Prog or pop?

It's a question that's been with me for a long time, and now I'd like you to share your opinion, or to make one if you don't have it!

Why a musician with enough skills to write 3 minutes-billion dollar pop songs would write instead 20+ minutes songs (sometimes struggling at that) and (mostly) go nowhere?

This thought raised from the fact that most prog musicians (I'm speaking mainly of the old guard of prog) got their reputations when they performed complicated and experimental songs, but made real money only when they got to play more simple and "ordinary" music.

As main example, I could bring GENESIS and YES. It's interesting to note that the music these and other groups made money with is generally bashed by the strictly-prog audience, when the overall quality of those songs, if compared to other kinds of music released at the same time, is largely superior.

Another case in point is an album I love, "Holidays in Eden" by Marillion, that's not highly rated in this site, but contains many killer songs like "No One Can", "Cover My Eyes" and many others... This is a great pop album by a prog group!

I know it's a matter of inspiration and tastes, and everyone should write, play and listen to what he wants, but inspiration comes in many ways and forms; if you want only 30 minutes suites from your favourite bands, maybe you are killing 10 great "small" songs...

I think it is a matter of what you really want from being in a band.

There is essentially an option for people who want to start a band and have the ability to go places with it. Do I want to play the music I want and love to play for the fun and the experience in attempt to bring what I think is good music into the world, or do I play the music I don't really like in order to become well-known and rich?

I think that with the 70's prog bands, like any other musicians that have risen to a good amount of fame, they want to keep their status and fame the same, and appeal to thier fans, get new ones, and avoid other new bands that are also becoming more famous.

Bands like Yes and Genesis obviously saw that the prog thing wasn't working out, so they had to do something to keep their fame. They essentially had 2 options.

1. loose the fame they had in order to not make mainstream music, which I'm sure was virtually impossible for them because they could not imagine giving up all they had done just for the music.

2. Continue on playing, but writing more commercial and mainstream music than before in order to keep thier status the same.

Based on what currently floats around in the charts, I'm not sold on this assertion that "it takes as much talent to write a 3 minute pop song as it does to write a progressive suite" after all.

Not that I can't appreciate some pop music, but if I like a popular band they're usually post-punk that has sold well.


Edited by laplace - June 19 2006 at 14:32

jj1414 wrote: The length of a song has nothing to do with how good it is in my opinion. Most pop music is dismissed as being too simple, too shallow, "it follows a formula" etc... I think that's nonsense, it takes quite a bit of talent to write a good pop song. If someone's going to write a 20 minute song, they should at the very least make every part of it be worthwhile and not just fill in the time with noises and sound effects.

JJ, you're right... It's not the lenght, the intricate arrangements or complicated time signatures that makes a song good, but it's the talent... Unfortunately, sometimes the replication of some "formulas" is disguised as talent, while the real quality of songs that escape those same formulas is not recognized.

You told about noises, and the first group that I thought of are The Mars Volta...
 I don't want to upset anyone with my words, but for me TMV are an example of smartness over inspiration: do they really need 10 minutes or so of noises to make a song 30 minutes long and proggier?

Moreover, do WE really need that 10 minutes noises more than one good song or a shorter and punchier album?

dagrush wrote: tortellino wrote: Why a musician with enough skills to write 3 minutes-billion dollar pop songs would write instead 20+ minutes songs (sometimes struggling at that) and (mostly) go nowhere? Some people are artists, others are business people.

Some are both. Either simultaneously or alternating ... some prog artists also have mainstream projects which earn them the money they need to be able to make the music they love, others make intelligent mainstream music.

I like composing both sorts of music - but at this juncture in my life, I don't have time for full-scale works. I get 2 hours once every couple of weeks or so - so maybe our music isn't too bad when you consider that!

(Cheap plug?)
|
|
|
V

dagrush wrote: tortellino wrote: Why a musician with enough skills to write 3 minutes-billion dollar pop songs would write instead 20+ minutes songs (sometimes struggling at that) and (mostly) go nowhere? Some people are artists, others are business people.

tortellino wrote: It's a question that's been with me for a long time, and now I'd like you to share your opinion, or to make one if you don't have it! Why a musician with enough skills to write 3 minutes-billion dollar pop songs would write instead 20+ minutes songs (sometimes struggling at that) and (mostly) go nowhere? This thought raised from the fact that most prog musicians (I'm speaking mainly of the old guard of prog) got their reputations when they performed complicated and experimental songs, but made real money only when they got to play more simple and "ordinary" music. As main example, I could bring GENESIS and YES. It's interesting to note that the music these and other groups made money with is generally bashed by the strictly-prog audience, when the overall quality of those songs, if compared to other kinds of music released at the same time, is largely superior. Another case in point is an album I love, "Holidays in Eden" by Marillion, that's not highly rated in this site, but contains many killer songs like "No One Can", "Cover My Eyes" and many others... This is a great pop album by a prog group! I know it's a matter of inspiration and tastes, and everyone should write, play and listen to what he wants, but inspiration comes in many ways and forms; if you want only 30 minutes suites from your favourite bands, maybe you are killing 10 great "small" songs...

I'm just apathetic. I'm sick of some people on here (not you) stressing out on here whether it's "okay" to enjoy listening to one thing or another. I'm not ashamed to like anything. Whether it's Meshuggah or whether it's a catchy song by Ashlee Simpson that I hear on the radio whilst driving: if you like it then LISTEN TO IT, and be proud. It's the only way to be. Do people actually think that Steve Howe, Robert Fripp, etc. ONLY listen to prog?


Edited by coffeeintheface - June 19 2006 at 19:15

laplace wrote: Based on what currently floats around in the charts, I'm not sold on this assertion that "it takes as much talent to write a 3 minute pop song as it does to write a progressive suite" after all.Not that I can't appreciate some pop music, but if I like a popular band they're usually post-punk that has sold well.

    I hear you. There was a time when there were some good pop songs being written. Now it seems to be all formula, effects, and lowest common denominator. Occasionally one may sneak through (I rather enjoyed Fountains of Wayne). Unfortunately, those are few and far between.
    

For Blacksword... My avatar is not exactly ELP, it's THE BEE GEES!!!