First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply bands or artists that never released a bad album
493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 7/26/16 , edited 2 days ago
The only one I can think of that can get close to this is King Crimson, although I haven't heard all of their albums (only missing The ConstruKction of Light), but I know albums that are mainly between good to a fucking masterpiece (especially during their 70's heyday). I'll go with them for now. Same could be said for Yes, Rush and Pink Floyd, actually.
1229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 7/26/16

Markest1 wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


SaitamasFist wrote:

Dennis Wilson! .... he only released one album, though, so I'm not sure if that counts....


Well, I was aiming for artists that had a longer discography. It generally isn't too hard to release a good debut album. Most bands decline after that point so artists with only one album don't really count. General idea is to think of groups that have released at least three albums.



I have another for you and I've started to listen to these guys and I didn't realized how good these guys were until recently, and their name is War like I love these guys like I love Parliament and rightfully so they have had a huge influence on music and they're a superband much like Parliament and it's amazing.


seriously, war is so awesome man. I'd wonder if you truly only just started listening to them, but at least you are now. Their material is fantastic.
1229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 7/26/16

Progrockdude wrote:

The only one I can think of that can get close to this is King Crimson, although I haven't heard all of their albums (only missing The ConstruKction of Light), but I know albums that are mainly between good to fucking masterpiece (especially during their 70's heyday). I'll go with them for now. Same could be said for Yes, Rush and Pink Floyd, actually.


I'd say with those bands, it might be different depending on who you ask. Coming from the 70s into the 80s, rush lost some fans because of the new direction they were taking their sound Their change in sound came from the fact that geddy was trying to push more keyboards into the mix of their sound instead of simply going for a regular hard prog rock approach. That even caused some issues with guitarist Alex Lifeson as well. I can agree with you on king crimson, pink Floyd, and yes, but I wonder about rush because I don't know how their more rabid fanbase in the 70s really reacted to their change in sound during the 80s.
3473 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / The Mothership
Offline
Posted 7/26/16 , edited 7/26/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Markest1 wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


SaitamasFist wrote:

Dennis Wilson! .... he only released one album, though, so I'm not sure if that counts....


Well, I was aiming for artists that had a longer discography. It generally isn't too hard to release a good debut album. Most bands decline after that point so artists with only one album don't really count. General idea is to think of groups that have released at least three albums.



I have another for you and I've started to listen to these guys and I didn't realized how good these guys were until recently, and their name is War like I love these guys like I love Parliament and rightfully so they have had a huge influence on music and they're a superband much like Parliament and it's amazing.


seriously, war is so awesome man. I'd wonder if you truly only just started listening to them, but at least you are now. Their material is fantastic.


Ever heard of Kool & The Gang? They came to town last year and rocked it! There were other acts but I feel none of them could hold a candle to that group with such hits like Hollywood Swinging, Jungle Boogie, Ladies Night, Celebration, and my favorite by them, Summer Madness.
1229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 7/27/16

Markest1 wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Markest1 wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


SaitamasFist wrote:

Dennis Wilson! .... he only released one album, though, so I'm not sure if that counts....


Well, I was aiming for artists that had a longer discography. It generally isn't too hard to release a good debut album. Most bands decline after that point so artists with only one album don't really count. General idea is to think of groups that have released at least three albums.



I have another for you and I've started to listen to these guys and I didn't realized how good these guys were until recently, and their name is War like I love these guys like I love Parliament and rightfully so they have had a huge influence on music and they're a superband much like Parliament and it's amazing.


seriously, war is so awesome man. I'd wonder if you truly only just started listening to them, but at least you are now. Their material is fantastic.


Ever heard of Kool & The Gang? They came to town last year and rocked it! There were other acts but I feel none of them could hold a candle to that group with such hits like Hollywood Swinging, Jungle Boogie, Ladies Night, Celebration, and my favorite by them, Summer Madness.


yeah, I have heard of kool and the gang. They are pretty cool. I mean in terms of hits, I guess you could claim that no other group truly matched them. But then, you had groups such as earth, wind, and fire that had great material. When it comes to stuff like funk, nobody can really beat acts like james brown, ohio players, or parliament to me.
493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 7/27/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

The only one I can think of that can get close to this is King Crimson, although I haven't heard all of their albums (only missing The ConstruKction of Light), but I know albums that are mainly between good to fucking masterpiece (especially during their 70's heyday). I'll go with them for now. Same could be said for Yes, Rush and Pink Floyd, actually.


I'd say with those bands, it might be different depending on who you ask. Coming from the 70s into the 80s, rush lost some fans because of the new direction they were taking their sound Their change in sound came from the fact that geddy was trying to push more keyboards into the mix of their sound instead of simply going for a regular hard prog rock approach. That even caused some issues with guitarist Alex Lifeson as well. I can agree with you on king crimson, pink Floyd, and yes, but I wonder about rush because I don't know how their more rabid fanbase in the 70s really reacted to their change in sound during the 80s.


I guess you're unaware of how big the fanbase for the 80s stuff is, at least from my view. I mean, even some of them probably prefer it over the 70s material (though I haven't come across those people yet, from what I can remember at least). Albums such as Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were released this decade, and we know about the popularity of those two albums. Some even consider their other output in this decade to rank among the best in the band's discography, too. HOWEVER, you're still right about reaction to this new change in style as the 80s started (PW and its lead-off single, "The Spirit of Radio," literally came out on New Year's Day 1980 ffs), even from within the band. Although, the change didn't come to fruition until Counterparts in '93 (building on from Presto and Roll the Bones, just like a natural progression), which some also consider to be among their better albums (especially in their 90s output, which I feel like is where some of the decline came in all the way up to Vapor Trails). Did this make any sense?
1229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 7/27/16

Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

The only one I can think of that can get close to this is King Crimson, although I haven't heard all of their albums (only missing The ConstruKction of Light), but I know albums that are mainly between good to fucking masterpiece (especially during their 70's heyday). I'll go with them for now. Same could be said for Yes, Rush and Pink Floyd, actually.


I'd say with those bands, it might be different depending on who you ask. Coming from the 70s into the 80s, rush lost some fans because of the new direction they were taking their sound Their change in sound came from the fact that geddy was trying to push more keyboards into the mix of their sound instead of simply going for a regular hard prog rock approach. That even caused some issues with guitarist Alex Lifeson as well. I can agree with you on king crimson, pink Floyd, and yes, but I wonder about rush because I don't know how their more rabid fanbase in the 70s really reacted to their change in sound during the 80s.


I guess you're unaware of how big the fanbase for the 80s stuff is, at least from my view. I mean, even some of them probably prefer it over the 70s material (though I haven't come across those people yet, from what I can remember at least). Albums such as Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were released this decade, and we know about the popularity of those two albums. Some even consider their other output in this decade to rank among the best in the band's discography, too. HOWEVER, you're still right about reaction to this new change in style as the 80s started (PW and its lead-off single, "The Spirit of Radio," literally came out on New Year's Day 1980 ffs), even from within the band. Although, the change didn't come to fruition until Counterparts in '93 (building on from Presto and Roll the Bones, just like a natural progression), which some also consider to be among their better albums (especially in their 90s output, which I feel like is where some of the decline came in all the way up to Vapor Trails). Did this make any sense?


