Why isn't prog as successful as metal as an indus

CPicard wrote: [QUOTE=Progosopher] We could argue that metal heads are less discriminating that proggers.    Our expectations are higher and thus are more difficult to please.  To me, much of contemporary metal sounds the same no matter how awesome the chops may be or how fast they are played (and speed does not equal quality).  But I think the previous responders have some good observations.  Metal tends to be more image conscious than Prog, at least these days, and that leads to greater recognition and promotion.  Overall, too, the target audience is younger and thus less experienced and more prone to promotion.  Prog artists tend to let the music speak for them, which is less effective.  When I was a teenager in the 70s one of the things that attracted me to Kiss was their image, so that when I listen to them, I visualized their outlandish outfits and makeup in my mind.  It made the music sound better.  I know better than that now, but many contemporary artists, including metal bands, learned from that.  Much of the music biz is, and always has been, promoting an image.  Some Prog artists may be more image conscious than others, but the emphasis is more on the music.  Maybe if more were more image conscious they would be more well known.

Less discriminating than proggers whose expectations are higher?... I doubt it: it's forgetting that a lot of prog fans tend to obsess over 70's classics or Neo-Prog, and that the metal scene is split up between many subgenres.Prog is split into many subgenres as well.  70s symphonic seems to be the core and the root.  The thread on the longevity of Prog is pertinent here.  And who is to say that interest in 70s classics represents a lack of discrimination?  Does age diminish quality?  Is that music less than contemporary metal, no matter the genre?
Furthermore, the generation gap can play a great role: the older generation of metalheads can't care or even bear bands like Slipknot... A band whose image is quite important! Some people don't like bands which are too much "image conscious"!I will admit to the generation gap - I am 54 years old and I don't care for Slipknot at all.  I am not sure what you are saying here.  Are you comparing Slipknot to classic 70s Prog favorably?
I remember having talked with the manager of French industrial band Treponem Pal who explained she was somewhat disinterested into modern metal because she felt that there was an annoying dominance of death metal nowadays. /QUOTE]

Progosopher wrote: We could argue that metal heads are less discriminating that proggers.    Our expectations are higher and thus are more difficult to please.  To me, much of contemporary metal sounds the same no matter how awesome the chops may be or how fast they are played (and speed does not equal quality).  But I think the previous responders have some good observations.  Metal tends to be more image conscious than Prog, at least these days, and that leads to greater recognition and promotion.  Overall, too, the target audience is younger and thus less experienced and more prone to promotion.  Prog artists tend to let the music speak for them, which is less effective.  When I was a teenager in the 70s one of the things that attracted me to Kiss was their image, so that when I listen to them, I visualized their outlandish outfits and makeup in my mind.  It made the music sound better.  I know better than that now, but many contemporary artists, including metal bands, learned from that.  Much of the music biz is, and always has been, promoting an image.  Some Prog artists may be more image conscious than others, but the emphasis is more on the music.  Maybe if more were more image conscious they would be more well known.

Less discriminating than proggers whose expectations are higher?... I doubt it: it's forgetting that a lot of prog fans tend to obsess over 70's classics or Neo-Prog, and that the metal scene is split up between many subgenres.
Furthermore, the generation gap can play a great role: the older generation of metalheads can't care or even bear bands like Slipknot... A band whose image is quite important! Some people don't like bands which are too much "image conscious"!
I remember having talked with the manager of French industrial band Treponem Pal who explained she was somewhat disinterested into modern metal because she felt that there was an annoying dominance of death metal nowadays.

We could argue that metal heads are less discriminating that proggers.    Our expectations are higher and thus are more difficult to please.  To me, much of contemporary metal sounds the same no matter how awesome the chops may be or how fast they are played (and speed does not equal quality).  But I think the previous responders have some good observations.  Metal tends to be more image conscious than Prog, at least these days, and that leads to greater recognition and promotion.  Overall, too, the target audience is younger and thus less experienced and more prone to promotion.  Prog artists tend to let the music speak for them, which is less effective.  When I was a teenager in the 70s one of the things that attracted me to Kiss was their image, so that when I listen to them, I visualized their outlandish outfits and makeup in my mind.  It made the music sound better.  I know better than that now, but many contemporary artists, including metal bands, learned from that.  Much of the music biz is, and always has been, promoting an image.  Some Prog artists may be more image conscious than others, but the emphasis is more on the music.  Maybe if more were more image conscious they would be more well known.

Things that sell well get more promotion so they sell better.

Things that don't sell well get less promotion so they sell less.

Capitalism!

I wonder why in the metal world every year you see a dozen os albums "praise as wonderful" while in the prog scene is hard to find the same sense of expectation. By wich means would you attribute that?


Edited by Guldbamsen - March 29 2015 at 09:50