The Album That Killed Prog?

LOL

Prog's not dead, it just went underground.

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!

Edited by Tapfret - August 13 2007 at 17:27

darqdean wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: darqdean wrote: Shakespeare wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: reality wrote: Prog died when it was no longer supported by the culture, like every other movement. Prog was no different than Grunge or Disco, or we can all lie to ourselves.    I disagree.  Artists are still creating Prog music. People like us are still listening to it. Simply, this keeps it alive.     TESTIFY, BROTHA! I like idea behind reality's statement, but unlike Gothic Rock or Hip Hop that have their own sub-culture, art, literature, dress etc., Prog was never really supported by a culture or sub-culture in the first place. Good point. Those things have something Prog never did....fashion. Prog artists are about the geekiest artists ever to live.   well, dressing up as a flower is not the best way to do the weekly grocery shop.

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!

Edited by reality - August 03 2007 at 03:33

'And Then We Sold Out' by you know who !

darqdean wrote: Shakespeare wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: reality wrote: Prog died when it was no longer supported by the culture, like every other movement. Prog was no different than Grunge or Disco, or we can all lie to ourselves.    I disagree.  Artists are still creating Prog music. People like us are still listening to it. Simply, this keeps it alive.     TESTIFY, BROTHA! I like idea behind reality's statement, but unlike Gothic Rock or Hip Hop that have their own sub-culture, art, literature, dress etc., Prog was never really supported by a culture or sub-culture in the first place.

StyLaZyn wrote: reality wrote: Prog died when it was no longer supported by the culture, like every other movement. Prog was no different than Grunge or Disco, or we can all lie to ourselves.    I disagree.  Artists are still creating Prog music. People like us are still listening to it. Simply, this keeps it alive.

TESTIFY, BROTHA!

Prog died when it was no longer supported by the culture, like every other movement. Prog was no different than Grunge or Disco, or we can all lie to ourselves. 

micky wrote: bluetailfly wrote: I'm just curious, has the fact the ELP's "Love Beach" is voted the #1 "album that killed prog" compelled anyone to actually listen to it? If so, what was your impression? Still really bad? Or ??? of course it didn't kill prog obviously... nothing did...  my impression of it. like most things... not as bad as people make it out to be... as a whole...(side 2 is not so bad but side 1.....uurrrggg).  ELP was dead as a group before that album ever came out anyway so it's hard to be so hard on it...it's not like they were trying to create a masterwork... only fulfill an obligation to give the company an album.

I'm just curious, has the fact the ELP's "Love Beach" is voted the #1 "album that killed prog" compelled anyone to actually listen to it? If so, what was your impression? Still really bad? Or ???