Did Punk Rock really kill Prog Music?

I think it's a combination of factors. The old dinosaurs of the 1969-19776 era could not maintain their peak level any longer, they have released classic masterpieces for some years; just a few bands would reach their peak yet (like Rush).

I'd have to say it's a little bit of everything, TBH. Prog peaking, as well as the new Punk Rock style coming into play - and those bands/demographic despising what prog was to begin with. A cumulative effect that helped push Prog out the door that it was already tripping over itself and heading out of, anyway.

If anything killed prog (debatable), it was disco, not punk.  I think it's a mistake to believe that punk was as influential and global a force as journalists tend to characterize it nowadays.  There were a few localized scenes where the influence was felt very strongly, but on the whole, punk had little impact on high level music business decisions.  Disco had a more tangible and immediate impact on prog bands because there was no longer as much of a demand for live music - DJs spinning records became a more popular (and cheaper) alternative.

SteveG wrote: HolyMoly wrote: If anything killed prog (debatable), it was disco, not punk.  I think it's a mistake to believe that punk was as influential and global a force as journalists tend to characterize it nowadays.  There were a few localized scenes where the influence was felt very strongly, but on the whole, punk had little impact on high level music business decisions.  Disco had a more tangible and immediate impact on prog bands because there was no longer as much of a demand for live music - DJs spinning records became a more popular (and cheaper) alternative. Ok Steve, But I don't remember one the Gibb brothers wearing a shirt that said Pink Floyd S%$#!

No, their shirts merely implied it.

HolyMoly wrote: If anything killed prog (debatable), it was disco, not punk.  I think it's a mistake to believe that punk was as influential and global a force as journalists tend to characterize it nowadays.  There were a few localized scenes where the influence was felt very strongly, but on the whole, punk had little impact on high level music business decisions.  Disco had a more tangible and immediate impact on prog bands because there was no longer as much of a demand for live music - DJs spinning records became a more popular (and cheaper) alternative.

Edited by PrognosticMind - September 02 2014 at 10:23

I've thought about this for decades now. You can't just say that one form of music came and destroyed another form of music. The music by itself doesn't do anything. Rather, the fans changed. Robert Fripp noted that in the sixties, fans expected rock music to be the "voice of god." Progressive rock tried to live up to that by being a voice worth listening to. But it was incredibly idealistic, and I think it was hard to keep that idealism up forever. Midway through the seventies, I think everyone realized that it took more than a record to change the world, and the whole generation got a little older, stopped sitting in front of their record players all day, got jobs, and had kids. Meanwhile, a subsequent generation wanted to distinguish itself. It couldn't get more complex and idealistic, so it opted for image (disco) and attitude (punk). The pretension of the punks was that they were more "authentic" than the prog rockers. In retrospect, this was just another marketing ploy.

chopper wrote: PrognosticMind wrote: HolyMoly wrote: If anything killed prog (debatable), it was disco, not punk.  I think it's a mistake to believe that punk was as influential and global a force as journalists tend to characterize it nowadays.  There were a few localized scenes where the influence was felt very strongly, but on the whole, punk had little impact on high level music business decisions.  Disco had a more tangible and immediate impact on prog bands because there was no longer as much of a demand for live music - DJs spinning records became a more popular (and cheaper) alternative. I explicitly remember John Liden talking about how his least favorite bands were Yes, ELP, etc. I'm going to dig up that interview. If I'm not mistaken, John Lydon was a big fan of VdGG, not that he'd have admitted it in the 1970s.

Edited by PrognosticMind - September 02 2014 at 10:30

PrognosticMind wrote: HolyMoly wrote: If anything killed prog (debatable), it was disco, not punk.  I think it's a mistake to believe that punk was as influential and global a force as journalists tend to characterize it nowadays.  There were a few localized scenes where the influence was felt very strongly, but on the whole, punk had little impact on high level music business decisions.  Disco had a more tangible and immediate impact on prog bands because there was no longer as much of a demand for live music - DJs spinning records became a more popular (and cheaper) alternative. I explicitly remember John Liden talking about how his least favorite bands were Yes, ELP, etc. I'm going to dig up that interview. I'm not directly implying that that's a reason against the disco argument, but I do feel the Sex Pistols has a large impact overall with Prog heading out.

Understood, I just don't think Lydon and his ilk had enough commercial influence to measurably change the direction of the music market.  I mean, within a few months of the Sex Pistols hitting it big, the media was saying that "Punk is Dead".  From a large-scale commercial standpoint, punk was just a momentary blip in the radar, a passing fancy that made a good story.  I personally think the notion that punk changed the world in any way is kind of an over-romanticized idea.  It makes a great story, but I just don't remember punk being THAT big a deal.

As an aside, I've been into punk longer than I've been into prog.  My memories of being a punk fan in the early 80s are filled with isolation, alienation, and loneliness.  I was definitely not into anything remotely popular.  That's probably why it puzzles me to now read about how punk was some big "movement".  From my perspective, it wasn't - it was a bunch of atomized clumps of discontent.  If you were lucky enough to live in NYC you'd have some friends who liked it too, but most people didn't have that.

freyacat wrote: I think everyone realized that it took more than a record to change the world, and the whole generation got a little older, stopped sitting in front of their record players all day, got jobs, and had kids. Meanwhile, a subsequent generation wanted to distinguish itself. It couldn't get more complex and idealistic, so it opted for image (disco) and attitude (punk). The pretension of the punks was that they were more "authentic" than the prog rockers. In retrospect, this was just another marketing ploy.

freyacat wrote: I've thought about this for decades now. You can't just say that one form of music came and destroyed another form of music. The music by itself doesn't do anything. Rather, the fans changed. Robert Fripp noted that in the sixties, fans expected rock music to be the "voice of god." Progressive rock tried to live up to that by being a voice worth listening to. But it was incredibly idealistic, and I think it was hard to keep that idealism up forever. Midway through the seventies, I think everyone realized that it took more than a record to change the world, and the whole generation got a little older, stopped sitting in front of their record players all day, got jobs, and had kids. Meanwhile, a subsequent generation wanted to distinguish itself. It couldn't get more complex and idealistic, so it opted for image (disco) and attitude (punk). The pretension of the punks was that they were more "authentic" than the prog rockers. In retrospect, this was just another marketing ploy.