yes, it did, but I believe my point still stands in some ways. With regards to a band's popularity, it depends on who you ask. Hardcore fans of rush's seventies material where they mixed in a good bit of hard rock with prog rock might have seriously been turned off when the band transitioned from the seventies into the 80s. I'm sure the change in sound help rush gain a good bit of new fans. Yes had one of their biggest hits in the 80s and the 1980s king crimson album discipline is the top seller in prog rock on amazon. I believe rush was able to get so many different fans during the 80s because they responded to the new soundscape that was forming the decade. The transition into the 80s wouldn't have affected a band like yes too much because their sound, unlike rushs, was a little less definable and a little ahead of its time in some ways. The number of 80s groups influenced by yes must have been huge. The reason I am outlining this is because the trend of the 80s was the use of electronic equipment in music. Keyboards, synths, electric drums, etc were now heavy instruments of choice during the 80s where they were sparsely used during the 70s. Yes had always used keyboards as a huge part of their soundscape whereas rush focused on a hard rock, led zeppelin type band with heavy progressive elements. One of their biggest records was 2112, the height of their progressive rock output during the 70s. Imagine Geddy Lee, one of the greatest bassists of all time, said to his bandmates and rush fans that he would be playing less bass and more keyboards and neil peart would be playing some electric drums. I believe that would turn off some fans as well as gain new ones. Over time, I think that it has become less so because rush has become epitomized in some ways with their 80s sound with massive hits like tom sawyer gaining them so much popularity. I guess I'm putting my argument more into the framework of those who experienced rush's earliest sounds first, became hardcore fans for their earliest sounds, and then experienced the sound change. I guess it just depends on taste, whether you like the synthy sounds of the 80s or the prog rock of the 70s. Just like early pink Floyd and later pink Floyd or early king crimson and later king crimson, those bands experienced some major change in sound that constructed their core being. With groups such as those with such diverse material, I think it can often divide some fans depending on who you ask. Some may like it all, but most will have their preferences. I guess that is why I would say that the strength of rush's material depends on who you are personally

493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 7/27/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

The only one I can think of that can get close to this is King Crimson, although I haven't heard all of their albums (only missing The ConstruKction of Light), but I know albums that are mainly between good to fucking masterpiece (especially during their 70's heyday). I'll go with them for now. Same could be said for Yes, Rush and Pink Floyd, actually.


I'd say with those bands, it might be different depending on who you ask. Coming from the 70s into the 80s, rush lost some fans because of the new direction they were taking their sound Their change in sound came from the fact that geddy was trying to push more keyboards into the mix of their sound instead of simply going for a regular hard prog rock approach. That even caused some issues with guitarist Alex Lifeson as well. I can agree with you on king crimson, pink Floyd, and yes, but I wonder about rush because I don't know how their more rabid fanbase in the 70s really reacted to their change in sound during the 80s.


I guess you're unaware of how big the fanbase for the 80s stuff is, at least from my view. I mean, even some of them probably prefer it over the 70s material (though I haven't come across those people yet, from what I can remember at least). Albums such as Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were released this decade, and we know about the popularity of those two albums. Some even consider their other output in this decade to rank among the best in the band's discography, too. HOWEVER, you're still right about reaction to this new change in style as the 80s started (PW and its lead-off single, "The Spirit of Radio," literally came out on New Year's Day 1980 ffs), even from within the band. Although, the change didn't come to fruition until Counterparts in '93 (building on from Presto and Roll the Bones, just like a natural progression), which some also consider to be among their better albums (especially in their 90s output, which I feel like is where some of the decline came in all the way up to Vapor Trails). Did this make any sense?


yes, it did, but I believe my point still stands in some ways. With regards to a band's popularity, it depends on who you ask. Hardcore fans of rush's seventies material where they mixed in a good bit of hard rock with prog rock might have seriously been turned off when the band transitioned from the seventies into the 80s. I'm sure the change in sound help rush gain a good bit of new fans. Yes had one of their biggest hits in the 80s and the 1980s king crimson album discipline is the top seller in prog rock on amazon. I believe rush was able to get so many different fans during the 80s because they responded to the new soundscape that was forming the decade. The transition into the 80s wouldn't have affected a band like yes too much because their sound, unlike rushs, was a little less definable and a little ahead of its time in some ways. The number of 80s groups influenced by yes must have been huge. The reason I am outlining this is because the trend of the 80s was the use of electronic equipment in music. Keyboards, synths, electric drums, etc were now heavy instruments of choice during the 80s where they were sparsely used during the 70s. Yes had always used keyboards as a huge part of their soundscape whereas rush focused on a hard rock, led zeppelin type band with heavy progressive elements. One of their biggest records was 2112, the height of their progressive rock output during the 70s. Imagine Geddy Lee, one of the greatest bassists of all time, said to his bandmates and rush fans that he would be playing less bass and more keyboards and neil peart would be playing some electric drums. I believe that would turn off some fans as well as gain new ones. Over time, I think that it has become less so because rush has become epitomized in some ways with their 80s sound with massive hits like tom sawyer gaining them so much popularity. I guess I'm putting my argument more into the framework of those who experienced rush's earliest sounds first, became hardcore fans for their earliest sounds, and then experienced the sound change. I guess it just depends on taste, whether you like the synthy sounds of the 80s or the prog rock of the 70s. Just like early pink Floyd and later pink Floyd or early king crimson and later king crimson, those bands experienced some major change in sound that constructed their core being. With groups such as those with such diverse material, I think it can often divide some fans depending on who you ask. Some may like it all, but most will have their preferences. I guess that is why I would say that the strength of rush's material depends on who you are personally



Yeah, I'm quite aware of all of this. I just see a lot of more appreciation from Rush's fanbase of ALL of their eras, even though a majority of them (including myself) do prefer their early 70s material. I have a feeling there's more of a backlash against Yes during the 80s, especially after 90125 came out (same thing could be said for Genesis, big time (no Peter Gabriel pun intended, who kind of got a similar response after releasing So)). King Crimson, I think, still got a backlash after releasing Discipline, and ESPECIALLY after Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair, because sounding commercial automatically means you're "selling out" and such. It's just the same old, same old hipster bullshit that keeps popping up again and again like per usual.
3473 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / The Mothership
Offline
Posted 7/27/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Markest1 wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Markest1 wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


SaitamasFist wrote:

Dennis Wilson! .... he only released one album, though, so I'm not sure if that counts....


Well, I was aiming for artists that had a longer discography. It generally isn't too hard to release a good debut album. Most bands decline after that point so artists with only one album don't really count. General idea is to think of groups that have released at least three albums.



I have another for you and I've started to listen to these guys and I didn't realized how good these guys were until recently, and their name is War like I love these guys like I love Parliament and rightfully so they have had a huge influence on music and they're a superband much like Parliament and it's amazing.


seriously, war is so awesome man. I'd wonder if you truly only just started listening to them, but at least you are now. Their material is fantastic.


Ever heard of Kool & The Gang? They came to town last year and rocked it! There were other acts but I feel none of them could hold a candle to that group with such hits like Hollywood Swinging, Jungle Boogie, Ladies Night, Celebration, and my favorite by them, Summer Madness.


yeah, I have heard of kool and the gang. They are pretty cool. I mean in terms of hits, I guess you could claim that no other group truly matched them. But then, you had groups such as earth, wind, and fire that had great material. When it comes to stuff like funk, nobody can really beat acts like james brown, ohio players, or parliament to me.


You're right though can't beat those who put Funk on the map and I just was going to mention Earth, Wind, & Fire.
1229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 7/27/16

Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

The only one I can think of that can get close to this is King Crimson, although I haven't heard all of their albums (only missing The ConstruKction of Light), but I know albums that are mainly between good to fucking masterpiece (especially during their 70's heyday). I'll go with them for now. Same could be said for Yes, Rush and Pink Floyd, actually.


