Evolving with a band as opposed to retro-ing back

[Fracktured]

Always seems to me that some of us older folks who grew up with bands from the 60's and 70's when they were releasing it tend to have a different view then those who are younger and now are just exploring their legacy. I feel as though I have a different perspective of say someone like Jim Morrison and The Doors than many of the younger people do. It's not that I find fault in it, just that at times I think you can respect a groups music more when you were alive and experiencing the moment in time when they were recording.

Rick

[rcarlberg]

I found with my daughter's generation there is no sense of history. To her Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain and Franz Liszt are all dead white guys. She doesn't know or care who came first.

Some (most?) of the kids on this board don't distinguish between the innovators of the '60s and '70s and the "me-too" bands from the '80s, '90s and '00s that copied them.

[Scott Bails]

Some (most?) of the kids on this board don't distinguish between the innovators of the '60s and '70s and the "me-too" bands from the '80s, '90s and '00s that copied them.

I know what you're saying here, and there's certainly something to be said for appreciating an artist's contribution to their genre, but at the end of the day, if it sounds good, it is good. One need not understand an artist's impact on their art to enjoy their work.

[rcarlberg]

One need not understand an artist's impact on their art to enjoy their work.Go ahead, use a photocopier to create art. It's still pretty.

[rcarlberg]

Sure, and Rain is as good as the Beatles, The Musical Box is equal to Genesis and Starcastle is better than Yes because it's better recorded.

[Amy]

Some (most?) of the kids on this board don't distinguish between the innovators of the '60s and '70s and the "me-too" bands from the '80s, '90s and '00s that copied them.

How do you know?

[Scott Bails]

Go ahead, use a photocopier to create art. It's still pretty.


So, you're saying I can't enjoy the Thomas Kinkade print on my wall? I have to have the original to enjoy it? ;)

[rcarlberg]

Dunno -- is it a photocopy of the print? :)

[Fracktured]

Thought maybe this thread would produce some thought provoking stimulating pithy conversation. Seems I was wrong.

Rick

[Lino]

I agree with your premise Rick, it is indeed a bit different. Hate to bring on the old Genesis thing, but there seems to be a lot of people who found out about them when they got popular and then worked their way back. Totally understandable that they would not kick the commercial stuff in the shins, it was their gateway. But for those of us who were listening before they started with the commercial approach, it didn't sit as well. I do realize that there are many who stuck with and appreciated it all the way, but I would say that most of the people I knew who were in to them during the Gabriel era, completely hopped off somewhere after Trick or W&W or ATTW3.

[No Pride]

Always seems to me that some of us older folks who grew up with bands from the 60's and 70's when they were releasing it tend to have a different view then those who are younger and now are just exploring their legacy. I feel as though I have a different perspective of say someone like Jim Morrison and The Doors than many of the younger people do. It's not that I find fault in it, just that at times I think you can respect a groups music more when you were alive and experiencing the moment in time when they were recording.
I think for us older folks, part of it comes down to how well some music has or hasn't aged for you. The Doors are a perfect example of a band that I was really into at the time (at least their first two albums), but don't really feel like listening to much anymore. I still can appreciate how unique they were and how good their tunes were within the context of the times, but any love I have left for them comes more from nostalgia than anything else. Then there's groups like Blue Cheer that I loved when I was a teen, but can't listen to today. I think you have to put it not only in context of what was happening with music at the time, but how old you were when you were exposed to it. I wonder how much I would've liked The Doors if I was in my 50s during the '60s.

Then there's some music that's just timeless for me. Jimi Hendrix falls into that category. So does (classic era) Genesis. Maybe it has something to do with the fact none of the imitators could conjure up anything that matches the quality of the originals. They might be more proficient technically, but you just can't capture the thoughts and emotions an artist had in the '60s and/or '70s in this day and age.

[No Pride]

I agree with your premise Rick, it is indeed a bit different. Hate to bring on the old Genesis thing, but there seems to be a lot of people who found out about them when they got popular and then worked their way back. Totally understandable that they would not kick the commercial stuff in the shins, it was their gateway. But for those of us who were listening before they started with the commercial approach, it didn't sit as well. I do realize that there are many who stuck with and appreciated it all the way, but I would say that most of the people I knew who were in to them during the Gabriel era, completely hopped off somewhere after Trick or W&W or ATTW3.
I'm one of those people. It isn't that I don't like pop; I do! I just didn't like their brand of pop with the occasional exception. It's impossible to gauge how much of that has to do with missing the way they used to sound, but I think if there never was a '70s Genesis, I still wouldn't care much for the '80s Genesis.

