Why did progressive-rock go pop in the 80s?

[burning_muscles]

I apologise for asking a question that has been asked numerous times before, but why did a quite sizeable number of prog-rock artists and groups decide to make pop music at the turn of the 80s?

This has always puzzled me, as there seems to be a logical contradiction. On one hand, you have progressive-rock (which ironically enjoyed commercial success in its heyday), which was a movement dedicated to artistry, innovation, experimentalism and instrumental prowess. This was followed by some artists abandoning these attributes to pursue the rigid streamlined formulas of pop music.

I'm talking about the obvious people here; Genesis, Yes (with 90125), and the members of Asia. I heard John Wetton, for instance, was itching along with his management to make an Asia sort-of-music since the late 70s. God knows how UK’s first album managed to belong to the first set of attributes I mentioned, than the latter ones. However, with his move of management to Brian Lane, the conditions were now right?

Of course speaking of conditions, one cannot deny the cultural shift and the angst of the times towards progressive-rock. It's understandable that a form of music has its time and place, and a musician needs to evolve with other styles. However, didn’t Robert Fripp do this? Didn't Bill Bruford who along with Allan Holdsworth were kicked out of UK for being not right for streamlined music that John Wetton had in mind - do this?

It's understandable that a musician will tire of a style, and move on. But why in progressive-rock did it seem that a majority decide to make a form of pop music? Rather than more follow a Robert Fripp route of Hey, it’s the 80s – let’s make a concise, efficient, combination of Talking Heads, Steve Reich and make all sorts of synthesised noise with guitars!

It completely baffles me that Steve Howe who made "Relayer" in 1974 was eight year later making an album that Asia had churned out. Why did he not follow, for a hypothetical argument – It's 80s, post-punk and no-wave are interesting. I’m going to make a 30 minute noisy soundscape with drum machines!

Doesn't anyone know what I mean? It’s like the equivalent of John Cage making a record that sounds like Duran Duran, or Charlemagne Palestine going all ABC. It wouldn't make any sense to a how these artists could naturally develop either his sound, or his tastes.

Of course, I'm not saying these records that I mentioned are objectively better or worse. They are, to me, at least, logically inconsistent given the people involved.

Any ideas or theories?

Thanks

[3LockBox]

$$$$$$$

[3LockBox]

^ of course this is the first thing that comes to my head, but don't you think that accolades for living artists are so rare that when an audience (or at least mainstream audiences) take favorable notice of an artist's work that it brings a sense of catharsis and acceptance...




nope





straight cash homie

[Rick]

At the end of the day, they had to pay the bills. That was where the money was and what the labels wanted produced. In addition, they wanted to try and stay relevant in the current music culture at the time or risk becoming irrelevant and thus forgotten.

Today's resurgence is largely due to the alternative market for music, the internet. By that I mean, outside of radio and major label / media controlled mediums.

Today, an artist can appeal directly to a target audience. For example, sites like this.

I remember first connecting to the internet on a dial up modem and browsing the usenet newsgroups. To see groups dedicated to Dream Theater and Fates Warning was huge. I remember thinking, there are other people like me out here that love this music! Must have been huge to the artists as well to see their fan base coalesce online into an entity that could help support them without labels.

Rick..

[BobM]

This thread should be linked to the one about how many current prog musicians are "professional", meaning this is their only job. The vast majority of them play and compose music because they have to ... they - must - play - or - go - insane - with - boredom. They work other jobs to fund and keep their passion for music alive after working hours. I assume it was the same back in the late 70's - early 80's. Those "professional" prog musicians saw their market share drying up and turned to a different audience so they could keep doing what they wanted to, and make money by playing music rather than driving a truck or something.

I can see how this might be especially true for those musicians who had a real following, and were considered superstars. Their fan base became limited as the music scene changed, so they had to change with it to keep their ego's charged. Hell, Miles Davis did this continually and he was lauded as a genius and game changer at every step.

[burning_muscles]

Those "professional" prog musicians saw their market share drying up and turned to a different audience so they could keep doing what they wanted to, and make money by playing music rather than driving a truck or something.
.

Yes, but after reading Bill Bruford's autobiography - he doesn't mention the time he had to take a full-time job in manual labour construction. Not that I'm being facetious or anything - but him, and people like him, demonstrated that it didn't have to be "all or nothing"?

[trurl]

Bands like Yes and Genesis wanted from day 1 to be popular songwriters. One could almost argue that their forays into deep prog were an aberration brought on by the zeitgeist of the times. I'm quite sure that Genesis's pop period was the fulfillment of what they had initially set out to do when they first got together.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Some of the most thoroughly progressive and radical rock albums were created during the 80s, albeit not by "big five/six/nine" bands or their new apostles. There was even a vibrant and wholly vital scene to support such music, with record labels, fanzines, festivals, cooperatives. However, this collided with the general aschewing of rock music's cultural infrastructure at large (from big corporate business models and channels yielding the mainstream, onto independent ones adhering to alternative musics - to which progressive rock now belonged). This shift - which has since taken several other, new turns - is also the main reason why the "bigs" of the 70s are no longer creating progressive rock music nor are perhaps sufficiently informed to to so. They either had starstruck self-images or simply a mercantile status to uphold, consequently going with the flow. Countless acts went through this transformation, also outside of the Anglosaxon perimeter.

