40th anniversary of UK's UK

[undergroundrailroad]

I've seen somebody state the release date March 25, 1978. Can anybody substantiate this?

Anyhow, happy birthday to the capstone (headstone?) of 70s British prog.

[Steve F.]

Hey Kurt,

The capstone, I think.

The headstone was Asia....imo.

[Mister Triscuits]

I think Asia is the millstone.

[arturs]

I see UK as the last hurrah of big-money prog. How many new, bona fide prog bands were given major label record deals to perform bona fide prog, after UK? I can't think of any.

UK was the harbinger of the end of prog. But judged simply on their merits, both their albums have stood the test of time. Exciting stuff.

[Scrotum Scissor]

a) I see UK as the last hurrah of big-money prog. b) How many new, bona fide prog bands were given major label record deals to perform bona fide prog, after UK? I can't think of any.

c] UK was the harbinger of the end of prog. d] But judged simply on their merits, both their albums have stood the test of time. Exciting stuff.

a) I probably agree.
b) Not until The Mars Volta, who actually set out quite consciously to "be prog" and turned about 50 times more copies in sales than UK did. Not that I was ever much of a TMV fan myself.
c) Harbinger or messenger; "We're all prog, and we're ending!"
d) Merits: stood the test of time fine. Sound: at times somewhat dated. The synth-chord fanfares in "Dead of Night" still allude to TV commercials for downhill skiing boots.

Were they exciting? I think some of it was, and some of it even still is. But not like National Health or a number of other then-current progressive acts who had continued developing beyond the formula of bands like UK.

[MudShark22]

I heard the other two UK albums first and had difficulty finding this in 83-84 when I got into the band.

By the time I actually got this, I already had OoaK and Jobson time Zappa etc and as such it never gets played really. Not making direct comparisons here, just itches were scratched differently.

Now the Live Vol 4 disc gets more relative airtime here.

[arturs]

a) I probably agree.
b) Not until The Mars Volta, who actually set out quite consciously to "be prog" and turned about 50 times more copies in sales than UK did. Not that I was ever much of a TMV fan myself.
c) Harbinger or messenger; "We're all prog, and we're ending!"
d) Merits: stood the test of time fine. Sound: at times somewhat dated. The synth-chord fanfares in "Dead of Night" still allude to TV commercials for downhill skiing boots.

Were they exciting? I think some of it was, and some of it even still is. But not like National Health or a number of other then-current progressive acts who had continued developing beyond the formula of bands like UK.

Good call on Mars Volta. The record company suits had to know exactly what they were getting into with MV and still moved quite a lot of plastic...

If I had a choice of the National Health debut vs. UK to go to a desert island, I would take the National Health... But when I want some goosebump-inducing symph with minimal cheese, and I often do, both UK releases scratch the itch very well. To this day.

[Harbottle]

I see UK as the last hurrah of big-money prog. How many new, bona fide prog bands were given major label record deals to perform bona fide prog, after UK? I can't think of any.

UK was the harbinger of the end of prog. But judged simply on their merits, both their albums have stood the test of time. Exciting stuff.

Marillion?

[Yellow Jester]

I've seen somebody state the release date March 25, 1978. Can anybody substantiate this?

Anyhow, happy birthday to the capstone (headstone?) of 70s British prog.

Indeed; U.K.'s first album was released in March 1978. For me, it's the last great British Prog Rock LP. It would be nice to see a 5.1 remix by Steve Wilson (on Blu-Ray with all the trimmings and Not part of a box set) to mark the Anniversary.

[proggy_jazzer]

I bought this when it came out, loved it immediately, and still do to this day. I remember, after hearing this, how disappointed I was with the more-or-less contemporary releases by both Yes and Genesis. And then a couple years later upon hearing the first Asia album after all the anticipation associated with another "supergroup", the sound of the wind whooshing out of my Prog sails was deafening. I moved on to other types of music (mostly jazz-related), and it was only after a decade or so of distance that i was able to revisit my 70s collection with anything approaching objectivity.

[Scrotum Scissor]

For me, it's the last great British Prog Rock LP.

Please elaborate that view a bit.

