Over-indulgence? Kind of the same thing happened to Hair Metal in the 80's. Too many Steve Vai's and too many notes. (Tumeninotes - Steve Morse, ha ha). Bit of both, I think. Disco had sex appeal (Read Jim Garten's take on Raves). Punk had social backlash. Prog had intellectuals. Nerds lose every time. Or do we? Prog went "underground" and survived. Not everyone wants 4/4 timing and love songs.

"Killed" is probably not the correct term. Something like, stagnated, is more appropriate. As Greg Lake was so astute to say, "C'est La Vie."

Well, disco and punk sure didn't help anything.  But the handwriting was on the wall that Prog was on the decline a few years before that.  Many of the big leaders on the scene were either splitting up, or had lost a fair amount of inspiration.  A classic case was ELP.  In the history of rock, most bands have their greatest creative spurt in the earlier days of their career.  Success sometimes hinders creativity, especially when egos begin to grow, and everybody is fighting for their space of musical turf - especially when the musicians are virtuosos.  By the mid-to-late '70s, things started looking pretty grim musically.  Plus fashion and styles changed, and Prog bands started going pop.  It was pretty sad.

The beauty of the thing is that what once went around, comes around again.  As the original Prog musicians began to age, and the fact that their bank accounts probably weren't going to last the rest of their lives, they had to start getting serious again.  Many a rock musician has experienced a creative revival in their late 40's and 50's.  I love to follow these guy's careers, charting the peaks and valleys.  The oldsters rarely reach the pinnacle of their former creative peaks, but they can come damn close at times.  To me, there is nothing more satisfying seeing some oldsters out there kicking some serious ass!!!

Peace,

Ulf  (an oldster myself)

My two cents worth:

I'm not entirely sure that anything "killed" prog.  I could make the argument that music goes through "periods," and that no period lasts forever.  Nothing "killed" doo-wop or Motown or rock'n'roll, etc.  (Just as be-bop didn't "kill" swing, which didn't "kill" dixieland, etc.)  Part of it is (as Ulf notes) that culture - tastes, styles,  etc. - changes.  There is nothing necessarily "nefarious" about this.

However, there certainly were a number of factors that had an effect on the prominence of prog.  The break-ups (or major personnel changes) of the seminal bands was one, though I'm not sure to what degree.  I think the far more major change - which affected not only prog, but almost everything else - was the conglomeration of the music industry.

In the 1960s, when rock was young, promoters and producers were supporting anything and everything in "rock," since no one knew exactly what would "stick" when thrown against the wall.  So they threw everyting at it.  Eventually (i.e., by the late 60s), the industry - vis-a-vis rock - settled into a handful of genres, including "black" music (Motown, Stevie Wonder, etc.), "heavy metal" (Cream, Zep, Sabbath, etc.), "folk-rock" or "songwriter-rock" (Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Cat Stevens,etc.), "prog-rock" (Crimson, Floyd, Yes, Genesis, Tull, etc.), and "mainstream rock" (most everything else).  There were others, but these seemed to be the main five.

Back then, because it was all still "new," artists were "nurtured," and given the time to "progress."  Often, an artist wouldn't really "hit" until a third, fourth or even fifth album.  For example, Genesis didn't hit until Foxtrot, their third album.  Same with Yes (third album).  And Floyd didn't really "hit" until Dark Side - their sixth album.

As these various artists started bringing in serious money (through both albums and tours), record companies started to get greedy, and see dollar signs instead of artists - and they no longer wanted to wait for their money; i.e., they no longer saw the benefit in "nurturing" artists through careers (which almost always fell off earnings-wise), when they could obtain major short-term capital via a major debut album.  By the late 70s/early 80s (if not earlier), record labels were looking for the "fast buck": if an artist couldn't "produce" by their second album, they were often dropped.

In addition, as a result of the kind of money that some artists were generating for their labels, record companies started to view each other as serious competitors.  So a wave of agglomeration started.  Consider that even when I sent out my first demo in 1983 (pretty late in the game), there were 30 major labels.  By 1995, there were only eight.  By 2000, there were only five.  And if the proposed merger occurs, there will only be four.  And, of course, by now all those companies are no longer run by people with "ears," but by "bean counters," for whom the bottom line is not "creativity," but earnings.

