Masterpieces distribution don't follow Gauss curve

Formentera Lady wrote: What was the question again? Why there was in the 70ies a peak of prog rock? I have also my thoughts about it, even if it sounds cliche: In the second half of the 60ies Beatles' visit to India, Monterey-Woodstock festivals, anti-war and human rights movements, student's protests, flower power and hippies movement created a so-called generation 68, which was open to cross borders in all areas of the society. Not surpisingly also in  music. The late albums of the Beatles showed an urge to cross the borders between pop, rock, folk, jazz, blues, psychedelic and, especially in the UK, even towards classical music. The climax of this new musical direction was in the first half of the 70ies. Then the generation 68 grew older, founded families, had better jobs, they cut their hair, became more adjusted. The next generation reacted with punk and new wave, which became the downfall of the prog/art rock in the 80ies. (About the year 77: I think it was important that King Crimson was already on hiatus and Genesis lost two key members.) It may be, that for the music industry punk and new wave with their 'anti-politics' was easier to handle than the often politicized hippie movement. As a result followed the commercially successful 'new romanticism' with bands like Duran Duran, Culture Club et al. The 'old' bands of the 70ies tried to prevent their downfall with shorter hit singles (Follow you, follow me, Owner of a lonely heart), forming super groups (Asia, GTR), or finding an own niche with a more avantgarde-like approach (King Crimson). During that time only Marillion tried to hold up the flag of prog by following the footsteps of early Genesis. The 90ies (and after the downfall of new romanticism) brought a revival of the prog scene with prog festivals and new prog bands. Most of the bands, though, had a straighter, heavier approach and were more in the wake of Rush. These bands still produce good albums from time to time, but the 'hype' and the 'glory days' of the 70ies prog is over. The prog scene today is only one of many scenes and sub cultures of society and does not have further social significance. The reason may be, that since the early 90ies (and after the downfall of communism) we live in a more disintegrated society, in a kind of post-post-modernism, where values are more arbitrary, and it is harder to find common grounds. (Puh, my longest post so far, should not happen again...)

What was the question again?
Why there was in the 70ies a peak of prog rock? I have also my thoughts about it, even if it sounds cliche:

In the second half of the 60ies Beatles' visit to India, Monterey-Woodstock festivals, anti-war and human rights movements, student's protests, flower power and hippies movement created a so-called generation 68, which was open to cross borders in all areas of the society. Not surpisingly also in  music. The late albums of the Beatles showed an urge to cross the borders between pop, rock, folk, jazz, blues, psychedelic and, especially in the UK, even towards classical music. The climax of this new musical direction was in the first half of the 70ies. Then the generation 68 grew older, founded families, had better jobs, they cut their hair, became more adjusted.
The next generation reacted with punk and new wave, which became the downfall of the prog/art rock in the 80ies.
(About the year 77: I think it was important that King Crimson was already on hiatus and Genesis lost two key members.)
It may be, that for the music industry punk and new wave with their 'anti-politics' was easier to handle than the often politicized hippie movement. As a result followed the commercially successful 'new romanticism' with bands like Duran Duran, Culture Club et al.

The 'old' bands of the 70ies tried to prevent their downfall with shorter hit singles (Follow you, follow me, Owner of a lonely heart), forming super groups (Asia, GTR), or finding an own niche with a more avantgarde-like approach (King Crimson). During that time only Marillion tried to hold up the flag of prog by following the footsteps of early Genesis.

The 90ies (and after the downfall of new romanticism) brought a revival of the prog scene with prog festivals and new prog bands. Most of the bands, though, had a straighter, heavier approach and were more in the wake of Rush.
These bands still produce good albums from time to time, but the 'hype' and the 'glory days' of the 70ies prog is over. The prog scene today is only one of many scenes and sub cultures of society and does not have further social significance. The reason may be, that since the early 90ies (and after the downfall of communism) we live in a more disintegrated society, in a kind of post-post-modernism, where values are more arbitrary, and it is harder to find common grounds.