I'd say with those bands, it might be different depending on who you ask. Coming from the 70s into the 80s, rush lost some fans because of the new direction they were taking their sound Their change in sound came from the fact that geddy was trying to push more keyboards into the mix of their sound instead of simply going for a regular hard prog rock approach. That even caused some issues with guitarist Alex Lifeson as well. I can agree with you on king crimson, pink Floyd, and yes, but I wonder about rush because I don't know how their more rabid fanbase in the 70s really reacted to their change in sound during the 80s.


I guess you're unaware of how big the fanbase for the 80s stuff is, at least from my view. I mean, even some of them probably prefer it over the 70s material (though I haven't come across those people yet, from what I can remember at least). Albums such as Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were released this decade, and we know about the popularity of those two albums. Some even consider their other output in this decade to rank among the best in the band's discography, too. HOWEVER, you're still right about reaction to this new change in style as the 80s started (PW and its lead-off single, "The Spirit of Radio," literally came out on New Year's Day 1980 ffs), even from within the band. Although, the change didn't come to fruition until Counterparts in '93 (building on from Presto and Roll the Bones, just like a natural progression), which some also consider to be among their better albums (especially in their 90s output, which I feel like is where some of the decline came in all the way up to Vapor Trails). Did this make any sense?


yes, it did, but I believe my point still stands in some ways. With regards to a band's popularity, it depends on who you ask. Hardcore fans of rush's seventies material where they mixed in a good bit of hard rock with prog rock might have seriously been turned off when the band transitioned from the seventies into the 80s. I'm sure the change in sound help rush gain a good bit of new fans. Yes had one of their biggest hits in the 80s and the 1980s king crimson album discipline is the top seller in prog rock on amazon. I believe rush was able to get so many different fans during the 80s because they responded to the new soundscape that was forming the decade. The transition into the 80s wouldn't have affected a band like yes too much because their sound, unlike rushs, was a little less definable and a little ahead of its time in some ways. The number of 80s groups influenced by yes must have been huge. The reason I am outlining this is because the trend of the 80s was the use of electronic equipment in music. Keyboards, synths, electric drums, etc were now heavy instruments of choice during the 80s where they were sparsely used during the 70s. Yes had always used keyboards as a huge part of their soundscape whereas rush focused on a hard rock, led zeppelin type band with heavy progressive elements. One of their biggest records was 2112, the height of their progressive rock output during the 70s. Imagine Geddy Lee, one of the greatest bassists of all time, said to his bandmates and rush fans that he would be playing less bass and more keyboards and neil peart would be playing some electric drums. I believe that would turn off some fans as well as gain new ones. Over time, I think that it has become less so because rush has become epitomized in some ways with their 80s sound with massive hits like tom sawyer gaining them so much popularity. I guess I'm putting my argument more into the framework of those who experienced rush's earliest sounds first, became hardcore fans for their earliest sounds, and then experienced the sound change. I guess it just depends on taste, whether you like the synthy sounds of the 80s or the prog rock of the 70s. Just like early pink Floyd and later pink Floyd or early king crimson and later king crimson, those bands experienced some major change in sound that constructed their core being. With groups such as those with such diverse material, I think it can often divide some fans depending on who you ask. Some may like it all, but most will have their preferences. I guess that is why I would say that the strength of rush's material depends on who you are personally



Yeah, I'm quite aware of all of this. I just see a lot of more appreciation from Rush's fanbase of ALL of their eras, even though a majority of them (including myself) do prefer their early 70s material. I have a feeling there's more of a backlash against Yes during the 80s, especially after 90125 came out (same thing could be said for Genesis, big time (no Peter Gabriel pun intended, who kind of got a similar response after releasing So)). King Crimson, I think, still got a backlash after releasing Discipline, and ESPECIALLY after Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair, because sounding commercial automatically means you're "selling out" and such. It's just the same old, same old hipster bullshit that keeps popping up again and again like per usual.


I'd say genesis got more flack because of the transition from the peter Gabriel fronted genesis to the phil Collins fronted genesis. Anytime there are lineup changes that extreme, there are bound to be some detractors. Personally, I'm not a big fan of gensis. I also think phil Collins solo work wasn't that great, but it just isn't my thing. What is impressive about these groups is the fact that the 80s was the point where these prog bands were actually gaining commercial attention. Progressive rock, despite being a popular genre, was not a huge marketable genre. You could often hear the singles from rush on the radio, but I think it was less so for bands like king crimson and yes. This was probably because neither band was a singles band. King crimson certainly wasn't. For a lot of bands, the late 70s and the 80s were a tough time. Hard rock was going out of fashion and the brief popularity of disco really dragged rock down in some cases. I'd say it is impressive the bands like rush, yes, and king crimson transitioned into the 80s so easily. Where bands such as aerosmith and the rolling stones were going on the decline, bands like rush were innovating and pushing musical boundaries. I would also give major props to Robert fripp and how he so seamlessly brought back a new rendition of king crimson with new members and a new sound to the forefront of the 80s. Therefore, this version of king crimson was very different from the 70s era. So, there were bound to be people who didn't like the change. I don't think progressive rock was ever supposed to be a commercial pursuit. So, when these bands started getting critical acclaim from the mainstream as well as from their previously established fanbase, I would say that many would give these bands flack for "selling out" It was the same thing with punk rock and nu metal. The difference between prog rock and these genres was that it didn't represent a decline in sound quality for most of the fanbase. However, prog rock was never that easily to categorize. Listening to a farewell to kings today, I believe that the change with rush from 70s to 80s wasn't too much of a deviation especially when you understand that rush is a band that has changed several times over the course of their decades-long career. I mean their first album sounded like led zeppelin, then it became laden with more progressive elements, then became like a synth-rock band although the prog elements never really left.

493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

The only one I can think of that can get close to this is King Crimson, although I haven't heard all of their albums (only missing The ConstruKction of Light), but I know albums that are mainly between good to fucking masterpiece (especially during their 70's heyday). I'll go with them for now. Same could be said for Yes, Rush and Pink Floyd, actually.


I'd say with those bands, it might be different depending on who you ask. Coming from the 70s into the 80s, rush lost some fans because of the new direction they were taking their sound Their change in sound came from the fact that geddy was trying to push more keyboards into the mix of their sound instead of simply going for a regular hard prog rock approach. That even caused some issues with guitarist Alex Lifeson as well. I can agree with you on king crimson, pink Floyd, and yes, but I wonder about rush because I don't know how their more rabid fanbase in the 70s really reacted to their change in sound during the 80s.


I guess you're unaware of how big the fanbase for the 80s stuff is, at least from my view. I mean, even some of them probably prefer it over the 70s material (though I haven't come across those people yet, from what I can remember at least). Albums such as Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were released this decade, and we know about the popularity of those two albums. Some even consider their other output in this decade to rank among the best in the band's discography, too. HOWEVER, you're still right about reaction to this new change in style as the 80s started (PW and its lead-off single, "The Spirit of Radio," literally came out on New Year's Day 1980 ffs), even from within the band. Although, the change didn't come to fruition until Counterparts in '93 (building on from Presto and Roll the Bones, just like a natural progression), which some also consider to be among their better albums (especially in their 90s output, which I feel like is where some of the decline came in all the way up to Vapor Trails). Did this make any sense?


