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
For me, it's thinking music that requires paying attention to details. Simpler music is boring, but serves well if you're not an active listener, again, for me. Your miles may vary.
John
This thread is Great for finding out who is pretentious and bitter
Every thread on talkbass hahaha. Sometimes I’m scrolling through replies going… wow you must be fun at parties.
I was going to say; "Because if it were popular then Internet Hammerheads would have one less thing to pontificate endlessly upon". But, your take works too.
It also happens that I like a lot of Progressive music, but the self-importance that often accompanies said genre is very offputting.
I think that when considering what is/could be popular to the masses, those ears crave predictability and Prog tends to be just the opposite. In the musicians’ ear, we crave the unpredictable. There are a lot more “consumers” than “musicians”.
I’d consider that album more blues-based psychedelia. Too much groove to be prog, in my mind. Also, chicks dig it, so, there’s that….
By today's standards, The Beatles were very proggy -- lots of key and time changes, modal interplay, challenging harmonies, strong use of metaphor and imagery in their lyrics, etc.
Prog rock (puke term) was just a gateway drug back to jazz.
Classical music is on the decline (not really) do to a lack of improv.
A bass synth cant replace a double bass in a jazz band. No.
Prog rock was big before the term was invented and was hugely successful before tastes moved on. I listen mostly to jazz (because I like to listen), even though its been dead for a long time and has a lot of awesome modern artists performing original music. I suspect prog is suffering a similar fate. It has become a lonely world.
Someone said:
He knows changes aren't permanent
But change is
It did in the 70s. Many bands make a good living playing it now. But it’s generally too complex for your average checked out, barely engaged, pop audience.
Yeah. I agree that Floyd’s place in the Prog pantheon is odd, as they all kinda can’t play and that’s generally part of prog.I’d consider that album more blues-based psychedelia. Too much groove to be prog, in my mind. Also, chicks dig it, so, there’s that….
But most folks consider them prog, and that is regularly touted as one of the greatest prog albums of all times.
Also, where did you get the idea that prog doesn’t groove lol? That’s par in 70s prog. Even ELP, which is one of the stuffier bands of that era, has their moments.
Prog had its day where it was VERY successful - I saw ELP a few times - once was when they headlined one of the "10 bands in a day" tours of the time - literally nobody was bigger than them at that time. The OP simply wasn't around at that time, or he wouldn't have asked the question.
Seems to me it was never intended for mass popularity. As much as teenage me wanted everybody to see how cool it was, its nerdy themes and undanceable rhythms precluded a mass audience.
I don’t disagree, but for various reasons I prefer: 5% of the people think; 10% of the people think that they think; and the remaining 84% of the people would rather die than think.
I’ve heard more than a couple accomplished musicians say (on youtube interviews, talks, etc) that they don’t like defining things into musical categories. That music is just music and it is all related. Your comment made me wonder whether the first sign of impending decline is the creation of a new genre label; been there, done that.
