I find this an interesting subject. Obviously it is hard to monitor but what are your impressions? (Or do you have any figures such as album sales?)
My impression (UK-based) is that Floyd and Zep remain very popular, ELP and Yes much less so, while Van der Graaf and Can have increased in popularity. Not sure about Tull, Genesis, Crimson, Oldfield...
What do you think?
I think the more popular the band is on vintage, "ironic" t-shirts, the more the band is on the radar of the general public. So you're right about Zep and Floyd. With almost no record stores left, it's definitely harder for these bands to be on peoples' radar. It'll be pretty interesting to reassess this around 15 years from now. Our children may be the only ones aside from us who know about a lot of these bands. Even Floyd could be pretty obscure. To me it seems like the only people my son meets who know about, say Pink Floyd or Rush, are classmates who also have a parent who likes them, or the occasional young-ish substitute teacher.
"popularity" is hard to guage these days, what with nobody buying albums any more. I'd say that the popular songs from classic rock bands (inclusive of Yes, Jethro Tull, Genesis) are fairly well known among the segment of 15-25 year-olds who consider themselves into music, but I don't know how much beyond this the popularity goes. I would imagine that people have a hard time getting into bands that are no longer active.
Led Zep isn't a prog band. I would say RUSH is the most popular vintage prog band, perhaps Pink Floyd too, but they are not active aside from Roger Waters.
What I think and as I remember it is that bands like VDGG, King Crimson, Can, Gentle Giant were never popular in the true sense of the word to begin with...they were KNOWN to prog fans..but not known beyond that.
I never heard any of those bands in the 70s. But I did hear plenty of Floyd, Genesis, Tull, Oldfield, ELP, Yes all of whom were truly popular in the 70s.
I don't know why Led Zep is mentioned here, they were never a prog band, not even close.
That shouldn't be (it was never a problem with me) but you're probably right, especially if you mean they have trouble getting wind of bands that aren't active.Originally Posted by Facelift
Well, they're BORDERLINE prog.
Exactly!
Oh, in which case then we can forget altogether about genres and include everything. Led Zepp have absolutely nothing to do with prog, they were a straight hard blues rock descendant of the Yardbirds.
If you're going to claim LZ as prog, you can also claim every other hard rock band of the 70s
This is interesting. Because exactly that point - that some of the more "moderately/relatively" successful groups (who, for instance, didn't see much fortune in the UK or US but perhaps in a couple of European countries, in Canada, South-America, Australia, Japan or whatever) retained a sense of cultural "decency" with critics and niche audiences - seems to have assured their prolonged status. Wildly radical and/or uncompromizing acts like Soft Machine, Henry Cow, Magma, Faust, Popol Vuh and (early) Franco Battiato (or several of the ones you mentioned) sometimes appear to attract a level of interest with certain quarters of the more cerebral listening mass that the "big" names could only have hoped for. So, speaking in relative terms, some of the more "underground" artists have been luckier at retaining their status than the major acts have been.
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
Here's a quote from an interview with JPJ:
"Well, we always used to think that Zeppelin was a progressive rock band until it became [laughing] a slightly dirty word. Well, we thought we played progressive rock. People asked, "What sort of band are you?" I said I had played progressively – progressive rock – thinking that it just meant forward-thinking as opposed to anything [inaudible, laughing]. But you're right, "Snake Eyes" was...in its truest sense progressive rock."
In a 100 years, only Elvis and the Beatles will be remembered or known by the general population. The rest, dust in the wind. Sad, but true.
Elvis, The Beatles & Keith Emerson!!!
Kind of rolls off the tongue doesn't it!
I actually know that there's a small sub-culture of GIRLS, college age - nerdy/geekish types, who are totally into vintage rock & prog. I know one girl 22, who is a complete ELP fanatic, met her and a friend at a Carl Palmer gig. She makes her own ELP tribute website. On her Facebook she makes girl friends from all over who are into bands like Early Genesis, Floyd, The Who, Zep, ELO, Fleetwood Mac, YES, ELP, Beatles, Moody Blues, and so on... they all like to wear vintage clothing and vintage make-up. They don't seem to be all that into obscure prog though, only the well-know big stuff. They also buy vinyl records, and cover their walls with pictures of these bands. And, they have a hard time finding guys who are into this stuff, like the opposite of what we went through.
Let me empathise though, this seems to be a tiny sub-culture. It's not a new faddish thing that is becoming popular.
I have noticed this. A niece of mine is 23 and is a total devotie of all things Small Faces (pre–Rod the Mod). She has a fan site on them and knows some pretty obscure stuff about them and their music. True, not prog, but this phenomenon is out there.