yes, it did, but I believe my point still stands in some ways. With regards to a band's popularity, it depends on who you ask. Hardcore fans of rush's seventies material where they mixed in a good bit of hard rock with prog rock might have seriously been turned off when the band transitioned from the seventies into the 80s. I'm sure the change in sound help rush gain a good bit of new fans. Yes had one of their biggest hits in the 80s and the 1980s king crimson album discipline is the top seller in prog rock on amazon. I believe rush was able to get so many different fans during the 80s because they responded to the new soundscape that was forming the decade. The transition into the 80s wouldn't have affected a band like yes too much because their sound, unlike rushs, was a little less definable and a little ahead of its time in some ways. The number of 80s groups influenced by yes must have been huge. The reason I am outlining this is because the trend of the 80s was the use of electronic equipment in music. Keyboards, synths, electric drums, etc were now heavy instruments of choice during the 80s where they were sparsely used during the 70s. Yes had always used keyboards as a huge part of their soundscape whereas rush focused on a hard rock, led zeppelin type band with heavy progressive elements. One of their biggest records was 2112, the height of their progressive rock output during the 70s. Imagine Geddy Lee, one of the greatest bassists of all time, said to his bandmates and rush fans that he would be playing less bass and more keyboards and neil peart would be playing some electric drums. I believe that would turn off some fans as well as gain new ones. Over time, I think that it has become less so because rush has become epitomized in some ways with their 80s sound with massive hits like tom sawyer gaining them so much popularity. I guess I'm putting my argument more into the framework of those who experienced rush's earliest sounds first, became hardcore fans for their earliest sounds, and then experienced the sound change. I guess it just depends on taste, whether you like the synthy sounds of the 80s or the prog rock of the 70s. Just like early pink Floyd and later pink Floyd or early king crimson and later king crimson, those bands experienced some major change in sound that constructed their core being. With groups such as those with such diverse material, I think it can often divide some fans depending on who you ask. Some may like it all, but most will have their preferences. I guess that is why I would say that the strength of rush's material depends on who you are personally



Yeah, I'm quite aware of all of this. I just see a lot of more appreciation from Rush's fanbase of ALL of their eras, even though a majority of them (including myself) do prefer their early 70s material. I have a feeling there's more of a backlash against Yes during the 80s, especially after 90125 came out (same thing could be said for Genesis, big time (no Peter Gabriel pun intended, who kind of got a similar response after releasing So)). King Crimson, I think, still got a backlash after releasing Discipline, and ESPECIALLY after Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair, because sounding commercial automatically means you're "selling out" and such. It's just the same old, same old hipster bullshit that keeps popping up again and again like per usual.


I'd say genesis got more flack because of the transition from the peter Gabriel fronted genesis to the phil Collins fronted genesis. Anytime there are lineup changes that extreme, there are bound to be some detractors. Personally, I'm not a big fan of gensis. I also think phil Collins solo work wasn't that great, but it just isn't my thing. What is impressive about these groups is the fact that the 80s was the point where these prog bands were actually gaining commercial attention. Progressive rock, despite being a popular genre, was not a huge marketable genre. You could often hear the singles from rush on the radio, but I think it was less so for bands like king crimson and yes. This was probably because neither band was a singles band. King crimson certainly wasn't. For a lot of bands, the late 70s and the 80s were a tough time. Hard rock was going out of fashion and the brief popularity of disco really dragged rock down in some cases. I'd say it is impressive the bands like rush, yes, and king crimson transitioned into the 80s so easily. Where bands such as aerosmith and the rolling stones were going on the decline, bands like rush were innovating and pushing musical boundaries. I would also give major props to Robert fripp and how he so seamlessly brought back a new rendition of king crimson with new members and a new sound to the forefront of the 80s. Therefore, this version of king crimson was very different from the 70s era. So, there were bound to be people who didn't like the change. I don't think progressive rock was ever supposed to be a commercial pursuit. So, when these bands started getting critical acclaim from the mainstream as well as from their previously established fanbase, I would say that many would give these bands flack for "selling out" It was the same thing with punk rock and nu metal. The difference between prog rock and these genres was that it didn't represent a decline in sound quality for most of the fanbase. However, prog rock was never that easily to categorize. Listening to a farewell to kings today, I believe that the change with rush from 70s to 80s wasn't too much of a deviation especially when you understand that rush is a band that has changed several times over the course of their decades-long career. I mean their first album sounded like led zeppelin, then it became laden with more progressive elements, then became like a synth-rock band although the prog elements never really left.



Your description of Rush at the end was perfect, as it is indeed what I like to call a "natural progression." And the different sound that came with the different lineup change was more of a deterrent, is what I was trying to say. And as for KC, they were originally going to be a different group called "Discipline," but then changed their name to what we know of today for this 80s lineup. Whether it be because "King Crimson" is more bankable than "Discipline" and/or personal gain from Fripp's point of view, I will never know. Disco Demolition Night was also thing because of the rock fanbase's disgust with it (ain't seeing that anytime soon with today's mainstream artists here in the West). And as for prog being mainly a commercial pursuit, I would agree, but it still was legitimately bankable, especially in the early 70s. Yes, ELP, Pink Floyd, and Jethro Tull all became commercially successful during their 70s heyday (both PF and JT got at least one chart-topping album on the Billboard 200 for crying out loud!!!) despite the genre's more "underground" approach, and there's still a commercial backing of the genre (Dream Theater, Tool, Steven Wilson, and Rush, among others).
1229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 7/28/16 , edited 7/28/16

Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

The only one I can think of that can get close to this is King Crimson, although I haven't heard all of their albums (only missing The ConstruKction of Light), but I know albums that are mainly between good to fucking masterpiece (especially during their 70's heyday). I'll go with them for now. Same could be said for Yes, Rush and Pink Floyd, actually.


I'd say with those bands, it might be different depending on who you ask. Coming from the 70s into the 80s, rush lost some fans because of the new direction they were taking their sound Their change in sound came from the fact that geddy was trying to push more keyboards into the mix of their sound instead of simply going for a regular hard prog rock approach. That even caused some issues with guitarist Alex Lifeson as well. I can agree with you on king crimson, pink Floyd, and yes, but I wonder about rush because I don't know how their more rabid fanbase in the 70s really reacted to their change in sound during the 80s.


I guess you're unaware of how big the fanbase for the 80s stuff is, at least from my view. I mean, even some of them probably prefer it over the 70s material (though I haven't come across those people yet, from what I can remember at least). Albums such as Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were released this decade, and we know about the popularity of those two albums. Some even consider their other output in this decade to rank among the best in the band's discography, too. HOWEVER, you're still right about reaction to this new change in style as the 80s started (PW and its lead-off single, "The Spirit of Radio," literally came out on New Year's Day 1980 ffs), even from within the band. Although, the change didn't come to fruition until Counterparts in '93 (building on from Presto and Roll the Bones, just like a natural progression), which some also consider to be among their better albums (especially in their 90s output, which I feel like is where some of the decline came in all the way up to Vapor Trails). Did this make any sense?


yes, it did, but I believe my point still stands in some ways. With regards to a band's popularity, it depends on who you ask. Hardcore fans of rush's seventies material where they mixed in a good bit of hard rock with prog rock might have seriously been turned off when the band transitioned from the seventies into the 80s. I'm sure the change in sound help rush gain a good bit of new fans. Yes had one of their biggest hits in the 80s and the 1980s king crimson album discipline is the top seller in prog rock on amazon. I believe rush was able to get so many different fans during the 80s because they responded to the new soundscape that was forming the decade. The transition into the 80s wouldn't have affected a band like yes too much because their sound, unlike rushs, was a little less definable and a little ahead of its time in some ways. The number of 80s groups influenced by yes must have been huge. The reason I am outlining this is because the trend of the 80s was the use of electronic equipment in music. Keyboards, synths, electric drums, etc were now heavy instruments of choice during the 80s where they were sparsely used during the 70s. Yes had always used keyboards as a huge part of their soundscape whereas rush focused on a hard rock, led zeppelin type band with heavy progressive elements. One of their biggest records was 2112, the height of their progressive rock output during the 70s. Imagine Geddy Lee, one of the greatest bassists of all time, said to his bandmates and rush fans that he would be playing less bass and more keyboards and neil peart would be playing some electric drums. I believe that would turn off some fans as well as gain new ones. Over time, I think that it has become less so because rush has become epitomized in some ways with their 80s sound with massive hits like tom sawyer gaining them so much popularity. I guess I'm putting my argument more into the framework of those who experienced rush's earliest sounds first, became hardcore fans for their earliest sounds, and then experienced the sound change. I guess it just depends on taste, whether you like the synthy sounds of the 80s or the prog rock of the 70s. Just like early pink Floyd and later pink Floyd or early king crimson and later king crimson, those bands experienced some major change in sound that constructed their core being. With groups such as those with such diverse material, I think it can often divide some fans depending on who you ask. Some may like it all, but most will have their preferences. I guess that is why I would say that the strength of rush's material depends on who you are personally



