Why do some progressive bands sound so dated?

[Jeff Scott]

...Gentle Giant, King Crimson or Brand-X...

I still vividly remember the first songs I ever heard those bands, either through friends, or the radio (WMMS. WNCR) turning me on to them, a long time ago:

...The Yes Album, Close to the Edge album, ..... Going for the One...

Those were the three albums Yes played, in their entirety, the last time I saw them (August 7, 2013).

And I remember the car trip down to Cincinnati in the Fall of 1974 when I first heard this song and discovered Renaissance.

 

[SactoBass]

Those were the three albums Yes played, in their entirety, the last time I saw them (August 7, 2013).

*VERY* cool!!!

 

[Frank77]

I still vividly remember the first songs I ever heard those bands, either through friends, or the radio (WMMS. WNCR) turning me on to them, a long time ago:







Those were the three albums Yes played, in their entirety, the last time I saw them (August 7, 2013).

And I remember the car trip down to Cincinnati in the Fall of 1974 when I first heard this song and discovered Renaissance.

Oh yeah, I remember that Brand-X track! I wonder if it's more "prog" or more "fusion" though?

Either way, pretty crazy stuff!

 

[The Owl]

My own thoughts on the subject

I think that prog essentially stopped progressing and evolving by the mid 70's, things got very rigidly codified especially with a lot of 2nd and 3rd generation bands. The musicians I think stopped looking to outside influences and started copying other prog bands getting only the surface aspects of what they were doing.

I think Robert Fripp was smart to end KC when he did and explore other musical avenues for the last half of the 70's, Peter Gabriel was smart to leave Genesis when he did and branched out. Genesis had to revamp to continue to be viable, afterall you could only rehash certain things X number of times.

 

[Jeff Scott]

What floored me about that Yes concert was that Chris brought and played the instruments he used to record each song with.

Small, barely worth mentioning tidbit that I might have posted a couple of times on TB: the first time I saw Yes (November 15. 1974) my friends I was with and I got to meet the band, and Chris invited up to his room for a great conversation about all things Yes, and music, related.

 

[Jeff Scott]

Oh yeah, I remember that Brand-X track! I wonder if it's more "prog" or more "fusion" though?

Either way, pretty crazy stuff!

I consider Brand X as both, really. There is a lot of prog elements in jazz fusion, and visa versa. Exhibit A:

 

[woodyng2]

If anything, it's 80's pop music that sounds dated due to production techniques employed at the time. The excessive Japanese polysynth sounds didn't help either. In my opinion 70's prog productions sounded more organic than most 80's pop. Also 70's keyboard sounds have been rediscovered and are considered "hip retro" -- i.e. Hammonds, Mellotrons, analog Moogs, etc.

Whenever i hear anything with the Linn drum machine i gag a little bit.

 

[Marley's Ghost]

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.

 

[jmlee]

Because that is the era when it was created. Almost every decade has it's sound track, When I hear:

Swing I think 1940s
Doo wop I think 50s
Folk I think 60s
Disco I think 70s
Hair metal I think 80s
Grunge I think 90s
Etc.

Adult contemporary I think Oh God why am I thinking about this!

 

[40Hz]

Does anyone have any thoughts or opinions on this?

Sounds to me like you’re into pop and not much into prog. No cause for concern. I doubt anybody seriously into prog, or who traced their musical roots back to the 70s, has any problem with that.

Prog is much like The Magic Theater in Hesse’s novel Steppenwolf: “Not for everybody.”

Addendum:

Not all progrock bands back in the 70s and 80s were synth dominated despite synths playing an important role in the overall sound. Proggers used to make a distinction back in the day between “synth bands” and “prog bands.” If the music couldn’t stand on its own without the synths, that was considered a synth band. If the music could be done on anything from Renaissance instruments to a Fairlight synth - and still work - then it was real prog.

Here’s a good example (Camel) of what we considered genuine prog:

 

[Deleted member 165050]

Whenever i hear anything with the Linn drum machine i gag a little bit.

Anyone remember that Arthur Brown album with the Bentley drum machine?

 

[jamro217]

I believe the cycle of popular music behaves in the following manner:
1.) A style of music aimed at teens becomes popular. Usually due to its generational content. It is rebellious and makes a point of being far removed from the style of music the target audience's parents enjoy. Performed (or marketed as such) by young musicians, it is simple in format to allow everyone to join in.
2.) As said generation matures the sophistication of this musical style increases. It may seem to morph into a different genre as it gets more intricate. The music itself grows up and becomes too advanced for the next, younger generation to play. This continues until the next generation comes along with its new, simpler, style and the cycle repeats.
3.) As the future generations continue to make "new" music, they learn and borrow from established styles, except that of their parents. It is more likely to see grandparents and grandchildren listening to the same music than it is for parents and children. If this sounds ridiculous, offer to drive your kids to school. NOT COOL! Grandma can taxi you back and forth, though. Eventually this younger generation is adept enough to play whatever style they choose, but it rarely is the same as their parent's choice.