(Puh, my longest post so far, should not happen again...)

Edited by Formentera Lady - September 24 2010 at 08:41

Hi Gandalfino. I dont believe one prog fan think like you. Progressive music relate to math and history more than other shape of music that we listen today. Composers and music writers work with math. Rhythm and timing specially in prog music (7/4,9/4,7/8,6/8,5/4,...) make with mathematics rules.Sounding and sound engineering work with frequency and use math to make perfect sound. Keyboards and electric guitars and side equipments made by math and electronic rules. Most of prog moments root in history. Many of Lyrics based on historical moments. I dont know how you talked about "Boring" in Progressive music. When reviewers analysis albums or songs, They looking for these kind of elements to rate them. Progressive music is very serious and maybe boring for peoples who dont like serious music and want to enjoy only. I never want to say "I love prog because I am intellectual" NO. Each type of music suitable for different purposes.We have many intellectual guys in PA. Octopus found one intresting thing in prog history and I think this is strange.One genre of music fall apart unexpected in 1 year. In 80's one sub genre birth called "Neo-Prog". Many of prog specialists like moshkito dont like this genre and they have many reasons for their opinion, If we dont know what happened after 1977, its better we dont speak about that and use other opinions and follow this great discuss and if we have opinion about that then we MUST talk about our opinion freely. Forgive me if I upset you. Thanks

What about French movies?

I hate Phil Collins .

Hmm guys, I opened the thread but I wasn't meaning to answer anybody's questions (for joke or not) about why I have opened it. A discussion is intended between all the participants, not between me and anybody else...

octopus-4 wrote: The title is a joke, but the idea comes from a poll still open. Let's look at the distribution of the top 10 albums in their years of release: 3 albums in 1972 2 in 1973 and 1975 1 in 1969, 1974 and 1977 Now let's extend the count to the top 20: 5 in 1972 3 in 1973, 1974 and 1975 2 in 1971 1 in 1969, 1977 and surprise in 1981 (Rush) and 1992 (Anglagard) The top 50 is: 7 in 1973 6 in 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975 3 in 1976 and 1992 2 in 1977 and 1999 1 in 1969, 1970, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, 2001, 2004 and 2005 All the albums after 1985 are progressive-metal or similar. (Ayreon, Opeth, Pain of Salvation etc...) More than 60% of the albums in only 5 years. Can we try to explain this distribution ? Nothing scientific, just to discuss.

octopus-4 wrote: But why the hell my beloved dinosaurs were close to the extintion in 1977 without any meteor impact?

Basically we (the generation who listened to that music) grew up, got married, had kids, got mortgages, bought cars, etc. - the generation that followed us (our kid brothers) wanted their own music, not hand-me-downs. Musical trends are set by the people with the greatest disposible income to spend on frivolities like music and those people are teenagers - in 1977 the people who listened to KC, VdGG, Yes, Genesis and Pink Floyd in 1970-1975 weren't teenagers any more.

Edited by Dean - September 23 2010 at 03:30

Dean wrote: octopus-4 wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: octopus-4 wrote: The title is a joke, but the idea comes from a poll still open. Let's look at the distribution of the top 10 albums in their years of release: 3 albums in 1972 2 in 1973 and 1975 1 in 1969, 1974 and 1977 Now let's extend the count to the top 20: Can we try to explain this distribution ? Nothing scientific, just to discuss. Someone probably already brought this up, but 3 + 2 + 1 does not equal 10.  You're one of those people who give an album an x.5 star in the verbal review and then round down aren't you? (3*1)+(2*2)+(1*3)=10 is it clearer now? ITCoCK wasn't released in 1969 then in 1974 and last in 1977. Brian is our resident joker - he's messing with you

@Moshkito: I don't have anything against KC (see my review of Thrax if you have time). Looking at the sales, we have some albums in the top 10 that have never been best sellers. I was joking on this fact.