Ultimately, the industry limited choice by focusing on short-term capital.  What is ironic about this is that it actually eventually hurt the industry.  This is because it is not short-term capital that keeps the industry afloat - even with debut albums that sell 13 million copies.  Rather, the industry survives on the artists who had long-term careers - what are referred to as "deep catalogue artists."  (These are the artists whose albums almost never go on sale: Floyd, the Stones, Bowie, Zep, etc.  The reason is that the industry knows that people will always buy those albums.  There is no coincidence that Floyd's Dark Side spent 20 years on the Billboard Top 200.)

This was proven the hard way in 1982.  That year, the music industry was expected to post its first major loss in over 15 years - of over $500 million (which was alot back then).  Yet three albums released later that year actually brought the industry out of the red and into the black.  If memory serves, two of them were Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A."  I forget the third (it might have been Bowie's "Let's Dance"), but all three were by "deep catalogue artists."

As we all know, these days music is mass-produced and mass-marketed to the lowest common denominator.  If they can't pigeon-hole you and sell you as "the next" whoever, there is little chance you will ever get a contract.

Such are the vagaries of the music industry - which I believe was the largest factor in the "death" (or at least sidelining) of so much great music.

Peace.

Nah, I don't think prog killed prog. As always, critics killed everything. Prog was not massive. Was the 'hip' intellectual thing. When the intelligentsia turned their backs to seach for the 'next big thing', prog died in the media. And you don't have success if you are not in the media.

Manni well said

I too know something of the music industry and you are right on.

Companies like Sony Music are the #1 music killers .They are like you said "bean counters" ; just wanting to make a buck with not much on the creativity and artistery side of music. -Just make a record 98% similar like the other "band" who made us a fortune with the masses- and then after the "band" acomplishes this for a while and are not "fashionable" the company spits them out and creates a new mass idol band .

Here's another term that kills music

 "fashion" = Great today and crap tommorrow.

I hate fashion especially in music. Fashion was invented to get the masses to consume.Just tell people what they bought is "out,silly,outdated,nerdish etc.." and then they will want to buy the new product to be hip.

To quote an old Black Sabbath quote :

"iF YOU LISTEN TO FOOLS ...THE MOB RULES"

Some types of music may not be main stream or in the media  but music never dies if someone listens and enjoys it and shares it with others.

oufff I feel beter now....

All:

Paco Fox adds an aspect missing from my analysis, and I agree that "critics" played some role in prog's decline.

Aztech: Thank you for your wisdom and support.  My question re "fashion" is: is it a "natural" phenomenon or is it "pre-determined" and then "foisted" upon the populace?  Both are probably correct in different ways, at different times.  But if the later applies, then you are absolutely correct.

Dude: I agree (sometimes) with the notion that music is (or can be) a "reaction" to other music.  Certainly many "punk" artists stated that, in as much as their music was a "reaction" to other music (as opposed to society or culture as a whole), it was a reaction to "mainstream pap" or "prog pretention" or otherwise.

However, as you correctly note, "what comes around, goes around."  When "new wave" came out of "punk," it added some of the very elements that punk rejected, including non-standard instruments (notably mandolin, violin, flute and percussion), some "keyboard" (beyond piano), and more "mature" production values.  It could be argued that neo-prog (certainly post-mid-80s) took "new wave" and added most (if not all) of the elements that originally made prog "prog": layered synths, non-standard time signatures, textured atmospheres, and, let's be honest, at least some "bombast."

By the way, I would reject the notion of Zep as "poseurs" of anything.  They were one of the (if not the) greatest heavy metal blues bands ever.  And although they may have "stumbled upon" prog sensibilities in songs like Kashmir, Achilles Last Stand, etc., this does not make them "poseurs" - it makes them "creative."

Peace.

Glad to be of service manni

Wether fashion is predetermined and stuffed down the masses throats or be it a normal phenomenom : music one day popular and after a while labeled outdated by the masses,they are different premises ,yes, but unfortunately they leave the same conclusion : they kill off potentially good music and artists.

"Good" music is and should be timeless ie: classical music

I'll go for 'Option B' - Creative Burnout

Prog rock came from the sixties and was a part of the natural evolution of rock music.The original bands (ELP,Yes,King Crimson etc) were talented enough to make there way without having to be tied to having radio airplay or clever marketing.They could 'do it' in the live arena.To some extent it just ran its course.Once the classic prog albums were 'in the can' there was nowhere left to go (apart from down). Most modern prog is really a tribute to the music that was made between 1969-1975.That was a special era in music history.

personally, I find it impossible to subscribe to just one explanation. Reality is a lot more complex, so the cultural demise of progressive rock was really caused by different events and developments coming together from different points.

