I would like to challenge the idea that punk killed off prog...

The hatred was surely driven by the media, and the likes of Malcolm McClaren and John Peel (once ironically a great advocate of prog) Many 'punks' seemed to be citing prog artists as major influences, and the likes of John Lydon, Sid Viscous, Hugh Cornwell, Siouxsie all hailed from middle class backgrounds and not from the rotting tower blocks, as conquering anti heroes of the oppressed, as their friends in the media seemed to be suggesting.

With this in mind, was the fall of the empire down to a media orchestrated campaign of hatred against music as art for arts sake? If so WHY? What did the media get from get from it?

Or did the prog artists themselves simply dissapear up their own arses in a puff of pomposity, losing all touch with reality..or was that just another media myth..?

Or maybe a mixture of both!

In some wys Punk was a good thing. If you looked at the singles charts at the time, they needed a good kick up the arse! Kids also wanted to be able to play music to and with punk it became easy to form a band. Instant self expression, it was great.

OK Prog suffered, but bands were finding it difficult anyway to continue to repeat their successes. ELP virtually self distructed anyway, but even they had a major hit during the Punk years!

Snow Dog wrote: Or maybe a mixture of both! In some wys Punk was a good thing. If you looked at the singles charts at the time, they needed a good kick up the arse! Kids also wanted to be able to play music to and with punk it became easy to form a band. Instant self expression, it was great. OK Prog suffered, but bands were finding it difficult anyway to continue to repeat their successes. ELP virtually self distructed anyway, but even they had a major hit during the Punk years!

Punk did allow free expression and did help purge the charts of cak! Thats for sure.

The whole punk movement as it was presented to the masses was a bit of a fraud IMO. I dont believe punk started in Britain anyway. I see it as more of an American invention; with the Ramones and Iggy & the Stooges coming along some years before the likes of the Pistols. McClaren's movement seemed to simply be an attack on music full stop! Thankfully punk gave us The Stranglers, Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Clash etc, which compensated for the rubbish..

Early prog efforts seemed to predict punk anyway. Hawkwind, KC and VDGG all had a kind of 'punk' spirit, and this is probably what drew John Peel to these artists in their early years, even Jethro Tull, Roxy Music, Gabriels Genesis and Queen had his stamp of approval. It was only when they started selling records he turned his back on them.

Blacksword wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Or maybe a mixture of both! In some wys Punk was a good thing. If you looked at the singles charts at the time, they needed a good kick up the arse! Kids also wanted to be able to play music to and with punk it became easy to form a band. Instant self expression, it was great. OK Prog suffered, but bands were finding it difficult anyway to continue to repeat their successes. ELP virtually self distructed anyway, but even they had a major hit during the Punk years! Punk did allow free expression and did help purge the charts of cak! Thats for sure. The whole punk movement as it was presented to the masses was a bit of a fraud IMO. I dont believe punk started in Britain anyway. I see it as more of an American invention; with the Ramones and Iggy & the Stooges coming along some years before the likes of the Pistols. McClaren's movement seemed to simply be an attack on music full stop! Thankfully punk gave us The Stranglers, Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Clash etc, which compensated for the rubbish.. Early prog efforts seemed to predict punk anyway. Hawkwind, KC and VDGG all had a kind of 'punk' spirit, and this is probably what drew John Peel to these artists in their early years, even Jethro Tull, Roxy Music, Gabriels Genesis and Queen had his stamp of approval. It was only when they started selling records he turned his back on them.

Correct, British and American Punk were entirely different things, with totally different ideals. I feel that British Punk was far more political, anarchistic and anti-establishment!

BaldFriede wrote: Since you mention Hugh Cornwall: The Stranglers have always been closer to prog than to punk. Just listen to an album like "Black and White"; I definitely think this is a prog album.

I agree. I like The Stranglers a lot. I've seen them a few times.

'No more Heroes' and 'Aural Sculpture' are excellent albums!  There was definately a prog thing going on with them!

 Prog ran out of innovation and got somewhat overblown and the best bands went into decline. The media need new news. I don't think punk killed prog .Prog continues. Intreresting that on this list the 15-19 year olds are the most numerous. When I was 15-19 noone liked Frank Sinatra , Nat King Cole or Bing Cosby. So I think the meritorius work will stand eternally

