voices and shaking hands????

There are exceptions, but not many I think. You can call it the Yes plan, but it applies as much to King Crimson, Genesis/Steve Hackett, ELP and the individual members, Jethro Tull/Ian Anderson, Pink Floyd/Roger Waters, UK/Eddie Jobson &c.
Henry

Good point, although I wouldn't put "modern" fake Yes along with other prog acts you listed. I can't recall any other occasion when 1/3 of members (and no founder members) of King Crimson, Genesis, ELP, Jethro Tull, etc. would use their former band's name.
3 out of 5 former members of Gentle Giant did not call themselves GG, just Three Friends, and they deserve a great respect for it.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Why did most all the excellent prog bands of the 70's start making crap albums at the end of the 70s'? [...] What would have happened if they had just released another gem? An equal disaster?

Absolutely nothing would have happened. Several excellent 70s bands - often those who (unlike the "big six") didn't have to live up to corporate expectations - have released equally excellent records since then... And absolutely nothing happened. The self-declared "proggers" were nowhere to be seen, seeing how their interest was never about the music itself but rather about themselves and their mundane "prog" identity - implying that they showed no interest in ever discovering anything remotely other/different/new.

Of course, if Genesis were to reunite in, say, 34 years - it would result in devastatingly spectacular music. Very, very "progressive". Produced by Stevie Nilsson and featuring Roine Stolt on prepared banjo and Neal Morse on mallet testicle.

HIGHLY recommended, it'd be.

[PeterG]

Some of you need to understand the compound noun "progressive rock" in its correct context, and stop applying the dictionary definition to the word progressive alone.

1955 rockabilly - rock n roll
1960 stagnation - rock n roll has fizzled out - we're left with easy listening, crooners, awful pop versions of classical and opera music, dinner jazz and showbands.
1964 rock music
1967 psych & the underground scene
1969 stagnation again - psych has fizzled out - standard pop-rock has got stuck in a rut.
1970 progressive rock i.e. progressing from the stagnation. NO ONE ever claimed prog rock should be the torch bearer of a continual progression and a continual creation of new forms of rock music. So the prog rock tunes of 1970 are still prog rock tunes when played in 2015.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Some of you need to understand the compound noun "progressive rock" in its correct context [...] NO ONE ever claimed prog rock should be the torch bearer of a continual progression and a continual creation of new forms of rock music. So the prog rock tunes of 1970 are still prog rock tunes when played in 2015.

Thanks for teaching this to some of us. Although your sentence itself somehow bears a paradox. And who the hell ever said that "prog rock tunes of 1970" aren't "prog rock tunes when played in 2015"?

BTW, if you want, I can tip you on some books where that "claim" is granted from an academic viewpoint. Now on to more exciting lists, Peter!

[Jay.Dee]

Why did most all the excellent prog bands of the 70's start making crap albums at the end of the 70s'?

I do not know. The postman has just delivered me the Art Bears box, so I need some time to evaluate its content. But judging only by the period (1978-81) and the sender's stamp - ReR Megacorp, I am fearing the worst corporate drivel ever produced!

[PeterG]

And who the hell ever said that "prog rock tunes of 1970" aren't "prog rock tunes when played in 2015"?

Some posts here and some members maintain that progressive rock must always be progressing i.e. in accordance with the dictionary definition of progressive.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Some posts here and some members maintain that progressive rock must always be progressing i.e. in accordance with the dictionary definition of progressive.

Yes, and it's plain ridiculous to claim that for anything to be progressive it should be progressive. We must all agree on this.

Books and theories and musicologists claiming or pointing to that - we must make a stand against them.

[Jay.Dee]

I do not know. The postman has just delivered me the Art Bears box, so I need some time to evaluate its content. But judging only by the period (1978-81) and the sender's stamp - ReR Megacorp, I am fearing the worst corporate drivel ever produced!

Holy crap, I am spinning the first disc (Hopes & Fears) and this music sounds nothing like Duke, 90125, Asia or Breakfast in America! In such a troublesome situation I always resort to the ProgArchives to check whether it has something to do with my ears or with the music.

Their music is very high level progressive/experimental rock, with shades of ambient and electronic thrown in. Like much RIO-influenced music, it's not so much prog, as experimental, "rehearsal intensive" rock.

Their three albums are all equal in quality and are only recommended to those who like UNIVERS ZERO, Henry COW, or MAGMA etc. [...] "Hopes and Fears" is one of the most melodic RIO releases[...]. Adventurous listeners would do well to find all of ART BEARS' releases.

The highlighted reviews of the Art Bears albums are usually praiseful but each urges to proceed with extreme caution:

For most people the music will be too experimental, even though it's not always possible to say that it even resembles or has connections to "normal" Prog.

An acquired taste.

I had to suffer like hell to overcome the horrible "arty" voice of Dagmar Krauze to enjoy the astounding environment.

There are obvious talents and visions behind the madness, I still find it hard to digest.[...] This kind of prog is not my cup of tea. [...] It is weird but endearing and brave. Original and daring. Maybe that is really what prog is all about?

High rating for this album may be very misleading to the unprepared listener, such as myself.

This record is rather uninviting to initial listening for several reasons. The first is the RIO love of atonality and dissonance; the second is the sparse instrumentation, compared with the busy approach of traditional progressive rock.

The composition isn't for every one, and not always melodic.

There are definitely certain mood requirements for these kind of releases which make it strenuous to hear in passive receptive state.

http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=682

That is how the leading progressive music site presents a band like the Art Bears.

Now how can anyone lament the state of affairs in the prog community, if their leading voices actually discourage exploring their own music reaching beyond popular mainstream styles? Aren't prog fans supposed to be the torch-bearers of the highest musical standards in the world inundated by substandard commercial crap?

[Scrotum Scissor]

That is how the leading progressive music site presents a band like Art Bears. Now how can anyone lament the state of affairs in the prog community, if their leading voices actually discourage exploring their own music reaching beyond popular mainstream styles? Aren't prog fans supposed to be the torch-bearers of the highest musical standards?

NO, Jay - NO!

Here's what I wrote in a different thread as concerns this:

They should rather just stay the same and reproduce what they've already done for the next 37 years. They should call me on the phone and ask what *I* would prefer them to play, then execute this request down to smallest detail.

It's a gross misunderstanding that music and art has to develop; the best thing is for the artist to ask its listeners (on the phone) "Do you like this that we are doing now? If you do, then we'll stop developing now and just keep doing exactly this thing here." Not all progression is for the better, so artists must be sure to check with audiences regularly if the latter appreciate the former's latest alleged progressions before progressing any further.

Don't want no weirdo Artbear here, Jay!

[JJ88]

Some posts here and some members maintain that progressive rock must always be progressing i.e. in accordance with the dictionary definition of progressive.

Nobody has claimed this. This kind of discussion is talking about contemporary prog bands who stay to a certain sound, not the older music itself.

[bondegezou]

Perhaps for this moment only. King Crimson are perfectly able to record and tour entirely new material with a revamped lineup and not worry too much about the audience's reaction, because the audience they have built is accustomed to music challenges. For decades King Crimson have successfully striven to deliver new challenging music and now it pays off, because their audience has been groomed to have open ears.

If I may return to this point, it occurs to me that we have two tests of this claim.

1) On the recent Crimson tour, did the two new pieces get as good an audience reaction as the well-known oldies? Yes or no?

2) Not long ago, Fripp put together a Crimson-related band, recorded an album of new music and tour behind it. He then took much the same band, called it King Crimson, and went out playing old classics. Which of these generated more excitement here on ProgressiveEars; and which sold more tickets? I'd say the latter.

If the Crimson audience are receptive to new challenging music, then why has the Crimson reunion been a bigger thing than A Scarcity of Miracles, and why are people more excited about the old numbers than "Suitable Grounds for the Blues"? (Or did audiences open their ears to A Scarcity of Miracles/"Suitable Grounds for the Blues" and just decide they weren't very good?!)

Henry

[bondegezou]

You kids and your little arguments. MY band's got more integrity than YOUR band! Does NOT! Does SO!

Well, quite.

There is something of a Romantic myth around rock bands that they must (a) compose their own material, (b) keep doing new material, (c) "progress" by evolving their sound (but not too much), (d) do everything for art and never for money. It's an attempt at a Kantian ethics applied to art: if band A does a tour of old music for artistic reasons, it is different to band B doing a tour of old music for evil financial reasons. The reality is that we know little about artists' true intent, and what we do know frequently does not accord with fan interpretations. But precisely because intent is impossible to conclusively prove, it becomes a useful rhetorical device: "my band's got more integrity than your band"...

Meanwhile, in other genres of music (classical, folk), it is entirely acceptable for a musician to be a performer not a writer and to spend a whole career trying to perfect the same repertoire. Cellist Pablo Casals was asked, aged 90, why he still practiced for four or five hours every day. He replied, "Because I think I am making some progress." Casals didn't compose (least not anything of note) and spent his whole career performing the same core of classical pieces.

Henry

[bondegezou]

90125 is a mediocre attempt at arena rock, whereas Discipline actually broke new progressive ground. The two albums (and bands) have nothing in common.

Would you say Union and THRAK have nothing in common?

Henry

[bondegezou]

No, I am saying that both bands tried to update their sound around the same time.

In case of the 80s shift King Crimson used Talking Heads music as a blueprint, while YES adopted Asia-like approach. Discipline's greatness is comparable to that of Remain in the Light, whereas 90125's virtues are similar to those of Asia's debut album. And this very difference in aesthetic appeal and artistic goals of each album defined the type of audience for both bands for all subsequent decades.

As for the 90s Union's double quartet was a marketing trick with no added music value whatsoever, whereas Thrak's double trio was a genuine attempt to enhance the band's sound and open new possibilities. You may regard both as failed endeavours, but you can only consider them equal if you can see no difference between corporate marketing and artistic exploration.

What's interesting about Asia and Cinema (i.e. what became the 90125 Yes) is that Rabin turned down Asia because he thought Cinema more interesting, and Cinema, reportedly, looked down on Asia for being too simple. As far as they were concerned, Cinema were definitely not modelling themselves on Asia.

The notion that the "double trio" was a "genuine attempt" is questionable. I was exaggerating for effect and I accept there was more sincerity behind the idea than what happened on Union, there being an almost complete lack of sincerity on Union, but the degree to which Crimson fandom regurgitates Fripp's rhetoric over the "double trio" is depressing. Fripp didn't start out with the "double trio" plan. He was, in part, manoeuvered into a sextet by circumstances and then offered up this convenient explanation -- this is Bruford's explanation of events, not mine. And most of the album simply doesn't fit the description.

Henry

[Jay.Dee]

On the recent Crimson tour, did the two new pieces get as good an audience reaction as the well-known oldies? Yes or no?

Warm reception to older tunes does not tell much about the ability of touring new material (or lack thereof).

If the Crimson audience are receptive to new challenging music, then why has the Crimson reunion been a bigger thing than A Scarcity of Miracles, and why are people more excited about the old numbers than "Suitable Grounds for the Blues"?

I do not find A Scarcity of Miracles challenging at all, at least not in the sense you meant it. IMO it is one of the weakest efforts associated with the band and it deservedly got deprived of the KC moniker.

I have not heard the new numbers from their current live setlist, so I cannot comment.

[bondegezou]

Good point, although I wouldn't put "modern" fake Yes along with other prog acts you listed. I can't recall any other occasion when 1/3 of members (and no founder members) of King Crimson, Genesis, ELP, Jethro Tull, etc. would use their former band's name.
3 out of 5 former members of Gentle Giant did not call themselves GG, just Three Friends, and they deserve a great respect for it.

