Generation gaps in progressive music

I brought this up in the "What would you like to see discussed more?" thread, but I think the subject deserves its own thread. I basically wondered aloud whether the lack of discussion of newer bands that aren't terribly informed by the 1960s/1970s prog-rock movement might have something to do with the aesthetics and perhaps ethos/sensibility of much music from the 1980s/1990s onwards coming across as too modern. (for lack of a better word)

Speaking as someone from generation 1988, I listen to very little music from before the mid-1960s and even a lot of 1970s or 1980s music there are some things about either the aesthetics or the way things are put together conceptually I have to more actively "suspend disbelief" about. In the entire concept of avantgarde/progressive/experimental music there will simply have to be some things that come across as cutting-edge and "out there" in ways that won't by necessity age well or seem as avant-garde to future generations. It's something I mentioned in another thread, can't remember which one: The discussion turned to how for example Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd were more popular with younger generations than Yes and I mentioned that Yes' "lots of analog synthesizer + elfin vocals + new age religious lyrics + cover art that looks like it could be spraypainted on the side of a custom van" aesthetic screams "early 1970s" in a more obnoxious way than LZ or PF's. Something like King Crimson's mid-1970s heavy power trio line-up has less of a "kitsch factor" (not sure if I'm using the K-word properly but you know what I mean), or classic Genesis because of the entire retro-Victorian aesthetic or perhaps something like Captain Beefheart and Frank Zappa where the entire aesthetic's closely tied into the specific songwriter's "personal universe" more than a specific zeitgeist.

In a less obvious example, there is also how many of the very earliest progressive rock groups like The Moody Blues or Traffic I don't find that interesting because while the "sound" is there the narrative structures of the music aren't quite as involved as what Genesis, King Crimson etc. would expand upon in half a generation. Which brings us to the question of how much "aged well" is a question of "being imitated by following generations": It's easier to find something like mid-'70s KC, or Rush less dated when both would be a huge influence on the metal scene of the 1980s and 1990s, or the Kosmische Musik movement respective to Anglo-prog considering it foreshadowing both modern electronic music as well as the more abstract corners of punk.

I'm also curious to know if some of the younger posters coming here from the angle of distinctively 1980s/1990s music styles (prog/tech metal, math-rock/post-rock etc) feel this to an even more extreme degree than I do? In metal circles I encounter people who have trouble getting into stuff from before some point in the 1980s or 1990s for instance, especially if they started with more extreme styles and hence kind of "read the genre's history backwards". I'm feeling a similar generation gap I'm on the wrong side of in some other artistic media, like pre-1960s cinema or pre-WW1 literature (pre-Hemingway even) though I'm trying to expand my horizons there.

As a child of the mid 80's I guess I could say I span that gap. I didn't properly get into music until I was nearly 17 with most of the popular indie bands of the early 2000's (specifically Red Hot Chili Peppers, Coldplay, Muse, Stereophonics etc) but within a year pretty much jumped in head first to prog via Genesis and Pink Floyd on the classic side and Dream Theater, Symphony X and The Mars Volta from the modern. I think going in at both ends, with Marillion fleshing out the middle, right from the start has meant has meant I gained an appreciation for the aesthetics of both era's at the same time and as such, for a long time I've been quite happy to listen to any prog music from any era. It's true though that there are definitely bands with a sound that is so heavily rooted in a certain time that they can date considerably, but they may not always effect my enjoyment of a band.

That said, I've certainly met several people from my generation who, despite being very open to quite experimental music, can appreciate but don't necessarily like bands from the 60's, 70's or 80's, and we've all seen the "music died in 79" people that pop here from time to time. I think in both cases a certain type of sound will click with them so completely that it shuts out all others and can be said to be a more extreme form of what it is that makes people like certain styles or genre's of music in general. (Pure speculation here, based on the fact that liking music is a genetic trait and that I assume that it's variations in this trait that determines why people will like one type of music or another, or at least be open to listening to various types of music).

One thing I have noticed from the very small "population samples" I know of, those of my generation that dislike older prog are far more likely to be respectful towards the older music than old proggers who dislike the modern takes on prog, some of which can be right b*****ds.  

I'm not as young as the OP is looking for. I think I understand the general point, though I'm confused by the particular examples in the OP. I stated it somewhere elsewhere that I don't think that the enormous impact of Crimson's ITCOCK is really felt if one was not able to discover it when it first came out, as I wasn't. I've also made the point in the past that Hackett's early two handed tapping suffers post-hoc from sounding a bit cliche, even though it's prior in several cases to Eddie Van Halen spreading it like wildfire to nearly every run-of-the-mill guitarist.

sleeper wrote: That said, I've certainly met several people from my generation who, despite being very open to quite experimental music, can appreciate but don't necessarily like bands from the 60's, 70's or 80's, and we've all seen the "music died in 79" people that pop here from time to time. I think in both cases a certain type of sound will click with them so completely that it shuts out all others and can be said to be a more extreme form of what it is that makes people like certain styles or genre's of music in general. (Pure speculation here, based on the fact that liking music is a genetic trait and that I assume that it's variations in this trait that determines why people will like one type of music or another, or at least be open to listening to various types of music).

Not sure if music is purely a "genetic trait". I think your music taste, or at least the rough outlines of your comfort zone, is shaped by what you listen to during your formative years which would not just include what you listen to of own free will but also your family and friends. I sometimes wonder if I'm somewhat more open towards 1960s/1970s music aesthetics than many my generation because my parents don't listen to that much stuff from after the mid/late 1970s, for instance.

Of course, sometimes that's what you end up reacting against depending on how much of a generation gap in the culture at large there is. There's the entire question of how much musical generation gaps reflect those in society overall, which I haven't really gotten into.