barbs wrote: Blacksword wrote: I would like to challenge the idea that punk killed off prog... The hatred was surely driven by the media, and the likes of Malcolm McClaren and John Peel (once ironically a great advocate of prog) Many 'punks' seemed to be citing prog artists as major influences, and the likes of John Lydon, Sid Viscous, Hugh Cornwell, Siouxsie all hailed from middle class backgrounds and not from the rotting tower blocks, as conquering anti heroes of the oppressed, as their friends in the media seemed to be suggesting. With this in mind, was the fall of the empire down to a media orchestrated campaign of hatred against music as art for arts sake? If so WHY? What did the media get from get from it? Or did the prog artists themselves simply dissapear up their own arses in a puff of pomposity, losing all touch with reality..or was that just another media myth..? After the protest movements of the 60s and early 70s generational change which I think in a way provided some of the climate in which prog was born as a musical movement (different, challenging the status quo, pushing the boundaries), I think there was also another movement that was born. This was the movement of 'Greed is good' which began to rise with the media through the mid 70s (check out the date of the rise of Microsoft) and I believe that it was this monster more than anything else, that attitude of success at any cost, multinational takeovers and the rise of International corporate powers.  Record companies that had at first been born to, yeah make a buck, but still foster the creative process and freedom of musical expression, also jumped on this bandwagon as they became themselves corporate monsters and I think that is why a band like Nirvana, wether you love them or hate them, represents a return of sorts to that kind of freedom. If we look at today, the technology has provided alot of bands to produce their own product from the studio floor to the outlet (often Internet) and IMO, the last 10 years has been a really exciting time for music and prog, because musicians have the power to regain their independence from the monster of corporate greed. Viva la prog.

Viva la prog indeed!

I thought Nirvana were ok, from a 'fun' point of view. They were a religion for some of their younger fans. Were they given a deal because they were good, or because some record excec thought, 'yeah, ok lets give the kids a token punk/rock band to play with. They'll make us a dump truck of money then burn out' ??

This seems to be the biggest change in trend; longevity vs short term quick buck. The big rock bands of the '70's were always in for the long haul. They wanted the career, and they DID make alot of money for their record companies. Why did the record companies suddenly decide they wanted a high turnover of artists, instead of helping the artists and working with them so they could have a career. A win win situation. The trend of fly by night (no ref to Rush!) bands was very evident in the 80's when I guess the greed ideology was at it's height.

The Internet is a real potential kick in the nuts for record companies..

GatesOfDelirium wrote: Blacksword wrote: The Internet is a real potential kick in the nuts for record companies.. Only in the sense that some artists no longer rely on the record companies to put their music out there. However, it will be a long, long, long time before prog even makes it back to the radio. The last progressive song I heard on the radio was 'The Widow' by TMV... 8 months ago.

Bare in mind Internet radio, there are prog stations out there.

I guess you're right about mainstream radio. We wont be hearing prog on BBC Radio 1 in this lifetime!

BiGi wrote: Blacksword wrote: GatesOfDelirium wrote: Blacksword wrote: The Internet is a real potential kick in the nuts for record companies.. Only in the sense that some artists no longer rely on the record companies to put their music out there. However, it will be a long, long, long time before prog even makes it back to the radio. The last progressive song I heard on the radio was 'The Widow' by TMV... 8 months ago. Bare in mind Internet radio, there are prog stations out there. I guess you're right about mainstream radio. We wont be hearing prog on BBC Radio 1 in this lifetime! I'll point out what I already stated some post ago. In Italy we have Radio Capital, which often broadcasts interesting tracks...they once played the whole Cinema show from Seconds Out, and in recent times they let Thick as a brick on for over ten minutes! And we're talking mid-afternoon, not some 2 or 3 a.m. when no "big audience" is listening. And it is one of the most acclaimed national stations!

Italy was always a fine prog country. It's good to know that it's recieved that well there, even now. Genesis always had their most loyal fan base in Italy, as did VDGG.

I did hear Comfatably Numb on the radio this luchtime (Virgin I think) but then Floyd are not really regarded as prog, if some mainstream DJ ever described them as prog they would probably stop selling records over night!

What a good thread.

Lots of interesting points raised here. It's ironic that punk began as a cottage industry with the groups forming their own labels, arranging tours with other bands, printing their own literature & magazines and promoting their activities through underground sources while the prog bands were the darlings of the major labels. It's funny how the roles were gradually swapped as the70's,  80's and 90's progressed.

I for one have no problem with this as the majority of prog fans (barring the genre Nazis who seem intent on defining every last beat and keeping each band in it's pigeon hole) seem to be happy and enthusiastic individuals who are driven by an innate love for their music.

For me, this is a golden time for Prog.

sigod wrote: What a good thread. Lots of interesting points raised here. It's ironic that punk began as a cottage industry with the groups forming their own labels, arranging tours with other bands, printing their own literature & magazines and promoting their activities through underground sources while the prog bands were the darlings of the major labels. It's funny how the roles were gradually swapped as the70's,  80's and 90's progressed. I for one have no problem with this as the majority of prog fans (barring the genre Nazis who seem intent on defining every last beat and keeping each band in it's pigeon hole) seem to be happy and enthusiastic individuals who are driven by an innate love for their music. For me, this is a golden time for Prog.

Hi sigod!

Good to have you back.