All previous posters have picked out these reasons, but I would just like to add the following:

some posters have correctly mentioned Punk and Disco. My  direct experience of those days also points out towards the emergence of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, where scores of young musicians, previously prog inclined, suddenly directed their energy towards that direction.

No, prog didn't kill  prog -- Phil Collins did!

 I watched him rip the still-beating, unshaven heart from Genesis!

Just kidding, Philbert, wherever you are. Balding men gotta eat too....

 Eloquently and movingly put, Tauhd. I like tons of types/eras of music -- "new" prog too! Only change is constant.... Waaaahh!

I'm really enjoying Porcupine Tree -- Lightbulb Sun lately. (Review soon!)

It's nothing really like classic prog, but a solid, intelligent album that is a product of its time.

Speaking of punk, do you know the Damned tunes "New Rose" and "Under the Floor Again?" 

To be played as loudly as possible, please!

Peter Rideout wrote: Speaking of punk, do you know the Damned tunes "New Rose" and "Under the Floor Again?"

Surely Pete !!!

I have seen a jig of The Damned (and The Stranglers too) in "Le Gibus" (a small hall in Paris) and I had the chance to speak with 'em after (in fact only Dave Vanian, Captain Sensible and Lu*, the guitarist).

I have even their autograph !!

Dave Vanian : a little cold and reserved

Captain Sensible : Folish guy, very funny

Lu* : Human and very friendly (he just went out of jail)

Yes I know "New Rose" but no "Under the Floor Again"

dude wrote: There are cynics who would argue that some dinosaurs have not died(FLOYD,YES etc) i for one am glad that these "Loch Ness Monsters" of rock are still with us

The mummie of Ramses II too !

tooo tooo

dude wrote: Ramses ll had a Mummy? gee i hope he visited her often

Maybe it's time for you to find a new joke

Fashion.  Does anybody find it amusing/disgusting that punk is considered mainstream now, almost 30 years after it appeared?  How many covers of Rolling Stone have been devoted to bands like Blink 182?  Then you have the new garage rocking bands like The Strokes, Vines, etc.  All of this has been done a billion times before, and many times better by the old bands.  Mick Jagger is looking at his own grandchildren in these Vines like bands.  Yet this stuff still gets slathered upon with great critical reviews by "in-the-know" music critics.    Two of my favorite types of music, Prog and Metal have never been critics choices.  They're not "cool" enough.

Punk first appeared as a reaction to the excess of '70s rock.  One was the excess of opulent rock star lifestyles and egos gone out of control (let's say Rod Stewart), and then musical excess (a lot of Prog).  Both of these moved rock away from its birth place in the garage, and took it some place else.

Back in the day, it took me a while to get into punk, but I got there.  I loved the big bands of the times, The Clash, Ramones, The Jam, etc.  I love rock 'n' roll, and I love dirty rock 'n' roll.  However, my fixation with punk didn't last that long.  I moved on to the underground Metal scene of the '80s, where so much cool music was made.  I still absolutely love The Clash.  They appear to be the only punk band from that era that to survive as one of my all-time favorite bands.

What really amuses me today is that if punk partially evolved out of rebellion against music like Prog, then today Prog is the perfect rebellion against the boring, mainstream, water-downed punk that is considered cool today! 

Peace,

Ulf

Oddly enough, Phil Collins appeared on the Oscars last week.

Perhaps he is considered 'cool' by society. if so, why? because he sold out a talented prog rock giant  to appease the unintelligent and tasteless masses? maybe he, too, 'jumped the shark' musically.

Anyway, I ought to do a rant on society, and it's destruction of talent in music... but it's late.

Tauhd Zaïa wrote: [ Surely Pete !!! I have seen a jig of The Damned (and The Stranglers too)

"Walkin' down the beaches, lookin' at the Peaches."

Great tune. I love the Stranglers. I had some of their stuff on cassette. I need to get their Greatest Hits.

And I ""WAS" the Queen of the Street  (what a piece of meat)

Memory, all alone in the moonlight
I can smile at the old days
I was beautiful then
I remember a time I knew what happiness was
Let the memory live again

MIAOUUUUU ouinnnnnnnnnn

kleenex ?

Jim Garten wrote: He must take responsibility for his actions - I say he can either eat OR breath - NOT both!