Yeah, I'm quite aware of all of this. I just see a lot of more appreciation from Rush's fanbase of ALL of their eras, even though a majority of them (including myself) do prefer their early 70s material. I have a feeling there's more of a backlash against Yes during the 80s, especially after 90125 came out (same thing could be said for Genesis, big time (no Peter Gabriel pun intended, who kind of got a similar response after releasing So)). King Crimson, I think, still got a backlash after releasing Discipline, and ESPECIALLY after Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair, because sounding commercial automatically means you're "selling out" and such. It's just the same old, same old hipster bullshit that keeps popping up again and again like per usual.


I'd say genesis got more flack because of the transition from the peter Gabriel fronted genesis to the phil Collins fronted genesis. Anytime there are lineup changes that extreme, there are bound to be some detractors. Personally, I'm not a big fan of gensis. I also think phil Collins solo work wasn't that great, but it just isn't my thing. What is impressive about these groups is the fact that the 80s was the point where these prog bands were actually gaining commercial attention. Progressive rock, despite being a popular genre, was not a huge marketable genre. You could often hear the singles from rush on the radio, but I think it was less so for bands like king crimson and yes. This was probably because neither band was a singles band. King crimson certainly wasn't. For a lot of bands, the late 70s and the 80s were a tough time. Hard rock was going out of fashion and the brief popularity of disco really dragged rock down in some cases. I'd say it is impressive the bands like rush, yes, and king crimson transitioned into the 80s so easily. Where bands such as aerosmith and the rolling stones were going on the decline, bands like rush were innovating and pushing musical boundaries. I would also give major props to Robert fripp and how he so seamlessly brought back a new rendition of king crimson with new members and a new sound to the forefront of the 80s. Therefore, this version of king crimson was very different from the 70s era. So, there were bound to be people who didn't like the change. I don't think progressive rock was ever supposed to be a commercial pursuit. So, when these bands started getting critical acclaim from the mainstream as well as from their previously established fanbase, I would say that many would give these bands flack for "selling out" It was the same thing with punk rock and nu metal. The difference between prog rock and these genres was that it didn't represent a decline in sound quality for most of the fanbase. However, prog rock was never that easily to categorize. Listening to a farewell to kings today, I believe that the change with rush from 70s to 80s wasn't too much of a deviation especially when you understand that rush is a band that has changed several times over the course of their decades-long career. I mean their first album sounded like led zeppelin, then it became laden with more progressive elements, then became like a synth-rock band although the prog elements never really left.



Your description of Rush at the end was perfect, as it is indeed what I like to call a "natural progression." And the different sound that came with the different lineup change was more of a deterrent, is what I was trying to say. And as for KC, they were originally going to be a different group called "Discipline," but then changed their name to what we know of today for this 80s lineup. Whether it be because "King Crimson" is more bankable than "Discipline" and/or personal gain from Fripp's point of view, I will never know. Disco Demolition Night was also thing because of the rock fanbase's disgust with it (ain't seeing that anytime soon with today's mainstream artists here in the West). And as for prog being mainly a commercial pursuit, I would agree, but it still was legitimately bankable, especially in the early 70s. Yes, ELP, Pink Floyd, and Jethro Tull all became commercially successful during their 70s heyday (both PF and JT got at least one chart-topping album on the Billboard 200 for crying out loud!!!) despite the genre's more "underground" approach, and there's still a commercial backing of the genre (Dream Theater, Tool, Steven Wilson, and Rush, among others).


From most of the bands you mention, I find that most of the bands seem to be either hit or miss for me. Progressive rock has been a genre that I has been a sort of acquired taste for me. In many ways, the progressive rock turned me off because I viewed it as the equivalent of showing off in musical standards. You can be a skilled musician, but how many songs really need to be 15 plus minutes long. Imagine listening to all parts of shine on you crazy diamond or dogs by pink Floyd. I love pink Floyd, but in cases such as these I must wonder if they are completely necessary. From my perspective, an album like dark side of the moon is pink Floyd's masterpiece since it has the most diverse set of songs, the most songs for a pink Floyd album (not taking the wall into account since it was kind of a double album), and most songs are under ten minutes for the most part. I like bands like ELO and Jethro Tull for some of the same reasons. Certain bands, such as Emerson Lake and Palmer aren't a huge hit for me because of their more classical song leanings and the fact that they have a knack for writing monstrous musical sequences that can sometimes last for 20 minutes or longer. I love genres such punk rock because they did the opposite of what prog did. It was shorter, more concise, and held your attention from beginning to end. I also liked it because of how inclusive it was. Anybody could form a band and write songs in the punk rock style. Prog icons were almost like musical gods in some ways. Some musicians could practice their entire lives and never sound as good on guitar as david Gilmore, on bass like geddy lee, or on drums like neil peart. Although I can't say that I love the prog-genre, I still listen to it and can totally appreciate how its famous acts helped push music forward and provide a platform for showing real musical ability. The question I might want to ask you is: Is there ever a time when progressive rock seems too self-indulgent for you? What I mean by self-indulgent is long jams for the sake of long jams. Large musical tracks with more than their fair share of filler. Times when the musical showcase at hand seems to try to one-up what came before it on a large scale. Times when sole musical tracks can take up whole album space or be enough material for a whole album for a different band. Times when album space is spent more on broad musical experimental instead of more streamlined material (not necessarily for the sake of singles or mainstream attention, but for an album with better flow instead of jagged transition. Is what I'm asking making sense?

5619 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Korriban
Offline
Posted 7/28/16 , edited 7/28/16
Gustav Holst

No, but in all seriousness...probably Triumph...I enjoyed all of their albums
493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

The only one I can think of that can get close to this is King Crimson, although I haven't heard all of their albums (only missing The ConstruKction of Light), but I know albums that are mainly between good to fucking masterpiece (especially during their 70's heyday). I'll go with them for now. Same could be said for Yes, Rush and Pink Floyd, actually.


I'd say with those bands, it might be different depending on who you ask. Coming from the 70s into the 80s, rush lost some fans because of the new direction they were taking their sound Their change in sound came from the fact that geddy was trying to push more keyboards into the mix of their sound instead of simply going for a regular hard prog rock approach. That even caused some issues with guitarist Alex Lifeson as well. I can agree with you on king crimson, pink Floyd, and yes, but I wonder about rush because I don't know how their more rabid fanbase in the 70s really reacted to their change in sound during the 80s.


