Did Prog Kill Prog?

Over-indulgence? Kind of the same thing happened to Hair Metal in the 80's. Too many Steve Vai's and too many notes. (Tumeninotes - Steve Morse, ha ha). Bit of both, I think. Disco had sex appeal (Read Jim Garten's take on Raves). Punk had social backlash. Prog had intellectuals. Nerds lose every time. Or do we? Prog went "underground" and survived. Not everyone wants 4/4 timing and love songs.

"Killed" is probably not the correct term. Something like, stagnated, is more appropriate. As Greg Lake was so astute to say, "C'est La Vie."

My two cents worth:

I'm not entirely sure that anything "killed" prog.  I could make the argument that music goes through "periods," and that no period lasts forever.  Nothing "killed" doo-wop or Motown or rock'n'roll, etc.  (Just as be-bop didn't "kill" swing, which didn't "kill" dixieland, etc.)  Part of it is (as Ulf notes) that culture - tastes, styles,  etc. - changes.  There is nothing necessarily "nefarious" about this.

However, there certainly were a number of factors that had an effect on the prominence of prog.  The break-ups (or major personnel changes) of the seminal bands was one, though I'm not sure to what degree.  I think the far more major change - which affected not only prog, but almost everything else - was the conglomeration of the music industry.

In the 1960s, when rock was young, promoters and producers were supporting anything and everything in "rock," since no one knew exactly what would "stick" when thrown against the wall.  So they threw everyting at it.  Eventually (i.e., by the late 60s), the industry - vis-a-vis rock - settled into a handful of genres, including "black" music (Motown, Stevie Wonder, etc.), "heavy metal" (Cream, Zep, Sabbath, etc.), "folk-rock" or "songwriter-rock" (Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Cat Stevens,etc.), "prog-rock" (Crimson, Floyd, Yes, Genesis, Tull, etc.), and "mainstream rock" (most everything else).  There were others, but these seemed to be the main five.

Back then, because it was all still "new," artists were "nurtured," and given the time to "progress."  Often, an artist wouldn't really "hit" until a third, fourth or even fifth album.  For example, Genesis didn't hit until Foxtrot, their third album.  Same with Yes (third album).  And Floyd didn't really "hit" until Dark Side - their sixth album.

As these various artists started bringing in serious money (through both albums and tours), record companies started to get greedy, and see dollar signs instead of artists - and they no longer wanted to wait for their money; i.e., they no longer saw the benefit in "nurturing" artists through careers (which almost always fell off earnings-wise), when they could obtain major short-term capital via a major debut album.  By the late 70s/early 80s (if not earlier), record labels were looking for the "fast buck": if an artist couldn't "produce" by their second album, they were often dropped.

In addition, as a result of the kind of money that some artists were generating for their labels, record companies started to view each other as serious competitors.  So a wave of agglomeration started.  Consider that even when I sent out my first demo in 1983 (pretty late in the game), there were 30 major labels.  By 1995, there were only eight.  By 2000, there were only five.  And if the proposed merger occurs, there will only be four.  And, of course, by now all those companies are no longer run by people with "ears," but by "bean counters," for whom the bottom line is not "creativity," but earnings.

Ultimately, the industry limited choice by focusing on short-term capital.  What is ironic about this is that it actually eventually hurt the industry.  This is because it is not short-term capital that keeps the industry afloat - even with debut albums that sell 13 million copies.  Rather, the industry survives on the artists who had long-term careers - what are referred to as "deep catalogue artists."  (These are the artists whose albums almost never go on sale: Floyd, the Stones, Bowie, Zep, etc.  The reason is that the industry knows that people will always buy those albums.  There is no coincidence that Floyd's Dark Side spent 20 years on the Billboard Top 200.)

This was proven the hard way in 1982.  That year, the music industry was expected to post its first major loss in over 15 years - of over $500 million (which was alot back then).  Yet three albums released later that year actually brought the industry out of the red and into the black.  If memory serves, two of them were Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A."  I forget the third (it might have been Bowie's "Let's Dance"), but all three were by "deep catalogue artists."

As we all know, these days music is mass-produced and mass-marketed to the lowest common denominator.  If they can't pigeon-hole you and sell you as "the next" whoever, there is little chance you will ever get a contract.

Such are the vagaries of the music industry - which I believe was the largest factor in the "death" (or at least sidelining) of so much great music.

Peace.

I have always thought that "punk" was a REACTION   to what young people at that time saw as "musical pretention"(eg prog, poseur bands like Led Zep etc and lets face it there is a certain pretention to prog that can help to define it although an argument could be made  that complexity, is mistaken for pretention) hence a return to a basic more "raw" sound of "The Clash" "Sex Pistols" etc mind you i personally think that "pretentious" aspect returned somewhat when punk evolved into the new wave and "new romantic" sound of the early-mid 80,s "what goes around comes around"(something like the material shunning hippies of the 60,s becoming the business leaders of today.) what do you  fellow proggers think?