[miamiscot]

I still remember the radio spots promoting this album that ran on WSHE in Miami: "With members from Yes, King Crimson, Uriah Help and Roxy Music." A little misleading but it certainly caught my attention as I waited in front of the Peaches in Fort Lauderdale on release day to snag a cassette. I was a little disappointed to be honest. It grew on me over the years but I think Danger Money was better.

[Bungalow Bill]

I see UK as the last hurrah of big-money prog. How many new, bona fide prog bands were given major label record deals to perform bona fide prog, after UK? I can't think of any.

UK was the harbinger of the end of prog. But judged simply on their merits, both their albums have stood the test of time. Exciting stuff.

+1

I've always thought that old school prog died with UK and the advent of Asia (although I do like a lot of Asia's debut).

[Bungalow Bill]

Marillion?

Kind of a sea-change, though, weren't they, in terms of bottling Genesis influences and making them a bit more palatable to a (maybe) less-patient or (maybe) less marijuana-and-headphones inclined audience?

[Scrotum Scissor]

Genesis influences

Marillion? A completely separate "genre" altogether, if we're talking definitions of term ("genre", I mean - not "prog"); hardly the same artistic (or musical) impulse at all, but totally committed to template and the "reversed" cultural circumstance of the times in relation to what "progressive" might have implied in its coming-of-age. If the so largely shunned "neo-prog" phenomenon is to be taken seriously, then one has to apply a different angle than with the original wave of developments (i.e. 1968-80), the leverage of a pivotal paradigm shift (i.e. punk and post-punk) constituting a main breach. Now I can give or take much "neo" myself, but it doesn't allow itself much positive comparison to what took place in 1968-80; relieve if of that unfair analogy, and there's more to be extrapolated.

[Dave (in MA)]

I remember hearing about this as "a new band with former Yes drummer Bill Bruford" on a short-lived nationally syndicated radio show called Modern Music. At this point I think I only had Yessongs in my collection and I knew that I liked the couple of tracks with Bruford on them best, so my interest was piqued. I ended up grabbing Feels Good To Me and U.K. as they were released, and while I was disappointed that I was too young to get into their show when they hit Boston, I was able to tape it off the radio that night since it was broadcast live.

[Bungalow Bill]

Marillion? A completely separate "genre" altogether, if we're talking definitions of term ("genre", I mean - not "prog"); hardly the same artistic (or musical) impulse at all, but totally committed to template and the "reversed" cultural circumstance of the times in relation to what "progressive" might have implied in its coming-of-age. If the so largely shunned "neo-prog" phenomenon is to be taken seriously, then one has to apply a different angle than with the original wave of developments (i.e. 1968-80), the leverage of a pivotal paradigm shift (i.e. punk and post-punk) constituting a main breach. Now I can give or take much "neo" myself, but it doesn't allow itself much positive comparison to what took place in 1968-80; relieve if of that unfair analogy, and there's more to be extrapolated.

Wow, that was heady! You're right about genre, which is why I think it was called (Or maybe wasn't then? ) "neo-prog"?

I think we agree here

"but totally committed to template and the "reversed" cultural circumstance of the times in relation to what "progressive" might have implied in its coming-of-age"

and I couldn't have said it better. I'm not disparaging Marillion's music - I like it quite a bit. But I think the general/always vague/never definable shift from old-school prog to neo starts with UK's debut.

[Bungalow Bill]

Marillion? A completely separate "genre" altogether, if we're talking definitions of term ("genre", I mean - not "prog"); hardly the same artistic (or musical) impulse at all, but totally committed to template and the "reversed" cultural circumstance of the times in relation to what "progressive" might have implied in its coming-of-age. If the so largely shunned "neo-prog" phenomenon is to be taken seriously, then one has to apply a different angle than with the original wave of developments (i.e. 1968-80), the leverage of a pivotal paradigm shift (i.e. punk and post-punk) constituting a main breach. Now I can give or take much "neo" myself, but it doesn't allow itself much positive comparison to what took place in 1968-80; relieve if of that unfair analogy, and there's more to be extrapolated.

Wait. Are you saying earlier Fish-era Marillion isn't showing any Genesis influence?

[Scrotum Scissor]

Wait. Are you saying earlier Fish-era Marillion isn't showing any Genesis influence?

I'm not really certain if "influence" is even the right word for it. By 1982 and the Marillion debut, Gabriel-era Genesis was already old 'cult band' history and the then-present Genesis were global megastar business. On the one hand "neo-prog" conditioned itself on that exact offset of past identities - as with vintage Genesis/VdGG etc. attaining a somewhat retroactive underdog status compared to 'big corpo dino rock' - on the other it saw an appeal with audiences who'd never even heard of any 'progressive rock' at all due to the impact of the new paradigm. And the latter folks ironically found the "neos" to be something out-of-the-blue original and fresh and adventurous compared to most goings on, whereas oldschoolers may have seen a reason to reminisce albeit with a current twist.

Nearly everybody won. Just nearly. I never liked it much myself ("neo"), I have to admit - and especially not after truly discovering 70s music.

[mozo-pg]

Stone cold classic. Loved it when it was realized and still stands very tall.

[Progatron]

and I couldn't have said it better. I'm not disparaging Marillion's music - I like it quite a bit. But I think the general/always vague/never definable shift from old-school prog to neo starts with UK's debut.

Although I am a big fan of the early 80s neo bands like IQ and Marillion, what I do think was notably absent from most of those bands was the jazzy element that had been woven throughout much of the 1970s prog bands - with UK perhaps being the dying gasp of the genre at that time. The neo bands a few years later were good at recreating the majesty and grand scale of the music their heroes played, with the soaring guitars and 'big' keyboard sounds, but none of them really ever added a jazzy flavour. Even the biggie symph bands of the 70s like Genesis managed to turn out a track like Los Endos or Wot Gorilla once in a while. It was there in early Yes, in Crimson, in VDGG, etc. etc... but I think it had long gone when the 'revival' hit. To me, that's a major part of the shift.

[moecurlythanu]

I still remember the radio spots promoting this album that ran on WSHE in Miami: "With members from Yes, King Crimson, Uriah Help and Roxy Music." A little misleading but it certainly caught my attention as I waited in front of the Peaches in Fort Lauderdale on release day to snag a cassette.

The label gave it a big promotional push on FM radio. I think I recall the narrator had a upper closs British accent.

I liked it a lot, and it's stature has only grown with me, particularly lately. It's a favorite.

I recall buying an unofficial UK t-shirt via mailorder from a company that advertised in one of the music mags like Trouser Press .

[Zappathustra]

Although I am a big fan of the early 80s neo bands like IQ and Marillion, what I do think was notably absent from most of those bands was the jazzy element that had been woven throughout much of the 1970s prog bands - with UK perhaps being the dying gasp of the genre at that time. The neo bands a few years later were good at recreating the majesty and grand scale of the music their heroes played, with the soaring guitars and 'big' keyboard sounds, but none of them really ever added a jazzy flavour. Even the biggie symph bands of the 70s like Genesis managed to turn out a track like Los Endos or Wot Gorilla once in a while. It was there in early Yes, in Crimson, in VDGG, etc. etc... but I think it had long gone when the 'revival' hit. To me, that's a major part of the shift.

Correct, but not only jazz. The whole pot of disparate influences (classical, jazz, folk, ethnic etc), from where the 70's bands were fishing, was ignored by the later bands, which just replicated the traditional prog sound.

[Frankh]

The album also somehow sounds like they knew it was the end of an era.

Thirty Years.

Nevermore.

Holdsworth allegedly wound up detesting it.

It was so exciting live, as someone recently pointed out, somewhere (not so far from here.). The Alaska/Time To Kill opener was, well, killer! lol

I remember Bruford's toms sounding like thunder.

And this was the true beginning of my lifelong love affair with Allan's guitar playing, and tone.

...Jobson's clear acrylic violin!...

[moecurlythanu]

I recall buying an unofficial UK t-shirt via mailorder from a company that advertised in one of the music mags like Trouser Press .

When one of my friends saw me wearing it, he asked, "University of Kentucky?"