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 do some progressive bands sound so dated?
- Thread starter ElectroVibe
- Start date
We're working the song into our setlist, as we... post...
I hope we can do Jethro proud, whether he's an actual person, or not...
It's funny that someone might think Jethro Tull was the name of a singer in the band. When I first heard their name around 1980 I thought they were a hard rock band. Maybe that's why they won the Grammy for best heavy metal album around 1988, over Metallica. Just by the way the name of the band sounds.
Jethro Tull was a he. Jethro Tull invented the horse drawn seed drill (and other farm tools) and was a key figure in the industrialization of agriculture.
I really liked Jethro Tull's Christmas album and the instrumental by Martin Barre "A Winter Snowscape" back when it came out. I used to listen to that album quite a bit. Right now it sounds a little too "pagan" if that makes any sense. But there were a few Christmases where that was often the only kind of music I could listen to around the holidays.
But I still love this instrumental.
But I still love this instrumental.
Some of you would probably laugh but the most I ever got into progressive rock was STYX when I was in middle school. I loved every album starting from Crystal Ball through Paradise Theater. I was obsessed with them for about two years and all I owned music-wise were those cassettes from that period of Styx. After that, I was always more into more traditional pop and rock music. The old saying, "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" has been my attitude since then. If you can't dance to the music there might be something missing. Although I've gone through classical, jazz, and new age phases also and I will return from time to time. But the music has to make you dance. Maybe because that was the attitude of my parents who grew up in the 50's.
Considering how many award shows there are, he should win big, several times this year, alone.
Yes, I was aware that a fellow once existed with that name, just not a member of the band that Ian Anderson leads.
In my case, prog Rock was a refuge from the horror of disco. No offense if you were a fan, but to me it was sheer torture. I’m sure I missed out on a lot of fun, but I just could not stand it, still can’t in its modern incarnations. I understood fully that a band you can’t dance to will always have some limits on its appeal, but it didn’t seem to slow down Pink Floyd much. I managed to see most of the major prog rock bands in their day, Yes, Floyd, Genesis, Tull, Rush, etc. Their dedication to solid instrumental ability alone was what hooked me as a bass player. It’s true that Roger Waters was no more than a mediocre player, but he had Gilmour on hand to play all the hard parts. 
D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
this thread inspired me to write a few lines about how I see prog music, sorry about that... you can always ignore.
if you want to make a time line maybe you should start with the Beatles doing their orchestral stuff (like Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby). that influenced many people and slowly a new generation of musicians started to blend more sophisticated intrumental to their songs, including organ and other stuff. Some will say its a side effect of the religious feelings arounsed by the LSD ( not lucy). by 1966 there were many groups blending psichedelia and experimental eletronics in their music. that's also when contemporary erudit music like Stokhauser and John Cage became more widely known, the same with some of the most daring jazz like Miles and Coltrane, and again the Beatles brought to surface the oriental music of Ravi Shankar. that highly experimental music found lyric refuge in the literary experiments from the beat generation, anti establishment discourses (remember may '68?), oriental religions, science ficcion and folk tales. so in 69/70's you can say there is a prog scene starting taking shape mixing all those influences.
but it was that Yes redefined the style in 71/72 with their virtuoso musicality, long tracks, eletronic synths (moogs and mellotrons), not talking about the trippy lyrics. that worked for a while and many bands joined the path, making the glory era of the progressive music. but around 76 the pressure of the industry have exhausted the freshness of the style a new and more agressive kind of music emerged from proletarian suburbs and that's when the punk movements started to take over. simpler tunes, less aristocratic instrumentals simply demolished the prog reign. everyone had to adjust to the changes, including the industry that though that was the time for "a more comercial view", "a fresher face"(thank you phil collins). in the 80's even the more orthodox of the proggies had to chang their music -and outfits- if they wish to survive ( and many decided end their activities by then). they joined the industry for a while and many survived. those who noticed the changes coming eventually could adapted earlier, it was the case of Queen or Genesis, some took some time to reshape themselves like Yes, ELP (remember "Touch and Go"?), but in the end every group had to change, because music changed.
