Why did prog bands respond so weirdly to punk in 1978? Instead of making their albums edgier to compete...

Why did prog bands respond so weirdly to punk in 1978? Instead of making their albums edgier to compete, the proggers made the albums even cheesier and poppier than their early 70s stuff.

Attached: 1620953758956.png (600x532, 630.67K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bhYHRvHfWvU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Cowardice

Prog fell so hard.

they tried dropping the "they were only pretending to be retarded" meme

Giant For A Day is (very very) vaguely punk.

ELP was contractually mandated to make one more studio album for their label, but they didn't have any drive to do it. They just shat out something and moved on. Same deal with Alan Parsons Project and the Sicilian Defense.

Only the title track, rest was generic AOR. They did follow up on the title track with Civilian, which put up a better fight in the punk era.

prog was always a genre that expiremental. They started to get into synths around 1977 and most of these synths had a cheap sound that didnt age too well. 90125 is prog done well with the equipment of the day.

the prog generation was a lot older by the time punk came around. they had exhausted their creativity and all had families and shit by 1978.

Trevor Horn was also a once in a generation talent that Yes was extremely lucky to have recruited.

>90125 is prog done well with the equipment of the day.
Also Drama

Because prog artists come from a very different background than punk artists, and simply don't have the aggression required to perform punk. This isn't a critique, it's just fact. They couldn't imitate punk, or respond to it on a similar level, even if they wanted to.

oi listen to national health, bruford, gong, ponty, uk, tangerine dream, rush, magma, gilgamesh, camel before spouting your retarded observations.
all the albums in your pic are great btw, except for tormato, but thats because Yes mostly sucks in general

synths have been in prog since the beginning. do you even listen to the genre you facking wanker

>breaks the pattern by copying new wave and making a great album
nothin personnel

forgot to attach because am tard

Attached: Rush_Permanent_Waves.jpg (300x300, 118.34K)

only a tiny amount of punk artists were actually poor, they just went to art school instead of music school

I wasn't necessarily implying that punks were poor. But that they approached music differently than prog artists.

The really really early punks who hated prog are stupid. As soon as people did artier punk, post punk, goth rock, new wave, and especially no wave and then alt rock, it became obvious everybody that did "punk" after the very first few bands was actually more prog-inspired than anti-prog. I used to find it so weird that Nardwuar asked Sonic Youth if they saw themselves as continuing the legacy of King Crimson, Gentle Giant, and Yes. But that shit clicked in my head at some point. Case in point:
youtube.com/watch?v=bhYHRvHfWvU
And then there's Cardiacs' prog/punk sound.

Attached: The Ascension.jpg (600x600, 33.73K)

Listen to Peter Hammill - Nadirs Big Chance

It's not even about thematic edginess. Punk had musically simple structure. That resulted in overwhelming industry pressure for prog to be simplified, which they acquiesced. But to take complexity out of prog was to deprive it of its essence, so from there it wasn't long until they had finished the beast.

idk henry cow and frith seemed to transfer to punk pretty well.

Attached: skeleton crew.jpg (355x355, 18.97K)

KC unironically had the right idea in the 80s. I much prefer the faux talking heads sound then the psuedo pop rock and punk other prog bands tried to make

Attached: Discipline_-_Original_Vinyl_Cover.jpg (300x303, 10.35K)

Which was worse: 70s bands trying to adapt to the 80s, or 80s bands trying to adapt to the 90s?

Not only did Hammill and VdGG (the entirety of whom backed him on that album) embrace punk, but made one hell of great album with that general style and attitude