Can Retro Prog be Progressive?

King By-Tor wrote: Let's see how you react to.... prog is overrated, catchy choruses are where you need to be at. The Jonas brothers are amazing

I am so elitely non-elite that I can agree with everything you just said, but I must correct one thing...The Jonas Brothers are not merely amazing...they are (sigh)...dreamy...

Rock on King By Tor!!!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!

splyu wrote: [ While I generally agree with what you (Ivan) are saying, this is simply not true. Michael Jackson is an artist extraordinaire, and I know plenty of people who acknowledge that. His least successful album, 2001's Invincible, has sold 10 million copies according to Wikipedia, which is a lot by today's standards. Once he releases his new album, it will again sell in huge quantities, and I predict it will be more successful than Invincible.

• Thriller by Michael Jackson: Has "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #4,714 in Music"
• SEBTP, released 9 years before, has "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,923 in Music "
• Invincible by Michael Jackson, released in 2001 has: "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #10,533 in Music"
• Dark Side of the Moon, released 30 years before Invioncible has: "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #250 in Music"

None of this albums should have dreamed to beat Thriller on it's day, but now, they pass over it.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 14 2008 at 21:57

Wow, a million posts. I sort of straddle the fence here. one the hand, if the music is a carbon copy of what has been done before it, it's not all that progressive. Some bands like Spock's Beard fall into this trap, though I think Spock's mixing things up enough to still be a good listen. Some bands I would are retro-prog but not regressive would be Fromuz, Anekdoten, Beardfish, Magellan (circa Test of Wills), and Anglagard. Some that sort of walk the line would be like Spock's Beard, Neal Morse, Proto-Kaw, Transatlantic, Savatage, Dream Theater, and Ayreon. Some that are completely on the regressive side would be Marillion, Pendragon(sans latest album), The Flower Kings, Cryptic Vision, Alan Morse, and Tempest.  I can still enjoy some of the regressive bands, but they would be much better if they actually made some "progress."

Source for the Jackson material, including his struggle for airplay:

Taraborrelli, J. Randy (2004). The Magic and the Madness. Terra Alta, WV: Headline.

Go argue with Taraborelli.

And Gabriel era Genesis sells nothing like Thriller, sorry. Using Amazon.com is false sampling, as the sample is biased. Many record shops don't stock early Genesis albums, so people buy them from Amazon, whereas Thriller is in virtually every store.

I'd hardly call 130,000 units a year in the U.S. 'the floor'.

And I don't buy the argument that prog isn't old enough to have a retro movement. We're seeing retro clothes from the 80s, and that's younger than prog. So it's clearly POSSIBLE. The question is whether you want to admit to it. Are artists deliberately invoking the sounds of the 70s prog giants or not? If they are, how should this music be referred to in contrast to bands 'making progress'?

Heh, it does get a bit like that. One of these days I'll get the last word in ...

Am I reading you right? Are you saying that Jackson is racist because he's trying to be white? I think it's quite the opposite: maybe he was trying to be white because white people were more successful.

And perhaps Taraborelli ought to have interviewed you - all that prejudice - some of which still exists - could have been magicked away. Oh yes, there's still prejudice out there. The US south-east supported Kerry more than they did Obama four years later, against the trend of the rest of the country.

As for statistics, Ivan, I teach survey questionnaires and sampling strategies to post-graduate students. You simply can't use Amazon sales as a reliable guide to total sales. I explained why. It has NOTHING to do with sample size and EVERYTHING to do with the inherent bias in the sample. If you don't get that, perhaps you ought to check your statistics.

And you're confused about what I said, as often seems to happen. I didn't say anything about 130,000 being a sample size. I said Thriller sells 130,000 a year. That's not a sample, that's a report from the publisher. I have no idea what you mean with your 26 billion argument.

Bias, Ivan. If you use Amazon as a sample, you must be assured that shoppers at Amazon are a representative cross-section of the record-buying public. Given the widespread availability of Thriller through normal retail channels, people are less likely to purchase it on Amazon. Therefore extrapolating Amazon sales figures to represent the buying habits of the total population is statistically unacceptable. I certainly wouldn't pass any student who presented me a research project in which they argued that Amazon figures were a reliable indicator of total sales - especially when comparing two records (say Thriller and SEBTP) with what may be different levels of availability.

So 1.25% of world sales is certainly a valid statistical percentage upon which to base conclusions - if and only if you can eliminate the bias inherent in the sample. In this case you can't.

I can vouch for this, as I know what my own novel sales are, and how many sales I make through Amazon. I certainly don't sell anything like the percentage I ought to through Amazon. There are sound reasons of statistical bias for this.

Does this help you understand statistical issues?

Estimated sales figures for Thriller are relatively easy to unearth. In 2003 USA Today reported: 'Jackson's most successful album, 1982's Thriller, has had a respectable shelf life. It has sold 26 million copies and is second to the Eagles' Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 in top-selling domestic albums. It sold 248,000 copies in 2001, 163,000 in 2002 and 172,000 so far this year' (http://www.usatoday.com/life/2003-11-24-jackson-finances_x.htm). That 26 million copies is US domestic sales, and I suspect the annual figures are also US domestic figures. By contrast SEBTP has only sold 500,000 IN TOTAL in the USA. Wikipedia reports 'Still popular today, Thriller sells an estimated 130,000 copies in the US per year; it reached number two in the US Catalog charts in February 2003 and number 39 in the UK in March 2007.

My memory suggested this was based on chart reports, and it may well be, but there's no proof. I'd be more inclined to trust the USA Today figures, which are somewhat higher. You can choose to disregard these numbers if you wish, but if you do, I'd wonder about the motivation.

By contrast, SEBTP has sold a total of around 5 million world-wide, if various web sites are to be believed. Given most of those sales would have happened in the 70s, to have sold 130,000 per annum since 1980 would mean it would have only sold 1,360,000 in the 1970s. I seriously doubt, therefore, that SEBTP is outselling Thriller!

You'll note that I'm not from the USA either. But to say that Michael Jackson never suffered from racism is simply to ignore the evidence. Read the Wikipedia article and follow the references. And to say that Jackson is a racist who hates his own colour is certainly claiming more knowledge that you could possibly possess.

russellk wrote: Bias, Ivan. If you use Amazon as a sample, you must be assured that shoppers at Amazon are a representative cross-section of the record-buying public.   Honestly I do believe so   Given the widespread availability of Thriller through normal retail channels, people are less likely to purchase it on Amazon. Therefore extrapolating Amazon sales figures to represent the buying habits of the total population is statistically unacceptable. I certainly wouldn't pass any student who presented me a research project in which they argued that Amazon figures were a reliable indicator of total sales - especially when comparing two records (say Thriller and SEBTP) with what may be different levels of availability.   I'll give you that, MAYBE (Because numbers are not availlable) Thriller sells in USA more than SEBTP, it's up to certain point expected for an album that was Nª 1 in history ibn comparison with an album that had poor sales even for a prog album when relñeased, but compare it with Dark Side of the Moon with almost 500,000 units a year in USA and probably a very high number in UK. So 1.25% of world sales is certainly a valid statistical percentage upon which to base conclusions - if and only if you can eliminate the bias inherent in the sample. In this case you can't.   Honestly I can't find the bias, people can buy both albums everywhere since CDs are availlable, almost every store in USA has copies of SEBTP as well as Thriller, and probably this album has better numbers outside USA in contrast with Thriller. Amazon represents 1.25% of albums sold in the whole world (Your statistics are only from USA), that's where the main difference is. I can vouch for this, as I know what my own novel sales are, and how many sales I make through Amazon. I certainly don't sell anything like the percentage I ought to through Amazon. There are sound reasons of statistical bias for this. Does this help you understand statistical issues? Probabkly your product is not as massive as a CD. Estimated sales figures for Thriller are relatively easy to unearth. In 2003 USA Today reported: 'Jackson's most successful album, 1982's Thriller, has had a respectable shelf life. It has sold 26 million copies and is second to the Eagles' Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 in top-selling domestic albums. It sold 248,000 copies in 2001, 163,000 in 2002 and 172,000 so far this year' (http://www.usatoday.com/life/2003-11-24-jackson-finances_x.htm).   Those statistics don't have quotes of origin, and apparently this is the only case ion the whole Michael Jackson discography.   That 26 million copies is US domestic sales, and I suspect the annual figures are also US domestic figures. By contrast SEBTP has only sold 500,000 IN TOTAL in the USA. Wikipedia reports 'Still popular today, Thriller sells an estimated 130,000 copies in the US per year; it reached number two in the US Catalog charts in February 2003 and number 39 in the UK in March 2007.   Excuse me if I don't trust Wikipedia, the source I provided talks about 50% of that number, the only reliable source would be RIAA My memory suggested this was based on chart reports, and it may well be, but there's no proof. I'd be more inclined to trust the USA Today figures, which are somewhat higher. You can choose to disregard these numbers if you wish, but if you do, I'd wonder about the motivation.   You are talking about numbers up to 2003, and not discriminated per year By contrast, SEBTP has sold a total of around 5 million world-wide, if various web sites are to be believed. Given most of those sales would have happened in the 70s, to have sold 130,000 per annum since 1980 would mean it would have only sold 1,360,000 in the 1970s. I seriously doubt, therefore, that SEBTP is outselling Thriller!   Lets focus in something, SEBTP only reached gold according to RIAA in 1990 (500,000 units in USA), so saying most sales were in the 70's is just wild guessing, apparently their numbers have increased after 1991 a lot. You'll note that I'm not from the USA either. But to say that Michael Jackson never suffered from racism is simply to ignore the evidence. Read the Wikipedia article and follow the references. And to say that Jackson is a racist who hates his own colour is certainly claiming more knowledge that you could possibly possess.   Well, if you change the color of your skin, is obvious you had some problems with it and you were not exactly proud.   The racism he could had suffered, didn't stoped his 1979 album to be Nª 1, have massive radio and TV air, so I think it didn't affected his music at all.   Iván

Actually, I think the spectators have packed up their gear and gone home.