The Album That Killed Prog?

Phil Collins and his stupid sense of humour

bluetailfly wrote: schizoid_man77 wrote: How about "forget th bullocks, heres the sex pistols"   Punk killed prog, not prog. Punk was music answer to music. Rebellious, sloppy, moshy freaks who dont know how to sing, play guitar/ bass, but they an play drums really fast, but with ZERO fills.   You know, I think 60 & 70s prog just evolved to the point where it was becoming repetitive or too esoteric. In my opinion, it was a natural evolution of an artistic style. I don't think anything "killed" it; it was death by natural causes. Prog had a great life, and its offshoots (neo prog and prog metal) have great lives too, I guess (not really being a fan, I'm just assuming).   But prog's death throes were rather amusing in a perverse sort of way (that's why this poll is so amusing). Of course the legacy lives on; I'm still listening to it, but its creative lifespan is over and has been for over 25 years.

I can't vote here because all of the albums mentioned have survived the subsequent 30 years - you can go onto Amazon and buy every one of them, and all of the artists went on to record later albums that are also still available.

 

The decline of Prog towards the end of the 70's and early 80's had nothing to do with the music, but was caused by the change in peoples’ attitude towards it engineered by a few “hip” journalists in the music press who were more interested in promoting their own fragile egos than good music.

 

In the UK we can blame the self-promoting Charles Shaar Murray, Tony Parsons, Jane Suck and Julie Burchill - and their biggest and most damaging converts: the Radio DJ's who had championed Prog up until then and now jumped ship, switching their allegiances to the emerging New Wave scene solely because it made them look trendily anti-establishment – something they hadn’t been since the demise of Pirate Radio in the late 60’s.

 

Rock Journalism became the new Rock and Roll, not Punk (which in case we forget, lasted less than a year before it drowned in its own puddle of gob) they just hijacked it and used it to fulfill their own agenda. If Punk managed to kill anything at all, (other than itself), it killed off Glam-rock and the unbearably dire Pub-rock scene – the Progressive groups of the day continued in spite of it.

 

It is hard to comprehend the power they wielded at that time – They were the people who politicized what was happening, spreading discontent through the system – and as Journalists, they are the ones who have written the skewed history of that time that is still regarded as truth today.

 

The evidence does not bear out their claims, Neo-prog and Prog-metal are not a nostalgia gig – new vibrant young musicians are emerging who have seen through their lies: Progressive music is still around, concept albums are still being made, epics are still being composed and stadiums are still being filled by the very dinosaurs that they claimed had been driven to extinction.

 

You can't even blame Greg Lake's Persian carpet - even that is going strong after all these years, and can now be seen guesting on the System of a Down video for Hypnotize.

darqdean wrote: I can't vote here because all of the albums mentioned have survived the subsequent 30 years - you can go onto Amazon and buy every one of them, and all of the artists went on to record later albums that are also still available.   The decline of Prog towards the end of the 70's and early 80's had nothing to do with the music, but was caused by the change in peoples’ attitude towards it engineered by a few “hip” journalists in the music press who were more interested in promoting their own fragile egos than good music.   In the UK we can blame the self-promoting Charles Shaar Murray, Tony Parsons, Jane Suck and Julie Burchill - and their biggest and most damaging converts: the Radio DJ's who had championed Prog up until then and now jumped ship, switching their allegiances to the emerging New Wave scene solely because it made them look trendily anti-establishment – something they hadn’t been since the demise of Pirate Radio in the late 60’s.   Rock Journalism became the new Rock and Roll, not Punk (which in case we forget, lasted less than a year before it drowned in its own puddle of gob) they just hijacked it and used it to fulfill their own agenda. If Punk managed to kill anything at all, (other than itself), it killed off Glam-rock and the unbearably dire Pub-rock scene – the Progressive groups of the day continued in spite of it.   It is hard to comprehend the power they wielded at that time – They were the people who politicized what was happening, spreading discontent through the system – and as Journalists, they are the ones who have written the skewed history of that time that is still regarded as truth today.   The evidence does not bear out their claims, Neo-prog and Prog-metal are not a nostalgia gig – new vibrant young musicians are emerging who have seen through their lies: Progressive music is still around, concept albums are still being made, epics are still being composed and stadiums are still being filled by the very dinosaurs that they claimed had been driven to extinction.   You can't even blame Greg Lake's Persian carpet - even that is going strong after all these years, and can now be seen guesting on the System of a Down video for Hypnotize.

None of these albums really "killed prog" but releasing a double album featuring a "tasteful" cover, piano concerto, and re-work of a classical piece at the height of punk  was a daring / crazy thing to do....ELP's Works 1 really embodied everything that many people cam to dislike about prog. 

There were worse albums on the list, but that's not the question! 

Phil wrote: None of these albums really "killed prog" but releasing a double album featuring a "tasteful" cover, piano concerto, and re-work of a classical piece at the height of punk  was a daring / crazy thing to do....ELP's Works 1 really embodied everything that many people cam to dislike about prog.  There were worse albums on the list, but that's not the question!

el böthy wrote: chamberry wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Prog isn't dead,but alive and kicking.   So I pick none of them. Word. Yeah... word

The word is written 'werd' or 'wurd', or if you're daring, 'weurd'.

