Did Punk really kill prog all that much?

You know, a big part of this equation that we are missing is the price of concert tickets back in the 1970s.  It always irks me when I see those concert billboards from 1970- 71 and they have bands like Led Zeppelin and Jethro Tull on the same bill for 3 bucks.  Man, could you imagine. 

It surprised me when I was doing some research and came across some late 1970s ads for concerts.  I saw Yes and ELP in 1978.  The Tickets were 8-10 dollars. That't even what ELP charged at the Garden with the orchestra in 1977. The tickettron fee was .50. You could see a concert for ten bucks with a good ticket.

I think that in the 1970s bands did the touring to sell the albums more so than today, where there is a lot of money in touring.  Records in the late 1970s were 6.98 list and you could get them for 3.99-4.99 on sale; that is half of a concert ticket.  Today a typical popular band like Radiohead or Dave Matthews wll charge 40-60 dollars for a concert, which is really three to four times what you would pay for a CD. The tickets at Radio City for Dream Theater were 150 for the first 18 rows. Then you have those humungous ticketmaster fees, which tack on another 25%+ of the ticket price. so altogether you pay just short of 100.00, sans parking and dinner, per ticket.

 I read an interview with Fripp in the late seventies and he was saying that bands were having a hard time touring because there was no money in it.  When you add the lavish sets and production equipment that prog rock bands have, the hotels etx, you can see the problem. they were losing money touring.

NetsNJFan wrote: It is important to remember that the year of the punk explosion was also a year which featured some of the best prog albums in years.  For example: Animals - Floyd Songs from the Wood - J Tull National Health debut (Brilliant!) GFTO - Yes Morrocan Roll - Brand X AFTK - Rush 1313 - Univers Zero Feels Good to Me - Bruford ...and many more!

At last, a voice of what passes for sanity in these parts! Whilst it's true that there wasn't anything particularly innovative about much of the music, prog enjoyed a real Indian summer, both artistically and commercially, in the 1977/78 heyday of punk. The two genres were never really in competition - prog was mainly album based, relatively complex and often largely or wholly instrumental. Punk was based around singles, stripped down 3 chord rock (with a hint of reggae) and short, topical songs. They were hardly chasing after the same audience....punk was no more responsible for the 'demise' of prog than the Beatles were for the decline of trad jazz.

Cygnus X-2 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Police = NOT punk. They were far better songwriters, far more creative, far better musicians than any of the punk I've heard from any time period, which I admit happily, is very limited. Just because a band plays up-tempo songs in 4/4 time does not mean they're punk. But Stewart Copeland often played polyrhythms under the 4/4.

Possibly there was also a desire to produce music that could be easily played

still not hearin any disco in the wall... sorry bud >>>

it is not a matter of hearing or debate.  Both Another Brick in the Wall and Run Like Hell have a modified disco beat in the drum part: every beat has a bass drum.

it's not really a question of hearing disco, it's more of a feel thing.  And I can definitly feel a disco-esque vibe from the song, due mainly to the rhythm section.

I don't think punk "killed" prog.  Not at all. What I think it did is show punk bands that they could execute their vision in shorter, more concise songs (tapestries of sound).  Hell, Rush did it (SIGNALS, PERMANENT WAVES, MOVING PICTURES, etc.). So did Yes (DRAMA, 90125, etc.)

stonebeard wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Police = NOT punk. They were far better songwriters, far more creative, far better musicians than any of the punk I've heard from any time period, which I admit happily, is very limited. Just because a band plays up-tempo songs in 4/4 time does not mean they're punk. But Stewart Copeland often played polyrhythms under the 4/4. Are you using that to try and make the case for them being punk? I wrote the wrong word, I shouldn't have used "but", however, I will say that in no way shape or form are The Police punk... they're more like a reggae-ish pop/rock. For the most part, yes that is true. Of course, Outlandos d'Amour (sp?) is VERY close, arguably punk musically. The difference is The Police never had the punk attitude, because that's not what they really wanted to be. They were a pop/rock band with an affinity for reggae. It's just that punk was all the range in the late 70s and practically any band doing that sort of thing had a better shot at a record contract. In due time, the Police revealed their true nature, with Regatta de Blanc and so on. Listen to "Spirits in the Material World" and the rest of Ghost in the Machine and tell me the Police were a punk band! That is boarderline prog at times.

Exactly. They had a punkish flare but never went punk. And Ghost in the Machine is a great album.