Should Styx be considered as Prog? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

pero

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 11 2005
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 1242

Posted: September 13 2007 at 03:14

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

pero wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

pero wrote:

No, Styx are not prog-pop, they are only pop

Have you heard their firstb three albums?

If you don't believe they are Prog, well I don't get what Prog is.

Iván

No I didn't . I had only "Grand illusions" and "Paradise theatre" as a vinyls and best of on CD.

Then Pero, how can you say ttheyb are exclusively a POP band?

You haven't heard:

Styx
Styx II
The Serpant is Rising

This first three are 80% or 90% Prog (If tthey were 100% they would be in a Prog Genre not in Prog Related), they even released Movement for a Common Man 5 years before ELP did it.

Neither you have heard:

Man of Miracles
Equinox
Crystakl Ball

This three albums are more mainstream oriented but still they keep a healthy balance between Prog ansd mainstream, even The Grabnd Illusion has really Prog tracks as Fooling Yourself.

You can't judge Styx exclusively in Come sail Away, Babe and Mr Robotto, that's like the guys who say "Hey Kansas was an AOR band" but they only heard "Dust in the Wind" and maybe "Point of Know Return" (The song, because Closet Chronicles, He Knew, Hopelessly Human, etc, are full Prog tracks).

Nobody can give a atetment as strong as "No, Styx are not prog-pop, they are only pop" unless he has heard a representative number of albums that cover all the eras of the band,mainly when this band is 35 years old and has changed radically during their long lasting career.

Iván

Sorry I heart your feelings, I didn't know that you are so fond of Styx.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 13 2007 at 11:47

pero wrote:

Sorry I heart your feelings, I didn't know that you are so fond of Styx.

No Pero, not particulary a fan,as a fact the album I like more is The Grand illusion, an album that is mainly non Prog, but you can't judge a book by the cover as you can't judge a 30 years career for one studio album and one "The Best of" that normally has the worst and/or the most commercial tracks.

Iván

salmacis

Forum Senior Member

Content Addition

Joined: April 10 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3928

Posted: September 13 2007 at 14:09

'The Grand Illusion' is still prog, IMHO, with the exception of 'Superstars' (this one is very Broadway and not to my tastes) and 'Miss America' (a decent enough slab of heavy rock). Even 'Come Sail Away' has a great keyboard mid section. It's after that album they lost any real of trace of prog, IMHO.

Their first 3 or 4 albums are prog, but I don't think they are particularly good prog. That's besides the point though, really.

Raff

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429

Posted: September 13 2007 at 14:26

salmacis wrote:

'The Grand Illusion' is still prog, IMHO, with the exception of 'Superstars' (this one is very Broadway and not to my tastes) and 'Miss America' (a decent enough slab of heavy rock). Even 'Come Sail Away' has a great keyboard mid section. It's after that album they lost any real of trace of prog, IMHO.

Their first 3 or 4 albums are prog, but I don't think they are particularly good prog. That's besides the point though, really.

Exactly!

ProgArchives aims to be a complete database of prog music, and that includes the bad together with the good. There are a lot of bands I dislike here, but I would never dream of saying they should be removed because I don't like them. And then, we should always be careful of passing judgment on bands or artists whose output we know only marginally.

jimmy_row

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601

Posted: September 13 2007 at 19:35

Their first 3 or 4 albums are prog, but I don't think they are particularly good prog. That's besides the point though, really.

I agree with most that Grand Illusion is overall the best album, but they had some scattered moments of brilliance on the Wooden Nickel label (despite the fact that they were all but left in the dark). A Day is an indication of what they could've done had Dennis and JC learned to combine their styles more often and Father OSA hints at the upbeat hard rock sound they would develop in the future but with very clear progressive leanings. The title track from A Man of Miracles is great as well, edged out in pomposity only by ELP themselves.

On the whole, I believe Styx catch too much flack for the huge missteps they made, while most passer-by's ignore the quality progressive and hard rock material they made in their prime.

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838

Posted: September 13 2007 at 19:44

Their first 3 or 4 albums are prog, but I don't think they are particularly good prog. That's besides the point though, really.

the question thus needs to be asked..... is that enough to be classified HERE in a prog category. Being prog fans... if one wanted to hear some prog Styx... the category Prog Related says nothing about their prog music. In my mind there is a 3 or 4 album line in the sand. Not proposing their moving (so don't get up in arms people).... but asking you James.. what do you think. I raised this issue some time back in another thread.. and typically... got little to no response.

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

The Rock

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 30 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 746

Posted: September 13 2007 at 22:12

Most of their albums up to ''Pieces of eight'' were prog IMHO.

