For me, it's Caravan. I don't think I'm alone here... some of their stuff sounds really popular... but wasn't.

Apologies if this topic is already covered.

What say you? 

Family was also other very great sixties/seventies band, it was popular in UK, but never made it in US. It also had lots of potential, but of course there were people that couldn´t stand Chapman´s voice.

Assuming the OP means 'much more commercially successful' I'd throw these into the hat but as I don't have any sales figures to back this up I'm guessing:

Happy the Man

Argent

Greenslade

Gentle Giant

Atomic Rooster

Chou Pahrot (brilliant band from Glasgow http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=8062" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=8062 )

Refugee

Beggars Opera

Ange

My thoughts are that after the huge signings that 2 bands got, that the chance of a lot of these bands to get bigger and get some more support, died down quite a bit.

I'm not surprised, despite one person here arguing that one band making it big would support 100 smaller bands, and that is the craziest and silliest thing I have ever heard ... no businessman would go spending that profit so easily on propositions that were not quite showing as much as the big bands did ... AND SPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAD TO INVEST SO MUCH AT THE START (RS WAS OVER 100m AT THE TIME!)... and to my ears this is when a lot of smaller bands, that had good names, ended up not being able to get a bit further in the area of support and appreciation of the public ... not to mention the horrible pairings in various concerts ... and Dave Cousins tells us a couple of stories about one Canadian band that tried to make sure Strawbs would have problems ... which is not cool ... but that Canadian band was pulling in some money, and Strawbs wasn't, and because of the MC's and other issues, Dc says they took some abuse.

 

The problem is one of mixing fan bases and hurting one band, regardless ... it might be better appreciated today, than it was then, but still was a problem ... and you ought to look at some of the pairings for King Crimson in the early days ... even more scary ... it's like some folks were trying hard to kill that band! They failed! The band is better know that most these days! 

ANGE, I am not sure, ever got a chance to play America ... and I think they might have done well, but because they had no support from anyone, their chances of getting here were probably real small. Sadly, they were/are one band that deserved better, were it not for the various videos around that make them sound really bad ... even if the staging stuff was interesting. I think they did really well on a ProgFest here in America, much later, if I remember it right.

I'm mainly defining success by commercial success, but also fame - for instance, King Crimson was not very commercially successful but is very famous. What I meant with Caravan is that some of their songs, eg. Golf Girl, Love to Love You and Aristocracy sound like they could have been very popular, as one example, with the folk and psychedelic scenes in the 60s... perhaps they weren't very commercially successful because they were released at the wrong time.

Anekdoten

Echolyn

Kaipa

Circus Maximus

Tiles

Pallas

Hi,

The sad thing about these is that they were coming up during the time when all of a sudden we discovered our 5 GODS in this universe!

And of course, the new impostors could not possibly have a chance!

Sad, really ... Anekdotten and the other band (can never remember their name when I need it!) from the same area, were both excellent, and all many folks could say was that they were KC copies, which just about tells you how much listening was really done!

Echolyn ... deserved better ... and sadly it didn't happen ... I can not explain it. And then "progressive" metal comes up really big and these bands took a dive!

Very sad!

You are probably thinking of Anglagard. 

YUP.

Hi,

By that time, the US market in the FM radio was already starting to wind down, and it became about songs, not the longer pieces of music ... and the only great example I had, was TLLDOB, when it came out ... on that evening, Guy Guden went on the air and played both albums back to back, and got such an incredible audience attention and reaction that he did it again a bit later! The rest of the station? They couldn't figure out which song to play because there wasn't a "hit" defined for them!

Laugh you doggies!

That makes no sense. If you use that logic to apply to Genesis then it would have to apply to Yes and ELP also and those two were big. Genesis were doing pretty much the same thing Yes and ELP were doing and in in a lot cases were more song oriented than Yes or ELP. So the fact that Yes and ELP got big and not  Genesis just tells me that they were doing something wrong in the marketing department or were on the wrong label and imo had nothing to do with the music itself unless you want to say that PG's voice or appearance(ie the stage costumes)were too weird or quirky for the american public but even that is probably pure bs.