Toaster Mantis wrote: I think there are several generation gaps in metal: One between the "concrete rock" that still had one foot in hard blues rock and psychedelia on one hand, the other side of the gap being Judas Priest and the NWoBHM who were more self-consciously; then there's one between those and the more extreme subgenres coming into their own in the mid/late 1980s; a third one setting in around the mid-1990s or so after most of the genre's main paradigm shifts have happened, there's a sharp drop-off in new "classic records" artists either deliberately set out to live up to or support after that. I've noticed that a lot of older metallers who came of age in the 1980s or early 1990s dislike most of what came out after some point in the mid-1990s. There might be a fourth one setting in somewhere in the 21st century where "post-metal" became a thing, and the overall subculture becomes less rigid in its identity or at least more fragmented. At least the genre's return to mainstream popularity around 2009 or so means that more and more people involved in the genre have an "outside looking in" perspective I didn't see very often in say 2004-2006.

 

Agreed again.  There were reviews in metal-archives which claimed that 'real metal' basically started with Death's debut.    I hope there is indeed a fourth post-metal wave.  I find some nice mixing of approaches in Mastodon.  When I used to listen to a lot of metal, I found the close mindedness of 'real metal' fans ultimately suffocating and, as I lost interest in interacting with them, lost a network of recommendations for good metal music. 

Toaster Mantis wrote: That is odd because I think Deep Purple's classic LPs sound less 1970s than Blue Öyster Cult, at least going by BÖC's first three LPs and the On Your Feet or on Your Knees live album since that's the ones I listen to the most. At least mk2 Deep Purple, from In Rock through Machine Head, sound like a pretty clear precursor to late-1970s/early-1980s heavy metal in a lot of regards especially if you also factor in Rainbow. In the case of BÖC they sound more like some weird hybrid between 1960s biker rock, proto-garage-punk (notice that Patti Smith contributed to writing several of their songs) and experimental psychedelia... there's quite a few key aspects of their signature style I haven't heard as many later metal groups pick up on as with DP.

 

I was thinking more of their Don't Fear the Reaper and onwards phase, the one that's less critically acclaimed but which I found more satisfying, barring Secret Treaties.  During that so called soft phase, BOC came up with some beautiful melodies like In Thee, I love the night, Don't turn your back which have stood the test of time.  What I find very 70s about Purple is the preponderance of organ, which got left out in the further evolution of metal. 

Toaster Mantis wrote: The other thing you mention is something I'm curious about, how much of music's alleged "datedness" is really hung up on production technology moreso than the content of the songwriting. There are definitely some instrumental sounds and approaches to sound engineering that were most popular in specific decades. In this case, datedness becomes a function of how much later generations take up an approach.

 

I think the production aspect is a very big part of it because it was by using the studio artfully that the concept of a rock/pop outfit really broke through in a big way.  In the 90s, some aspects of 80s production seem to have been abandoned and while the overall sound was way fuller than in either 70s or 80s, the balance was closer to the 70s.  That's why you have a lot more people complaining about 80s production than 70s.

 

Toaster Mantis wrote: Which brings us to another "listening to music history backwards" phenomenon I didn't mention in the OP, that being those people who get into 1960s/1970s avant/prog/psych but from a punk/new wave angle which I sometimes encounter in people who came of age in the late 1970s or the 1980s. There's more overlap between avant-prog/Krautrock and certain post-punk styles than between classic progressive rock. On one side: Beefheart, Can, Kraftwerk, Neu! etc. On the other: The Fall, Pére Ubu, Minutemen, Public Image Ltd., Sonic Youth etc. Not to mention the influence of Syd Barrett-era Pink Floyd and Hawkwind on the spacier corners of new wave and gothic rock, which is perhaps less apparent except in artists with a very retro-psychedelic aesthetic. (The Soft Boys, The Teardrop Explodes etc)

 

I cannot tell where youngsters with an interest in classic 70s music are coming from.  In my case, I was (and still am) a huge fan of the Indian composer Ilayaraja who seems to have been influenced by 70s rock (apart from classical music).  So I took to prog quite instinctively, with the exception of some bands like Gentle Giant that took some time to 'get'.  I loved tracks like CTTE or Firth right from the first time I heard them.  So I cannot personally relate to the experience of those who had to warm up to Yes or Genesis over a period of time as that was not my experience.

 

Toaster Mantis wrote: ... In metal circles I encounter people who have trouble getting into stuff from before some point in the 1980s or 1990s for instance, especially if they started with more extreme styles and hence kind of "read the genre's history backwards". I'm feeling a similar generation gap I'm on the wrong side of in some other artistic media, like pre-1960s cinema or pre-WW1 literature (pre-Hemingway even) though I'm trying to expand my horizons there.

Related story. Around 2000 I went to a Yes concert with a friend. We were on our fourties. I was surprised to find a lot of young people in the audience, leaning on the metalhead side by their looks. My friend explained it rather succintly to me: "They're here for Steve Howe."

moshkito wrote: In the current King Crimson CD from their tour and in concert, they blew out a few times, and they can easily make metal circles sound like kids in the garage beating off!

I don't know if I'm answering this correctly, or even answering the question at all, but well, I'm just gonna rant a little. I'm 20 and I rarely listen to modern prog. And if I do, it's bands like Syd Arthur. But then I was brought up with classical music and I'm not really into heavier music (anymore) as I've found modern prog to be, but maybe I've just listened to the wrong stuff. Like, I loved Firth of Fifth from the first time I heard it a couple of years ago, the same with King Crimson (Discipline was the first album I heard by them). I don't think the older prog bands sound dated, the music feels 70's, yes, but it doesn't feel old, which I think a lot of 80's music do.