• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Why do some progressive bands sound so dated?

Prog was super exciting in a pop music world where virtuoso playing of difficult music promised an escape for some musicians and listeners from the boring realities of the market. You could dig down and do some neat stuff, but it was gonna be work and the work was going to be its own reward unless you were lucky. It's the Linux of the rock world.

Powered, from Yes to Zappa to Gentle Giant to Can to Rush to Parliament, by talented and tireless drummers. The drummer was the key element. It's also the part that I think has aged the best.

But then Berkeley-educated virtuoso players became more common, and even "boring" pop music, heck even the music for commercials, gained a professional/technological foundation that was and is amazing, built on analytics and the limitless possibilities of computer-aided composition and recording. It's all prog now, but it's woven into our lives and no longer extraordinary. Compared to the visceral excitement today's methods can manufacture in an instant, the old stuff may try our patience a bt.
 
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 endures fine. You just don’t get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Omega Monkey
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.

That's what I was thinking. The technology while often cutting edge when recorded, often doesn't age well and dates that recording. Whether you consider that a good thing or bad thing is up to you.

Early Genesis and Yes albums sound fresher than anything recorded with Autotune.

Autotune can make a song sound pretty dated to me.
 
YES may sound dated,but their music has moved generations of fans.

We use the term “dated” as a sort of declaration of mediocrity or lack of merit but how can it be? Are we confused about when Beethoven’s music was written? Does it’s era make it redundant? Why do we think that music that belongs to the past is somehow inferior because we notice how old it is?
If only modern music has merit then we are all doomed eventually to be irrelevant.
 
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?

I know exactly what you mean …

here is a more modern version of some Genesis

 
We use the term “dated” as a sort of declaration of mediocrity or lack of merit but how can it be? Are we confused about when Beethoven’s music was written? Does it’s era make it redundant? Why do we think that music that belongs to the past is somehow inferior because we notice how old it is?
If only modern music has merit then we are all doomed eventually to be irrelevant.

We *are* all doomed eventually to be irrelevant and/or nonexistent. Beethoven had many thousands of contemporaries you'll never hear about. You can be a Ph.D.-holding musicologist and still only be reasonably familiar with the work of a handful of those unsung contemporaries, which probably only happened because you were looking for a research specialty to tie your tenure binder together. Whether or not any of their work was more interesting or potentially could have been more important than Beethoven's in other circumstances, we'll never know. At some point we'll stop hearing about Beethoven too, or there will be no one left to talk about him.

And, sure, Beethoven was insanely influential on the next hundred-plus years of handfuls of dead white guys we still talk about, as cited by said dead white guys while they were still alive. But musicians-- of all eras-- typically only become successful and/or possibly remembered through the combination of unbelievable talent, unbelievable effort, and-- sadly, here's the most important part-- unbelievable luck. (That luck can also include being born a white male who somehow found themselves with enough direct access to high society to attain publishing and/or performance.)

When I personally hear something as "dated," it doesn't always mean it's mediocre and/or without merits I can appreciate. It means it creeps me out to some degree or has some component that either makes me uncomfortable in the same sort of way that facing death makes one uncomfortable or just outright makes me not want to deal with it and, yeah, hell, I don't know why.

Usually it seems this is a facet or aspect of the recording technology involved or the production. Yes, I can tell something by Bach is "dated" because nobody has really written in that style for centuries (word in my music history courses was that he was considered a throwback in his own time). But it's not nearly the same as being super-creeped-out by 10CC's "I'm Not In Love," which I always am. Doesn't matter how fascinating the story of that vocal choir played via mixing board might be (it's totally fascinating). Doesn't matter if the underlying composition is reasonably sound (it is). It just sounds icky to me in a way that makes me very uncomfortable, and when I hear it, I immediately want it to stop.

It's not a rational thing. Enjoyment of music is never anywhere near rational or explainable. As a species we enjoy music, but what music each of us can enjoy or not enjoy is tied up in all kinds of baggage, both visible and invisible, in our upbringing and personal experiences.

As for prog, yeah, as much as love the idea and love so much of the music, a lot of it still sounds really dated to me. ELP is fun sometimes but still sounds totally ridiculous. _Lamb Lies Down_ sounds super-ahead of its time, but the same can't be said for earlier Genesis. There are a lot of lesser-known prog bands whose work hasn't aged well at all.

Mainstream-prog-wise, I have never enjoyed listening to Rush. I don't know if I'd call Zappa prog despite his reference in thread. I adored him in theory growing up. Some of his 60s / early 70s stuff has held up, some of it sounds incredibly dated, and almost all of his mid-70s and later stuff sounds MUCH more absurdly dated and I really don't need to hear it ever again.

There's an episode in the 3rd season of the underrated Adult Swim series _Eagleheart_ that spends some time poking fun at prog rock values, which I suspect was written by people who actually really enjoy prog rock. They poke particular fun at the longwindedness and self-indulgence of the genre. We're certainly not at a time in Western culture that tolerates longwindedness. I probably should have stopped this post about four paragraphs ago.
 
I get what the OP is saying...some of it definitely sounds dated. Some early Yes sounds extremely dated, while some of it sounds as good as it ever did. The most glaring example I can think of is Rick Wakeman's first two solo albums, The Six Wives of Henry VIII and Journey To The Center Of The Earth. Hated everything else he did, but I loved those first two when I was a kid and wore out the LP's. Downloaded MP3's of them about 10 years ago after about 20 years of not hearing them, and holy geez, I really used to like that crap? But put on the best of what Yes, ELP, Tull, Genesis, or any of those bands back then did and I still think it sounds pretty fresh.
 
Prog also had a smaller following, even in its heyday. It was always a fringe genre. That's why is wasn't, and isn't, played on the radio as much.

Not sure I agree. In the 70’s Yes filled major arenas, often selling out multiple shows on consecutive nights. In 1976, 130,000 people showed up to JFK Stadium in Philly to see them at their proggiest.
 
I sat down the other day with my Sony MDR-7506 headphones and listened to a live version of "Revealing Science of God" by Yes. After the 20 minute song was over, I took the headphones off, stared across the room, and, after about 30 seconds of speechlessness, I said to myself, "holy sh**.......what incredible musicianship."

But when you were done could you reconstruct any part of what you just heard in your head? Like melody, lyrics, etc. Or was your main takeaway “Wow, great musicianship”.

I bought Court of the Crimson King when it was fresh. Listened a couple times. There was no takeaway for me on that album in anything but the title track, which was getting airplay. And that grew tiresome very quickly.

Great musicianship doesn’t always make for great music or lasting impact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy Daventry
But when you were done could you reconstruct any part of what you just heard in your head? Like melody, lyrics, etc. Or was your main takeaway “Wow, great musicianship”.

I bought Court of the Crimson King when it was fresh. Listened a couple times. There was no takeaway for me on that album in anything but the title track, which was getting airplay. And that grew tiresome very quickly.

Great musicianship doesn’t always make for great music or lasting impact.
I can still listen to 21st Century Schizoid Man all day long, the title track about once a year, and that's about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ Bebop
But when you were done could you reconstruct any part of what you just heard in your head? Like melody, lyrics, etc. Or was your main takeaway “Wow, great musicianship”.

My main takeaway when listening to RSOG live the other day was "wow, great musicianship." It was more of a reminder really, since I had already learned to play that song on my bass about 20 years prior (I've been a Yes fan since 1971 and I used to play bass in a Yes tribute band.) So no "reconstruction" was necessary in my case since I had long since been familiar with the melodies and lyrics of that excellent Yes works.

But I agree 100% with your comment "Great musicianship doesn’t always make for great music or lasting impact." :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OldDog52