I guess you're unaware of how big the fanbase for the 80s stuff is, at least from my view. I mean, even some of them probably prefer it over the 70s material (though I haven't come across those people yet, from what I can remember at least). Albums such as Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were released this decade, and we know about the popularity of those two albums. Some even consider their other output in this decade to rank among the best in the band's discography, too. HOWEVER, you're still right about reaction to this new change in style as the 80s started (PW and its lead-off single, "The Spirit of Radio," literally came out on New Year's Day 1980 ffs), even from within the band. Although, the change didn't come to fruition until Counterparts in '93 (building on from Presto and Roll the Bones, just like a natural progression), which some also consider to be among their better albums (especially in their 90s output, which I feel like is where some of the decline came in all the way up to Vapor Trails). Did this make any sense?


yes, it did, but I believe my point still stands in some ways. With regards to a band's popularity, it depends on who you ask. Hardcore fans of rush's seventies material where they mixed in a good bit of hard rock with prog rock might have seriously been turned off when the band transitioned from the seventies into the 80s. I'm sure the change in sound help rush gain a good bit of new fans. Yes had one of their biggest hits in the 80s and the 1980s king crimson album discipline is the top seller in prog rock on amazon. I believe rush was able to get so many different fans during the 80s because they responded to the new soundscape that was forming the decade. The transition into the 80s wouldn't have affected a band like yes too much because their sound, unlike rushs, was a little less definable and a little ahead of its time in some ways. The number of 80s groups influenced by yes must have been huge. The reason I am outlining this is because the trend of the 80s was the use of electronic equipment in music. Keyboards, synths, electric drums, etc were now heavy instruments of choice during the 80s where they were sparsely used during the 70s. Yes had always used keyboards as a huge part of their soundscape whereas rush focused on a hard rock, led zeppelin type band with heavy progressive elements. One of their biggest records was 2112, the height of their progressive rock output during the 70s. Imagine Geddy Lee, one of the greatest bassists of all time, said to his bandmates and rush fans that he would be playing less bass and more keyboards and neil peart would be playing some electric drums. I believe that would turn off some fans as well as gain new ones. Over time, I think that it has become less so because rush has become epitomized in some ways with their 80s sound with massive hits like tom sawyer gaining them so much popularity. I guess I'm putting my argument more into the framework of those who experienced rush's earliest sounds first, became hardcore fans for their earliest sounds, and then experienced the sound change. I guess it just depends on taste, whether you like the synthy sounds of the 80s or the prog rock of the 70s. Just like early pink Floyd and later pink Floyd or early king crimson and later king crimson, those bands experienced some major change in sound that constructed their core being. With groups such as those with such diverse material, I think it can often divide some fans depending on who you ask. Some may like it all, but most will have their preferences. I guess that is why I would say that the strength of rush's material depends on who you are personally



Yeah, I'm quite aware of all of this. I just see a lot of more appreciation from Rush's fanbase of ALL of their eras, even though a majority of them (including myself) do prefer their early 70s material. I have a feeling there's more of a backlash against Yes during the 80s, especially after 90125 came out (same thing could be said for Genesis, big time (no Peter Gabriel pun intended, who kind of got a similar response after releasing So)). King Crimson, I think, still got a backlash after releasing Discipline, and ESPECIALLY after Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair, because sounding commercial automatically means you're "selling out" and such. It's just the same old, same old hipster bullshit that keeps popping up again and again like per usual.


I'd say genesis got more flack because of the transition from the peter Gabriel fronted genesis to the phil Collins fronted genesis. Anytime there are lineup changes that extreme, there are bound to be some detractors. Personally, I'm not a big fan of gensis. I also think phil Collins solo work wasn't that great, but it just isn't my thing. What is impressive about these groups is the fact that the 80s was the point where these prog bands were actually gaining commercial attention. Progressive rock, despite being a popular genre, was not a huge marketable genre. You could often hear the singles from rush on the radio, but I think it was less so for bands like king crimson and yes. This was probably because neither band was a singles band. King crimson certainly wasn't. For a lot of bands, the late 70s and the 80s were a tough time. Hard rock was going out of fashion and the brief popularity of disco really dragged rock down in some cases. I'd say it is impressive the bands like rush, yes, and king crimson transitioned into the 80s so easily. Where bands such as aerosmith and the rolling stones were going on the decline, bands like rush were innovating and pushing musical boundaries. I would also give major props to Robert fripp and how he so seamlessly brought back a new rendition of king crimson with new members and a new sound to the forefront of the 80s. Therefore, this version of king crimson was very different from the 70s era. So, there were bound to be people who didn't like the change. I don't think progressive rock was ever supposed to be a commercial pursuit. So, when these bands started getting critical acclaim from the mainstream as well as from their previously established fanbase, I would say that many would give these bands flack for "selling out" It was the same thing with punk rock and nu metal. The difference between prog rock and these genres was that it didn't represent a decline in sound quality for most of the fanbase. However, prog rock was never that easily to categorize. Listening to a farewell to kings today, I believe that the change with rush from 70s to 80s wasn't too much of a deviation especially when you understand that rush is a band that has changed several times over the course of their decades-long career. I mean their first album sounded like led zeppelin, then it became laden with more progressive elements, then became like a synth-rock band although the prog elements never really left.



Your description of Rush at the end was perfect, as it is indeed what I like to call a "natural progression." And the different sound that came with the different lineup change was more of a deterrent, is what I was trying to say. And as for KC, they were originally going to be a different group called "Discipline," but then changed their name to what we know of today for this 80s lineup. Whether it be because "King Crimson" is more bankable than "Discipline" and/or personal gain from Fripp's point of view, I will never know. Disco Demolition Night was also thing because of the rock fanbase's disgust with it (ain't seeing that anytime soon with today's mainstream artists here in the West). And as for prog being mainly a commercial pursuit, I would agree, but it still was legitimately bankable, especially in the early 70s. Yes, ELP, Pink Floyd, and Jethro Tull all became commercially successful during their 70s heyday (both PF and JT got at least one chart-topping album on the Billboard 200 for crying out loud!!!) despite the genre's more "underground" approach, and there's still a commercial backing of the genre (Dream Theater, Tool, Steven Wilson, and Rush, among others).


From most of the bands you mention, I find that most of the bands seem to be either hit or miss for me. Progressive rock has been a genre that I has been a sort of acquired taste for me. In many ways, the progressive rock turned me off because I viewed it as the equivalent of showing off in musical standards. You can be a skilled musician, but how many songs really need to be 15 plus minutes long. Imagine listening to all parts of shine on you crazy diamond or dogs by pink Floyd. I love pink Floyd, but in cases such as these I must wonder if they are completely necessary. From my perspective, an album like dark side of the moon is pink Floyd's masterpiece since it has the most diverse set of songs, the most songs for a pink Floyd album (not taking the wall into account since it was kind of a double album), and most songs are under ten minutes for the most part. I like bands like ELO and Jethro Tull for some of the same reasons. Certain bands, such as Emerson Lake and Palmer aren't a huge hit for me because of their more classical song leanings and the fact that they have a knack for writing monstrous musical sequences that can sometimes last for 20 minutes or longer. I love genres such punk rock because they did the opposite of what prog did. It was shorter, more concise, and held your attention from beginning to end. I also liked it because of how inclusive it was. Anybody could form a band and write songs in the punk rock style. Prog icons were almost like musical gods in some ways. Some musicians could practice their entire lives and never sound as good on guitar as david Gilmore, on bass like geddy lee, or on drums like neil peart. Although I can't say that I love the prog-genre, I still listen to it and can totally appreciate how its famous acts helped push music forward and provide a platform for showing real musical ability. The question I might want to ask you is: Is there ever a time when progressive rock seems too self-indulgent for you? What I mean by self-indulgent is long jams for the sake of long jams. Large musical tracks with more than their fair share of filler. Times when the musical showcase at hand seems to try to one-up what came before it on a large scale. Times when sole musical tracks can take up whole album space or be enough material for a whole album for a different band. Times when album space is spent more on broad musical experimental instead of more streamlined material (not necessarily for the sake of singles or mainstream attention, but for an album with better flow instead of jagged transition. Is what I'm asking making sense?



