• 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?

#201
RichardW said:
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.
Click to expand...

The opposite of progressive would be regressive and perhaps apropos as the other music of the 60s & 70s was blues based - so it was regressive to earlier music. Having said that, progressive rock was regressive to much earlier music...
 
#204
EVerderame said:
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 :p
Click to expand...

If 1971 is the start point then King Crimson, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Genesis, Atomic Rooster, ELP, Jethro Tull, The Moody Blues, and Renaissance were already there to welcome Yes. Even Mickey Dolenz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 58kites and LBS-bass
#206
mellowinman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I definitely loved the Zombies (Oddessy and Oracle) and all the Beatles from that period. Pet Sounds. But I also loved the Ramones. I just depends on the mood I'm in.
 
#209
Marley's Ghost said:
This a must for prog fans or anyone who wants to see the pinnacle of 70's prog virtuosity.

See how effortlessly and enthusiastically this band plays the most complex mix of rock, classical, celtic and jazz fusion. The beautiful multlayer vocal harmonies. True genius.

Click to expand...

Finally got to watching this. In addition to the instrumental (and multi-instrumental) talents and complexities, check out the vocal harmonies and polyrhythms on "Reflections" starting about 10:30.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marley's Ghost and LBS-bass
#210
kesslari said:
Finally got to watching this. In addition to the instrumental (and multi-instrumental) talents and complexities, check out the vocal harmonies and polyrhythms on "Reflections" starting about 10:30.
Click to expand...
Yes and I am having trouble finding someone who can even sing a third harmony part, never mind singing it while playing like that. Really miss the old days, sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kesslari

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back