When I was at school, I knew this guy who was an avid listener of the John Peel show. I listened in maybe once a week - usually for laugh - although he did play some interesting stuff. Anyway, this guy used to tape everything he thought was utter sh!t on first listen. He thought this stuff often turned out to be the best. I question his approach to this day, but my point is, we used to take the steaming p!ss out of him for liking so much obscure rubbish..

These days I find myself frequently having to explain myself regarding Glass Hammer, Spocks Beard, Echolyn etc etc... No one has a clue. Your right! The tables have turned. Prog is now underground and 'home grown'. As much as well like to see our favourite artists be sucessful, you could say it tastes sweeter this way..

Just as there were conditions that led to Progs ascension and growth the reversal of those conditions contributed to its decline.  Many record companies signing many bands that allowed the artist much more freedom in the creative process. The birth of FM radio in a free flow format that played a variety of styles of music and did not concern itself with song length was a huge contributor to progs growth.

 When record companies consolidated they took back much greater power over the creative process.  Progressive bands were rarely signed after 1972 in the UK and 1975 in US even though many existed.  Radio formats constricted in to tight formats playing specific genres of music and long songs were cut out of the mix. Radio companies had to toe the line in order to get artists on the air so bands were pushed into these restrictive formats.

Punk really never received airplay and after a couple of years pretty much had died out itself. I don't think it had really done that much harm to prog by itself. I think that the writers that persecuted the big acts and praised punk really had very little to do with it also.  I don’t know too many people going around quoting Lester Bangs from Creem about anything except to say what an ass he was.

 That left groups like Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers and the Police to fill the void.  What we have here is the return to 3-4 minute simple radio friendly songs with light production. Prog bands had a hard time doing that and one by one were left behind or disbanded. 

Blacksword wrote: sigod wrote: What a good thread. Lots of interesting points raised here. It's ironic that punk began as a cottage industry with the groups forming their own labels, arranging tours with other bands, printing their own literature & magazines and promoting their activities through underground sources while the prog bands were the darlings of the major labels. It's funny how the roles were gradually swapped as the70's,  80's and 90's progressed. I for one have no problem with this as the majority of prog fans (barring the genre Nazis who seem intent on defining every last beat and keeping each band in it's pigeon hole) seem to be happy and enthusiastic individuals who are driven by an innate love for their music. For me, this is a golden time for Prog. Hi sigod! Good to have you back. When I was at school, I knew this guy who was an avid listener of the John Peel show. I listened in maybe once a week - usually for laugh - although he did play some interesting stuff. Anyway, this guy used to tape everything he thought was utter sh!t on first listen. He thought this stuff often turned out to be the best. I question his approach to this day, but my point is, we used to take the steaming p!ss out of him for liking so much obscure rubbish.. These days I find myself frequently having to explain myself regarding Glass Hammer, Spocks Beard, Echolyn etc etc... No one has a clue. Your right! The tables have turned. Prog is now underground and 'home grown'. As much as well like to see our favourite artists be sucessful, you could say it tastes sweeter this way..

I would say prog was always underground in Britain in the seventies, despite good album sales. The reason is this. In the seventies the single was king! And most people, of my age anyway(schoolkids) were mainly into chart stuff.

When I discovered, not just prog, but Purple and Zeppelin, most of my peers new nothing of it! There were exceptions of course, this made up your "gang".

Prog is not dead!!!

It's just that prog music style is not easy to comercialise as punk, pop rock, etc. It's been a time where prog was more known from the great public (70's) but now it's more difficult to popularise someting very artistic like prog music. But, as we see on that site, there's a lot of newcomers in prog and they are generally young. So, by seeing that, I think there always be people to like prog, even in the far future because prog is CLASSIC and differents mode die but not classic things!!!    

From someone who believe that prog will cross the years like classic composers (Bach, Beethoven, etc.) as done.

Punk was basically about short songs released on 7" singles, and a back to basics 3 chord rock and roll approach to music.

Prog was basically about albums, and about incorporating elements of classical, jazz and world music into the vocabulary of rock.

Although there was little love lost between punk and prog, they were never really in competition. Punk was more a reaction against the the way bands like the Stones, Who, Faces etc had become more distant from their audiences, or against the blandness of acts like Fleetwood Mac.

I don't think the big prog bands were 'killed' by punk - ELP had overplayed their hand with a financially ruinous tour of the states with an orchestra, Yes imploded as they generally do every couple of years while Genesis went from strength to strength commercially during the height of punk and new wave. Pink Floyd scored their biggest hit with the Wall about 3 years after punk allegedly killed the dinosaurs. The bands who really suffered were the Canterbury bands and other less commercial acts who had survived via the festival and University circuit for several years. Punk bands were smaller, cheaper and attracted a crowd more likely to spend money at the bar than with the dealer in the corner, just as in the early 60s beat groups gradually took over jazz venues (the Beatles, Stones and Who all got their start at venues more accustomed to trad jazz). Ironic, given that the likes of John Lydon and Captain Sensible admitted to liking bands like Henry Cow and Soft Machine.