Their creative process was really based around experimentation, rather than composition. Which falls into that Art Rock label very cleanly. So I think that’s a very accurate way to describe them.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Why did prog rock never have mass popularity?
- Thread starter MidnightRunner
- Start date
Their creative process was really based around experimentation, rather than composition. Which falls into that Art Rock label very cleanly. So I think that’s a very accurate way to describe them.
I think this "Is Pink Floyd 'prog' or not?" kind of discussion is really silly.
First of all, there's no actual definition of "Prog Rock" so you're already into angels-dancing-on-pins territory. Secondly, the term "prog" is an after the fact creation anyway; I never even heard the term till maybe 20 years ago, in other words about 20 years after the heyday of the style(s) included.
And thirdly, as one who was there, we saw the music as a continuum. You had the more poppish stuff like some of the Who's work, Rush, Floyd, etc - on one end, and the really challenging stuff like some of King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Zappa, etc., on the other end, and in between you had bands like UK, Hocus Pocus by Focus, much of Uriah Heep, Wakeman, ELP, Yes, and so on.
All of these bands were focused on musicianship, and exploring longer forms than the 3 minute pop song; lots of synths; but really we did NOT say "oh this one is IN the canon and that one is OUT". That's a latter-day phenomenon. And at the same time we younguns were listening to this kind of thing, we were also bopping to the B-52s or the Judys, some of us were starting to check out acts like the Clash, and of course everyone revered the Beatles. Opinion on the Dead was decidedly mixed. But we weren't judging "does this group fall into this taxonomic category or not", we were judging "do we like this music?" There is a vast difference. One question is a question that's asked by cork-sniffing critics after the fact; the other question is the question that's asked by musicians and listeners in the moment.
Frankly I am disappointed, but not surprised, that listening to rock and roll has become so much of a pastime of categorization and ranking, so antithetical to the goals of the music - whether the good-times rockin' of Gene Vincent and the Go-go's, or the complex explorations of King Crimson and Frank Zappa.
First of all, there's no actual definition of "Prog Rock" so you're already into angels-dancing-on-pins territory. Secondly, the term "prog" is an after the fact creation anyway; I never even heard the term till maybe 20 years ago, in other words about 20 years after the heyday of the style(s) included.
And thirdly, as one who was there, we saw the music as a continuum. You had the more poppish stuff like some of the Who's work, Rush, Floyd, etc - on one end, and the really challenging stuff like some of King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Zappa, etc., on the other end, and in between you had bands like UK, Hocus Pocus by Focus, much of Uriah Heep, Wakeman, ELP, Yes, and so on.
All of these bands were focused on musicianship, and exploring longer forms than the 3 minute pop song; lots of synths; but really we did NOT say "oh this one is IN the canon and that one is OUT". That's a latter-day phenomenon. And at the same time we younguns were listening to this kind of thing, we were also bopping to the B-52s or the Judys, some of us were starting to check out acts like the Clash, and of course everyone revered the Beatles. Opinion on the Dead was decidedly mixed. But we weren't judging "does this group fall into this taxonomic category or not", we were judging "do we like this music?" There is a vast difference. One question is a question that's asked by cork-sniffing critics after the fact; the other question is the question that's asked by musicians and listeners in the moment.
Frankly I am disappointed, but not surprised, that listening to rock and roll has become so much of a pastime of categorization and ranking, so antithetical to the goals of the music - whether the good-times rockin' of Gene Vincent and the Go-go's, or the complex explorations of King Crimson and Frank Zappa.
Muse does well, I consider them prog rock.
I think that most prog rock appeals to only musicians ("snob rock"), but some bands can break the barrier and appeal to the masses with the right melodies and lyrics. I'd also argue that this requires having a hook/riff, and that some "snob rock" doesn't want to do that (which is fine). I'd also argue that back in the 70s, when this stuff was a new thing, it appealed to more people because it was a new thing.
I think that most prog rock appeals to only musicians ("snob rock"), but some bands can break the barrier and appeal to the masses with the right melodies and lyrics. I'd also argue that this requires having a hook/riff, and that some "snob rock" doesn't want to do that (which is fine). I'd also argue that back in the 70s, when this stuff was a new thing, it appealed to more people because it was a new thing.
When I'm organizing my shop, everything belongs in a section/category that makes sense. All painting and drywall stuff in one area, all metal working in an area, all plumbing, electrical, wood working, etc. All fasteners and hardware are separated and organized by type/use.
Same with my kitchen cabinets, drawers and the fridge. Things are organized and separated by type/use.
When it comes to music, this system doesn't work for me. I can't remember ever listening to music and needing to know what category it fit into.
If someone asked me what "kind" of music pink Floyd was, I'd say,...."um,...pink Floyd".
I like Tool. What "kind" of music is Tool? Don't care. It's Tool. That's what kind. I like DMB. What kind of music is that? Don't know, don't care. I like steely Dan, Jethro Tull, SRV, Stevie wonder, Ohio players, rush, yes, etc etc etc. It's all over the spectrum.
I don't need to fit any of them into a category. It's not a kitchen or a workshop. It's music.
I get how the brain works and the obsessive need to compartmentalize everything. I just can't relate to why so many people do it with music.
Same with my kitchen cabinets, drawers and the fridge. Things are organized and separated by type/use.
When it comes to music, this system doesn't work for me. I can't remember ever listening to music and needing to know what category it fit into.
If someone asked me what "kind" of music pink Floyd was, I'd say,...."um,...pink Floyd".
I like Tool. What "kind" of music is Tool? Don't care. It's Tool. That's what kind. I like DMB. What kind of music is that? Don't know, don't care. I like steely Dan, Jethro Tull, SRV, Stevie wonder, Ohio players, rush, yes, etc etc etc. It's all over the spectrum.
I don't need to fit any of them into a category. It's not a kitchen or a workshop. It's music.
I get how the brain works and the obsessive need to compartmentalize everything. I just can't relate to why so many people do it with music.
Well, I won't say it's necessary, and for listening purposes it's fine to ignore genre, but genre is the way that I seek out new music! Whether it is through my prog web site that I've been on for 20 years now, or following certain labels that specialize in minimalist jazz, it is a great help to seek out the new music that I crave.
That is why.
The he doesn't play complex drums over them, there are multiple odd time changes in GOODMORNING good morning from SGT PEPPER. Odd times in other beatles as well.
Yep, and this is the answer to the OPs question.
As soon as money was being made, the labels tried to distill what was then called progressive music into elements that made it something they could manufacture at will. The labels missed the mark wildly on that and brought some really awful acts up to the forefront, trying to sell that because they thought they could create the next Yes or Genesis.
All they really did was stink up the place and out of that we got something called "prog" because there was no progress in it anymore, and suddenly it was a niche subgenre with a lot of metal influence, and whatever magic the early players had brought to it was gone.
Meanwhile, those early players moved on, many becoming producers or creating their own stuff that had roots in the early progressive stuff but was continuing to evolve away from the early sound. That's why King Crimson today sounds nothing like their first album, and why Brian Eno ultimately became one of the most successful producers in popular music.
Uh, yeah. It ain't hard if you know the music.
ok then, ill let you dance to Gentle Giant and ill keep it up with James Brown and Pfunk over here
It is possible to do both.ok then, ill let you dance to Gentle Giant and ill keep it up with James Brown and Pfunk over here
