Did Punk really kill prog all that much?

Cygnus X-2 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Police = NOT punk. They were far better songwriters, far more creative, far better musicians than any of the punk I've heard from any time period, which I admit happily, is very limited. Just because a band plays up-tempo songs in 4/4 time does not mean they're punk. But Stewart Copeland often played polyrhythms under the 4/4.

Possibly there was also a desire to produce music that could be easily played

NetsNJFan wrote: It is important to remember that the year of the punk explosion was also a year which featured some of the best prog albums in years.  For example: Animals - Floyd Songs from the Wood - J Tull National Health debut (Brilliant!) GFTO - Yes Morrocan Roll - Brand X AFTK - Rush 1313 - Univers Zero Feels Good to Me - Bruford ...and many more!

At last, a voice of what passes for sanity in these parts! Whilst it's true that there wasn't anything particularly innovative about much of the music, prog enjoyed a real Indian summer, both artistically and commercially, in the 1977/78 heyday of punk. The two genres were never really in competition - prog was mainly album based, relatively complex and often largely or wholly instrumental. Punk was based around singles, stripped down 3 chord rock (with a hint of reggae) and short, topical songs. They were hardly chasing after the same audience....punk was no more responsible for the 'demise' of prog than the Beatles were for the decline of trad jazz.

You know, a big part of this equation that we are missing is the price of concert tickets back in the 1970s.  It always irks me when I see those concert billboards from 1970- 71 and they have bands like Led Zeppelin and Jethro Tull on the same bill for 3 bucks.  Man, could you imagine. 

It surprised me when I was doing some research and came across some late 1970s ads for concerts.  I saw Yes and ELP in 1978.  The Tickets were 8-10 dollars. That't even what ELP charged at the Garden with the orchestra in 1977. The tickettron fee was .50. You could see a concert for ten bucks with a good ticket.

I think that in the 1970s bands did the touring to sell the albums more so than today, where there is a lot of money in touring.  Records in the late 1970s were 6.98 list and you could get them for 3.99-4.99 on sale; that is half of a concert ticket.  Today a typical popular band like Radiohead or Dave Matthews wll charge 40-60 dollars for a concert, which is really three to four times what you would pay for a CD. The tickets at Radio City for Dream Theater were 150 for the first 18 rows. Then you have those humungous ticketmaster fees, which tack on another 25%+ of the ticket price. so altogether you pay just short of 100.00, sans parking and dinner, per ticket.

 I read an interview with Fripp in the late seventies and he was saying that bands were having a hard time touring because there was no money in it.  When you add the lavish sets and production equipment that prog rock bands have, the hotels etx, you can see the problem. they were losing money touring.

A "little bit killed?" Huh? 

No, time "killed" prog. Times and tastes change and evolve/devolve. Witness disco

(or not!)

I think prog owes a debt to punk really [now don't start fuming...;)]. I don't think it caused a death, things simply evolved. In my record store days we didn't use the genre term 'prog' as we do now, we called it Art Rock [section in the bins]. The term 'progressive' came later for us [mid-late 70s/early 80s] and referred to newer, more modern work [often punk/new wave or funk influenced], experimental - like Eno and Fripp [two of my particular "gods",] solo Gabriel, Manzanara/801, RIO, ReR stuff - like Henry Cow, Art Bears, Frith, Zorn, solo Bruford, National Health, Tuxedomoon, The Residents, Snakefinger & other Ralph Records stuff, Chris Cutler, Mick Karn/Sylvian/Japan, Talking Heads spin offs, etc, etc. It really crossed genres, was less rote/cliché & more inventively rich in terms of the new.

 Hey, but can't you hear early strains of punk in a lot of great early 70s prog - like Planet Gong for instance?

BTW: music history - some one above said that punk was 'a British thing.' Untrue: punk started in NYC w/ Patti Smith & The Ramones.

Cleo

ken4musiq wrote: BTW: music history - some one above said that punk was 'a British thing.' Untrue: punk started in NYC w/ Patti Smith & The Ramones.>>   Punk was actually a Long Island thing.  Even Billy Joel was doing it back in the late 1960s. It seems to be historically linked  in the literature with Lenny Kaye and Patti Smith doing poetry readings with guitar and then it moved to CBGB's; but it was going on already with bands on the Nassau/Suffolk border, really the outer limit of NYC.

What ? Billy Joel huh ?

Some good comments here.  I'll add mine.

  By 1972 Major labels were buying smaller record companies and making 3-4 major conglomerates. They were becoming less and less willing to allow an artist to evolve over three to four albums before the public finally got it. If bands didn't do it by their second album they were gone many cases it was the first album.   At the same time Radio formats were becoming more rigid.  In order to market their wares the record companies needed to conform to radio formats because this was the only way to get their bands heard.  On top of that bands had been recreating their "sound" now for 5-7 years. It is hard to stay fresh within your self imposed limitations.  Added to that fans were clamoring for more of the same.  We as an audience refused to progress as well. So record companies pressured their big progressive  artists to conform to one format or another and facing elimination they did. Some like Genesis thrived others like ELP faded away. There were hundreds of progressive bands in the Untied States in the mid 70's who died on the vine because there was no market for them.  No record deals, no radio play=no progressive music. 

It wasn't until the advent of the 90's the internet, indie labels and artist released CD's have we seen a revival in the music that once ruled the world. The format allows for bands to evolve to a particular style that was not present in the previous 15 years. The freedom to create is here again. Although we will probably never see these artists in large arena with elaborate stage shows again at least the music has survived.

So my sumation is Punk and Disco did not kill Progressive music.  The industry itself did.

I would like to return to the strange accusation that some parts of "The Wall" are disco music. Well, I'm sorry, it's not disco in any way. Even if some people think that there is a "disco" feel to it, I think no one can imagine John Travolta dancing to the sounds of "Another Brick In The Wall part 2". Some people here don't like "The Wall" because it was so popular and they don't pay any attention to the music and the lyrics of this album.

By the way, there is a different song which sounds like disco to me: "Roundabout" by Yes. I obviously can't say that this song was influenced by disco, because it came out in 1972 when disco was in it's early anonymous stages, but still some parts of the song are close to disco. Don't get me wrong - I like this song.

I don't know enough about the history of music to make a good contribution to the "punk killed/not killed the prog" discussion, but I'll read Edward Macan's book "Rocking the classics" in the near future, so I'd be smarter after that. It's one of the best books about prog, from what I've heard.

For those who think that prog and punk can't mesh,think twice.Canadian band(from Quebec) Grim Skunk masterfully blended both genres on their eponymus album released in 1994.

They combine the raw agressivenes of punk along with the power of metal and grace of prog.They even integrate some classical bits here and there.Hammond organ is used extensively reminding one of Atomic Rooster.Very original and unique.As a matter of fact I think they should be in PA.