Weurd.

Sean Trane wrote: Interesting idea here! But I beg to differ on your choices.     The first four on your list look like the perfect culprits. You may want to include all of Curved Air and most of the post Carnegie Hall Renaissance albums.   Thhe next few are from the 80's and prog was already in a coma, so they don't count.   The Wall and ATOTT are not top be put in such a list, though

Ah no, not all of Curved Air; they made some wonderful albums. The Wall completely belongs there; why, in my opinion "Animals" already belongs there. Pink Floyd just couldn't get their asses in motion in the passages that were supposed to be kicking.
Some Zappa albums belong there too, in my opinion; there was a period (after "Zoot Allures") in which he had nothing original to contribute. His "Joe's Garage" trilogy just stinks, in my opinion.

bluetailfly wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Interesting idea here! But I beg to differ on your choices.     The first four on your list look like the perfect culprits. You may want to include all of Curved Air and most of the post Carnegie Hall Renaissance albums.   Thhe next few are from the 80's and prog was already in a coma, so they don't count.   The Wall and ATOTT are not top be put in such a list, though Ah no, not all of Curved Air; they made some wonderful albums. The Wall completely belongs there; why, in my opinion "Animals" already belongs there. Pink Floyd just couldn't get their asses in motion in the passages that were supposed to be kicking. Some Zappa albums belong there too, in my opinion; there was a period (after "Zoot Allures") in which he had nothing original to contribute. His "Joe's Garage" trilogy just stinks, in my opinion.   Baldfriede, I know we butted heads on this earlier, but I think it's an pretty clear to prog historians that Animals was one of the best albums Pink Floyd ever made, and one of the best prog albums ever made. If anything, it strengthened prog at a time when prog needed it.   In fact, I would like to have a dialogue in this very forum with anyone who believes Animals in any way represents the "death" of prog or even a dropping off of quality for the Floyd. Not that I want to argue; I just want to understand in clear terms where someone who holds that view is coming from.   For example, Meddle is a great Floyd album. Animals is not that different from it. In many ways what makes Meddle successful is more fully developed on Animals.   I'm sure there are one or two persons out there who don't like Animals; but I don't think one could argue that it contributed to the death of prog like Love Beach did.

Bluetailfly, you should have seen the music press reactions to "Animals" in Germany, then you would think differently. They simply tore it apart. And it is clear to see why. The songs just don't kick enough ass.


Edited by BaldFriede - July 18 2007 at 19:46

bluetailfly wrote: BaldFriede wrote: bluetailfly wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Interesting idea here! But I beg to differ on your choices.     The first four on your list look like the perfect culprits. You may want to include all of Curved Air and most of the post Carnegie Hall Renaissance albums.   Thhe next few are from the 80's and prog was already in a coma, so they don't count.   The Wall and ATOTT are not top be put in such a list, though Ah no, not all of Curved Air; they made some wonderful albums. The Wall completely belongs there; why, in my opinion "Animals" already belongs there. Pink Floyd just couldn't get their asses in motion in the passages that were supposed to be kicking. Some Zappa albums belong there too, in my opinion; there was a period (after "Zoot Allures") in which he had nothing original to contribute. His "Joe's Garage" trilogy just stinks, in my opinion.   Baldfriede, I know we butted heads on this earlier, but I think it's an pretty clear to prog historians that Animals was one of the best albums Pink Floyd ever made, and one of the best prog albums ever made. If anything, it strengthened prog at a time when prog needed it.   In fact, I would like to have a dialogue in this very forum with anyone who believes Animals in any way represents the "death" of prog or even a dropping off of quality for the Floyd. Not that I want to argue; I just want to understand in clear terms where someone who holds that view is coming from.   For example, Meddle is a great Floyd album. Animals is not that different from it. In many ways what makes Meddle successful is more fully developed on Animals.   I'm sure there are one or two persons out there who don't like Animals; but I don't think one could argue that it contributed to the death of prog like Love Beach did. Bluetailfly, you should have seen the music press reactions to "Animals" in Germany, then you would think differently. They simply tore it apart. And it is clear to see why. The songs just don't kick enough ass.   Well, rock critics are notoriously catty and nationalistic, so I don't put too much stock in what they have to say.   And, as to the songs "don't kick ass", I am rendered speechless by this outlandish perception of this music. I'm dazed. I have to go home now

Well, let me put it another way then. There is the German word "betulich", which perfectly describes these songs: A bit circumspect, a bit slow, and most of all harmless. I personally was severely disappointed with "Animals"; Punk had just given some much needed adrenaline back to rock. Not that I was a fan of punk, but if one looks at the prog albums that were created around this time it is obvious that the bands had forgotten how to really rock. It is the same for albums like "Wind and Wuthering" or "90125". The leaders of the wolf pack had lost their teeth; it was obvious something had to be done.


Edited by BaldFriede - July 18 2007 at 20:32