Don't worry, it does. The only thing I can think of that fits it, however, is the third side of Tales from Topographic Oceans (if this was posted a few years ago, I would also argue the second, but I grew to really appreciate it nowadays). For the record, I'm a drummer and percussionist, so basically anything dealing with exotic percussion and drummers' spotlights I eat up and love to bits. This, however, is an exception. It doesn't really go anywhere until the "Leaves of Green" section, which funny enough is the Steve Howe acoustic guitar showcase. The electric guitar sounds pretty much whack, and has some of Jon Anderson's worst lyrics (outside of "Leaves of Green" of course), and I LOVE his lyrics, especially during this time period.

And as for the statement regarding mainly showing off one's musical talents, I can understand (Dream Theater probably being the biggest culprit of this). However, I'd argue that prog has A LOT more diversity than punk. Granted, the latter evolved into subgenres like art punk and post-punk, but it still didn't have the amount of different moods, instruments, themes, influences, etc. And also, in my eyes, sometimes longer tracks help develop and expand upon some ideas to make them more interesting and compelling, whether it be in the musical, lyrical, and/or thematic department. This doesn't mean they don't always have to do that, obviously. I mean, this genre helped progress rock music, and even music as a whole. Granted, it became more of a pastiche than actually progressing into the future, with a few exceptions. I feel there's more effort, personally, into the material than in punk. Like you said, anyone could pick up an instrument and write/play a punk rock song. It is way more accessible (although there's definitely some inaccessible bands in the genre, like there is in ANY genre). It all just comes down to personal preference, really. I'm more on the complicated style of music, although I still have much appreciation in the more simplistic forms of music (which I presume is more preferable to you, which is totally fine).
1229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 7/29/16

Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:

The only one I can think of that can get close to this is King Crimson, although I haven't heard all of their albums (only missing The ConstruKction of Light), but I know albums that are mainly between good to fucking masterpiece (especially during their 70's heyday). I'll go with them for now. Same could be said for Yes, Rush and Pink Floyd, actually.


I'd say with those bands, it might be different depending on who you ask. Coming from the 70s into the 80s, rush lost some fans because of the new direction they were taking their sound Their change in sound came from the fact that geddy was trying to push more keyboards into the mix of their sound instead of simply going for a regular hard prog rock approach. That even caused some issues with guitarist Alex Lifeson as well. I can agree with you on king crimson, pink Floyd, and yes, but I wonder about rush because I don't know how their more rabid fanbase in the 70s really reacted to their change in sound during the 80s.


I guess you're unaware of how big the fanbase for the 80s stuff is, at least from my view. I mean, even some of them probably prefer it over the 70s material (though I haven't come across those people yet, from what I can remember at least). Albums such as Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were released this decade, and we know about the popularity of those two albums. Some even consider their other output in this decade to rank among the best in the band's discography, too. HOWEVER, you're still right about reaction to this new change in style as the 80s started (PW and its lead-off single, "The Spirit of Radio," literally came out on New Year's Day 1980 ffs), even from within the band. Although, the change didn't come to fruition until Counterparts in '93 (building on from Presto and Roll the Bones, just like a natural progression), which some also consider to be among their better albums (especially in their 90s output, which I feel like is where some of the decline came in all the way up to Vapor Trails). Did this make any sense?


yes, it did, but I believe my point still stands in some ways. With regards to a band's popularity, it depends on who you ask. Hardcore fans of rush's seventies material where they mixed in a good bit of hard rock with prog rock might have seriously been turned off when the band transitioned from the seventies into the 80s. I'm sure the change in sound help rush gain a good bit of new fans. Yes had one of their biggest hits in the 80s and the 1980s king crimson album discipline is the top seller in prog rock on amazon. I believe rush was able to get so many different fans during the 80s because they responded to the new soundscape that was forming the decade. The transition into the 80s wouldn't have affected a band like yes too much because their sound, unlike rushs, was a little less definable and a little ahead of its time in some ways. The number of 80s groups influenced by yes must have been huge. The reason I am outlining this is because the trend of the 80s was the use of electronic equipment in music. Keyboards, synths, electric drums, etc were now heavy instruments of choice during the 80s where they were sparsely used during the 70s. Yes had always used keyboards as a huge part of their soundscape whereas rush focused on a hard rock, led zeppelin type band with heavy progressive elements. One of their biggest records was 2112, the height of their progressive rock output during the 70s. Imagine Geddy Lee, one of the greatest bassists of all time, said to his bandmates and rush fans that he would be playing less bass and more keyboards and neil peart would be playing some electric drums. I believe that would turn off some fans as well as gain new ones. Over time, I think that it has become less so because rush has become epitomized in some ways with their 80s sound with massive hits like tom sawyer gaining them so much popularity. I guess I'm putting my argument more into the framework of those who experienced rush's earliest sounds first, became hardcore fans for their earliest sounds, and then experienced the sound change. I guess it just depends on taste, whether you like the synthy sounds of the 80s or the prog rock of the 70s. Just like early pink Floyd and later pink Floyd or early king crimson and later king crimson, those bands experienced some major change in sound that constructed their core being. With groups such as those with such diverse material, I think it can often divide some fans depending on who you ask. Some may like it all, but most will have their preferences. I guess that is why I would say that the strength of rush's material depends on who you are personally



Yeah, I'm quite aware of all of this. I just see a lot of more appreciation from Rush's fanbase of ALL of their eras, even though a majority of them (including myself) do prefer their early 70s material. I have a feeling there's more of a backlash against Yes during the 80s, especially after 90125 came out (same thing could be said for Genesis, big time (no Peter Gabriel pun intended, who kind of got a similar response after releasing So)). King Crimson, I think, still got a backlash after releasing Discipline, and ESPECIALLY after Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair, because sounding commercial automatically means you're "selling out" and such. It's just the same old, same old hipster bullshit that keeps popping up again and again like per usual.


I'd say genesis got more flack because of the transition from the peter Gabriel fronted genesis to the phil Collins fronted genesis. Anytime there are lineup changes that extreme, there are bound to be some detractors. Personally, I'm not a big fan of gensis. I also think phil Collins solo work wasn't that great, but it just isn't my thing. What is impressive about these groups is the fact that the 80s was the point where these prog bands were actually gaining commercial attention. Progressive rock, despite being a popular genre, was not a huge marketable genre. You could often hear the singles from rush on the radio, but I think it was less so for bands like king crimson and yes. This was probably because neither band was a singles band. King crimson certainly wasn't. For a lot of bands, the late 70s and the 80s were a tough time. Hard rock was going out of fashion and the brief popularity of disco really dragged rock down in some cases. I'd say it is impressive the bands like rush, yes, and king crimson transitioned into the 80s so easily. Where bands such as aerosmith and the rolling stones were going on the decline, bands like rush were innovating and pushing musical boundaries. I would also give major props to Robert fripp and how he so seamlessly brought back a new rendition of king crimson with new members and a new sound to the forefront of the 80s. Therefore, this version of king crimson was very different from the 70s era. So, there were bound to be people who didn't like the change. I don't think progressive rock was ever supposed to be a commercial pursuit. So, when these bands started getting critical acclaim from the mainstream as well as from their previously established fanbase, I would say that many would give these bands flack for "selling out" It was the same thing with punk rock and nu metal. The difference between prog rock and these genres was that it didn't represent a decline in sound quality for most of the fanbase. However, prog rock was never that easily to categorize. Listening to a farewell to kings today, I believe that the change with rush from 70s to 80s wasn't too much of a deviation especially when you understand that rush is a band that has changed several times over the course of their decades-long career. I mean their first album sounded like led zeppelin, then it became laden with more progressive elements, then became like a synth-rock band although the prog elements never really left.