There were 70s styled bands to create 70s styled music way into the 80s, btw - but mostly in Eastern Europe, Japan and the South Americas. Lots of it exquisite, some of it every bit as valuable as that made by the previous "bigs".

[LeFrog]

I think it's too easy to answer "$$$$$" with hindsight.
It wasn't obvious that these band would be successful by just shortening their songs. Turn It On Again's in 13/4, is that pop? It turned out that Genesis and Yes were successful, Asia too (although mostly the first album, the following ones had much less success although they followed the same blueprint). Other prog artists weren't as successful although they also moved towards a more mainstream sound (King Crimson, Jethro Tull, IQ...). I don't think success was as calculated as some seem to imply.

You mention Fripp as someone who didn't compromise, but to me Discipline is basically new wave with a twist and new wave was very popular back in 1981. Discipline could have been a hit but wasn't. Bruford didn't compromise? He was a part of the Union cash grab. My point is, it wasn't about compromising or not (except maybe for the Union thing!). All those artists chose to evolve during the 80s.

I think Genesis have pretty well summed up their motivations in the 80s: they just got tired of the prog format and found it much more challenging to write short catchy songs than long 20 minute suites. I think the prog fans who blame those bands for going pop would have been the first ones to flame them for doing the same old thing if they hadn't evolved. So it was a no win situation. I for one can't imagine Yes or Genesis continuing to write Supper's Ready or Gates of Delirium (since you mention it) for decades. Something had to change, for better or worse.

[dnieper]

Bands like Yes and Genesis wanted from day 1 to be popular songwriters. One could almost argue that their forays into deep prog were an aberration brought on by the zeitgeist of the times. I'm quite sure that Genesis's pop period was the fulfillment of what they had initially set out to do when they first got together.

This. Virtually all the big 1970's prog musicians had been playing some kind of pop in the 1960's. Even during their most "out-there" periods, there were plenty of catchy melodies floating around.

[moecurlythanu]

Today's resurgence is largely due to the alternative market for music, the internet. By that I mean, outside of radio and major label / media

As an aside...

I would say that today's "resurgence" is the result of Prog fans getting older and having disposable income, allowing them to pursue making music similar to what they had favored in their youth as a hobby.
Other than that, there is no"resurgence. "

[hippypants]

Probably MTV had something to do with it.

[Trane]

In the 70's, those band members were in their early 20's when joining theirv respective bands... As the 70's got on, they had GF, wives and kids, abnd they managed to keep paying the bills as long as their bands were still selling albums... Once they stopped selling thousands of them (for whatever punk-disco reasons), they either had to fold the band (GG, VdGG, etc...) and find/do something else.... or adapt (Yes, Tull, Gen, Crimson, etc...)

[dgtlman]

Bands like Yes and Genesis wanted from day 1 to be popular songwriters. One could almost argue that their forays into deep prog were an aberration brought on by the zeitgeist of the times. I'm quite sure that Genesis's pop period was the fulfillment of what they had initially set out to do when they first got together.

I think this statement says it perfectly. For the most part just about every band wanted to be "popular". I mean, back in the day that was the sentiment for every band I played in regardless of what we were into at the time. Yeah we played some obscure stuff, but we played the hits a plenty because that's what brought the crowds out & got ya gigs.
Now-a-days, I could care less. I do it for my own personal enjoyment & nothing else. Of course I work a real job during the daytime too.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

They were trying to stay relevant and hoping to cash in on the current trend in Rock music.
When they began in the early 70s, being progressive with Rock music was the trend.
In the early 80s, when The Cars, Devo, XTC and Duran Duran started, the trend in Rock music had changed.

Obviously, in hindsight, the progressive artists of the 70s could have continued to do progressive things with Rock music but their record company likely would have dropped them. The record companies expected the progressive artists to keep up, sales wise, with the New Wave artists and pressured them to adopt a sound more in line with the trend of the day.

In todays music world, the story is different. Progressive artists are not signed to major labels and so do not need to conform to the record execs notions of what sells.

[TheLongshot]

I think an interesting parallel is looking at 80s hard rock and heavy metal when the 90s came along an grunge became popular. Most of those bands didn't change with the tide and got swept away. Def Leppard and Bon Jovi were huge in the late 80s, but disappeared from rock radio in the 90s, and so did their album sales.

To the credit of many of the big progressive rock bands, they had the ability to adjust to the changes to the market and still be themselves. The biggest adjuster in my mind is Rush, who has changed their sound multiple times over their career to remain a very popular band.

[ItalProgRules]

In the 80s I moved on to the likes of OMD, The Cure, New Order, Depeche Mode, Blancmange. And in a more guitar-oriented direction, The Smiths, REM, The Replacements.

[rcarlberg]

why did a quite sizeable number of prog-rock artists and groups decide to make pop music at the turn of the 80s?

They were forced to.

Many many well-established bands were dropped by their labels in the late-70s/early-80s, because the labels discovered they could sell 'punk rock' -- four guys in a basement studio for a couple hours -- or 'disco' -- one guy with a synthesizer in his bedroom -- without all the overhead of hiring musicians who could actually play, renting a studio for months on end, bringing in Mellotrons and vibes and grand pianos and choirs and string orchestras....

No, the public would buy music that cost $299 to produce, and so everyone who cost more than that got their walking papers.

[burning_muscles]

I think an interesting parallel is looking at 80s hard rock and heavy metal when the 90s came along an grunge became popular. Most of those bands didn't change with the tide and got swept away. Def Leppard and Bon Jovi were huge in the late 80s, but disappeared from rock radio in the 90s, and so did their album sales.

To the credit of many of the big progressive rock bands, they had the ability to adjust to the changes to the market and still be themselves. The biggest adjuster in my mind is Rush, who has changed their sound multiple times over their career to remain a very popular band.

Yes, but you might argue there's a difference between Asia, which to my ears is fairly formulaic, to Rush - who still maintained a sense of innovation, and artistry. The argument being presented here, is that it's either making the music that Genesis, Yes, or Asia did during the 80s, or nothing. Whereas I'm trying to argue that bands like Rush, King Crimson, although some disagree, maintained the virtues of prog, into different, fresher styles.

And with this, wondering why the likes of Wetton, Howe, et al - didn't do the same? I mean, even GTR, for example - just what the hell was going on there!?

[Musitron]

Because 80s was the worst decade in music. Go pop or die.

[rcarlberg]

Because 80s was the worst decade in music. Go pop or die.

Hard to argue with that.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Some of the most thoroughly progressive and radical rock albums were created during the 80s, albeit not by "big five/six/nine" bands or their new apostles.

NO, THE 80S WAS THE WORST DECADE IN MUSIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dgtest

[Musitron]

NO, THE 80S WAS THE WORST DECADE IN MUSIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dgtest

[Facelift]

$$$ is the simplest an most accurate answer, but the drive to acquire (or, rather, keep) the money wasn't only coming from the prog bands, but the labels.

People under a certain age for whom a world where buying an LP or CD was the way most people into music got their music might have a hard time imagining both the economic scope and the general public interest in bands 20-30 years ago, but that's the way things were. Bands on a major label faced a lot of pressure to keep making money so that they could stay there. And I'm sure they wanted to be there - these bands all came of age when the industry itself came of age. Bands like Yes, Jethro Tull, Floyd, Genesis... the only other bands who had a sustained mass commercial success like they did were their most immediate peers (Stones, Who, Beatles, etc.). And the money the bands got in the '70s and '80s - unprecedented. And the landscape of music at the end of the '70s was changing fast, with punk and new wave making the old sounds temporarily unsaleable; at least, on the level of what they had been doing before - and those bands were making records that cost a fraction as much to make as the big '70s bands like Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Genesis, Yes, ELP, etc. It was definitely put up or shut up time for a lot of the '70s bands, at in those times.

Again, younger people might not have any real-world experience to draw upon, but it's not like it was just prog bands adapting to new sounds - almost every album released on a major label between 1981 and 1985 has a certain period sensibility to it. King Crimson, for example, didn't "go pop" with their '80s incarnation, but the sound was totally '80s.

And while we tend to think of the early and mid '70s major prog bands following their muses and making difficult artistic music that was not for the masses, they were nevertheless very popular. I guess they figured that whatever they had to do to stay popular, they would do. And others... who's to say that they didn't just lose interest in doing prog and wanted to make simpler, more accessible music? Certainly possible. It appears to be the case with Genesis, whose members in interviews over the years seem to unanimously be of the opinion that they were making the music in the '80s that they really wanted to make, and had grown sick of the '70s stuff.

Less spoken of are the bands who weren't even given the opportunity to sell out. These would be the commercially second and third tier prog bands whose music was either too experimental to get major label support or whose style couldn't be adapted to the succeeding era. Those guys mostly just folded (even if only temporarily).

An interesting potential exception here could be Pink Floyd. True, The Wall could be seen as their "sell out" album as it was the band's most accessible album to that point, but apart from Another Brick in the Wall Pt. II it makes few concessions, stylistically, to then-contemporary pop music. And despite the radio hits, it still was a big-concept double album. They followed it up with what was not only one of their least commercial albums (The Final Cut), which seemed to pull virtually no influences from contemporary pop or rock music at all - and in a year (1983) when something like this barely seemed possible, especially in retrospect. Maybe it was possible to make a big pretentious album without a large presence of digital keyboards in 1983, but maybe you had to be one of the biggest bands on the planet and coming off a commercial smash as big as The Wall in order to have the leverage to do it.

[Lebofsky]

Because pop is actually fun to play and listen to.

- Matt