The same could be said about Renaissance although I don't know how big they were in the UK. I think they were just more of a cult band in the US and not much else.

I agree about Renaissance.  Their albums always included tasteful pop numbers along with the grand sweeping epics.  They were much bigger in the US, with a sizable following in certain geographic areas but once you got outside the Northeast cult would probably be the operative word. 

Interestingly, their only singles success came in the UK with "Northern Lights" in 1978, a song which had no singles chart impact in the US.  If they could have had that hit earlier, before punk and arena rock were closing in, they might have achieved bigger success.

I notice that their albums sold in the US the way jazz albums did.  A typical well known jazz album might scrape the top 50 on billboard but be in the charts for 4-6 months, whereas a pop album could easily hit the top 50 but only stay in the charts for 2-3 months.  Renaissance's pattern was more of a jazz album - moderate interest percolating over a longer period of time than similarly charting albums by other rock groups

I don't think they ever had much more of a cult following anywhere in the US. A few of their albums did make the charts though but the same could be said about Nektar and I would apply cult status to them as well. Cult isn't a bad thing. Today Yes doesn't have much more than a cult following and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. You don't want too many people jumping on the band wagon because then you have a thing like the Grateful Dead where people are more into it for the hip factor and don't care much about the actual music.

 The two Illusion albums were great, but came along a bit late in the game for a prog group (1977-1978), but yes more of their songs were what I would call radio friendly.  But songs like "Carpet of the Sun", "I Think of you", "The Vultures Fly High" and "Northern Lights" were radio friendly as well, and the radio returned the favor

I like both Renaissance and Illusion, but Renaissance was around for a half dozen great albums and had a lot more impact and influence on other artists and on me personally.  I think both Jane and Annie have great voices but Annie has had much more emotional impact on me.  It helps that I have seen Renaissance many times and even met Annie who is utterly charming and genuine.  Ask rogerthat who recently bid on and followed through on a chance to speak with Annie via skype.

It depends how you define cult.  I think in the US Northeast Renaissance was beyond cult but also obviously not superstars either.  There is a big difference between Renaissance and Nektar.  Nektar had one mega huge album and the remaining chart placements were much less impressive and based on fizzling momentum. Renaissance had 6 chart albums and, while they didn't get much beyond top 50, as I said they tended to stay there for some months.  Even "A Song for All Seasons" in 1978 had a pretty good run, when most other prog bands were not up to much 

yeah that's more or less what the all music guide said about Hero and Heroine in particular.

yes not folky enough and too folky at the same time.  Not proggy enough and too proggy at the same time, plus with a lead vocalist whose voice is definitely an acquired taste.  I've always loved it, and can't think of any song that is sung more beautifully than Benedictus, but I get that.  Still, when you consider that Supertramp became huge with a not totally different formula, it's a bit hard to understand

Not really true about Nektar. They had two albums that did pretty well on the charts. Remember the Future went to number 19 and down to earth went to 32(both in US). The fizzling momentum applies to Renaissance as well and also a lot of bands. Focus fit into this category also since they had pretty high charting albums except that two of them went gold. I would say over all they were never much more than a cult band either. Maybe my definition of cultis different than yours but Renaissance weren't bigger than GG in the US and to me GG were almost the textbook definition of a prog cult band. Having a few charting albums or even a gold record doesn't exempt a  band from cult status imo. King Crimson are another one I would say never went much beyond cult status. 

Actually, I think if anything too many albums can dilute a band's career. If you look at Led Zeppelin or the Beatles they were huge but only had a decades worth of material(if that)in them. Even if you look at Queen or Pink Floyd and to some degree also the Doors and The Police their popularity is hinged upon 5 or 6 albums at the most. So ultimately it's about quality over quantity. As for the Stones they are known mainly for their 60's and 70's output. The same is True of the Kinks and the Who. Who really cares much about the 80's material(or later)by these bands? 

The problem with the first two was 'timing' . They started to get a bit of a buzz at the wrong time(punk /new wave) so they were swimming against the tide . It Bites - Calling All Heroes got a stack of airplay but then it went quiet. Unlike Marillion who built on Kayleigh it seems that It Bites got a bit lost in the ether. Its a bit similar to IQ although they never had a big hit (apart from bizarrely in South America with Drive On) . Both bands were as you say too 'pop' at this time for prog fans but far too interesting for pop audiences to digest.  

Yes and ELP were 'Arena bands' with an equally big sound to go with it so I think that translated better. Also Lucky Man and Roundabout were probbaly played quite a bit on radio in the states. They had a pop side which Genesis didn't at that time  Genesis only started to embrace all this after Gabriel left although ironically PG also got very good at it in the eighties!

Never heard of Beatles or Rolling Stones; are they pre-Canterbury proto prog bands? 

Logan wrote: I've always thought that the Beatles could have been more popular than Jesus...

Well, if Jesus would have been a better bass player... But he was https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_gGAv1CnUg" rel="nofollow - cool .

It Bites are a strange one. "Calling All The Heroes" was a big hit at the time but I never really thought of them as a "prog" band (although musically the song is way more complicated than the average pop song). I can't really put my finger on why they weren't bigger, they were popular amongst my friends.

I suppose in this day and age sarcasm cannot be deployed without the requisite emoji.  

Both were hampered by mercurial band members, uneven label support and lack of vision.  If Flash had retained a permanent keyboard player, they might have excelled.  Flash bassist Ray Bennett once told me that they were trying to hire Patrick Moraz, but it was not to be. 

However, both bands did leave an impressive catalog.  RIP Peter Banks, Lee Dorman and Rhino Reinhardt.

I agree about Nick Drake. How eminently tragic that it took a Volkswagen commercial over 25 years after his death to bring him to prominence. Prior to that, his music was strictly underground, passed from person to person. I think you mentioned the sadly prophetic song "Fruit Tree" in another thread. I can't think of a more apt epitaph for Drake.

totally agree, also Living Colour should have been much bigger as well. 

Living Colour's first album went double platinum. How big do you want them? Lol.

In that case I think Yes, King Crimson and Rush should have been as big as Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd.

Living Colour released several albums, some great music if you ask me, not just one album...

I know. I was referring to their first album which was their biggest. The second one(times up)went gold. I actually don't know the later albums. The last one I heard was stain which was a bit of a let down from the first two.

I guess it was just the heat of the moment.

The second album "alpha" went platinum but after that just the compilation, "then and now", was certified gold and nothing else. Only the first two were that big especially the first which sold more than any Yes album. 

The Beatles are overrated. 

Indeed. King's X had a row of killer albums up through Ear Candy (at a minimum). 

The year Dogman arrived and KX got the spot opening for Scorpions on their American tour was supposed to be their best shot.

You know it's weird. Many times radio is the key to success with bands but not always. Rush, Iron Maiden and Metallica all became pretty big even before they were played much on the radio. I think in the case of King's X though it would have helped them out a lot. As it is they still have a decent sized cult following but I agree they probably should have been much bigger. I saw them in concert sometime in the last decade and they were very good.

Hi,

RUSH was on the playlist for several folks at the station ... it was not as well known then, but some folks, including my room mates in the band, we already were listening to it ... (lived in a house with a band) ... but this was like '81 and '82 already ... when FM still had strength, but it made RUSH much bigger ... Iron Maid and Metallica, from what I remember (and I fell out of it in 1983 for work) came in much later as a part of the MTV thing ... specially Metallica ... by that time FM radio was already on the way down as a maker of "hit" materials, and was changing to a "classic" format and the better known bands they helped make.

Rush has never been very popular in the UK, which is interesting. I think this is partly because the record company they ended up with was quite America based - for instance, for Moving Pictures, it only chose one single for the UK, Vital Signs. If they had released Tom Sawyer and Limelight there I think they could have done better - a live version of Tom Sawyer hit number 25 in Britain, which is pretty good for a song already released on an album only a few months earlier.

And the critics hated them.

The GTR album wasn't that good, anyway. Definitely a miss.

My feeling exactly, but they sure had a lot of initial hype!  

Rush sold out three nights in a 60,000 seat venue in the UK in around 77/78 so not sure where you got that from. I can give you the exact details if you want since it's in a book I have. Also, AFTK, Hemispheres and PeW charted higher in the UK than in the US. From what I understand Rush were very popular among those who were into the NWHBHM(new wave of British Heavy Metal)even though they obviously weren't part of that directly. Up until Counterparts Rush were as big in the UK as in the US. Look at the wikipedia allbum charts and you'll see what I mean. These days and the past 25 years maybe not so much but you said "never very popular in the UK" which is simply not true. The band who apparently were never very popular in the UK from what I understand was Gentle Giant. Even that might have been an exagerration. Not sure.

and max capacity there IRC was 5k...  think your book writer drank a bit too much of the Rush cool aid as Rush fans are apt to do.

Well, just by the charts alone you can see they were as big in the UK as the US. I am still looking for that page and I could be a bit off. I might have to read the whole damn book all over again. 

I was actually talking about Rush's chart positions when I said they weren't that popular in Britain, it's clear they have their share of mad fans from just looking at this site. The only period they got close to large scale success in the early 80s, and that was about level with the success of old Genesis in the UK - and I saw a post that lamented that old Genesis should have been much more successful.

This is from the OCC:

Rush                                       ~

Fly by Night                             ~

Caress of Steel                         ~

2112                                       ~

A Farewell to Kings                   22

Hemispheres                            14

Permanent Waves                     3

Moving Pictures                        3

Signals                                     3

Grace Under Pressure                5

Power Windows                        9

Hold Your Fire                          10

Presto                                     27

Roll the Bones                          10

Counterparts                            14

Test for Echo                            25

Vapour Trails                            38

Snakes and Arrows                    13

Clockwork Angels                      21

big of course being relative... ie they weren't...  in either country... they were successful though.. they grew an audience over their albums..from literally none prior to 2112... at that point in the late 70's they were a cult band. A small but fanatical fanbase..until they hit the big time in the 80's with AOR albums and getting their mugs onto MTV  ..that is when they became big 

Aside from a few in the later years I would say that's pretty big and bigger than most prog bands ever get. If that's not successful(or big) then we obviously have different defintions of what success is. 

You too Micky? Really? Rush were never big? I guess Yes weren't either and neither were Genesis(as a prog band).

Oh wait. I think I see what you are saying. Well, in the late 70's they were starting to get big but they already were in Canada. 

But it's ok because we all have our own opinions anyway. A lot of Yes fans think Yes were huge but I say they never really were and it's arguable they were ever even big. Even in the 80's I remember the kids in high school all had U2, REM, Metallica, Iron Maiden t shirts but only one or two here and there had Yes t shirts.

Rush were one of the most successful prog bands. A successful prog band is not necessarily a successful band. 

Yeah not successful. With the exception of The Rolling Stones, the Beatles and Aerosmith they have more consecutive gold and platinum albums than any band(prog or otherwise) with three of them being multiplatinum not to mention worldwide sales of over 40 million. You're right though. Not successful. 

I didn't see this reply until just now. Actually, I kind of figured you were being sarcastic and initially had a reply to reflect that but decided to play it straight anyway(as you did). ;)

micky's right - Rush played the Hammy Odeon in September 1978. I was there and still have the ticket. Not sure of its capacity but I'm guessing a few thousand.

Ok. Well, like I said if I come across the thing I was referring to then I will post it here. 

On the Clockwork Angels tour, Rush played the Manchester Arena (capacity: 21,000) and other good-size venues.

Listen, I admit I very well could have been wrong. Ok? Let's not beat a dead horse here. Again, when I find the reference I was thinking of I will post it. Let's move on from this.

https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/tourdates.php#HEMISPHERES" rel="nofollow - https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/tourdates.php#HEMISPHERES