Edited by dude

All:

Paco Fox adds an aspect missing from my analysis, and I agree that "critics" played some role in prog's decline.

Aztech: Thank you for your wisdom and support.  My question re "fashion" is: is it a "natural" phenomenon or is it "pre-determined" and then "foisted" upon the populace?  Both are probably correct in different ways, at different times.  But if the later applies, then you are absolutely correct.

Dude: I agree (sometimes) with the notion that music is (or can be) a "reaction" to other music.  Certainly many "punk" artists stated that, in as much as their music was a "reaction" to other music (as opposed to society or culture as a whole), it was a reaction to "mainstream pap" or "prog pretention" or otherwise.

However, as you correctly note, "what comes around, goes around."  When "new wave" came out of "punk," it added some of the very elements that punk rejected, including non-standard instruments (notably mandolin, violin, flute and percussion), some "keyboard" (beyond piano), and more "mature" production values.  It could be argued that neo-prog (certainly post-mid-80s) took "new wave" and added most (if not all) of the elements that originally made prog "prog": layered synths, non-standard time signatures, textured atmospheres, and, let's be honest, at least some "bombast."

By the way, I would reject the notion of Zep as "poseurs" of anything.  They were one of the (if not the) greatest heavy metal blues bands ever.  And although they may have "stumbled upon" prog sensibilities in songs like Kashmir, Achilles Last Stand, etc., this does not make them "poseurs" - it makes them "creative."

Peace.

I'll go for 'Option B' - Creative Burnout

Prog rock came from the sixties and was a part of the natural evolution of rock music.The original bands (ELP,Yes,King Crimson etc) were talented enough to make there way without having to be tied to having radio airplay or clever marketing.They could 'do it' in the live arena.To some extent it just ran its course.Once the classic prog albums were 'in the can' there was nowhere left to go (apart from down). Most modern prog is really a tribute to the music that was made between 1969-1975.That was a special era in music history.

 

Edited by richardh

shark wrote: personally, I find it impossible to subscribe to just one explanation. Reality is a lot more complex, so the cultural demise of progressive rock was really caused by different events and developments coming together from different points.

Yes, but no…

Maani and Paco Fox pointed out two components : business and critics.

I think the solution is more simple.

We speak about Progressive Music.

Please consider Progressive Music as a biologic group and try to study it with a vision of naturalist (Darwinist or not).

Each living group (species, genus, family) appears, evolves or disappears without lineage.

Progressive Music appears late in the sixties.

Some bands have evolved into another music style (the proper of progressive music is to progress) or, like the dinosaurs disappeared because they didn’t be able or didn’t want to change.

Anyway, in the two cases the "picture" of how Progressive Music " sounded " mostly in the seventies must die.

For example Genesis released "Abacab" or "Mama", King Crimson "Discipline" and "Beat" but they have nevermore sounded like Peter Gabriel era and Peter Sinfield or John Wetton era.

Other dinosaurs died, the page was turned.

So I think " Progressive Music " is not a style but more a part of a film or a book, a part of time.

But the time flows, the story continues and the film must go on.

Progressive Music evolves, new styles appear.

The Progressive Music of the seventies are " scattered pages of a book by the see, held by the sand washed by the waves… "

 

But it was our youth that we all want to keep.

We all are ready to extract fossils of our past and to claim they are still living.

Unfortunately not…

In my own opinion it is the principal reason why " neo prog " was created for us and why so many bought the first Marillion records.

Fossils, copies, mouldings, just chimera of the past.

But music is still living, creativity too, all is evolving, as small mammals appeared within the legs of the old dinosaurs.

That’s why I liked Punk Music, New Wave or World Music in the eighties, Fusion, Trash and Industrial in the nineties, and now Indie Rock and a lot of small mammals.

 Eloquently and movingly put, Tauhd. I like tons of types/eras of music -- "new" prog too! Only change is constant.... Waaaahh!

I'm really enjoying Porcupine Tree -- Lightbulb Sun lately. (Review soon!)

It's nothing really like classic prog, but a solid, intelligent album that is a product of its time.

Speaking of punk, do you know the Damned tunes "New Rose" and "Under the Floor Again?" 

To be played as loudly as possible, please!

Peter Rideout wrote: Speaking of punk, do you know the Damned tunes "New Rose" and "Under the Floor Again?"

Surely Pete !!!

I have seen a jig of The Damned (and The Stranglers too) in "Le Gibus" (a small hall in Paris) and I had the chance to speak with 'em after (in fact only Dave Vanian, Captain Sensible and Lu*, the guitarist).

I have even their autograph !!

Dave Vanian : a little cold and reserved

Captain Sensible : Folish guy, very funny

Lu* : Human and very friendly (he just went out of jail)

Yes I know "New Rose" but no "Under the Floor Again"

Yes, he's glad to be home again!

dude wrote: Ramses ll had a Mummy? gee i hope he visited her often

Maybe it's time for you to find a new joke