I didn't mean for this thread to be Yes vs. other bands, or Yes vs. King Crimson, although those examples are obviously pertinent and informed my original post.

I would note that King Crimson, Genesis and Tull all kept their name through some major line-up changes. We've discussed before that number of founding members isn't the most pertinent metric. If we talk about members on classic albums, Yes have two "classic" members (Howe, White), one person returning who was briefly a member in the good old days (Downes), one newer-but-been-around-now-for-a-while member (Sherwood) and one newbie (Davison), whereas King Crimson have two "classic" members (Fripp, Levin), one person returning who was briefly a member in the good old days (Collins), one newer-but-been-around-now-for-a-while member (Mastelotto) and three newbies (Harrison, Jakszyk, Rieflin). Not very different. You may of course feel one or other band has made better decisions in terms of which old members to bring back or which new members to induct!

Henry

[bondegezou]

Warm reception to older tunes does not tell much about the ability of touring new material (or lack of thereof).

But colder reception to new tunes does provide a test of your thesis.

Henry

[Rick Robson]

NO, Jay - NO!

Here's what I wrote in a different thread as concerns this:

They should rather just stay the same and reproduce what they've already done for the next 37 years. They should call me on the phone and ask what *I* would prefer them to play, then execute this request down to smallest detail.

It's a gross misunderstanding that music and art has to develop; the best thing is for the artist to ask its listeners (on the phone) "Do you like this that we are doing now? If you do, then we'll stop developing now and just keep doing exactly this thing here." Not all progression is for the better, so artists must be sure to check with audiences regularly if the latter appreciate the former's latest alleged progressions before progressing any further.

Don't want no weirdo Artbear here, Jay!

This is very interesting indeed, it's a totally opposite thought with regards to what a renowned argentinian musician (Alejandro Dolina) uses to say: when he is composing or performing for his audiences he primordially praises his own desires, and it's pure joy if the people fully enjoyed his works too. But he also more than one time said that the artist who put the people's demands as the ultimate guide to do their 'homework' can only be successful perhaps as an architect.

I fully agree with his thought, though I obviously realize that this way it would be much tougher for an artist to make a living of just his artistic works.

[Rarebird]

Yesterday I was at the presentation of the biography of Chris Hinze. I think he has been all over the map, music-wise. In the early 70's I think he had some succes with reworkings of baroque music and the audience wanted more of this stuff, but he decided to go in different directions, from reggae to meditative music and flute combined with electronics, which wasn't received well by critics.

I think in the end a musician should follow his or her her heart. On the other hand, this might be difficult if one also has to make a living with it, so some compromises with the audience in mind might be needed.

[bob_32_116]

On a related note, the Beach Boys are touring here again soon. That's the Mike Love Beach Boys, sans Brian Wilson, and sans Al Jardine for that matter. I have no interest in going; I pretty much know what they'll play, and I'm sure I know all the tunes back to front.

Brian Wilson's 2004 SMiLE concert was one of the musical highlights of my life.

[bondegezou]

^ You do realise SS is being sarcastic there, yes?

This is very interesting indeed, it's a totally opposite thought with regards to what a renowned argentinian musician (Alejandro Dolina) uses to say: when he is composing or performing for his audiences he primordially praises his own desires, and it's pure joy if the people fully enjoyed his works too. But he also more than one time said that the artist who put the people's demands as the ultimate guide to do their 'homework' can only be successful perhaps as an architect.

I fully agree with his thought, though I obviously realize that this way it would be much tougher for an artist to make a living of just his artistic works.

It's one point of view, but other artists have talked about the importance of reaching out to an audience, of having an interaction with the audience. Bill Bruford's autobiography is interesting on this topic: he's a renowned progger, few would attack Bruford as a money-grabber, yet he writes about being proud of how all his albums have turned a profit and castigates those who think that shouldn't be an artist's intent.

So, I'm not saying you have to agree with Dolina or with Bruford, I'm saying that the presumption that an artist should ignore their audience isn't a god-given truth: it is a position that can be debated.

Henry