What's gonna come out of my mouth is gonna come out of my soul."Skip Prokop"

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 14 2007 at 00:28

Most of theior albums ubtil "The Grand Illusion" were MAINLY Prog, but IMHO not completely, the mainstream element, call it Rock, AOR or POP depending on the era, was always present.

So I believe Prog Related is more than OK

Iván

cuncuna

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 29 2005
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 4318

Posted: September 14 2007 at 00:38

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Most of theior albums ubtil "The Grand Illusion" were MAINLY Prog, but IMHO not completely, the mainstream element, call it Rock, AOR or POP depending on the era, was always present.

So I believe Prog Related is more than OK

Iván

I have two questions:

1.- What's AOR?
2.- Why not "Prog related between songs"?

¡Beware of the Bee!

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 14 2007 at 01:45

cuncuna wrote:

I have two questions:

1.- What's AOR? Album Oriented Rock, a term used to describe a radio format not based in hit singles, but it's mainly used to describe a bland evolution of Rock in the late 70's from which Styx is precisely a symbol, you can add Boston and many others to this list, it's also known by others as Adult Oriented Rock, but this description even when widely used is not accurate.

2.- Why not "Prog related between songs"? Don't get your question, unless you want to ask the Adms to create a new category.

STYX was Prog Related during all their career, sometimes closer without ever being pure Prog and others really far.

They also did some embarrassing tracks as Mr. Robotto or Babe, but even some 100% Prog bands they also did, so I don't believe that disqualifies them.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 14 2007 at 01:49

salmacis

Forum Senior Member

Content Addition

Joined: April 10 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3928

Posted: September 14 2007 at 05:02

micky wrote:

Their first 3 or 4 albums are prog, but I don't think they are particularly good prog. That's besides the point though, really.

Honestly, Micky, I wouldn't blow a gasket if they stayed in 'prog related' but I do feel that 'crossover prog' might be a good fit. I think the first three or four albums are predominantly prog, and 'Equinox' and 'The Grand Illusion' are too, IMHO. However, most of their albums had some by-the-numbers boogie (same with Kansas, though Kansas were more prog in the first place, IMHO) as well, which throws people a bit. There's a 13 minute 'Movement For The Common Man' on their debut album, but I remember it being pretty poor. 'Styx II' was much better, I seem to recall. 'Man Of Miracles' was decent enough too. But 'The Grand Illusion' is their finest work, IMHO, and I think 80% of it is fairly prog (the main offender there is the Broadway-esque 'Superstars').

I think 'Pieces Of Eight' is a good album but is it prog? No, it's a heavy rock album, IMHO. Certainly, hardly anything the band recorded after that comes close- 'Paradise Theatre' might be a concept album but a lot of it is closer to Barry Manilow than prog, IMHO.

Looking at who else is in 'crossover prog' at the moment, I do think Styx could fit in there; I think they had a similar approach to bands like Argent, Supertramp or The Moody Blues in that their music had radio-friendly aspects but prog ones too. I'm not about to take seriously broad statements like 'Styx are a pop band' which just hint that certain people have not done the research, IMHO. The same people usually say the same things about Kansas, as Ivan has already pointed out.

Edited by salmacis - September 14 2007 at 05:07

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838

Posted: September 14 2007 at 15:58

salmacis wrote:

great post....

I can see them there as well.. and you are right... people love to shoot their mouths off at things they know little to nothing about.

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

ghost_of_morphy View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755

Posted: September 18 2007 at 16:27

Easy Money wrote:

I do not get why bands for adolescents like Styxx, ELO and Queen are considered more prog than adult music like Bowie or Hendrix. It is a matter of substance as oppossed to Spinal Tap like appearances.

There is so much wrong with this post.

First of all, bands for adolescents vs. bands for adults. We aren't talking about groups that specifically market themselves to an audience here, like the Backstreet Boys or the Spice Girls. If we were, you could make the case that Bowie and Queen were the two bands that specifically went for adolescents here.

Secondly, Hendrix, while a fine musician who influenced just about every guitarist to come after him, has nothing to do with prog.

Styx did a handful of albums that really captured the "symphonic" sound of prog. Depending on how strict you are, you could make an argument that they are prog.

I don't understand why Queen is considered prog. Bohemian Rhapsody isn't enough credentials for me.

Bowie's experiments aren't enough for me to consider him prog either.

debrewguy

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596

Posted: September 18 2007 at 18:15

Ghost Rider wrote:

Their first 3 or 4 albums are prog, but I don't think they are particularly good prog. That's besides the point though, really.

Exactly!