SOO

SOO

SOODIO!

Woah, woah, OH!

Progressive Rock shouldn't be mainstream in my opinion, it makes us better than the rest of "them". But it definately should get more exposure than it does...

The fact that most of the USA has no want for new music it won't become more mainstream here for a while. Its kind of sad really, that artists with half (or less!) the talent of most of the mainstream artists in the USA are totally unheard of here!

I don't know, maybe I live in other world, but in my country (Perú), prog' was never popular, I never heard a progressive song in a radio except Roundabout and after some years And then There Were Three (Which IMHO is not prog' and was the first Genesis release), we managed to get the LP's when one of us, our parents or friends went to USA or even Argentina (a big market for Prog') and that album was copied to at least 10 cassettes for all our friends (thanks God my parents travelled very often).

During the mid 70's I studied in a foreign school that encouraged students to read and listen more than simply mainstream, but only 2 or 3 guys of my promotion (146) listened prog', being myself the only 100% fanatic.

In the University (6,000 students) I found a very active but small prog' community of about 30 or 40 guys (only two girls), until 1980 when Frágil (national band) released their first album and Prog' became fashion for a short time.

I believe that the arrival of Internet has made prog' more popular than ever, people has discovered that there are more of us in the world, if you type Progressive Rock in Google or Yahoo you'll find hundreeds of pages.

And even better there are many new bands and young guys who listen good music. Today you can go to a Yes concert in Lima and find 15,000 souls really enjoying the show, and believe me 15,000 means a lot in a country where 90% of the people earns less than US$ 2,000,00 a year.

Iván

Hi Ivan: I'm sorry to hear there weren't many prog bands available to you at the time. All I can say is "Thank God for the Internet". And I'm glad to hear friends from Peru can now share their love of prog with us all.

Cheers

And I'm glad to hear friends from Peru can now share their love of prog with us all.

Thanks Hibou, I'm also glad to be here where I can talk about the music I love and learn more about it.

Iván

Cheers, Ivan & Hibou! Interesting conversation, & some good points.

 Hibou, I agree re the 70s being the glory days of prog popularity. The music itself, along with many of the instruments common to it, was being invented in those days, and evolving before our amazed young ears as a reflection of the times. That excitement can never be fully recaptured, in my opinion.

We can still enjoy fine new bands like IQ and Echolyn, but that's not the same as being in your teens or twenties in the 70s, and tearing the blue shrink-wrap off your brand-new copy of Wish You Were Here, (I even dreamt about the album just before its scheduled release -- in the dream Floyd had reinvented both the LP format, and music!) eager to discover how Floyd had finally followed up the mind-blowing Dark Side: "Wow cool jacket! Cool pics! A bizaare postcard!"

Anyone else remember that particular experience, or a similar one with another of the classics of the early-to-mid 70s 

 Ah youth, where art thou flown? Waaaaah! 

[QUOTE]Did Prog Kill Prog?[?QUOTE]

Did Springing Die?

Peter Rideout wrote:   "Wow cool jacket! Cool pics! A bizaare postcard!"

Hey! I found one of those postcards inside an old vinyl I picked up at an antique store. I wondered what it was doing there!

Unfortunately, I am too young to remember the 'good old days', but all I, a mere youth without the wisdom of years, can say is that there were some good tunes back then...

Hibou,

Is your name derived from the Soft Machine track: Hibou, Anemone, & Bear?

Alexander wrote: Hibou

"Hibou" is an owl in french.

Hibou wrote: Hi Glass-Prison: that 'wisdom' thing is a bit stretched sometimes. Believe me, as long as you know what you like and like what you know, that's what counts

Ahh, yes, the words of wise old Mr. Gabriel. Perhaps he was hinting that the truth may be held by any, regardless of age, gender, race, etc. he was also quite young at the time he wrote that song (I know not how young), and still was flowing with wisdom.

Hi Alexander: As Lucas says, "Hibou" is simply the French word for "owl" - can't say where I got this nickname but I've been stuck with it for years.

It would be fun if we could name the origin of our nicknames in our profiles, just to see where we come from ...

..."Video kill the "prog stars""; a more eficient music industry, need a more universal, simplistic and "easy going" product.... sophisticated and complex become underground.... the neo prog,   i think, was an eford to keep on with the times...(ASIA) however  in bewteen all the diferent pathways that prog offer, became its own.......confusion... "and its epitaph"...