Should Styx be considered as Prog?

debrewguy wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Easy Money wrote: If you were into music in the early 70s, and buying records week by week looking for innovative rock and jazz from bands that were breaking new boundries with each new output, you would not have been suprised with Styxx's eventual musical direction. No one I knew back then ever considered them to be "progressive". They were copy cats who were following what was a brief trend of popularity for so-called progressive rock.   I agree that in the 70's few people from the Prog communitty considered them Prog but they were and something STYX never was is copycats, they were quite original, their sound was unique, they were not  trying to clone Yes, Genesis or anybody, they were being themselves, for good or bad.   Few bands had such a powerful vocal work with 4 members that could take the lead vocals and probably the best chorus after Queen, they were unique from the start.   The Prog era didn't brought them popularity, John Curulewsky left and Denis De Young took control of the band, they became more POP or AOR oriented but still they were original, nobody achived such pomposity in mainstream tracks as Crystal Ball or Come Sail Away.   BTW: If they were copy cats searchibng for popularity...they would had chosen other genre, remember they were from USA and in the early 70's Prog wasn't even remotely popular in this side of the Atlantic ocean.   Iván     Good point, Ivan. I remember Rolling Stone (that bible of pretentious rock criticism) making a sarcastic remark about Styx & Kansas just trying to be the American Yes (?????????????). This was before Grand Illusion & Leftoverture. For those who choose to judge Styx on their later output, they would be well advised to consider that most of their prog idols updated & streamlined their sound as they went along. Not many became as openly commercial as Styx. But to ascribe lucre as the ONLY motivation just shows the elitist mentality that sometimes takes over some people's thinking. It is POSSIBLE that the members of Styx truly wanted to play the music they put out after Grand Illusion, and enjoyed it. Just watch the Las Vegas like DVD that DeYoung put out and ask yourself if he couldn't have figured that he could make more money with Styx than solo. Maybe that's the music he wants to play now. And to be truthful, there are surely prog bands out there who compose & play prog knowing full well that is the only way they can make a career , i.e. it's a job that's better than most. We just don't hear that side too often, nor venture to sl*g these "artistes" who play our enlightened music. Heck, I read a recent interview with Ian Anderson who mentions that he's not all that crazy about playing loud music - "Talking to Acoustic magazine, he said, "I never really liked rock or loud music very much." Excuse me, but WHAT?! "Very much" is the qualifier, he said, "I like it a little bit. I like being loud for a little while and I like listening to loud music for a little while," explaining that he like many British rockers who went to art school instead of music school were into American blues. He never cared for Elvis or experienced the thrill of blowing away his audience with a flute through a stack o' Marshalls. Don't worry. There are tunes he won't do anymore, but Aqualung isn't among them." Yet, many of the big Tull Lps were not quite quiet were they ?

Been thinking about this and:

ejhm... Only if "Should" means "not me", "Styx"  means  "Styx sucks b“lls (bills) jupiter size", "be" means "erase their discography ", "considered" means "destroyed", "as" means  "blasted into space" and "prog" means "musician loosing it".

well I'll just have to respectfully disagree before we have another "rainbow psychadelic thread"

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Easy Money wrote: If you were into music in the early 70s, and buying records week by week looking for innovative rock and jazz from bands that were breaking new boundries with each new output, you would not have been suprised with Styxx's eventual musical direction. No one I knew back then ever considered them to be "progressive". They were copy cats who were following what was a brief trend of popularity for so-called progressive rock.   I agree that in the 70's few people from the Prog communitty considered them Prog but they were and something STYX never was is copycats, they were quite original, their sound was unique, they were not  trying to clone Yes, Genesis or anybody, they were being themselves, for good or bad.   Few bands had such a powerful vocal work with 4 members that could take the lead vocals and probably the best chorus after Queen, they were unique from the start.   The Prog era didn't brought them popularity, John Curulewsky left and Denis De Young took control of the band, they became more POP or AOR oriented but still they were original, nobody achived such pomposity in mainstream tracks as Crystal Ball or Come Sail Away.   BTW: If they were copy cats searchibng for popularity...they would had chosen other genre, remember they were from USA and in the early 70's Prog wasn't even remotely popular in this side of the Atlantic ocean.   Iván

Good point, Ivan. I remember Rolling Stone (that bible of pretentious rock criticism) making a sarcastic remark about Styx & Kansas just trying to be the American Yes (?????????????). This was before Grand Illusion & Leftoverture.
For those who choose to judge Styx on their later output, they would be well advised to consider that most of their prog idols updated & streamlined their sound as they went along. Not many became as openly commercial as Styx. But to ascribe lucre as the ONLY motivation just shows the elitist mentality that sometimes takes over some people's thinking. It is POSSIBLE that the members of Styx truly wanted to play the music they put out after Grand Illusion, and enjoyed it. Just watch the Las Vegas like DVD that DeYoung put out and ask yourself if he couldn't have figured that he could make more money with Styx than solo. Maybe that's the music he wants to play now. And to be truthful, there are surely prog bands out there who compose & play prog knowing full well that is the only way they can make a career , i.e. it's a job that's better than most. We just don't hear that side too often, nor venture to sl*g these "artistes" who play our enlightened music. Heck, I read a recent interview with Ian Anderson who mentions that he's not all that crazy about playing loud music -
"Talking to Acoustic magazine, he said, "I never really liked rock or loud music very much."

Excuse me, but WHAT?!

"Very much" is the qualifier, he said, "I like it a little bit. I like being loud for a little while and I like listening to loud music for a little while," explaining that he like many British rockers who went to art school instead of music school were into American blues. He never cared for Elvis or experienced the thrill of blowing away his audience with a flute through a stack o' Marshalls.

Don't worry. There are tunes he won't do anymore, but Aqualung isn't among them."

Yet, many of the big Tull Lps were not quite quiet were they ?

Edited by debrewguy - September 26 2007 at 18:57

Thanks for the info, that is unfortunate about Mr Curulewski. He was wise to escape the music biz though.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Easy Money wrote: If you were into music in the early 70s, and buying records week by week looking for innovative rock and jazz from bands that were breaking new boundries with each new output, you would not have been suprised with Styxx's eventual musical direction. No one I knew back then ever considered them to be "progressive". They were copy cats who were following what was a brief trend of popularity for so-called progressive rock.   I agree that in the 70's few people from the Prog communitty considered them Prog but they were and something STYX never was is copycats, they were quite original, their sound was unique, they were not  trying to clone Yes, Genesis or anybody, they were being themselves, for good or bad.   Few bands had such a powerful vocal work with 4 members that could take the lead vocals and probably the best chorus after Queen, they were unique from the start.   The Prog era didn't brought them popularity, John Curulewsky left and James De Young took control of the band, they became more POP or AOR oriented but still they were original, nobody achived such pomposity in mainstream tracks as Crystal Ball or Come Sail Away.   BTW: If they were copy cats searchibng for popularity...they would had chosen other genre, remember they were from USA and in the early 70's Prog wasn't even remotely popular in this side of the Atlantic ocean.   Iván

Interesting point, I was just curious if you knew where John Curulewsky ended up in his musical career. I didn't know anyone split the the band that early.

Edited by Easy Money - September 26 2007 at 03:23

Easy Money wrote: If you were into music in the early 70s, and buying records week by week looking for innovative rock and jazz from bands that were breaking new boundries with each new output, you would not have been suprised with Styxx's eventual musical direction. No one I knew back then ever considered them to be "progressive". They were copy cats who were following what was a brief trend of popularity for so-called progressive rock.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 26 2007 at 12:46

If you were into music in the early 70s, and buying records week by week looking for innovative rock and jazz from bands that were breaking new boundries with each new output, you would not have been suprised with Styxx's eventual musical direction. No one I knew back then ever considered them to be "progressive". They were copy cats who were following what was a brief trend of popularity for so-called progressive rock.



Edited by Easy Money - September 26 2007 at 02:18

jammun wrote: micky wrote: jammun wrote: Um, those of us who were prog fans in 1972 had nothing but disdain for Bowie and everything about him and his ilk.  That's why we listened to prog!  Anyone who had to glam up to be recognized clearly had no musical talent.  To Bowie's credit, he eventually grew beyond that, but in the early '70's he only registered on the radar as something to be ridiculed. call me odd....  but your post smells to high heaven.. those things and feelings  you speak of... are products of the music scene today.. where musical genres are marketed to certain groups of people..  in the early 70's.... there was no ..us vs. them...  black people listened to rock... whites to funk... there was no ridiculing...  it was only music.... reminds me in a way of the old saying... if you remember it THAT well... you weren't there...     OK, I could have perhaps stated it better, and I don't remember it all that well   That being said, back when i was an 18 year old college student I do remember that those of us who were listening to ELP, Yes, KC, and others had a disdain for Bowie, Alice Cooper, and others who, in our opinion, were more interested in theatricality than music.  There were others who were decidedly in the opposite camp.    You can only imagine our pain when we saw Emerson's rotating-grand piano theatrics during the Brain Salad tour.   That being said, I eventually learned to enjoy Bowie (though not Alice Cooper), particularly when Eno and Fripp were in the mix.

hahahhahah.  I envy your pain brother

micky wrote: Atavachron wrote: micky wrote: I'd take the new 'bad prog' sub-genre  anyday  hahhaha... first group to be moved into it ... VDGG * piano stops-- saloon goes silent * * micky  hides behind the bar*