personally i like the excesses of the end of the 60's and 70's and even though i lived my young age through the 80's, never really like the sound of the prog bands in that time, too dated to me
if you want to make a time line maybe you should start with the Beatles doing their orchestral stuff (like Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby). that influenced many people and slowly a new generation of musicians started to blend more sophisticated intrumental to their songs, including organ and other stuff. Some will say its a side effect of the religious feelings arounsed by the LSD ( not lucy). by 1966 there were many groups blending psichedelia and experimental eletronics in their music. that's also when contemporary erudit music like Stokhauser and John Cage became more widely known, the same with some of the most daring jazz like Miles and Coltrane, and again the Beatles brought to surface the oriental music of Ravi Shankar. that highly experimental music found lyric refuge in the literary experiments from the beat generation, anti establishment discourses (remember may '68?), oriental religions, science ficcion and folk tales. so in 69/70's you can say there is a prog scene starting taking shape mixing all those influences.
but it was that Yes redefined the style in 71/72 with their virtuoso musicality, long tracks, eletronic synths (moogs and mellotrons), not talking about the trippy lyrics. that worked for a while and many bands joined the path, making the glory era of the progressive music. but around 76 the pressure of the industry have exhausted the freshness of the style a new and more agressive kind of music emerged from proletarian suburbs and that's when the punk movements started to take over. simpler tunes, less aristocratic instrumentals simply demolished the prog reign. everyone had to adjust to the changes, including the industry that though that was the time for "a more comercial view", "a fresher face"(thank you phil collins). in the 80's even the more orthodox of the proggies had to chang their music -and outfits- if they wish to survive ( and many decided end their activities by then). they joined the industry for a while and many survived. those who noticed the changes coming eventually could adapted earlier, it was the case of Queen or Genesis, some took some time to reshape themselves like Yes, ELP (remember "Touch and Go"?), but in the end every group had to change, because music changed.
personally i like the excesses of the end of the 60's and 70's and even though i lived my young age through the 80's, never really like the sound of the prog bands in that time, too dated to me
To me, prog began with Beatles, Beach Boys, Zombies, Floyd, Doors, Mothers of Invention, King Crimson, Moody Blues, Tull, Yes, etc and evolved into the fully blown prog of the 70s. The beginnings of prog were simply musicians pushing some envelopes as far as themes, time signatures, instruments used and length of tracks.
As to what is "successful," "genius," or simply "pompous" is subjective, and I like most of it. Queen, Rush; whether these are true prog bands, they certainly have prog elements and albums.
I like more than I don't like, and I was simultaneously embracing prog and punk, loving Yes every bit as much as the Ramones.
As to what is "successful," "genius," or simply "pompous" is subjective, and I like most of it. Queen, Rush; whether these are true prog bands, they certainly have prog elements and albums.
I like more than I don't like, and I was simultaneously embracing prog and punk, loving Yes every bit as much as the Ramones.
Ooh, I completely disagree...though, as hrodbert696 has intimated, we're really quibbling about how literally one takes the phrase "ahead of their time"
To my ears ITCOTKC, TAAB, and CTTE all sound absolutely and explicitly of their time. More importantly...what subsequent time could they possibly have been from? Music never moved any closer to a point where works of that ilk were more likely to get made, more popular, more prevalent. Those albums happened when they did specifically because that was the time when conditions were most fertile for that sort of music.
I suspect the reason you cite them is not because they are literally ahead of their time, but rather because they have aged so well; when we listen to those albums now we're not distracted by a sense of "oh, this sounds so like 1972" because the music transcends its era, and holds up as a musical statement irrespective of when it was produced.
LOL! Understatement Of The Decade!
I've always hated the term "progressive" rock because--progress from what? If some rock is "progressive" does that mean other rock isn't progressive? You could make a decent argument that Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent, Elvis, Fats Domino, and the other early giants of rock were truly progressive in that they pushed boundaries in a way they had not been pushed before.
If nothing else the technology was so cool. Keith Emerson with his Moog, I think he had to do a week of training with an ATT operator
I just want to point out that I totally disagree with everyone who totally disagrees with me about any and all points made.
I once heard Jon Anderson say: “Calling it symphonic rock is like saying strawberry bricks.”
