70's prog bands going pop/synth/new wave into the 80's

[jasc15]

This seems to be common among bands like King Crimson, Genesis, Rush, Yes, etc.  The perspective is different looking back from the present knowing what 80's pop became, compared to looking ahead at the time where this may have actually been progressive.  Maybe the complex song writing and technical proficiency became boring for these groups?  Changing your sound, pursuing other genres and exploring the possibilities of new electronic instruments certainly fits the literal definition of progressive. I'm sure there is some writing from this time period describing this change.  Maybe I'm off the mark here, or generalizing too much, but do any of you have a sense of what I'm getting at here?

[Ben_Jamin]

It's saying, I want to make the music I want and no one can tell me no.

A great modern example is The Night Flight Orchestra. Members from a Metal band making upbeat, synthwave, rock. I see that no different than what those prog bands did. Daniel Tompkins and his various non-metal projects such as Zeta, White Moth Black Butterfly is another one.

[HOF]

It's saying, I want to make the music I want and no one can tell me no.

This is, in my view, the essence of progressive music.* I'm not sure all of the prog bands going into the 80s were totally following this mindset (some of them may have been wanting to conform a bit to sell albums for all I know). But I don't think simplifying their music or incorporating electronic elements was inherently incompatible with being progressive.

*a principle which, ironically, is violated by the "progressive means you always have to be breaking new ground" mindset, which I strongly disagree with.

[KevShmev]

Rush and King Crimson's music in the 80s was still, by normal rock standards, pretty technical proficient.

KC's Discipline almost sounds like Talking Heads' Remain in Light on steroids, which of course was the Adrian Belew factor since he was working with Talking Heads and then joined King Crimson when they reunited and then recorded Discipline.

Rush's evolution was simply them always incorporating what was influencing them at the time into their existing sound.  Neil Peart once said, when asked about the band supposedly blending prog and metal (which seems laughable now considering hard rock was always their core genre at the root), that they were never that calculated. They never thought, "hey, if we do this and then do that, we will get this new sound." They just played whatever they wanted and didn't care if the blend was a bit different.

The move by Genesis from full-on prog to pop rock hitmakers was a slow evolution that happened over a handful of albums and quite a few years. 

[bosk1]

I never was a Genesis fan and only really know them through the radio hits (which I really like).  I am under the impression that a big factor of that "slow evolution" was Gabriel's departure and Phil Collins taking the reins.  Is that accurate, or am I off base about that?

[DragonAttack]

Progressive rock bands were blistered from the time of The Sex Pistols onwards for being 'dinosaurs'.  The press said so, therefor, it was correct.

Sadly, most (if not all) bought into it.  Look at the two Yes albums after 'Going For The One' <and insert most band names>.  Queen changed their approach earlier.  As did band X, Y, and Z.  Many capitulated, got lazy, and put out what they thought the buying public wanted.

(Reminds me of the old cartoons, such as the various Warner Bros. offerings of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck...Tom and Jerry, Bullwinkle, et al.  The writers wrote what they thought was funny, what they found enjoyable, and wrote them mostly to crack themselves up.)

In so many ways, that's why the music of the 70s was so fantastic and diverse.  Bands wrote (of course) what they hoped would sell, but the slant was more of what they and their peers would enjoy. 

It changed in the 80s.  Madison Avenue said it had to, so it did.  Sadly, too many bands drastically changed their style and what they were known for,  that they lost their niche. 

[HOF]

I never was a Genesis fan and only really know them through the radio hits (which I really like).  I am under the impression that a big factor of that "slow evolution" was Gabriel's departure and Phil Collins taking the reins.  Is that accurate, or am I off base about that?

I think that's a popular perception, but I don't think it's entirely accurate or fair. Collins fronted the band for five albums before they really started going in a more pop-focused direction. There were some poppy moments throughout those albums, but as Mike Rutherford says, they always tried to write pop songs throughout their history, they just weren't very good at it initially. It was Rutherford's Follow You, Follow Me that was the band's first big hit, and he was maybe more of the driving force towards pop than Phil initially. I'd argue Phil was bringing a more fusion edge to the band over those first several albums he fronted than he was pop stuff. It really wasn't until Duke that he started contributing more commercial material (which coincided with him writing his first solo album). But I think everyone in the band was kind of interested in writing more straightforward material in the 80s (and they still maintained a good amount of progressive material on their albums throughout Phil's tenure).

I do think at a certain point Phil was not so interested in doing the progressive thing anymore. He cited having to sing the lyrics for Domino as a reason he decided to leave the band, but I think that had as much to do with wanting to write and sing his own songs as not wanting to do prog anymore.

I'd also add that I think part of the reason Gabriel left was he didn't really want to make that same kind of music either. I think had Gabriel stayed the band would have followed a similar trajectory towards pop anyway (as Gabriel did himself).

[jasc15]

KC's Discipline almost sounds like Talking Heads' Remain in Light on steroids, which of course was the Adrian Belew factor since he was working with Talking Heads and then joined King Crimson when they reunited and then recorded Discipline.

I was only recently becoming acquainted with KC when I decided to listen to the Talking Heads Stop Making Sense, and this is what finally hit me over the head about the vague thesis I created this thread about.  Almost exactly as you describe, that album and Discipline really sat beside eachother in a lot of ways.  I'd say SMS is a more pop-distilled version of Discipline (and Three of a Perfect Pair and Beat I suppose).

I guess it's strange to hear what, to my 21st century ear, are total opposite ends of the music spectrum, with art-for-art's-sake 70's prog at one end, and 80's commercial write-what-sells at the other.  Like Supper's Ready, and Abacab.

[Stadler]

I never was a Genesis fan and only really know them through the radio hits (which I really like).  I am under the impression that a big factor of that "slow evolution" was Gabriel's departure and Phil Collins taking the reins.  Is that accurate, or am I off base about that?

The blame was always given to Phil, but almost every account by the band themselves spread that blame.  Genesis didn't start as a "prog band"; they were a songwriting collective, and only "upped" their musicianship in order to further that songwriting.  You'll note that Gabriel has NOT ONE song in his solo catalogue exceeding 8:00, and only five songs longer than 7:00 (up to and not including Up, which has five itself).  Most of his first five solo records contain songs in the 3:00 to 5:00 range.   Mike's solo work is rather commercial, including his work with Mike + The Mechanics.

In fact, the only member without a solo single "hit" is Tony and while he's expressed some frustration and chagrin at that, he is largely the driving force behind latter day Genesis, and the implication is that what he couldn't get solo, he's achieved with the band.  Phil's got a great quote, easily found on the web (or in the EXCELLENT docs included in the box sets from 2007):  "You try telling Tony Banks to do something he doesn't want to do."

[Stadler]

I think you have to look at it from a humanist standpoint too.  These are musicians that are putting their hearts out there and wanting a response.  I'm sure there are SOME that don't care, but you don't put out music, tour the world, etc. if you don't want people to hear what you're creating.   Albums that sold a shit ton in 1974 weren't selling in 1978.  I can't and won't blame artists (you can put Zeppelin in there too, by the way) for reframing their art so people can experience it. 

I don't love EVERY pop excursion - ELP didn't do it very well - but most of them I do.  The Rabin Years are solid in my Book of Yes.  Abacab is one of my favorite Genesis records (and to a previous point, one of their MOST progressive, in the true sense of the word). 

Some of it is technically based too; the technology of the instruments, and the technology of the recording and reproduction (i.e. concert performance) side drove some of those changes as well.

I don't think the majority of those bands would be still around if they didn't adapt and adjust.

[HOF]

I think you have to look at it from a humanist standpoint too.  These are musicians that are putting their hearts out there and wanting a response.  I'm sure there are SOME that don't care, but you don't put out music, tour the world, etc. if you don't want people to hear what you're creating.   Albums that sold a shit ton in 1974 weren't selling in 1978.  I can't and won't blame artists (you can put Zeppelin in there too, by the way) for reframing their art so people can experience it. 

I don't love EVERY pop excursion - ELP didn't do it very well - but most of them I do.  The Rabin Years are solid in my Book of Yes.  Abacab is one of my favorite Genesis records (and to a previous point, one of their MOST progressive, in the true sense of the word). 

Some of it is technically based too; the technology of the instruments, and the technology of the recording and reproduction (i.e. concert performance) side drove some of those changes as well.

I don't think the majority of those bands would be still around if they didn't adapt and adjust.

I also think some of those bands/artists were just making music they liked. Phil Collins grew up a big fan of R&B. He made Face Value with very little expectation of having a huge commercial success (it was mostly just an outlet for him after his divorce initially). It was the kind of music he wanted to make. It's not surprising he started bringing that more to Genesis once it was clear there was an audience for it. But I don't think the intention was to just sell out and make a lot of money.