So is that to say that we can't delete the entire Krautrock genre ? Wink

"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.

debrewguy

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596

Posted: September 18 2007 at 18:29

ghost_of_morphy wrote:

Debrewguy starts with this overly patronizing comment - YOU'RE KIDDING, RIGHT ? Do you remember Glam ? Maybe you could tell me who Bowie's audience was when he was playing mr androgenous (sorry for the mispelling) rock star ? Sure as heck wasn't my 32 year old dad ! Oh, and while I'm at it, please define "substance". Then explain why that would matter the slightest fig when it comes to another person's enjoyment of music. As opposed to Snobby elitist like posturing.

There is so much wrong with this post.

Secondly, Hendrix, while a fine musician who influenced just about every guitarist to come after him, has nothing to do with prog.
DB vacillates - He would be a hard case to argue for inclusion here. The best description for his music that I've read is Blues from Mars.

ELO does have it's roots in the progressive movement., but moved decisively away from it very early in their career. Anything after "On The Third Day" (except for a track or two off "El Dorado") by ELO is not prog.
Db wonders - Many of our prog pantheon have moved on from their original outright prog output. Crimson went Talking Heads new wave, Genesis acquired white soul, Yes became an example of well made, well thought out 80s rock, Rush indulged their "romantic" interests, and mostly , Neo pissed off some old proggers by daring to include new sounds & styles in their version or adaptation of old prog stylings.

Styx did a handful of albums that really captured the "symphonic" sound of prog. Depending on how strict you are, you could make an argument that they are prog.
Db adds - see the above groups. If you last long enough, chances are your sound & style change over time.

I don't understand why Queen is considered prog. Bohemian Rhapsody isn't enough credentials for me.
Db wishes he could summon a convincing argument, but agrees that while their attitude makes them "confreres" to the prog scene in that they mostly strove to put out music that was different , the music itself was not prog. Although the new sub-genre eclectic prog might hold a place for them. (note - The Prophet's Song, Innuendo, In the Lap of the Gods and a few more do make for some consideration as prog)

Bowie's experiments aren't enough for me to consider him prog either.

Db - agreed, his musical mindset compares to many prog acts, but not his actual music.

Edited by debrewguy - September 18 2007 at 18:31

"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: September 19 2007 at 00:06

debrewguy wrote:

Debrewguy starts with this overly patronizing comment - YOU'RE KIDDING, RIGHT ? Do you remember Glam ? Maybe you could tell me who Bowie's audience was when he was playing mr androgenous (sorry for the mispelling) rock star ? Sure as heck wasn't my 32 year old dad ! Oh, and while I'm at it, please define "substance". Then explain why that would matter the slightest fig when it comes to another person's enjoyment of music. As opposed to Snobby elitist like posturing.

This is an interesting issue, in the late 60's Rock was a kids issue , because adults were not interested in rock, as a fact it was still a taboo, a thing of hippies and the adults were much more conservative and many of them grew with Sinatra and the most adventurous young adults grew with Pat Boone, Elvis or early Beatles, a guy dressed as an androginous space man could be an aberration for them..

Even Bowie was born in 1947, so he was in his early 20's when he reached the peak, so his music as most of Rock was a thing of kids in their teens and very early 20's.

With the birth of Prog, things changed a bit, most of the fans were University students who had grown with Rock and stopped to be just a teen's issue

By 1975 when Queen reached their peak with A Night at the Opera young adults in their early 30's were already Rock fans, so Queen was accepted by an older audience.

Probably in 1972 adults would had hardly accepted a guy with a golden cape and another one dressed as a flower dancing along the stage, but today you find people in their 50's listening and accepting that music, this same adults listen Bowie today and never cared with their androginous looks.

So what was young people's music in the 60's is adult music today and the comparison of your or my father is not accurate.

I don't believe Bowie was ever targeted for adolescents, it's just the fact that adults were not ready to accept him, while Queen ffrom the start was music for all ages.

Iván

jammun

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449

Posted: September 21 2007 at 22:17

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.

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838

Posted: September 21 2007 at 22:26

jammun wrote:

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... LOL

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65550

Posted: September 21 2007 at 22:35

jammun wrote:

y'know, Peter Gabriel (both in and out of Genesis) in all his costume-wearing glory was and is considered 'glam' by many people who just see the photos. Also perhaps your disdain for Bowie had partly to do with being younger at the time.. i know I didn't like him when I was in my teens and twenties. But really, the issue is not which prog listeners didn't like or listen to Bowie, but rather can Bowie be considered a rock artist that progressed the form enough to be considered progressive rock, 'Art rock', or Crossover prog.

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838

Posted: September 21 2007 at 22:39

Atavachron wrote:

jammun wrote:

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip