http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=86209&KW=punk

 

And it's also my theory that the American musical press exercised a great degree of hegemony over the British press (because of economic factors? Or some Anglo-transatlantic arse-kissing? or perhaps because of the financial power of American consumers? all of the above?), and thus dominated discussions about what is "cool" and determined trends in music (and let's face it, all the great prog bands were British and European, and from other places as well - but hardly any from the U.S.).

THIS...

 

indeed

 

The bands that made prog recognisable simply got old and the bands that should have replaced them were largely ignored after punk. Be Bop Deluxe and Lone Star were two interesting bands that just stopped around 1978 for commercial reasons yet had made some really interesting music. Coloseum 2 were another example. ELP,Yes and Genesis just didn't evolve at all and very few people believe there later albums get close to their earlier albums. Therefore the writing was on the wall regardless of punk happening or not. The baton was never passed on.

Excellent post.   Prog rock may be a genre or approach or whatever but classic prog was just a phase in music at the end of the day, not unlike its more popular cousin classic rock.   Classic rock too fell apart as LZ broke up and Who and DP faded away.   Prog rock  per se changed and new artists kept it going but the dinosaurs who failed to adapt toppled over.  And some big bands who were probably in a good position to adapt, like Pink Floyd, were beset by breakups and friction.   Most of the big prog rock bands were already past their best irrespective of punk.

 

fragmen crustulam :

 

But seriously, if you or your sound/studio engineer can't mic-up a drum kit then find someone who can.

 

 

 

....also something else that isn't too hard to learn to do once you put your mind to it:

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/BBcodes.asp" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/BBcodes.asp

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCodes" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCodes  

 

Quite honestly?  It was the election of Ronald Reagan & the ensuing "War on Drugs" etc.  

As a self-confessed pothead through all of the 1970's, I can say that the entire prog scene was drenched in the smoke of marijuana (at least in the USA).  At most concerts, you could barely see the stage due to the billowing clouds of smoke.  

Mind you, I've seen the CTTE tour, LTIA tour (without Miur, sadly), and nearly everyone we talk about on Pa.  All the concert venues in the '70s were the same....open consumption of marijuana.  Harder drugs were rarely seen.  

Beginning in 1980, attitudes changed.  The youth, ever searching for something new, found the energy of New Wave and punk, and so colliding worlds meant that "classic" prog (called art rock in Chicago) was on the decline.  Pot fell out of fashion as a "hippie drug," tight straight-legged pants replaced bell-bottoms, etc.  

Yes, KC and ELP were quickly and efficiently replaced by The Police, Devo, Blondie, U2 and guys like the Sex Pistols.  It happened VERY rapidly (I was a gigging musician at the time).   The classics ran out of steam, lost their way, and the new guys had all the energy.  

Prog never disappeared, and guys who adapted to these new tastes (Bob Fripp especially) even prospered by embracing the energy of the emerging music, but the young wanted to dance, and it is hard to dance through "The Revealing Science of God."  At least, for me it is!   Cheers, good topic! 

The thread title is about classic prog and Duke is rarely thought of as that. It was even the butt of a joke in the film American Psycho where Christian Bale's character hales it as their masterpeice. I can't help but sn****r a little. (sorry)

This doesn't make sense.

The Lamb tour finished in May 1975 and he left soon after. Hardly the "latter part" of the 70s. In the late 70s he stripped things right back.

Do you mean "Slipperman" costume?

Whether you liked it or not, Abacab was incredible evolution at the time and shocked the majority of their 70s fans. They evolved into a stream-lined pop/rock band and became massive as a result.

Agreed.

Nonsense.

It was released in 1983 and none of it was written in the 70s.

Genesis of course fell apart

Fell apart? During the 80s they became one of the biggest bands on the planet.

There are some very strange mis-conceptions about Genesis in this thread.

I agree with you about Abacab to some extent but I think that Mama is easily their best track of the 80s. I thought it was stunning when it came out and still do.

Mama is a great song and was progressive (after 'In the Air Tonight'). 

You dont have to listen to the 80's+  albums from Genesis Yes ect., if you dont like them.  

I wasn't happy with the change in the 80s but now I am, the internet has opened up whole new areas of prog that I didn't know existed, even during the 80s. There are possibilities for music now that were not possible back in the days.