[Yanks2014]

but at the end of the day, if it sounds good, it is good. One need not understand an artist's impact on their art to enjoy their work.

Well said.

Can't help it that I wasn't born until 1967 and didn't discover most classic 70's prog until the 80's. To my ears, 80’s Genesis and Yes was good rock music, and I didn’t care that they had changed. I started exploring their 70’s work, only to discover it was even better, so it was nothing but a positive discovery. But even after discovering the wonders of albums like Foxtrot or Close To the Edge, these days I can still spin ABACAB or 90125, and enjoy the hell out of it. Is “Keep It Dark” as good to me as “Watcher of the Skies”? Nope. Doesn’t have to be, still have room for both in my collection.

[Duncan Glenday]

Always seems to me that some of us older folks who grew up with bands from the 60's and 70's when they were releasing it tend to have a different view then those who are younger and now are just exploring their legacy. I feel as though I have a different perspective of say someone like Jim Morrison and The Doors than many of the younger people do. It's not that I find fault in it, just that at times I think you can respect a groups music more when you were alive and experiencing the moment in time when they were recording.

Rick

Interesting thought for a thread.

I'm not one of those "old (minded) guys", and like to think that I do evolve with an artist - as long as that artist stays within thebounds of my tastes.

God, I really don't want this to be another f***ing Genesis thread, but like so many others, they lost me as a band.

However, there are tons of artists who have evolved in ways that I like, and I've continued to follow them through their metamorphoses. Though in my experience, this is more true among metal or hard-edged artists than among typical prog artists.


To her Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain and Franz Liszt are all dead white guys. She doesn't know or care who came first.

:rofl

I was surprised that when my son was 13 and started playing guitar, the music that he and his buddies leaned towards were Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, and Led Zeppelin. As one who grew up in the "don't trust anyone over 30" era, I found that to be a huge surprise.

[rcarlberg]

I was surprised that when my son was 13 and started playing guitar, the music that he and his buddies leaned towards were Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, and Led Zeppelin. As one who grew up in the "don't trust anyone over 30" era, I found that to be a huge surprise.I work with some kids in their twenties. They like to listen to "classic rock" on their PCs, stuff like Zep, Stones, Aerosmith, Sabbath. To them this is great music.

Why is that?

When I was their age, I was listening to... Zep, Stones, Aerosmith, Sabbath. Is today's music really that crappy?

My parents listened to big band music until they were old folks. I listen to '70s music now that I'm old. Why are today's kids listening to... Seventies Music???

[Progtopia]

I agree with your premise Rick, it is indeed a bit different. Hate to bring on the old Genesis thing, but there seems to be a lot of people who found out about them when they got popular and then worked their way back. Totally understandable that they would not kick the commercial stuff in the shins, it was their gateway.

This is me. I was 10 when "Mama" was released, and I didn't delve into the Gabriel era of Genesis until he released So in 1986 and I wanted to explore more. Foxtrot totally changed my world. That was, in retrospect, my introduction to prog.

[nosebone]

My parents listened to big band music until they were old folks. I listen to '70s music now that I'm old. Why are today's kids listening to... Seventies Music???

Remember rock is only about 60 years old, so all of this generational talk is unfolding now.

My 13 year old son told me over dinner earlier that he started listening to old music.

So asked him, "Like who?"

And he said " Linkin Park."

They're a 90s band which predates his birthday, so for him that's old.

In the mid 70s there was a 50s revival going on, and at the time I was 13 and thought that shit was ancient!:lol

[Scott Bails]

Oh man, are you saying we're due for a 90s revival? :roll

[Bruce]

I find it interesting that some people who proclaim themselves fans of Progressive Rock become so territorial about not just "their" bands but their bands in a specific phase of that band's trajectory. If it changes from the _________ period of "your favorite band here" .. then the band has sold out, etc. The very idea of progressive music is that it progresses, changes and evolves. There are plenty of artists that have made a career out of re-writing the same 3 or 4 songs for the past 30 years. Just always struck me as funny. There are very few artists that I have enjoyed everything they've put out, but I can still find things about what they're doing that reach back to what it was that attracted me in the first place without sounding identical to their earlier works.