Lou
Looking forward to my day in court.
I would say early genesis has a bigger cult following now than they did in the 70s. Look at the number of genesis cover bands. Whenever I see a genesis cover band in a bar, it's a full house. Look at the popularity of tmb, doing world tours of the lamb etc for well over a decade now, which probably made these guys a lot of $$$. Look at hacketts genesis world tour...selling out some decent halls.
The seventies was a long time ago. Some of that stuff just sounds silly now and hasn't aged well. Others are timeless. You can't really judge it by todays music though. Albums like close to the edge or selling england by the pound were not made by clueless kids desperate to be part of the latest trends. THey were made by serious young musicians who wanted to say something important musically. Doing this these days won't get you much recognition(at least not outside prog circles). Today it's all about image and promoting what sells and what is the flavor of the week. I even see that in some of today's prog bands to some degree. Music shouldn't be disposable. It should be art.
That's bullshit. Elvis has sold a lot of albums but he didn't have anything important to say musically. In the end it won't be only about album sales. Look at Van Goh. He only sold one painting in his lifetime. Many of the classical composers weren't famous in their life times either. Mozart made his living out of operas but these days he's just as known for his other works. There might not be a lot of artists people remember in the future but it certainly won't be limited to the two you mentioned. I would add Zappa, Floyd, Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones to that list at least.
Yes, she would fall into that same sub-culture. The girl I know also loves The Nice. She knows more about them than I do.
Rachel Flowers (the blind piano phenomenon) would also be apart of that culture. Late teen girl, nerdy, into vintage rock & prog.
Everything is relative. VdGG and Can certainly have become critics darlings over the years, both with a staggering amount of celebrity fans who would probably never name check more "traditional" prog bands. VdGG's popularity has certainly risen, with glowing press articles, etc. The classic acts like Yes and ELP probably aren't the critics' darlings at all, and not for a long time. But those acts have sold millions over the years so while they aren't as critically acclaimed as VdGG or Can, they would still draw more to a concert anywhere than the other two acts. So VdGG and Can may be more respected (whatever that means) but probably still don't sell as much or draw as well.
Quick, which musical acts from 1900-1920 do people know of now? Al Jolson ? Who else? In 50 years the Beatles and Elvis will be as well known as al Jolson is now.
Errr... Not that Can tours or anything, but if they did...
Well, Karoli is gone and if I'm not mistaken several of the remaining members are approaching their 80s, so no - it's not very likely. This being said, I'm not quite convinced that acts like ELP or Yes would outdo each and every underground or cult 70s act "[...] anywhere" - not anymore. Goblin or Magma might just possibly have as many "fans" among younger/hipster folks today as ELP/Yes could expect to have. A band like Gong have endured a reasonably stable audience status for the last 25 years - the same can not be said of Yes.
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
I think recording technology has made some strides since then hasn't it? Nobody would want to listen to old big band 78s these days because they sound like garbage. Plus if you compare the musical acts that came about in the 70's with the ones from the 20's there are just so many more. People will still be listening to Can in 2063. Book it!!
Well, look at the sales of the Lost Tapes boxset - seems like it did pretty well, and I don't know if it would have if it were released say, in 1992. The internet has brought in so many new fans - if you hang out around last.fm or a board like this one long enough, you'll hear great bands like Can and VdGG namedropped all the time, which certainly increases their exposure. It's kind of hard for the great bands to hide these days. I always thought of Neu! as a great example of a band where interest peaked way after they disbanded due to so many people talking about them online. Without the internet I doubt the whole reissue campaign even happens.
The OP writes:
I was thinking of the present as being the last ten years or so (one gets like that as one gets older, doesn't one?).
It's not just a matter of young fans, it's also a matter whether old fans are still interested. Obviously media interest is a factor. I think in the UK Floyd and Zep have become classic rock megastars like Beatles and Stones (i.e. staples for mags like Mojo and Uncut) but with other prog bands there's still a factor of having to justify featuring the disdained genre.
I was thinking of the fuss of the Floyd reunion at Live 8 and the Zep reunion (yes I know it can be debated whether they're prog or not but why be petty?), compared with the last ELP reunion. When Yes last played Glastonbury (big UK festival) they weren't even on the main stage. When they played my 1500-capacity local venue in 2011 it wasn't sold out in advance (neither was Anderson and Wakeman in 2010). When Tull last played there it was sold out months in advance. When Gong played there the audience looked about as large as for Yes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks