| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dr. Prog 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 29 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 306
|
 Topic: Developments which changed course of prog history
Posted: May 06 2008 at 14:48 |
|
I have always been fascinated by some of the choices/moves made during the heyday of 70s prog. Bruford leaving Yes at the peak of their popularity and not even touring on the CTTE album he made with the band; Gabriel 'walking out of the machinery' on the verge of superstardom; Fripp deciding to fold KC in the mid 70s so they wouldn't become a "dinosaur".....etc. So which of these events most affected the course of prog history, for better or worse in your view?
Edited by Dr. Prog - May 07 2008 at 00:16
|
 |
MovingPictures07
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Beasty Heart
Status: Offline
Points: 32181
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 14:52 |
|
Wow, this is a good list! I narrowed it down to the first option, the second, the third, and the last. In the end, however, I had to vote the last option. What King Crimson has done with music, IMO, especially over all the years has been extremely important in prog's history.
|
|
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 14:58 |
|
I choose option #2. Anderson felt that when both Howe and Bruford joined separately, they added something new to his perspective on music. Then add on the other couple dozen chain reactions that occured (and that I wouldn't have time to cover in this post) and Bruford's move is easily for me one of the most influential moments in progressive rock
|
|
|
|
tszirmay
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 15:56 |
The biggest event is the arrival of the CD . The Golden Years of prog were left for dead in 1978 by which time too many bands were going commercial (Hi there Genee!) . There wouldn't be a PA without the advent of the compact disc (Old proggies getting CD reeditions) , as well as the success of Marillion.
That being said , the main musical move is #2 because it affected both Yes and KC immensely. Waters leaving only affected Waters. Fripp frming and reforming KC is nothing new , after all KC always was a project.
|
|
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 16:02 |
Even though I was still a project in the early 70's, I can (from what I know) say that
- Lake's move didn't kill Crimson.. though it enhanced ELP
- Brufford's move didn't kill Yes, though it enhanced KC
- Barret's departure from Pink Floyd, in my view, actually helped the band which released their greatest albums without him and with new true master Gilmour
- Fripp killed KC but has resurrected it so many times that his 74's move is hardly dramatic.
- Fripp resurrecting KC in the 80's is important though the band (in my opinion) kind of.. sucked. But it was important for prog.
- Anderson/Wakeman leaving Yes - though important, both eventually returned, and the Andersonless album (Drama) is not bad at all.... the band remained the same...
The most dramatic for me:
- Waters leaving PF.. the end of one of the greatest bands ever... it would never be the same without him
- Peter Gabriel - now this was hard.. the great singer and writer and showman leaving prog's greatest band.. it changed history mostly because it was the start of the end of an era, which arrived with..
- Hackett leaving Genesis - the final nail in the coffin for Symphonic Genesis, and the beginning of the band's pop career. I love a few Hackett-less albums (ATTTWT, duke) but one can't deny that, for prog history, this move really changed things.
Edited by The T - May 06 2008 at 16:04
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 16:03 |
|
Option #1, in the sense that ELP was so enormously important to prog, and I think Lake was an integral piece of that puzzle (though I think the most replacable member, if you could call any of them such).
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 16:08 |
|
Yes releasing Tales from Topographic Oceans. That was the point where prog finally proved the critics right in their complaints, and from there prog ended any real chance at redemption. Punk coming along and striking the final blow didn't matter; prog had already dealt itself a fatal wound.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 16:11 |
 Pnoom! wrote:
Yes releasing Tales from Topographic Oceans. That was the point where prog finally proved the critics right in their complaints, and from there prog ended any real chance at redemption. Punk coming along and striking the final blow didn't matter; prog had already dealt itself a fatal wound. |
I would agree partially.. but from the list, which one would you choose?
|
|
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 16:26 |
The T wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
Yes releasing Tales from Topographic Oceans. That was the point where prog finally proved the critics right in their complaints, and from there prog ended any real chance at redemption. Punk coming along and striking the final blow didn't matter; prog had already dealt itself a fatal wound. |
I would agree partially.. but from the list, which one would you choose? |
From the list, Fripp ending KC. KC was the one band that had always been the one prog band (well, along with the debatably prog Pink Floyd) that showed restraint and rationality throughout their music. With KC done then, prog was really done (symph prog at least), and that KC reemerged as a non-prog (though still art rock) band in the 80s only compounds this.
Second from this list would be Peter Gabriel going solo, since I would say that marked the point where prog really morphed into proggy pop into pure pop.
A brief discussion of all the options:
Greg Lake leaving King Crimson to join ELP
ELP were always the epitome of prog excess, so this helped define the genre's negative image, and it influenced a lot of bands, but I don't see prog being too different without ELP. King Crimson I don't think was terribly affected by this. I think their sound would've shifted to where it had gone anyway, since Fripp was the key factor.
Bill Bruford leaving Yes to join King Crimson
It made Crimson a better band, didn't really affect Yes. Either way, Bruford would've been one of the key elements in prog, so I don't think this is a terribly important development, though it's nice that he moved to the better band 
Steve Hackett leaving Genesis for solo career
Genesis was going pop anyway, I would imagine SH leaving was more a consequence of their change in sound than a catalyst of said change. I think this is more symbolic than truly important, especially prog was already pretty irrelevant at this point.
Syd Barrett's departure from P Floyd and Gilmour's arrival
I don't think PF was ever enough of a prog band for this to be worth noting. It shaped the history of PF, but PF shaped prog far less than the triumvirate of Yes, Genesis, and King Crimson.
Roger Waters acrimonious departure from Floyd
See my above point with the added point that prog was already pretty irrelevant by the 1980s.
Anderson/Wakeman walking away from Yes at end of 70s
This was after the downfall of prog, as I've said. I would say this is more a function of the downfall (and representative of it) than a cause of it.
Fripp resurrecting KC in the early 80s
This is more symbolic in that the most relevant prog band came back as a non-prog band, pretty much definitively stating that the golden era of prog was done. It may have quenched any chance of a golden era resurrection, and it cleared the way for the neo revival, but I don't think KC coming back as a prog band could've saved prog. It was already dead, and their reappearance as a non-prog band represents that.
Edited by Pnoom! - May 06 2008 at 16:35
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 17:02 |
|
Soon after John Lydon failed to impress Henry Cow at the audition, everything changed.
(I'm sure I've read about this somewhere, but I can't find any info about it on google. Am I just making this up?)
|
|
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
|
|
Dr. Prog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 29 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 306
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 17:11 |
tszirmay wrote:
The biggest event is the arrival of the CD . The Golden Years of prog were left for dead in 1978 by which time too many bands were going commercial (Hi there Genee!) . There wouldn't be a PA without the advent of the compact disc (Old proggies getting CD reeditions) , as well as the success of Marillion.
|
This poll is restricted to personnel moves among the top prog trailblazer bands of the 70s. Other developments such as the CD, internet etc may be appropriate for another poll (be my guest) but not this one. Having said that, those of us who made prog in the 70s by buying record albums might dispute that, but that is for another thread. All music benefitted from the advent of the CD, so its kind of a moot point. Check out Frank Sinatra's CD sales sometime and you will see what I mean.
|
|
Dr. Prog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 29 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 306
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 17:15 |
Pnoom! wrote:
Yes releasing Tales from Topographic Oceans. That was the point where prog finally proved the critics right in their complaints, and from there prog ended any real chance at redemption. Punk coming along and striking the final blow didn't matter; prog had already dealt itself a fatal wound. |
As I said, this particular poll is about personnel moves among the top prog bands, otherwise it would turn into a which album is more important thread, which has already been done. BTW, punk didn't kill prog, disco did. Common misperception foisted upon us by Rolling Stone and Mojo magazine critics who hated prog because they sucked at playing musical instruments with any kind of ability. Don't believe everything you read.
|
|
Dr. Prog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 29 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 306
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 17:17 |
Pnoom! wrote:
The T wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
Yes releasing Tales from Topographic Oceans. That was the point where prog finally proved the critics right in their complaints, and from there prog ended any real chance at redemption. Punk coming along and striking the final blow didn't matter; prog had already dealt itself a fatal wound. |
I would agree partially.. but from the list, which one would you choose? |
From the list, Fripp ending KC. KC was the one band that had always been the one prog band (well, along with the debatably prog Pink Floyd) that showed restraint and rationality throughout their music. With KC done then, prog was really done (symph prog at least), and that KC reemerged as a non-prog (though still art rock) band in the 80s only compounds this.
Second from this list would be Peter Gabriel going solo, since I would say that marked the point where prog really morphed into proggy pop into pure pop.
A brief discussion of all the options:
Greg Lake leaving King Crimson to join ELP
ELP were always the epitome of prog excess, so this helped define the genre's negative image, and it influenced a lot of bands, but I don't see prog being too different without ELP. King Crimson I don't think was terribly affected by this. I think their sound would've shifted to where it had gone anyway, since Fripp was the key factor.
Bill Bruford leaving Yes to join King Crimson
It made Crimson a better band, didn't really affect Yes. Either way, Bruford would've been one of the key elements in prog, so I don't think this is a terribly important development, though it's nice that he moved to the better band
Steve Hackett leaving Genesis for solo career
Genesis was going pop anyway, I would imagine SH leaving was more a consequence of their change in sound than a catalyst of said change. I think this is more symbolic than truly important, especially prog was already pretty irrelevant at this point.
Syd Barrett's departure from P Floyd and Gilmour's arrival
I don't think PF was ever enough of a prog band for this to be worth noting. It shaped the history of PF, but PF shaped prog far less than the triumvirate of Yes, Genesis, and King Crimson.
Roger Waters acrimonious departure from Floyd
See my above point with the added point that prog was already pretty irrelevant by the 1980s.
Anderson/Wakeman walking away from Yes at end of 70s
This was after the downfall of prog, as I've said. I would say this is more a function of the downfall (and representative of it) than a cause of it.
Fripp resurrecting KC in the early 80s
This is more symbolic in that the most relevant prog band came back as a non-prog band, pretty much definitively stating that the golden era of prog was done. It may have quenched any chance of a golden era resurrection, and it cleared the way for the neo revival, but I don't think KC coming back as a prog band could've saved prog. It was already dead, and their reappearance as a non-prog band represents that. |
this whole thing is an interesting read because much of it is so wacky. I am not sure where you are pulling much of this music history from, but your "prog was irrelevant" kick borders on manic. That is some wild weird stuff. You need to put down the Rolling Stone issues for a bit dude........
|
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66581
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 17:26 |
Personal change: John Rutsey decides playing drums in a touring band isn't for him and is replaced by Neil Peart.
2nd: Peter Banks and Tony Kaye replaced by Steve Howe and Rick Wakeman.
From List: All are interesting and had different positive and negative results. I think that Peter Gabriel's leaving Genesis had the most significant impact on the direction of a prog band. The vocalist/frontman is kind of the band's identity and the changing of this identity was quite huge.
For me though these are all in retrospect since they all occurred prior to my becoming an invested listener of any of these bands. The various impacts would probably have been more significant if I were a fan prior to these occurrences.
|
|
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 17:26 |
Rocktopus wrote:
Soon after John Lydon failed to impress Henry Cow at the audition, everything changed.
(I'm sure I've read about this somewhere, but I can't find any info about it on google. Am I just making this up?)
|
This rings bells with me too. However, I might just be as deluded as you..  Anyone? I'm intrigued now.
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 17:27 |
| As I said, this particular poll is about personnel moves among the top prog bands |
And once I realized this, I made a relevant post.
| BTW, punk didn't kill prog, disco did. |
I never said punk killed prog, I said prog did. 
| Common misperception foisted upon us by Rolling Stone and Mojo magazine critics who hated prog because they sucked at playing musical instruments with any kind of ability. Don't believe everything you read. |
I have never read an issue of Rolling Stone or Mojo in my life.
| this whole thing is an interesting read because much of it is so wacky. |
Do you need to insult every post I make?
| I am not sure where you are pulling much of this music history from, but your "prog was irrelevant" kick borders on manic. |
In terms of it's relevance to the music scene, prog started going downhill around 1974-ish. What's so wacky about that?
| That is some wild weird stuff. You need to put down the Rolling Stone issues for a bit dude........ |
| I have never read an issue of Rolling Stone or Mojo in my life. |
EDIT: mind actually explaining how it's wacky without insults?
Edited by Pnoom! - May 06 2008 at 17:28
|
|
JROCHA
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 18 2007
Location: Oakland, KS
Status: Offline
Points: 1501
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 17:41 |
|
When Peter Left Genesis.....enough said.
|
|
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights...
|
|
Dr. Prog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 29 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 306
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 17:46 |
Pnoom! wrote:
| As I said, this particular poll is about personnel moves among the top prog bands |
And once I realized this, I made a relevant post.
| BTW, punk didn't kill prog, disco did. |
I never said punk killed prog, I said prog did.
| Common misperception foisted upon us by Rolling Stone and Mojo magazine critics who hated prog because they sucked at playing musical instruments with any kind of ability. Don't believe everything you read. |
I have never read an issue of Rolling Stone or Mojo in my life.
| this whole thing is an interesting read because much of it is so wacky. |
Do you need to insult every post I make?
| I am not sure where you are pulling much of this music history from, but your "prog was irrelevant" kick borders on manic. |
In terms of it's relevance to the music scene, prog started going downhill around 1974-ish. What's so wacky about that?
| That is some wild weird stuff. You need to put down the Rolling Stone issues for a bit dude........ |
| I have never read an issue of Rolling Stone or Mojo in my life. |
EDIT: mind actually explaining how it's wacky without insults? |
I was going to actually take the time to respond point by point, but when I got to the part about Pink Floyd not really being a progressive rock band, I just decided I don't want to expend the kind of energy it would take for what would have to be an educational history lesson that would be better left for more in depth reading of some music literature and possibly some more in depth listening........like I said, it was an interesting read.
Edited by Dr. Prog - May 06 2008 at 17:47
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 17:54 |
Which band sang: it's not what you say it's the way that you say it! it's not what you write it's the way that you write it! Whoever it was they were bang on the mark. Let's not descend into surly post territory please.  Next ad hominem post in this thread gets deleted.
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: May 06 2008 at 18:59 |
|
None of the above.
1. Hammill ending VdGG in 1977 for me, on a personal basis. Hammill soldiered on though and made some excellent solo albums throughout the 1980s.
2. Hammill sacking David Jackson in 2007.
The above are tongue-in-cheek answers by the way.
I don't think Punk or Disco ended prog, I agree with Folly. Prog just became stale on its own accord. Once Punk had come round, it actually breathed new life into prog (of a different kind though) and such bands like Massacre, This Heat and yes, even Marillion, were formed and a new resurgence of prog emerged in the 1980s. It just wasn't referred to as prog at the time.
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Developments which changed course of prog history
