Most Productive Year for prog 1970 - 2010 !

Hi,

I think that any and all of the years are good.

To say one year is better than the other, pretty much states that we have favorites and are not listening to new things from other countries around the world. I still think that Germany, France and Italy went massive and quite far, and to suggest that one year was better than the other ... to me ... is like saying that one has not heard more music, and can only listen to a "style" ... that, for the most part, is no longer "progressive" at all!

Walter's point is actually pretty well taken, if one considers the Internet starting to go popular around that time. Since then, the proliferation of music is way too much, and a lot of it is really poor, by comparison to anything that we tend to discuss all around, and with that came the myriad of genres, so one can more or less find similar things. In general, the problem with that (for me!) is that ... they all sound the same! Metal is a perfect example!

I was just listening to "Here Come the Warm Jets" (Eno) and the guitar parts in there, still make some of the metal and harder material out there today, sound like cheap rock'n'roll!

Edited by moshkito - January 09 2011 at 23:34

Also 1972 / 1973.

Why? Take a look at the discography of any of the Prog artists around at that time and check what they released at that time.

moshkito wrote: Hi, I think that any and all of the years are good. To say one year is better than the other, pretty much states that we have favorites and are not listening to new things from other countries around the world. I still think that Germany, France and Italy went massive and quite far, and to suggest that one year was better than the other ... to me ... is like saying that one has not heard more music, and can only listen to a "style" ... that, for the most part, is no longer "progressive" at all! Walter's point is actually pretty well taken, if one considers the Internet starting to go popular around that time. Since then, the proliferation of music is way too much, and a lot of it is really poor, by comparison to anything that we tend to discuss all around, and with that came the myriad of genres, so one can more or less find similar things. In general, the problem with that (for me!) is that ... they all sound the same! Metal is a perfect example! I was just listening to "Here Come the Warm Jets" (Eno) and the guitar parts in there, still make some of the metal and harder material out there today, sound like cheap rock'n'roll!

Regardless of the output volume before the internet went popular......there is plenty of garbage pre and post internet...so plenty of garbage from 1970-2010.

68 72 73

Catcher10 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: Nathaniel607 wrote: 2009 maybe. To be honest, I think anyone saying anything before 2000 is lying/fanboy/deluded/Walter. The internet has just helped so many more bands and artists get their material out there. There's enough material available in a post-internet (well, since it got popular) year to last me a lifetime.  But yeah, that's in terms of how much material is available to the average music listener. Music actually made is a different story... All of it is pure trash. Absurd quantity, yet nothing of quality. All these worthless internet bands, with their lousy digital home studios and samples and copped riffs, have added nothing to legacy of the art form once known music. Indeed, all they've done is saturate the information superhighway with dross that impedes people from accessing the real deal.   But Walter I also think about had pre '89 artists had some kind of digital medium to get their music out, how much more would there be? I mean how many potential new artists did we miss out on in the 70's and 80's because they had no means to get their music out to the public? Your right, it does not cost much to put out an album with the internet and home studios on a laptop.......but does that mean its all trash?

Conjectures about what could've and might've happened are worthless. The facts remain: Cheap digital chicanery for the imbecile masses is a post-89 development. Post-89 aberrants put zero effort into creating their derivative smut. The pre-89 bands that got to record their music did it out of sheer effort and force of will. That, my friend, is commendable. Post-89 trash, however, is always meritless garbage.

trackstoni wrote: i believe that 1972 - 73 was the most productive one in all terms ! what do you think ?

friso wrote: If some-one would ask me, which rarely happens by the way, I'd say 1970 what the year prog got it's momentum. From that year on the course was set for progressive rock, which makes it the main productive moment for the movement for me.

 

It would have to be the years 1973/74. Too many classics to name here but...Crimso's Red, Tull's 'Passion Play, Floyd's Dark Side', Nektar's Remember the Future/Down to Earth, Genesis' Selling England'/'Lamb', ELP's Brain Salad Surgery, Yes' Relayer, Camel's Mirage, Zappa's Over-Nite Sensation/Apostrophe, and Gentle Giant's In a Glass House  to only name a few and not to malign anything that came before them. I'm not stating that any of these albums were the best of the artists they represented - it's just that they all contained this magic that couldn't be dismissed at the time. And if you were alive back then, there was this something in the air (and I'm not talking about what could be inhaled)...

Junges wrote: progvortex wrote: 1969. Because regardless of the quantity of music subsequently released, none can match the grandeur of our King's debut.  So you think 1969 is the best year just because of one album?

1972