fraroc Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 My question is...I wonder what was the attraction that bands like Yes, Rush, Genesis, and Jethro Tull had to that sort of Kraftwerk/Gary Numan-esque sound? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 Change? bored with prog? who really knows. Prog was also not that cool in the 80's. it was like.....fossil old. then the 90's popped up and a bit of a revival hit. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangy Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 My question is...I wonder what was the attraction that bands like Yes, Rush, Genesis, and Jethro Tull had to that sort of Kraftwerk/Gary Numan-esque sound? Big money 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital Dad Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 When ELP turned into the BeeGees and Jon Anderson left Yes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 When ELP turned into the BeeGees and Jon Anderson left Yes. i love the bee Gees but man did that suck lol Mick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick N. Backer Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 I actually think Yes and Genesis got better when they changed their sound in the early 80s. I don't think Tull did all that much, although I admittedly don't follow them as closely. Rush, of course, peaked in the early 80s and then . . . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toymaker Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 They listened to the radio. They had money to invest in the new musical toys. They mistakenly believed they had exhausted the musical possibilities of their existing format. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 Alex had an expensive cocaine habit 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custom55 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) They also changed their hair styles as well. awful Edited March 5, 2018 by custom55 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 For the record i think some bands made the change over better than others. i loved Genesis and Rush in that era. but think Yes completely went off the rails. Mick 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toymaker Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 Under Wraps is a weird album for me - love the tunes but hate the sounds. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbobby10 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 I would say their success mostly. Prog rock was popular in the 70's but by mid 80s, very few successful prog bands, they all went commercial. Which isn't really a bad thing to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J2112YYZ Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 They were just trying to stay relevant with the musical times. Rush and Genesis would have sounded very dated and nosedived into obscurity very quickly if they didn't do what they did. Also, it was their job and I'm guessing they wanted to make some money. Sounding like you belong in the modern music landscape is a good way to do that. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 They were just trying to stay relevant with the musical times. Rush and Genesis would have sounded very dated and nosedived into obscurity very quickly if they didn't do what they did. Also, it was their job and I'm guessing they wanted to make some money. Sounding like you belong in the modern music landscape is a good way to do that. times 2. it was adapt or sink really. i would do the same......just being honest, lol Mick 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbobby10 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) I feel like also creativity in a band can only go so far with progressive rock music (or any genre). I think if they stuck with it, it would sound like copies of their previous works. The change in style of music may have revived bands and made them want to create more music. But that's just my thought Edited March 5, 2018 by Bigbobby10 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbobby10 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 I feel like also creativity in a band can only go so far with progressive rock music (or any genre). I think if they stuck with it, it would sound like copies of their previous works. The change in style of music may have revived bands and made them want to create more music. But that's just my thought I think the best example of this is Miles Davis, he would always change his music to stay relevant, but also experimenting into many genre's of music. That's why he is one of the best musicians ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) And i couldn't care less how good you are in a certain area of music. EVERYTHING goes stale eventually and i will find a more interesting band, lol Mick Edited March 6, 2018 by bluefox4000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 Progressive bands were more likely to experiment with different sounds. And naturally, they’d gravitate towards what they thought were the interesting sounds of the day. I remember Geddy & Alex interviews in rock magazines in those days and they were mentioning bands like The Fixx and Talk Talk as who they thought were fascinating. All of those progressive bands had crossover tendencies. But they just did their thing as journalists tried to give them music labels/genres while listeners usually accepted those labels. Still do. Rock, metal, pop, progressive pop, alternative rock, bla bla bla................. :hail: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entre_Perpetuo Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 90125, Pew through Signals (or through PoW/HYF if you're really into it), Abacab and Genesis s/t are all explanation enough in my mind. By the end of the 70s, most of the prog bands had stopped being able to make "classic" prog that was both great and groundbreaking, and when punk and new wave kicked in and made prog look like dinosaur music to the masses, the idea of changing styles, even jumping genres, became all the more lucrative. Not to mention, these guys weren't exactly old when prog's time in the limelight came to a close. Sure they'd already had a lot of great music and albums to their names, but they weren't old enough to lose all interest in the times, and especially Rush and Genesis were captivated by the possibilities new wave brought to their music. Besides, just because these bands hopped on the new wave train didn't mean they'd abandoned their roots. Would Blondie or The Cars have released anything as weird and convoluted as Dodo/Lurker? Could The Talking Heads have written Marathon? Prog bands being in the new wave scene actually brought some really interesting and innovative ideas to the table. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 I don't think Tull did all that much, although I admittedly don't follow them as closely. Under Wraps is a weird album for me - love the tunes but hate the sounds.Yeah, Under Wraps is a strange one. It was the times, as others have pointed out, including Ian himself in this clip from A Little Light Music. He also makes your point about the songs being good when not played with the synths... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangy Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 I actually think Yes and Genesis got better when they changed their sound in the early 80s. I don't think Tull did all that much, although I admittedly don't follow them as closely. Rush, of course, peaked in the early 80s and then . . . I prefer earlier yes and genesis but your post made me think that yes and genesis were both better suited for the change in that they fulltime kickass keyboardists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick N. Backer Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 I actually think Yes and Genesis got better when they changed their sound in the early 80s. I don't think Tull did all that much, although I admittedly don't follow them as closely. Rush, of course, peaked in the early 80s and then . . . I prefer earlier yes and genesis but your post made me think that yes and genesis were both better suited for the change in that they fulltime kickass keyboardists. I enjoy earlier Yes, but 90125 is by far their best album IMO. I saw the tour and loved it. Genesis with Peter Gabriel does absolutely nothing for me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangy Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 I actually think Yes and Genesis got better when they changed their sound in the early 80s. I don't think Tull did all that much, although I admittedly don't follow them as closely. Rush, of course, peaked in the early 80s and then . . . I prefer earlier yes and genesis but your post made me think that yes and genesis were both better suited for the change in that they fulltime kickass keyboardists. I enjoy earlier Yes, but 90125 is by far their best album IMO. I saw the tour and loved it. Genesis with Peter Gabriel does absolutely nothing for me. 90125 is the last yes record i like. It is solid throughout. I saw that tour and bought my worst concert t shirt ever. A pink sleeveless t with glow in the dark ink. In my defense i believe the other shirts were sold out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 I don't think Tull did all that much, although I admittedly don't follow them as closely. Under Wraps is a weird album for me - love the tunes but hate the sounds.Yeah, Under Wraps is a strange one. It was the times, as others have pointed out, including Ian himself in this clip from A Little Light Music. He also makes your point about the songs being good when not played with the synths... This is the better version 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 I actually think Yes and Genesis got better when they changed their sound in the early 80s. I don't think Tull did all that much, although I admittedly don't follow them as closely. Rush, of course, peaked in the early 80s and then . . . I prefer earlier yes and genesis but your post made me think that yes and genesis were both better suited for the change in that they fulltime kickass keyboardists. I enjoy earlier Yes, but 90125 is by far their best album IMO. I saw the tour and loved it. Genesis with Peter Gabriel does absolutely nothing for me. Pretty much me as well. i like certain things but on the whole i'm a Collins era guy. Mick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now