So punk killed the prog did it ?

Baggiesfaninuk wrote: For Punk was not just about the music, but more about a style, an ethic and a way of life.

You forgot about the sticking safety pins through your cheek thing.

There seems to be a popular misconception that Punk evolved due to the excesses of Prog. I disagree.

Punk was around for a long time prior to hitting the big time in the mid-70s. And it was largely born in the US during the mid to late 60s. The reason it got big in 76-77 was the simple fact that the public demanded it. There was media hype - music critics were excited by a fresh sound and pushed it down the throats of the impressionable (working classes / unemployed masses). Prog had been anathema to them due to its university / classical / educated background just as Punk was anathema to the middle classes for whom Prog provided an epiphany.

Punk didn't kill Punk and Punk isn't dead either. Punk drove Prog away from the airwaves for a while but it provided the ideal chance for Prog to take a deep breath and a long hard look. Punk was a sharp cold blast, but it too has evolved. In fact, in some circles, Prog and Punk have merged to great effect. Cardiacs are a fine example, but also groups such as Coheed and Cambria, Amplifier and Mars Volta show influences of both.

For Prog to truly remain Prog, it should evolve. Punk helped Prog to do this. And just like Prog was driven beneath the surface for a time, so was Punk. But it hasn't gone away; it evolved through New Wave; New Romantics emerged concurrently and so the musical soup continued to be stirred by new styles, emotions and eras. For Punk was not just about the music, but more about a style, an ethic and a way of life.

^ I think that is also another prime example of Rick's mischievous sense of humour.

Maybe punk just pulled the plug on a style which had already started to commit suicide:
http://www.videos.es/reproductor/rickwakeman-guineverewembley1975-(CL9NJh_0oy4

Please, Please Please .... I'm trying to ween myself off of meaningless thread.
Alas,here goes again .
Music genres, as fads and trends do, have their peaks and valleys. Just as Dolly Parton has:. .
Insert the following - punk/metal/country/dance - all have a heyday, a "dark side of the moon' commerccial success- wise" , and a revival.
Why ?
Mostly , because any musical form found entertaining (oh god, we can't let people enjoy their music, eh) will eventually find a new(er) audience. This is not a bad thing. Some new acts will advance the form, many will add to it, and others will either cash in, or just go along for the ride (no disrespect meant).
End result - the genres that people like go on.
Which is good. If you  like Prog, cause it is still a scene that brings up new bands, keeps older acts coming out with new releases; and best of all ... shows up as an influence in other types of music, so as to not to allow itself to become stale and reliant on fumes to keep it going.

Or, if you really are adamant that punk killed prog (Sado are we, maso are  you ) - Never Mind the Bollocks killed everything else. Apart from Eddie Eastman in the Canadian Urban Cowboy 80s scene. Whaaaaaa ????????????????

Thanks for reply Dean - very informative.

Scratchy wrote: O.K.I believe we are more or less in agreement now .I don't entirely agree with you about Sounds music paper though.At least from 1979 onwards anyway .I noticed you are a little bit older than I am so you might put right on this.Did Sounds get behind the the Punk movement between 76 & 78. I know from early '80's at least they were more of a NWOBHM music paper & were not in my opinion against Prog Rock exclusively.I was a regular buyer of this paper.I know they did have a bias towards heavier/loader music but I do not recall they had a bias towards Punk.Perhaps it was just me though who just ignored the Punk column's (although there wasn't much of a Punk scene left at this time,although the New Wave scene was developing).

Edited by Dean - August 08 2008 at 20:13

Prog had just had it's 'Day(s) in the Sun'.The press saw to thet.Whether they they liked or not/Simply by the pure fact of reporting it's existance.

To the press,punk was the next big thing(income).Punk didn't kill prog, punk just used prog amd rhe media vehicle as an excuse for change. It was a case of cynical nihilism.

The Pistols were fans of VdGG,Hammill.Hawkwind,Alice Cooper,Pink Fairies,Humble Pie/Small Faces .The Clash were Bowie/Mott/Fairies fans.
It was time for a change.Prog was just an 'excuse' for a change.

Richard Branson's Virgin label,probabaly the agents for the best selling prog albums/artists at the time,(Oldfield,Tangerine Dream,Hatfields,Gong etc.) signed the Pistols.In 'the great scheme of things',and after the oil crisis,record labels had to jump onto the 'new thing' and Punk was 'It',the new glam/pop.

Don't ever mistake punk as a new genre of music.

It just 'did' for prog.The shelf life was over and a new batch was needed.

That's it as far as I am concerned.I,as well as many others,saw it happen at the time.It wasn't instantaneous but the radio stations dropped prog like a 'hot brick' around the end of 1976.

As Dean said,'It(punk)lasted no longer than 6 months, but it's legacy is still felt to this day,.

Edited by Man Erg - August 08 2008 at 19:28

Prog has never fully recovered from the blow dealt by punk. Bands like Yes used to play stadiums in the 1970s. What current prog band nowadays comes close to that sort of audience?