Why classic prog faded?

Ha!  I went to see Bob Fripp on his "Drive to 1981" tour, where he played solo Frippertronics in record stores & small venues!  He played a KILLER set in a suburban record shop in Chicago, with perhaps 50 to 75 fans showing up.  

At the conclusion, he excused himself to go into the back to "wash his hands," and EVERYBODY left, except for me!!  

When Bob came back out, he had a huge grin, with his right hand extended, and he asked me "Did you like it?"  

Well, I smiled back, shook his hand, and spent the next two hours with him (until his roadie Fred induced him to leave). 

You'll know the moment when you have it in front of you, believe me!

Jazz fusion saw a similar fate around 1975 or so. It was like it was too good to be true. Along came Grover Washington and George Benson, and fusion was never the same again to be replaced by what eventually came to be known as smooth jazz. And you saw the changes everywhere else and sensed that someone on high was clamping down on all innovation and creativity in music. That period from 1975-1980 (post 60's and pre MTV) was incredibly depressing for a guy like me. 

And then there's lots of other things to consider. Historically, creative musical periods usually coincide with the exploitation of some new sonic potential, new instrument or technology, etc. its like the ears are hearing something totally new, and without any prior knowledge or experience with it, you have a blank slate to work on, an opportunity to define a completely new music or style. This always leads to an unusual amount of creativity. You become like an inventor, and people always hunger for something new. This happened twice for sure in my recent memory - in the 60's early 70's when electric guitar (distorted), electric piano, analog synth, mellotron, etc were exploited for the first time. Then in the 80's there were a lot of fresh new sounds and creativity when sampling, digital synths, electric drums, etc came on the market.

And then boredom sets in, people get use to the latest new thing, and they pressure you to outdo what you did the last time or else they threaten to go away and latch on to the "even newer new thing". And so it becomes more and more difficult for you to maintain that edge, sell records etc, excite, enthrall, etc. And at the same time, you have all this gear now, money invested and a commitment to put out music. You still have fans. You are trapped and probably doing what you love sure beats waiting tables! And so you continue to make music the best that you can, cashing in on your earlier success, resorting to formulas, etc and trusting that your good name will help you to maintain a decent income.

Anyway, regarding the record industry and their role in all of this. Frank Zappa once lamented about how the music industry changed so much between the early 60's and the mid 70's. It was a totally different environment. According to Frank, in the early 60's, company execs were like these cigar chomping old guys who were like "lets just put it out there and see if the kids like it" when it came to his music. In other words, they felt relatively free to experiment with something new. But by the 70's, the record companies had grown huge and cautious. Somehow they had to continue to survive and pay out all those huge salaries now, so they also went the formula approach. Execs in the 70's would tell Frank that they knew what was best for him. They dictated to him based on this formula approach. He felt hogtied. Its funny because he describes the later execs as being these hip younger guys compared to the cigar choppers, but paradoxically the hip younger guys were the ones that were afraid to put out anything really innovative. 

Anyway, so I don't see what happened to prog as necessarily being a negative indictment of the genre. It was that basic cycle at work here and could be seen across the board in popular music. I suppose It could be the stage shows got more grandiose because it was felt necessary to maintain fans who were already drifting away to the next latest thing. And those shows got a bad rap and the pretentious label stuck. BTW - it always seemed curious to have punk described as some sort of alternative to prog  

Thankfully today, we have the internet and a whole different environment for making and sharing music. Everything is so accessible, and we can enjoy obscure, experimental stuff that the record companies might have squashed in the 70's. Prog lives on.....do you younger guys have any idea what it was like? :) I spent a huge amount of time and effort back then hunting down obscure prog, traveling into the city (NY), combing the gloomy recesses of dingy record stores never knowing if I would succeed or fail. I remember what it took for example to find Magma, the french prog band in a record store. Today its just point and click. All that listening I never got a chance to do back then I can gloriously do now without getting off of my chair....:)  Total bliss........

aldri7

 

Prog got too big for its boots ( over-pretentious etc ), record companies starting to interfere, music tastes changed etc etc

 

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

aldri7 wrote: ... Jazz fusion saw a similar fate around 1975 or so. It was like it was too good to be true. Along came Grover Washington and George Benson, and fusion was never the same again to be replaced by what eventually came to be known as smooth jazz. And you saw the changes everywhere else and sensed that someone on high was clamping down on all innovation and creativity in music. That period from 1975-1980 (post 60's and pre MTV) was incredibly depressing for a guy like me.

  

Agreed. And I think that MTV pushing George Benson and the softer "Easy Listening" folks, had a tendency to wash down the quality of the music. However, I can also say, when looking at KTYD in Santa Barbara, that the biggest issue is that too many folks in radio were not interested in the music at all, but the other things that were around it ... which was a lot of dope, a lot of women, lots of goodies and stupid stuff ... and other things that "impresses" the younger fans. Creativity was no longer the issue ... it was the "fame" that mattered most!

 

aldri7 wrote: And then there's lots of other things to consider. Historically, creative musical periods usually coincide with the exploitation of some new sonic potential, new instrument or technology, etc. its like the ears are hearing something totally new, and without any prior knowledge or experience with it, you have a blank slate to work on, an opportunity to define a completely new music or style. This always leads to an unusual amount of creativity.

  

And this is the part that is hard for folks to see when they post today about their favorite metal band ... seeing it from a historical perspective ... and gets lost in the shuffle of the "fan" thing, and "popularity" thing. Thus, it makes for a much more difficult comparison relationship between the earlier days' progressive music and more modern pieces of work.

  

aldri7 wrote: ... Frank Zappa once lamented about how the music industry changed so much between the early 60's and the mid 70's. It was a totally different environment. According to Frank, in the early 60's, company execs were like these cigar chomping old guys who were like "lets just put it out there and see if the kids like it" when it came to his music. In other words, they felt relatively free to experiment with something new. But by the 70's, the record companies had grown huge and cautious. Somehow they had to continue to survive and pay out all those huge salaries now, so they also went the formula approach. Execs in the 70's would tell Frank that they knew what was best for him. They dictated to him based on this formula approach. He felt hogtied. Its funny because he describes the later execs as being these hip younger guys compared to the cigar choppers, but paradoxically the hip younger guys were the ones that were afraid to put out anything really innovative.

  

In some ways, the comments work, but Frank is not quite a good example, in that he never once paid attention to any of them, but the difference was just about right. But it made no difference for him, although I did think that he enjoyed the more commercial side of his work that eventually made him a more mainstream artist and more accepted than he was prior to his album that "made it".

  

aldri7 wrote:   Anyway, so I don't see what happened to prog as necessarily being a negative indictment of the genre. It was that basic cycle at work here and could be seen across the board in popular music.

 

But the thread, for example, even makes the suggestion that the "cycles" can not exist, or continue, or change ... like music history never happened and no one never heard of it before, and that is very much ... what "kids" are about many times ... and it's ok ... because they can (sometimes) create a lot of music that rivals the history ... and that is what happened to those days!

 

And then Woodstock buried it all in garbage! And MTV glorified even more garbage!