The Album That Killed Prog?

Morbix wrote: Peter wrote: These days -- as with popular music in general -- the music we deem "prog" has fractured and branched out in many directions, for many different audiences. From the poppier, radio-friendly, shorter songs of bands like It Bites, Radiohead and such, to the widely popular metal prog of bands like Dream Theater and Opeth, etc, to the "retro" old school prog of bands like Marillion, IQ, Pendragon, Echolyn, etc, to today's really far-out, perhaps truly progressive, innovative artists like Deus Ex Machina, Godspeed You Black Emperor, the Mars Volta, Mr Bungle, etc, there's now a type of "prog" for just about everyone!  But is it all "prog?" Is 'prog' even a valid single genre? Has the term long outlived its usefulness, and lost whatever meaning it once may have had? That's another topic! That was the best damn explanation in this thread, ESPECIALLY those last two paragraphs.

As others have pointed out, the basic concept of this thread is a non-starter. There was no single album "silver bullet" or "smoking gun" that "killed' prog, but rather an evolution in the music industry and the wider society which made that music (never very mainstream) fall even more out of favour with critics, record labels, concert organizers, and the purchasing masses.

Basically, prog had been done, and the time was ripe for something new -- which punk and new wave (and even disco, I suppose) provided. People wanted to dance and grin again when listening to popular music -- not just sit on their duffs and "trip out" to the heaviness of it all in a black-lit room.

Of course, it wasn't just prog rock that fell out of favour, either. The relatively few mainstream rock bands which had long dominated the airwaves and record sales also had to adapt or fade away. To take just one example, compare the "modern" sound of Zeppelin's last release, with those that came before it. What was bad for prog artists like ELP, Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, Moody Blues, etc, was also bad for groups like Zeppelin, the Who, the Eagles and Deep Purple, etc.

Edited by Peter - August 20 2007 at 13:14

ghost_of_morphy
 One album can't change the history of music but a 100 can so I tease you to name 100 bad... reely bad albums and convince me that I and 10000 or more people on this site listen wrong side of music-dead one


Edited by Komodo dragon - August 19 2007 at 19:56

I am also getting tired of this thread, but...

The Sex Pistols and punk-rock in general just gave prog a down beat................. but didn't kill it. Prog is inmortal!!

Ely78 wrote: For me... This album:

For me... This album:

1800iareyay wrote: I thought this thread was dead. For the last time prog did not die. It came close in the late 70s/early 80s, but Marillion awoke the dormant giant, and now prog is enjoying some of its best music yet. Heck, just look at the releases of this year alone. DT, PT, SGM, John Zorn, Amaran's Plight, Gazpacho, Symphony X, Phideaux, Anekdoten, Devin Townsend, Neal Morse, and many others. In fact, I'd 2007 up there as one of the best years for progressive music. So enough about this dead prog talk.

Nightfly wrote: Prog's not dead, it just went underground.   You should have Never mind the Bollocks by The Sex Pistols on your list. If any album made an attempt to kill it then that was it.

Tapfret wrote:   We have to face it prog as an original fresh art form is dead. The culture of free expression which gathered the immence talent pool of the 70's is gone. You can claim as many new genres as you want and call them prog to lie to yourselfs and say it is evolving but it is simply not true, they are not prog. You can create the so called Progressive umbrella and lump new talent in with the old, but fans of the new will see it as a silly attempt to ressurect thier grandparents music. Do not do that to the young, it is not progressive in current venacular, they know what you are trying to do. It is good prog is dead, it gives us a set of rules that now should govern it. There should be no debate as to what is prog and what is not. I say to The Flower Kings who are not ashamed to admit prog no longer moves forward with any relavency. Instead of trying to move away into non prog forms of music (post 1979 or so) they celebrate the past. Prog being dead as a movement makes those who took part in it very special and unique. There will never be another King Crimson nor do I want one, and there will never be another 70's and that is ok. Let new bands be placed in new genres and let us celebrate the old ones for thier time and place. English folk music is dead, but yet is very celebrated with many artists who cherish it. Modern folk from England is considered a different genre, why is prog any different? It is not a living breathing fresh genre, but that is what makes it special!   That is one of the most sardonic views I have ever heard. To say prog or progressive is dead is to remove all meaning from it. To progress means to move forward and change.  It is NOT a static event or period in history.  Did Rock and Roll die with Buddy Holly or Elvis?  It hasn't stopped evolving just because you or some screwball at rolling stone says it has. So quit trying kill everybodies buzz Captain Bringdown!    Now that my rant is done, I will take the question as being what was the most annoying sellout and end of quality music by a given band. I have to give it to Genesis.  ELP's love beach was bad, but they were already tanking with the Works stuff.   And BTW Discipline was plenty progressive and an outstanding album.

First of all my comment was not sardonic but a praise to the Progressive rock movement. Second, dead in music genre terms means a standardizing of musical tenets so as to be properly classified. I am sorry but "going outside the rules" (as rick Wakeman defines it) does not constitute a genre in itself according to how western music defines genres. Punk broke with mainstream but had defining tenets that made it definitely punk.

Music tenets are standardized  (or the expansion of originality within a specific form has died) when it is marked by two things:

1. The culture which the movements inspiration is rooted in has changed or died.

            This does not mean clothing, hairstyles etc. It means the  late 60s early to mid 70s were a time of unique political and social upheaval for the entire western world. Experimentation  and musical expansion  was one small part of a growing  counter culture  (being the counter culture itself or the counter to the counter culture) and had specific aims that were relative to what was going on at that particular moment.  In reality once that moment had passed the music lost its relevancy. The music was a strong reaction to the simplicity of early 50s rock n roll (as was punk to the elitism of prog) and the lifestyle that went along with it.

     No one now can replicate authentically the music of the Progressive Rock  movement, there were  millions of different reasons why the musicians in that culture chose to write what they did. There is absolutely no authentic continuity from the 70s to now. The reasons for the culture died, therefore the reasons for the music died, therefore the music as an authentic original art is dead. The specific culture did not evolve, it was replaced (which was not a good thing but we can not deny that it happened). Many cultures (the term culture is used as in reference to movements within a society not in the overall general sense) since have had their own music with their own tenets for what defines it after the movement was replaced in relevancy.

If I write a Baroque piece and took out the basso continuo would I be evolving the genre? No of course not because that is one of the tenets of Baroque music which was standardized long ago. Even though it might have been complex and flowing and  technically difficult it would not be Baroque because it did not follow the tenets set out because Baroque music is dead.

2. The second clue that musical genre has been standardized is when the majority of the bands main influence comes from an earlier band in the same genre.

       King Crimson did not set out to make "Progressive Rock" and nor would they intend to now. Their influence was not progressive rock, but Jazz and Classical and 60s alternative pop (which were standardized genres that did not include a band like King Crimson).

     David Gilmore of Pink Floyd fame said in an interview that he does not listen to progressive rock, and why should he as he is a fan of the original influences and not the derivatives of his influence. Flash forward to the later 70s and you have bands that have never heard of the original influences but take their main influence from bands that have already done the fusing work of the different genres. Is Starcastle a fresh sounding band? Do they take influence from the classical masters? No, absolutely not, they sound like a Yes clone which was their main influence. Starcastle's intention was to make "Progressive Rock" not combine genres into an original sound. Most modern prog bands claim influence of "Progressive Rock" bands that have gone before them. It is when this started to happen that a genre is classifiable known as standardized or dead. Why do you think you use the words revival?