[rcarlberg]

It has often seemed to me that people fall in love with music from about age 16 to age 26, and that remains their favorite music the rest of their life. My parents listed to WWII big band jazz all their lives. I have listened to Floyd & Zep & Zappa all my life.

What I DON'T get is kids these days lovin' Floyd & Zep & Zappa. Where is the nostalgia for Jay Z or Lil Wayne or Drake?

[Duncan Glenday]

...The very idea of progressive music is that it progresses, changes and evolves...

You're right.

Except for when a band's music devolves because they got lazy, or (more often) jumped the shark.

Some bands I know have changed their sound completely that it's skipped through 3 to 4 genres along the way - and I'm still with them.

Others - not so much.

I can provide examples if you like, but I wouldn't like this thread to regress (devolve) into another list-of-lists, or another Phil-killed-Genesis thread ;)

[progeezer]

I agree with your premise Rick, it is indeed a bit different. Hate to bring on the old Genesis thing, but there seems to be a lot of people who found out about them when they got popular and then worked their way back. Totally understandable that they would not kick the commercial stuff in the shins, it was their gateway. But for those of us who were listening before they started with the commercial approach, it didn't sit as well. I do realize that there are many who stuck with and appreciated it all the way, but I would say that most of the people I knew who were in to them during the Gabriel era, completely hopped off somewhere after Trick or W&W or ATTW3.Absolutely QFT, and I'm a shitload older than that young Italo-Canuck Lino!;)

[Jubal]

I was surprised that when my son was 13 and started playing guitar, the music that he and his buddies leaned towards were Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, and Led Zeppelin. As one who grew up in the "don't trust anyone over 30" era, I found that to be a huge surprise.
The influence there comes from video games like Guitar Hero, as well as the culture of guitar teachers and guitar publications in general. When I first took lessons, I wanted to learn Walk Away by The James Gang (Joe Walsh) and Rock and Roll Hoochie Koo by Rick Derringer. My guitar teacher made me learn some basic Chuck Berry licks first. Floyd, Sabbath & Zeppelin are major influences of a number of todays harder rocking bands.

[sonic]

It has often seemed to me that people fall in love with music from about age 16 to age 26, and that remains their favorite music the rest of their life. My parents listed to WWII big band jazz all their lives. I have listened to Floyd & Zep & Zappa all my life.

What I DON'T get is kids these days lovin' Floyd & Zep & Zappa. Where is the nostalgia for Jay Z or Lil Wayne or Drake?
The way music is made available these days is totally different from the past. On youtube they have access to everything. Intead of their attention being drawn to the top 10 through radio music pat and present is their for them on a even playing field so they are free to like whatever appeals to them. Floyd & Zep aren't relegated to the parents record collection or the occasional play on classic rock radio, they sit side by side what is coming out now ... on youtube.

[Jerjo]

Absolutely QFT, and I'm a shitload older than that young Italo-Canuck Lino!;)

Given the number of birthday threads for Lino, he'll be as old as Geezer in a couple years.

I will follow a band through evolution until they either jump the shark and start phoning it in, or evolve into a direction I don't care for. I abandoned a few bands that dabbled in electronica in the late 90s but when they shifted again I was back on board.

[JKL2000]

Floyd & Zep aren't relegated to the parents record collection or the occasional play on classic rock radio, they sit side by side what is coming out now ... on youtube.

Good point. Makes me wonder where and how today's youth is getting turned on to 70s music and how its being presented. Yes, probably YouTube, but where else?

Maybe Pandora and such. In the car we spend a lot of time listening to Deep Tracks but also to.the Sinatra channel.

[trurl]

Good point. Makes me wonder where and how today's youth is getting turned on to 70s music and how its being presented. Yes, probably YouTube, but where else?

Maybe Pandora and such. In the car we spend a lot of time listening to Deep Tracks but also to.the Sinatra channel.
Kids movies. My 6 year old loved Barracuda, The Immigrant Song and I'm A Believer because of the Shrek movies :D And her favorite song was Low Rider for a while because it was in a movie.

[Trane]

I found with my daughter's generation there is no sense of history. To her Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain and Franz Liszt are all dead white guys. She doesn't know or care who came first.


yeah, I can't understand that myself... I always looked when an album was first released... mind you it was easier to find that info on vinyls; than on a lot of CD reissues... let alone mp3's that don't even tell who's playing the music




Some (most?) of the kids on this board don't distinguish between the innovators of the '60s and '70s and the "me-too" bands from the '80s, '90s and '00s that copied them.


Wzellas a 70's kid, we didn't have all that much to track of either and landmarks were rather easy to keep track of...
the first real revivals (as in retroing back) were in the 80's (Romantics, Stray Cats and stuff), which would help to confuse further the kids nowadays ...

[sonic]

Kids are usually into music for its entertainment value, not because they are budding historians.

[Vic2012]

Good point. Makes me wonder where and how today's youth is getting turned on to 70s music and how its being presented. Yes, probably YouTube, but where else?

They're getting it from their parents and their friend's parents. I'm amazed at the number of young people I meet who love classic/rock. I met a guy yesterday who was 32. He might as well have been 22. Just a kid. Somehow we got into a conversation about music. The kid worships Pink Floyd. I meet so many youngsters who just love Pink Floyd. I asked him if he'd ever heard the album "Wish You Were Here." Are you kidding? was his response. So I put the song on the jukebox and he sang all the words. I don't even know all the words to that song. And of course he loved Led Zeppelin too. He never heard of YES though :lol.

[Trane]

I know what you're saying here, and there's certainly something to be said for appreciating an artist's contribution to their genre, but at the end of the day, if it sounds good, it is good. One need not understand an artist's impact on their art to enjoy their work.

I was maybe an exception (although not a rarity) back in the 70's, but I got very quickly that old Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rock (Bert of Vortex records in Toronto was also a good help), because the historical perpective was always very important in music... and that's valid for all arts... and history as well.



When I was their age, I was listening to... Zep, Stones, Aerosmith, Sabbath. Is today's music really that crappy?

My parents listened to big band music until they were old folks. I listen to '70s music now that I'm old. Why are today's kids listening to... Seventies Music???

The kids listen to their contemporary stuff too!!!, but they also have to cope the the great rock music of yesterdecades as well... And the smarter ones will quickly understand that Metallica wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for the Zeps and Sabs...


They're getting it from their parents and their friend's parents. I'm amazed at the number of young people I meet who love classic/rock. I met a guy yesterday who was 32. He might as well have been 22. Just a kid. Somehow we got into a conversation about music. The kid worships Pink Floyd. I meet so many youngsters who just love Pink Floyd. I asked him if he'd ever heard the album "Wish You Were Here." Are you kidding? was his response. So I put the song on the jukebox and he sang all the words. I don't even know all the words to that song. And of course he loved Led Zeppelin too. He never heard of YES though :lol.


Lucky him!!! :D

Maybe the kids today are more open.... I was thrown in classical and swing-type jazz in my early chilhood, but by the time I was old enough to buy my music... started early, because I made my own money ... newspaper delivery (age 11 in 74 >>< Crime of The Century was my first album)... But I refused to hear classical or jazz anymore... almost grew an attitude at hating it... But then again, most of us were more rebellious than most consumer kids with their videogames, etc...

[Facelift]

Is today's music really that crappy?

My parents listened to big band music until they were old folks. I listen to '70s music now that I'm old. Why are today's kids listening to... Seventies Music???

For a couple of reasons I suspect. Firstly, the boomer generation has seen to it that their music has survived. Classic rock radio is still a pretty big radio format, in America, anyway. The songs are still used in movies. And the '80s through to the early '90s was probably the last time of the "mega-albums" that everybody heard, and when rock music as a more-or-less shared experience was still a vital part of youth culture.

Secondly, for any number of reasons (which we don't have necessarily agree upon) the rock music today ("today" being any time in the last 15-20 years or so) is much more fragmented and the bands are less popular than they used to be. Of course there have been big hits over the last 10 years, but not all that many of them have been by rock bands, or even bands who could loosely be termed rock. For teens interested in rock, it's very easy to look backward. Led Zeppelin and The Who are much more accessible (musically, as well as just being everywhere) than Mars Volta or Tool.

[rcarlberg]

I don't think I got my love of progressive rock from the radio -- it certainly wasn't a radio staple.

But you're right everything and everything is available in equal measures now. Maybe the quality of classic rock just simply out-competes today's music. It sure seems that way to me -- but of course I have an old timers bias.

[Lino]

[QUOTE=Jubal;6902]The influence there comes from video games like Guitar Hero, as well as the culture of guitar teachers and guitar publications in general. [QUOTE]

True enough. Also: not sure if it's the same in the States, but the biggest FM radio station up here tend to play a ton of classic rock.

[sonic]

I was maybe an exception (although not a rarity) back in the 70's, but I got very quickly that old Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rock (Bert of Vortex records in Toronto was also a good help), because the historical perpective was always very important in music... and that's valid for all arts... and history as well.
Me too. The Rock Encyclopedia served as a buyers guide to me for a couple of years in my teens, but then I always liked history. Most kids my age were only into the latest thing.

[Progtopia]

I can tell you that my older son likes 80s synth music and new wave because I have a subscription to satellite radio, and those are the channels we listen to. Had there been a prog rock channel on, my hope would've been that he'd be into that genre, but oh well. :meh He's a bit of a historian in the sense that he wants to know if a particular song of any genre was "groundbreaking" or advanced for its time. Aside from some techno artists, he doesn't really know what's popular these days -- stuff like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, LMFAO, whatever. But if he were exposed to it more? Maybe he would be, I dunno. I do know that when I was a kid, I used to spin my mom and dad's 45s from the late 50s and early 60s a lot because that's what was available in the house.

[Plasmatopia]

I was surprised that when my son was 13 and started playing guitar, the music that he and his buddies leaned towards were Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, and Led Zeppelin. As one who grew up in the "don't trust anyone over 30" era, I found that to be a huge surprise.

To me it makes perfect sense. That was an era where guitar took center stage in many ways. It's a bit less so with Pink Floyd perhaps, but there's something going on right up front and in your face with the guitar in a lot of Led Zep and Black Sabbath stuff that a budding guitar player can latch onto, which is often fun to play, and will hold their interest. Music that contains a lot of other sounds like keyboards and horns means that the guitar will take a back seat at times or become less obvious or simply harder to pick out what to play. And there may be a sort of primal or visceral "guitar hero" aspect that is appealing to the mind of a budding young musician. There was for me at that age...knowing and appreciating the importance of becoming part of the background only came later...

[Jerjo]

Walk into a Hot Topic or one of those t-shirt stores. There's always a handful of classic acts on the wall: Beatles, Pink Floyd, Sabbath, Bob Marley and Zep. The owner of Hot Topic said the number one selling shirt of all time in his stores was Zep's Swan Song angel logo.

http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/swan_song.jpg

[Paul]

The younger people I know (early 20s, so about half my age) who are into music have quickly latched on to the classic bands, as opposed to those bands influenced by them. And the refreshing thing is that those of them who dig the classic prog bands have none of the anti-prog baggage that my generation had to deal with - to them it's just good music.

[yogibear]

i always thought that swansong logo was strange since the guys got no genitalia lol.

[3LockBox]

I don't think I got my love of progressive rock from the radio -- it certainly wasn't a radio staple.

But you're right everything and everything is available in equal measures now. Maybe the quality of classic rock just simply out-competes today's music. It sure seems that way to me -- but of course I have an old timers bias. I don't buy the quality argument, which I think is so much pearl-clutching to an extent. I think there's been some great rock music released in the last 10 years. Is it derivative? I only care if it's good.

But where does one go to hear modern rock? The radio is permeated with classic rock format stations. I don't even need to own those CDs. A lot of people are too busy doing other things and are content with whatever is handy. The only other formats are country, top-40 dance pop, and soft rock. If you don't like those kinds of music, then you're listening to classic rock.

[yogibear]

I think it was easier in the past to buy a bands output when things were much cheaper and you could do things like that .

nowadays its harder to stay on top of bands releases unless you have a computer and the internet. most of us have been "burned" by our fave bands by being a religious fan of their music so for myself i know i've become very picky and careful aboaut buying something without some camples, bits to hear from buddies or even word of mouth recommendations which was something i used also back in the day. Funds were not really amply available to me so i'm still catching up on things i missed back in the 70's 80's and 90's .

[soundsweird]

While I was heavily into prog from the beginning, there are a lot of obscure prog acts whose albums never appeared in any record stores in San Antonio, Austin or Houston. So, I experienced the "retro" thing with those groups in the last 20 years, never hearing them until the CD came out. I'll admit that I have a different kind of reaction to these recent acquisitions. Since I have so many albums now, it's harder for any one album to get more than one or two plays per year, so these albums will probably never become "favorites".

[Adrian]

There's something to be said for living through an event, or a moment in time. I can liken it to world events. I don't know how people felt when JFK or MLK were shot, but I'm sure those who lived through it can tell you exactly where they were and what their emotions were like. To me, they're history lessons. Same as the moon landing. On the other hand, there are people today who didn't live through the Challenger disaster, yet I can remember our teacher wheeling a TV into the classroom so we could all watch the news unfold. And my baby daughter will never know what it was like to live through 9/11, while the things I felt are still as clear as day.

It's not all that different when it comes to music, I suppose. I love so many artists that flourished in the '60s and '70s, even though I didn't have any choice but to discover them retroactively, since I wasn't born till 1971. My journey started in 1983, with the release of 90125. To me, 90125 was just what Yes sounded like -- I had no other point of reference. It wasn't until I saved up some allowance money and went out to buy some of their older LPs that I discovered a band that sounded completely different from the "Owner of a Lonely Heart" band. That was my gateway to prog, and it totally changed my listening habits.

The flip side is that those of us who came in later are probably more forgiving of bands that altered their formula. I never minded the arena-rock aspect of '80s Yes, because that's what I cut my teeth on. For those who grew up with Fragile and Close to the Edge, I'm sure 90125 was a much more bitter pill to swallow.

[Scott Bails]

Excellent points, Adrian. :up

[CybrKhatru]

There's something to be said for living through an event, or a moment in time. I can liken it to world events. I don't know how people felt when JFK or MLK were shot, but I'm sure those who lived through it can tell you exactly where they were and what their emotions were like. To me, they're history lessons. Same as the moon landing. On the other hand, there are people today who didn't live through the Challenger disaster, yet I can remember our teacher wheeling a TV into the classroom so we could all watch the news unfold. And my baby daughter will never know what it was like to live through 9/11, while the things I felt are still as clear as day.

It's not all that different when it comes to music, I suppose. I love so many artists that flourished in the '60s and '70s, even though I didn't have any choice but to discover them retroactively, since I wasn't born till 1971. My journey started in 1983, with the release of 90125. To me, 90125 was just what Yes sounded like -- I had no other point of reference. It wasn't until I saved up some allowance money and went out to buy some of their older LPs that I discovered a band that sounded completely different from the "Owner of a Lonely Heart" band. That was my gateway to prog, and it totally changed my listening habits.

The flip side is that those of us who came in later are probably more forgiving of bands that altered their formula. I never minded the arena-rock aspect of '80s Yes, because that's what I cut my teeth on. For those who grew up with Fragile and Close to the Edge, I'm sure 90125 was a much more bitter pill to swallow.

Spot on.

[trurl]

*stuff*

Your post is thoughtful, relevant and non-inflammatory. YOU ARE BANNED


:D :D

[No Pride]

The flip side is that those of us who came in later are probably more forgiving of bands that altered their formula. I never minded the arena-rock aspect of '80s Yes, because that's what I cut my teeth on. For those who grew up with Fragile and Close to the Edge, I'm sure 90125 was a much more bitter pill to swallow.
I suppose a lot of people felt that way, but I wasn't one of them. I had just reached my 20s when Yes was making those "classic" albums and I loved them, but... by the time 90125 came out, Yes hadn't done anything for a while, in fact I wasn't aware of much prog going on anywhere at the time. I was absolutely floored when I first heard 90125; not only had Yes returned, but they'd reinvented themselves into something more relevant to the times while still retaining their creativity and ambition, at least imo. And personally, I welcomed the heavier, shreddier guitar work and the more pop-like sensibilities. So it wasn't a bitter pill for all of us. I don't feel that Yes West ever lived up to the promise of 90125, though I do like a good portion of what they did on their follow up albums (there's even some good stuff on "Union" ). Funny, I didn't care for '80s Genesis nearly as much, though I preferred them to Yes in the '70s. But we all have our quirks in our individual tastes.