Prog faded for many reasons, all of them valid.

 

Music is sold mainly to teenagers and Prog in the 70s was no different. As teenagers grow older their priorities change - they get jobs and get married and take on responsibilities of careers, mortgages and providing for their families - their interest in the latest music wains. They are replaced by the next generation of teenagers, who have their own musical interests.

 

Most popular music is made by the younger generation for the younger generation - we listened to Yes and Genesis because they were of our generation - we didn't listen to the music of our parents or elder siblings. The new generation does not want the hand-me-downs of the previous generation, they want the new music made by the artists of their generation.

 

It is the role of the older generation to "rubbish" the music of the younger generation. Our parents did it to our music and we do it to our kid's music - that is the way it must be. We are, however, permitted to skip a generation and venerate the music of older generations, such as the Punks did with the music of The Velvet Underground and the MC5s.

 

The music business wants to sell to the demographic with the most disposable income, they want to sell to the new generation of teenagers because the older generation has stopped buying - they will inevitably invest more in the artists that appeal more to the new generation. The people who made Prog music are no longer saleable items, the younger bands who persist in making Prog music do not get signed (only a small fraction of the English Neo-Prog movement of the early 80s ever got record deals - bands like Jadis, Mach One, Haze, LaHost, Quasar struggle on self-released cassettes).

 

The music press wants to sell music newspapers and magazines, and the people who buy them will be the new generation with their new music - it is inevitable they will support the newer artists with their new music. The journalists whoo write for those papers quickly jump upon the latest bandwagon and discard the older generation of music.

 

Some of the older generation of musicians would like to maintain a living, so will adopt some of the latest trends in order to stay viable, while others will adapt their music to the different buying trends of their old fans. Jon Anderson cuts his hair and swaps kaftan for a Don Johnson/Miami Vice pastel suit, Phil Collins shaves his beard and becomes a pop star. 

 

Prog faded because the people who buy music stopped buying it.

Prog's fading surely has more to do with a cycling of tastes--sometimes enforced by the music industry, sometimes by critics, sometimes by fans--and then, more complexly, with changing socio-economic and other historical factors.

Music is sold mainly to teenagers and Prog in the 70s was no different. As teenagers grow older their priorities change - they get jobs and get married and take on responsibilities of careers, mortgages and providing for their families - their interest in the latest music wains. They are replaced by the next generation of teenagers, who have their own musical interests.

I get this... I really do..
HOWEVER...

How was it that 13 year old kids from my generation.. (I was 13 in 1977) could be swallowing, digesting and become inspired and enamored by such complex music as early Genesis, Yes, ELP etc...  If you look just at the musicianship compared to the nonsense that goes on today... it is really like kids are a different species of mammals.  I remember being in junior high and there was this kid who sat next to me who would wear a Genesis shirt with Gabriel in the flower.  I didn't know who Genesis was at the time as I was into Zep, Sabbath, Scorpions, and UFO.  It wasn't until an older "dude" explained to me hanging out at a friends garage that I needed to listen to the drummers and that great rock was all about the complex rhythyms and being able to alternate fills in odd metering, and that the bass players really had to stretch out to accommodate.  My friend had a mountain of JBL speakers and it was all vinyl and tube amps and we could really feel the music.  Lot's of good pot and deep discussions about the meaning of the lyrics and where it was all going.  Lot's of deep conversations about the meaning of life, metaphysics, science, and we were f#$^#*ing 13!!!!

By the time I was 15 I had digested every classic Prog album and was playing in a band covering stuff like La Villa Strangiato.  Guys in high school were learning to really play guitar with tone and feel.  My friend was nailing the live version of Schenker's Rock Bottom, and Joe was playing Eruption note for note.  I mean, kids were practicing HARD to learn this stuff. 

My parents were of  different generation, but they also were musicians and could site read and could play very complex music.  Mom was a pro trumpeter at 19 and played "Flight of the Bumblebee" on National TV.  They didn't like Woodstock stuff because they thought there was too much drugs going on and worried about youthful rebellion damaging the establishment... but they were good musicians and could sing and play (dad sung opera).. so there was always a striving for some element of virtuosity in music... even in the older generation.

But what about 13 and 15 year old kids now?  What are the intellectuals of this generation listening too? Radiohead?
All these silly vocal contest shows.. and the band is nowhere in sight.  What is this generation learning?  Kids spend all day staring down at a hand held device and don't even talk to people anymore.  Texting, and their whole life is wrapped up into digital social media?  

If I played "Tales" for a typical kid today.. it would be like a deer in headlights.  I might expect a comment like "that's wierd".  I don't think there is any chance of getting into a deep conversation about the stucture, underlaying form of the music or the metaphysical lyrical content which actually is very thought provoking.    I understood where my parents where coming from.  I respected their music and can enjoy it today. 

I still try to get out once in a while and listen to what the youth are into these days.. and need I say more?  I really doubt there has ever been this big a disconnect from one generation to another in the history of humanity.

 

Prog faded for many reasons, all of them valid.

 

Music is sold mainly to teenagers and Prog in the 70s was no different. As teenagers grow older their priorities change - they get jobs and get married and take on responsibilities of careers, mortgages and providing for their families - their interest in the latest music wains. They are replaced by the next generation of teenagers, who have their own musical interests.

 

Most popular music is made by the younger generation for the younger generation - we listened to Yes and Genesis because they were of our generation - we didn't listen to the music of our parents or elder siblings. The new generation does not want the hand-me-downs of the previous generation, they want the new music made by the artists of their generation.

 

It is the role of the older generation to "rubbish" the music of the younger generation. Our parents did it to our music and we do it to our kid's music - that is the way it must be. We are, however, permitted to skip a generation and venerate the music of older generations, such as the Punks did with the music of The Velvet Underground and the MC5s.

 

The music business wants to sell to the demographic with the most disposable income, they want to sell to the new generation of teenagers because the older generation has stopped buying - they will inevitably invest more in the artists that appeal more to the new generation. The people who made Prog music are no longer saleable items, the younger bands who persist in making Prog music do not get signed (only a small fraction of the English Neo-Prog movement of the early 80s ever got record deals - bands like Jadis, Mach One, Haze, LaHost, Quasar struggle on self-released cassettes).

 

The music press wants to sell music newspapers and magazines, and the people who buy them will be the new generation with their new music - it is inevitable they will support the newer artists with their new music. The journalists whoo write for those papers quickly jump upon the latest bandwagon and discard the older generation of music.

 

Some of the older generation of musicians would like to maintain a living, so will adopt some of the latest trends in order to stay viable, while others will adapt their music to the different buying trends of their old fans. Jon Anderson cuts his hair and swaps kaftan for a Don Johnson/Miami Vice pastel suit, Phil Collins shaves his beard and becomes a pop star. 

 

Prog faded because the people who buy music stopped buying it.

It's well known that, especially the western world, is heavily influenced by the big finance and the so-called hidden power. Look today: The European Bank director, the Italian and Greek premiers were all in a period of their lives on Goldman Sachs books. 

Back to about 1974 now. It'sw more or less when the great impulse to freedom in general and maily in costumes was naturally decreasing in intensity, but in the same time in all the aspects of our lives media and politics gave start to a worldwide campaign for standardisation. Punk was just an episode, probably out of control, but the disco first (Saturday Night Fever was a milestone) and mainly the 80s were in some way "imposed". 

I remember people looking for "modern sounds" meaning the Yamaha DX7 or the Fairlight, and classic bands like Genesis, Camel and Yes trying to adapt themselves to those sounds (with different results). Also the Pink Floyd started using 4/4 with The Wall. Another brick but mainly Run Like Hell are "disco friendly".

There wasn't internet yet and indies didn't have the possibility of being known. Things like MTV didn't kill the radio star but gave a big contribution to the standardisation also in terms of look and dressing. 

I believe also that the great diffusion of hard drugs like heroin had something to do with restoration. It was the easiest and more remunerative tool to transform the summer of love into a winter of death.

Classic prog faded because everything was coming from the 60s faded in the same way. 

By the way, Mastodon's The Hunter reached no.10 on the Billboards last year so it's not as if the industry's mission to standardize culture has entirely succeeded.  Dean made an elaborate post about the impact of digital media in freeing musicians from the industry's stranglehold.  So now people get to choose what they want to hear but that also means it's much harder for an album to go platinum.  

     

I didn't say they weren't interested in the music of their older siblings, I said they wanted the new music made by the artists of their generation. Of course this is difficult to prove or demonstrate, especially since 40 years later we tend to see "the 70s" as one single time period when in reality it wasn't, and that Prog was the dominant music force when in reality it wasn't.

 

I bought Voyage of the Acolyte when it was released - I was 18 at the time - if you were my 9 year old brother would you have listened to it then in 1975? (I'd be impressed if you did, but slightly annoyed as that would make the rest of this paragraphy pretty meaningless). Or did you first hear it when you were 14? or when you were 18? or even later? And when you did first listen to it (whenever that was) do you think you would have been interested in listening to the music I would have been listening to at that time? If you were 17 then I would have been 26 - still an avid music fan and record collector, but now living in an expensive rented flat in London while desperately saving for the deposit on my own house - I bought exactly 5 albums in that year - 2 of them were Prog.

 

I also have to ask what drives the record labels to become the agents of change - if they already had a fatted calf then why kill it off? While the record labels do actively go looking for new talent, that is a gamble for them, they would prefer to keep making money on the "dead certs" that have sold well in the past. Labels do not start new trends in music, they follow them.

 

Record labels picked-up on emergent trends, such as Punk, New Wave, Thrash, Grunge, Nu Metal, etc..they did not create them - in every case they were either reluctant or slow to pick them up, but once it seemed they could make money out of them there was a feeding frenzy in signing new bands.

As far as public taste goes, the commercial success of prog plateaued after around 1975, so if the labels assumed something else would be the 'in thing' and not prog, it would not be a very unreasonable assumption.  Even Fripp had ditched prog by 1975.

 

Tribute bands succeed because the artists they mimic are no longer playing that music, or no longer played the small venues in the small towns and cities through-out the world - Genesis stopped playing Gabriel-era songs (well, there's more to it than that, but that's the gist of it). Over The Garden Wall didn't play stadiums, arenas and other big venues.

 

A second theory: The 80s killed off all the great genres, not just prog. 70s classic soul and funk and r&b were maudlin pap by the 80s; jazz fusion was gone as well. Punk itself was over by 1980 (even if some of the great punk bands still had some good albums in them).

I am not sure that boredom had a lot to do with it ... but I do have a couple of ideas here and there.

 

1. The media. This goes back several years, specially the 60's with the media attacking the youngsters, and making many of them look bad, and ignoring the art.

 

2. The record companies. For the most part, the record company thing was always about control, and it is not too hard to extend this to controlling the public as well. The music tastes were "controlled" by top ten, and still are. Thus, when someone did something different, that was not put together by one of the biggies, then it was naturally trashed as not important, and over the top ... except of course, a 20 foot penis on the stage for Mick Jagger to ride on! That should tell you a lot more about it all than anything else ...

 

3. Inspiration. Feeds on itself. When someone sees one person do this, another wants to do it and it keeps going. If not enough folks do it, not many will try it. This is the biggest issue on a lot of music today, that is good, but little of it is above and beyond the area where they are totally out there, and everyone is going to copy them! A lot of this, again, might have to do with the media ... since too many media outlets only like to support the bands they promote and own ... check out USA Today one of these days ... it's all the folks that they are associated with in one way or another ... and independents will not get a word in or a chance! This is, in America specially, part of the "corporatization" of America ... only the corporate goodies can be discussed and sold!

 

4. Education,, or lack of. In general, there are many music scenes that started totally out of frustration with the current status ... you can go back to the history of the arts for the past hundreds of years and you can see reactions to the previous status quo ... and then you get something like The Sex Pistols and that is the total opposite ... that does not have, necessarily, to do with anything else ... except their own battle!

 

5. Europe has a better place that allows for more music experimentation. But America does not believe, or exactly support the "wprld market" thing, and that means that not enough folks will buy the foreign product as much ... and the tastes for the arts, music and everything else suffer, quite often ... you can see it here, in the local symphony, playing the same stuff over and over and over again ... and still not having the guts to even do a Frank Zappa piece! ... thank the Boston Pops for their rich insularity!

 

It's a tough bit to discuss ... but in the end, you have to know, and have one thing going for you ... that you can not have in a social milieu ... yourself! ... and if you don't know the difference, this line will not mean a whole lot to you. If you do it for you, and your life, you will stand by it ... and you and the art piece have a chance to grow, like a child ... otherwise ... it's just sex, right?