Your description of Rush at the end was perfect, as it is indeed what I like to call a "natural progression." And the different sound that came with the different lineup change was more of a deterrent, is what I was trying to say. And as for KC, they were originally going to be a different group called "Discipline," but then changed their name to what we know of today for this 80s lineup. Whether it be because "King Crimson" is more bankable than "Discipline" and/or personal gain from Fripp's point of view, I will never know. Disco Demolition Night was also thing because of the rock fanbase's disgust with it (ain't seeing that anytime soon with today's mainstream artists here in the West). And as for prog being mainly a commercial pursuit, I would agree, but it still was legitimately bankable, especially in the early 70s. Yes, ELP, Pink Floyd, and Jethro Tull all became commercially successful during their 70s heyday (both PF and JT got at least one chart-topping album on the Billboard 200 for crying out loud!!!) despite the genre's more "underground" approach, and there's still a commercial backing of the genre (Dream Theater, Tool, Steven Wilson, and Rush, among others).


From most of the bands you mention, I find that most of the bands seem to be either hit or miss for me. Progressive rock has been a genre that I has been a sort of acquired taste for me. In many ways, the progressive rock turned me off because I viewed it as the equivalent of showing off in musical standards. You can be a skilled musician, but how many songs really need to be 15 plus minutes long. Imagine listening to all parts of shine on you crazy diamond or dogs by pink Floyd. I love pink Floyd, but in cases such as these I must wonder if they are completely necessary. From my perspective, an album like dark side of the moon is pink Floyd's masterpiece since it has the most diverse set of songs, the most songs for a pink Floyd album (not taking the wall into account since it was kind of a double album), and most songs are under ten minutes for the most part. I like bands like ELO and Jethro Tull for some of the same reasons. Certain bands, such as Emerson Lake and Palmer aren't a huge hit for me because of their more classical song leanings and the fact that they have a knack for writing monstrous musical sequences that can sometimes last for 20 minutes or longer. I love genres such punk rock because they did the opposite of what prog did. It was shorter, more concise, and held your attention from beginning to end. I also liked it because of how inclusive it was. Anybody could form a band and write songs in the punk rock style. Prog icons were almost like musical gods in some ways. Some musicians could practice their entire lives and never sound as good on guitar as david Gilmore, on bass like geddy lee, or on drums like neil peart. Although I can't say that I love the prog-genre, I still listen to it and can totally appreciate how its famous acts helped push music forward and provide a platform for showing real musical ability. The question I might want to ask you is: Is there ever a time when progressive rock seems too self-indulgent for you? What I mean by self-indulgent is long jams for the sake of long jams. Large musical tracks with more than their fair share of filler. Times when the musical showcase at hand seems to try to one-up what came before it on a large scale. Times when sole musical tracks can take up whole album space or be enough material for a whole album for a different band. Times when album space is spent more on broad musical experimental instead of more streamlined material (not necessarily for the sake of singles or mainstream attention, but for an album with better flow instead of jagged transition. Is what I'm asking making sense?



Don't worry, it does. The only thing I can think of that fits it, however, is the third side of Tales from Topographic Oceans (if this was posted a few years ago, I would also argue the second, but I grew to really appreciate it nowadays). For the record, I'm a drummer and percussionist, so basically anything dealing with exotic percussion and drummers' spotlights I eat up and love to bits. This, however, is an exception. It doesn't really go anywhere until the "Leaves of Green" section, which funny enough is the Steve Howe acoustic guitar showcase. The electric guitar sounds pretty much whack, and has some of Jon Anderson's worst lyrics (outside of "Leaves of Green" of course), and I LOVE his lyrics, especially during this time period.

And as for the statement regarding mainly showing off one's musical talents, I can understand (Dream Theater probably being the biggest culprit of this). However, I'd argue that prog has A LOT more diversity than punk. Granted, the latter evolved into subgenres like art punk and post-punk, but it still didn't have the amount of different moods, instruments, themes, influences, etc. And also, in my eyes, sometimes longer tracks help develop and expand upon some ideas to make them more interesting and compelling, whether it be in the musical, lyrical, and/or thematic department. This doesn't mean they don't always have to do that, obviously. I mean, this genre helped progress rock music, and even music as a whole. Granted, it became more of a pastiche than actually progressing into the future, with a few exceptions. I feel there's more effort, personally, into the material than in punk. Like you said, anyone could pick up an instrument and write/play a punk rock song. It is way more accessible (although there's definitely some inaccessible bands in the genre, like there is in ANY genre). It all just comes down to personal preference, really. I'm more on the complicated style of music, although I still have much appreciation in the more simplistic forms of music (which I presume is more preferable to you, which is totally fine).


i wasn't comparing the two or saying that punk rock was better than progressive rock. In fact, i was more or less describing my particular reservations to the genre and why i like punk rock as compared to progressive rock. However, there are some progressive rock acts that are great. One good example is a group known as the mars volta, who actually has an interesting story behind them. If you don't know about them, then i suggest you give them a listen. The group actually had its first incarnation when they were called At the drive in. At the drive in was a post-grunge, punk rock outfit. They released about three albums that were well received until the band itself split. The group split into two different bands because their were creative differences. The two groups that resulted were a band called sparta comprised of drive in drummer and bassist and the mars volta, comprised of drive-in vocalist and lead guitarist. The mars volta is a major progressive rock outfit. Listen to the songs off their second album, frances the mute and you can tell. One song is actually about 30 minutes long and i love it. this is mainly due to their phenomenal guitarist Omar Rodriguez, who is one of the greatest guitarist of the last decade or so. Also, the drumming is fantastic as well so you could definitely enjoy it. However, the guitar is what sells a song for me in many cases. Also, some of their songs even manage to change genres mid-way through which is incredible. I wasn't saying that i like punk more than prog, but rather i was asking a inquiry to get an idea into your opinion about progressive rock for instance. One time, i tried listening to the pink floyd track dogs from beginning to the end, but i got bored and listened to something else. I find that when you have a long that is 17 minutes long that is exhausting to listen to, then you have an album with a limited amount of space for other better songs and the general impact of the album is lessened if the track is a miss. However, it was genius on pink floyd's part to split all parts of shine on you crazy diamond into parts starting at the beginning and end of the album, allowing for some filler in between of sorts so it didn't feel like a chore. In cases of progressive rock, i can often chose bands like ELO or Jethro Tull over emerson, lake, and palmer and yes because the songs are more streamlined of sorts, not taking into account thick as a brick though. The songs are lengthy, but not burdensome. The fact that they write some shorter songs doesn't lessen their musical ability or make them lesser bands than other prog acts. i think the one aspect of punk that i like more than the prog is the attitude and ethos of it all. I dislike the notion that it takes a degree in music theory and a term at berkley to make good music. I like the fact that the genre itself set a precedent that said that you didn't need to be classically trained to pursue music as your passion. You could, but you didn't have to. Anybody could do it and the only qualifier was that it go against the grain, which is what prog rock did in many aspects. I'm open minded to music, but i guess you could say the qualifier is approach. i can love both black flag and king crimson. Both have their positive aspects and i appreciate both on a certain level. I love albums with plenty of length for me to enjoy, but i also enjoy an album by a group such as van halen which hits hard beginning to end without stopping for breaks. Once again, i'm not discounting prog rock on any level. In fact, i have grown to love it as my musical taste continues to grow. I suppose being a music lover means being able to take both the good and bad with every genre of music.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.