[JAMOOL]

I think the music industry's changed quite a bit since the 60's and 70's; certainly that era had its forgettable pop acts but it felt like the cream generally rose to the top, stuff like Zeppelin, Floyd, and of course the Beatles, all stuff that remains massively popular today and still makes lots of top 100 lists. The top charting albums now on the other hand, not so much. It almost feels like the late 50's/early 60's era all over again, in that you hire a songwriting team to write you a hit and then rush out an album around it, with little regard for what it'll sound like 3-4 years down the road. There are still many good newer bands out there but it's really hard to find them because record companies just don't invest in their artists any more.

[Adrian]

Your post is thoughtful, relevant and non-inflammatory. YOU ARE BANNED


:D :D

:lol

I'll try to be more unreasonable from now on. ;)

[Amy]

There's something to be said for living through an event, or a moment in time. I can liken it to world events. I don't know how people felt when JFK or MLK were shot, but I'm sure those who lived through it can tell you exactly where they were and what their emotions were like. To me, they're history lessons. Same as the moon landing. On the other hand, there are people today who didn't live through the Challenger disaster, yet I can remember our teacher wheeling a TV into the classroom so we could all watch the news unfold. And my baby daughter will never know what it was like to live through 9/11, while the things I felt are still as clear as day.

It's not all that different when it comes to music, I suppose. I love so many artists that flourished in the '60s and '70s, even though I didn't have any choice but to discover them retroactively, since I wasn't born till 1971. My journey started in 1983, with the release of 90125. To me, 90125 was just what Yes sounded like -- I had no other point of reference. It wasn't until I saved up some allowance money and went out to buy some of their older LPs that I discovered a band that sounded completely different from the "Owner of a Lonely Heart" band. That was my gateway to prog, and it totally changed my listening habits.

The flip side is that those of us who came in later are probably more forgiving of bands that altered their formula. I never minded the arena-rock aspect of '80s Yes, because that's what I cut my teeth on. For those who grew up with Fragile and Close to the Edge, I'm sure 90125 was a much more bitter pill to swallow.

It was.

You make great points, you youngster, you. :)

[Progtopia]

It's not all that different when it comes to music, I suppose. I love so many artists that flourished in the '60s and '70s, even though I didn't have any choice but to discover them retroactively, since I wasn't born till 1971. My journey started in 1983, with the release of 90125. To me, 90125 was just what Yes sounded like -- I had no other point of reference. It wasn't until I saved up some allowance money and went out to buy some of their older LPs that I discovered a band that sounded completely different from the "Owner of a Lonely Heart" band. That was my gateway to prog, and it totally changed my listening habits.

Substitute Genesis information there and that's definitely me. I was born in '73, but I was aware of older Yes somehow before I was aware of older Genesis with Gabriel. Then I bought Foxtrot and my life changed. So I can definitely get behind this sentiment.

[Trane]

I suppose a lot of people felt that way, but I wasn't one of them. I had just reached my 20s when Yes was making those "classic" albums and I loved them, but... by the time 90125 came out, Yes hadn't done anything for a while, in fact I wasn't aware of much prog going on anywhere at the time. I was absolutely floored when I first heard 90125; not only had Yes returned, but they'd reinvented themselves into something more relevant to the times while still retaining their creativity and ambition, at least imo. And personally, I welcomed the heavier, shreddier guitar work and the more pop-like sensibilities. So it wasn't a bitter pill for all of us. I don't feel that Yes West ever lived up to the promise of 90125, though I do like a good portion of what they did on their follow up albums (there's even some good stuff on "Union" ). Funny, I didn't care for '80s Genesis nearly as much, though I preferred them to Yes in the '70s. But we all have our quirks in our individual tastes.


I'm more with Adrian's PoV, here

although not as old as you are, I was roughly 20 when 90125 came out, but painfullty aware of their previous album (and Genesis') and couldn't swallow the selling-outof both bands... While I was still on the lookout for GOOD prog albums: I discovered Marillion's debut Script album that same year (but was completely demoralized by Fugazi) and loved Dire Strait's Love Over Gold (their proggiest), I was also quickly moving away... and heading down the 70's JR/F albums I'd missed out on before... and by the same extent, started looking for 60's jazz...

BTW, I didn't find 90125 so revolutionary for Yes... A lot of its seeds were planted somewhat in Drama (especially the guitar-heavy sonics)