Why isn't prog as successful as metal as an indus

CPicard wrote: ...  - How many people from the lower classes were aware of Bach, Purcell or Monteverdi at the times of Baroque? I can believe that Monteverdi's first operas had some success among the "popular classes", but I still have some doubt about the other musical works of these times.  ...

There is no way to tell. History books are not detailed enough on these things, and we all have this historical view that is more of an upper class thing than otherwise, although we do know, for example, that the majority of audiences for Shakespeare were not the courts ... and that may have given us the first CLEAR indication that the courts and upper class were becoming less and less the definition of the arts and the like. This is not the case in painting where the church spent years destroying everything, so history in that area is really harsh and one sided!

Likewise, Moliere, who spent most of his life making fun of the upper class ... it would be unlikely that his biggest audiences were the courts and the upper class.

Today, this is different. The sales and commercial development of the popular and public class, have out-numbered the "classical" and these (supposedly) higher elements in music so much, that tomorrow, guess who the new rich and upper class will be? That will change the culture of music and its definitions forever!

We're in the middle of the "public" revolution and in about 30 to 40 more years we might have a better run/knowledge of where these things might go for a few years.

CPicard wrote: ...  - Was Surrealism followed by a huge audience (not to talk about the Dada movement)? Did "Un chien andalou" gather thousands of people at the movies? ...

Actually it went backwards and the likes of Jean Cocteau helped bring attention to these things backwards because all of a sudden the church was putting them all down ... and that means everyone went to see it. This concept, btw, only ended with the famous film "Deep Throat". Nowadays if the church says anything, everyone laughs and ignores it!

Surrealism, when it hit, came at the worst possible time, but also the best time. Worst because of the massive economic problems and stock market crashes that really created havoc with many economies and that meant no one could exactly afford a book or a movie. The 30's in America are a very interesting time, but also one that shows how most arts sufferent and did not go very far. Weird part is that Surrealism continued, probably because of the European side of it, while the newspaper plays and other American designs were lost in the process, but they, eventually, gave rise to things like Orson Wells!

CPicard wrote: ...  - Same for Romantism: how many people in the XIXth century have read Madame de Staël, the young Victor Hugo or Byron? Were these writers connected with the composers of their times?

Which is the reason why I always say ... as far as we know ... since those are the only things listed and shown. I taught a class on Gothic Horror and started it with Horace Walpole in the 1750's (Castle of Otranto) ... and by the time I got to 1850, I had already mentioned over 100 books, and get this ... most of them have had a movie taken from them! But if you read a compendium on Romantic Literature it lists Lyricism, Nationalism, Gothic, and maybe one or two others, and then dies ... and the examples are weak and not complete.

Same thing for studying "progressive music" and why I want to take out things that are musical/musician trickery that has nothing to do with the music itself, even though it adds a mood or two ... maybe! Our definition has to be smarter than just ... gotta have keyboards, time changes, and more bs ... which all music has anyway! Ohhh wait ... orchestras did not have keyboards ... no one could afford an organ in a hall, and harpsichords would get buried ... ohhh dang ... that's what all the string instruments were supposed to be!