Prog to pop and back again

[undergroundrailroad]

Genesis, Gentle Giant and many other artists were infamous for largely abandoning the "musical excesses" of their early careers to embrace a commercial pop ethos.

What acts went from being a progrock act to an era of producing predominantly mainstream pop music and then back to prog again? Were any financially successful in doing so?

[Joe F.]

Off the top of my head, the two albums IQ did for Mercury were more pop than the previous and post releases. None of which have been financially successful.

[Baribrotzer]

Tough question.

And examining the changes in the music business in the last forty years or so, they would have had to -

- Start out as a prog band.

- Become successful as one - or at least successful enough to gain a following.

- Become less successful as popular music changed in the mid-to-late Seventies.

- Tried to adapt by becoming a pop band.

- Not succeeded at that - no hits and not much expansion of their audience.

- Break up (probably).

- Realize (probably) in the 90s or 00s that their original audience is still out there and still interested.

- Re-form (probably), play a festival gig, and resume writing, playing, and recording prog.

Because if they'd had hits, that's what the bulk of their audience would remember them for, and they'd stay a pop band. The switch to pop would have had to fail, and fail pretty hard. Then their only remaining audience would be the fanatically loyal one of proggers, so that's the music they go with.

The closest I can think of to that are:
- Gentle Giant, reformed as Three Friends, but TF contains none of the main writers so no new material.
- King Crimson, if you consider the New-Wave-influenced Eighties Crimson a pop band. I don't.

[calyx]

Camel comes to mind. This, however, involved a switch from major label (Decca) to self-production (Camel Productions).

[Mister Triscuits]

Banco? PFM?

[Dave (in MA)]

TD?

[Gruno]

Ambrosia?

[dpt3]

I guess you could say that Yes has gone back and forth several times.

[zravkapt]

Beefheart. Unlike GG, he didn't just give up when his 'pop' stuff didn't sell. He went back to being weird and then became sick of the music biz altogether and became a full-time painter.

[Svetonio]

Kansas




1982





2000

[Digital_Man]

Kansas comes to mind. Yes to some degree. There really aren't that many. I suppose you could count King Crimson if you consider their eighties albums to be quirky pop. Many if not most prog bands became pop in the eighties but the question is how many really returned to prog? Roine Stolt is another one although the Flower Kings themselves and Kaipa for that matter were never really pop. Ok, maybe Kaipa were but not when Roine was with them I don't think. Camel is another possible example.

[Svetonio]

Goblin


1976




1982




2015

[NorthNY Mark]

Based on their most recent album, I'd say Renaissance counts. Saga does as well to some extent, in that they started out as proggy AOR, then switched to pop, then went back to proggy AOR. Steve Hackett might count as well.

[AncientChord]

I would also say King Crimson. When Belew and Levin joined, the group dynamics leaned more in that kind of New Wave, Talking Heads type style, however still being somewhat progressive. But now with Mel Collins, Jakko Jaksyyk and Gavin Harrison in the fold, the group again is more "English" and has returned to it's prog roots, which I am very happy about.

[Skullhead]

When bands go backwards musically, they should suffer, usually they do, and it serves them right.

I liked what Led Zeppelin did. They slowly got more progressive and interesting as their catalog went along through PG and Presence which I consider to be the 5 and 6th sides of PG. ITTOD was garbage and it was over regardless of whether Bonham survived.

[iguana]

post “misplaced childhood” MARiLLiON, especially after h joined. the prog ethos was still remaining but after the success of “kayleigh” many of their record company suits viewed them as a slightly left-field pop-rock band, with hogarth’s musical and performing potential serving this ideal further. the result of that was, of course, “holidays in eden” which was designed to yield several single releases. the u-turn ensued soon after.

[flowerking]

Ambrosia?

That was my thought too. Road Island is more proggy than either Life or 180. Were they financially successful? No. Road Island was probably the lowest selling album, and having come out in 1982 it was their last studio release even though the band is still around.

Another that comes to mind is Rundgren. Pop to prog in the mid 70s back to pop with much of Utopia but he also did a bit more prog with his release Second Wind and even went back to pop after that. His return to pop probably was at least somewhat financially successful but I'd bet he never reached the level he was at in the early 70s.

[Garden Dreamer]

This is a fairly short list, I would think. Possibly Rush if you want to consider "Presto" and "Roll the Bones" to be pop.

[pb2015]

Supertramp put a 16 minute track on Brother Where You Bound in 1985.

[Digital_Man]

[ITTOD was garbage and it was over regardless of whether Bonham survived.]

That's ok. Although I disagree with that statement immensely I know a lot of people feel that way. I actually knew a guy who thought HotH was garbage. I will say that ITTOD is probably their most diverse and eclectic album with their most prog track in "Carosalombra."

Regarding that statement though we could probably say the same with regards to the Who and the "Who are you" album.

[Baribrotzer]

Regarding that statement though we could probably say the same with regards to the Who and the "Who are you" album.

That's true, and a good example. Although some might say that the Who were never really a prog band, even on Quadrophenia. Even though that album and Tommy each contained many prog stylistic touchstones, right alongside and sometimes interwoven into the pop tunes and straight-up rock 'n roll.

[Digital_Man]

^Well, Led Zeppelin were never really much of a prog band either.

[bob_32_116]

I will say that ITTOD is probably their most diverse and eclectic album with their most prog track in "Carosalombra.".

I heard this album once, and Carouselambra was the only track I found to be at all interesting. The album also has Fool In the Rain, possibly their worst ever self-penned song.

[Svetonio]

I would also say King Crimson. When Belew and Levin joined, the group dynamics leaned more in that kind of New Wave, Talking Heads type style, however still being somewhat progressive. But now with Mel Collins, Jakko Jaksyyk and Gavin Harrison in the fold, the group again is more "English" and has returned to it's prog roots, which I am very happy about.

I disagree. Imo, with that 80s trilogy, King Crimson, as a prog band of "big four", have saved the progressiveness of the progressive rock as a genre in 80s aswell. Regardless the influence, because there is always some influence, and, by the way, Remain In Light is a magnificent album which is certainly not, with Brian Eno on it, a typical 80s New Wave, the trilogy was something completely new in prog and it was actually a groundbreaking stuff back in the day. And it doesn't sound dated even today.

[Rarebird]

Kayak might count a bit? At least I think their later albums are a bit more proggy.