This seems to be the MO of the entertainment industry. Aim their products at the youth. I know this sounds like a bizarre theory, but look at the roots of rock and roll. 1950's > call and answer I,IV,V with a chorus. 1960's > British invasion followed by psychedelia. 1970's > Prog, disco, punk. 1980's > New wave, rap... Every ten to fifteen years the beginning of one style will replace another. There are usually distinct differences between adjacent genres, but sometimes close similarities between genres separated by twenty plus years. Compare punk and '50's rock and roll. Both are somewhat similar in format and light years from either prog or disco. Progressive takes its clues from classical and jazz, which were not a common feature of the late '50's rock and roll, surf music, or British invasion, but were popular in the 1940's. A generation was skipped. New wave? New wave of what? The next British invasion. Twenty years later. A generation was skipped. The more you look at the trends in popular music, the more obvious this cycle becomes. Keep in mind it isn't just rock and roll, either. Some of the so called R and B of today is a modified, updated version of Motown. Listen closely for the similarity. Hats off to real professionals who toil in studios for decades playing whatever they're paid to.

 

[jamro217]

Anyone remember that Arthur Brown album with the Bentley drum machine?

No, but for a brief period between 1978 and 1979 the Syndrums were popular. Those were the Star Wars sounding percussion synths. Simply horrible stuff.

 

[Jeff Scott]

I saw them in the Winter of 1975! Sitting right at the edge of the stage (on it, actually), where I made some great photographs of them.

********************************************************

Here's one of the very few bands I have never gotten to see, unfortunately. This is the era I would like to have seen.

 

[LBS-bass]

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.

I was so lucky to see these guys in a small venue back in the 70's. We were in the front row. Ray Schulman was hilariously funny to watch. I loved the music but had no idea how much humor he would bring to his performance. Loved them.

 

[Jeff Scott]

Ray Schulman was hilariously funny to watch

Yes, he was! Someday, I should see if those E6 slides have survived over the years (they have a nasty tendency to fade and change color), there is one I recall of Ray looking straight at me, he, apparently, enjoyed being photographed.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

No, but for a brief period between 1978 and 1979 the Syndrums were popular. Those were the Star Wars sounding percussion synths. Simply horrible stuff.

The Arthur Brown album is a 70s classic, well worth a listen. Called “Journey”.

 

[Marley's Ghost]

I was so lucky to see these guys in a small venue back in the 70's. We were in the front row. Ray Schulman was hilariously funny to watch. I loved the music but had no idea how much humor he would bring to his performance. Loved them.

I did as well. The most memorable of the shows was NYC Central Park Wollman Rink circa 1976. Bicentennial weekend. Amazing show and great time to be alive.

 

[petrus61]

Good question. I’m gonna go with choice of synth. Synth is only as good as the current technology can support and can’t account for good taste.

 

[juggahnaught]

I started watching the Genesis - Behind the Music documentary. They are one band whose early music I just don't know much about. I love some of their pop stuff. I love some of Phil Collins' stuff (sorry haters). I love Peter Gabriel. But their early period obviously was the their foundation.

I could say the same for Yes. I really love their more popular hits that were more pop oriented. And of course the side projects like Asia. But I just can't get into their earlier stuff. Yet I know that there are a core of progressive rock fans who like the more obscure work of these bands, or perhaps other bands like King Crimson.

But it seems like I might have really been into this kind of music if I had been of the right age at the time. It makes me wonder why their music doesn't seem to endure the way other bands of the same time period have, whether pop, classic, rock, hard rock, etc.

Does anyone have any thoughts or opinions on this?

It sounds dated because it is.

In truth, I think it's really quite rare that something can withstand the test of time. Honestly, many of the things that we think have passed the test actually haven't - we're just living in our own little bubble of nostalgia. That is not to say that many things aren't good - but they certainly aren't timeless.

First thing - "timelessness" really isn't. The groups and songs that were well-known and are still well-known today - outside of some genuinely good musicianship in some cases - it feels as though the popularity is artificial. Music is passed down through generations ("music Y these days is terrible, son - listen to some good old Jimmy Y") or becomes part of a social habit or cultural sphere (hard to find a jukebox or a karaoke bar without hearing Journey) or becomes popular for other reasons ("I saw jam band Z live in concert 7 times, those were the good times man, music isn't what it used to be"). It's not timeless, it's just re-perpetuated. Popular music is marketed to have this appeal, as self-perpetuation is the end goal in that case. It isn't music, it's all rose-tinted glasses and member berries.

Second thing - rock as a genre is dated. I'll get a lot of flak for this, especially here, but dude - we're old. I love Iron Maiden and Yes and Rush, etc, but that's not the world we live in now. I don't think it's so much that some prog rock sounds dated as much as it is that most rock is now dated. It's become classic classic rock. It's a different sound, a different time, with different instruments and techniques; people on Talkbass will always have gigs playing old cover songs, but outside of our bubble music is changing.

Third thing - recording techniques, compression, and instrument mix (before the board). Music can sound dated today if it's not hi-fi, doesn't have today's bass response range, and isn't mastered in a very compressed way (loudness wars). You might be picking up on a little bit of this, albeit subconsciously.

So yes - you're right; if you had grown up with the music, you might have a higher nostalgia factor for it, which would have contributed to you liking the music. I'd say consider yourself lucky for not going through that, as you can discover what you like and don't like without the rose-tinted glasses of days gone past.