"Prog" or "Punk" which had the greater influence?

No surprise here, eclecticism and openmindedness are at the order of the day when it comes to prog appreciation.

 

Not to mention that no-one can agree on what is and what isn't punk.

 

??

 

I agree with your description, but actually, my next door neighbor's radio is playing the whole day sertaneja, which ain't much better.

 

This time around I wholeheartedly agree with you, and that is another music form that permeates like hell the media everywhere and almost every time. Doh!

 

I much prefer progressive rock but (unfortunately) I think punk had the much greater influence

 

Arguably the first Punk band is The Velvet Underground, and a huge influence on Krautrock, which is often said to be a sub genre of Prog.

 

They certainly influenced bands like Amon Düül II, Can and others but only at the beginning of their careers, an influence that seemingly happened just and only at the beginning of that movement. But good point anyway.

 

Most random people on the street today (young and old ) would know what punk is. Or at least have a pretty good idea.

A lot fewer would know what prog was unless you cites two or three bands. And even then they may not know the the F you were talking about.

 

Four simple words, but very true, and I think some underestimate how important this was. The press made prog a dirty word that some bands probably shied away from name checking prog bands for fear of having that dirty word attached to them, and even if they did, the press would overlook or ignore it. Like, a band could in an interview for an article say that there influences ranged from The Beatles to The Ramones to King Crimson, and then the article would come out and the writer would mention only The Beatles and The Ramones. The younger generation of writers seems to have more of a respect for the prog genre, but it's still a dirty word to a lot of people.

 

^Well, even so there were many more independent, free press that you could choose the one that resonated best with your interests. Now I guess we have mostly media that is payed for supporting the big music industry corporations.

 

Haha, the mainstream press in Britain seemingly hated Punk with a vengeance. Still good publicity though.

 

Bands and music press feed off each other - bands tend to need publicity and the press needs bands to write about.

If you track who the music press found to write about from 1975 onwards then it's hardly a surprise that bands who were creating a fuss locally and making noisy rock 'n' roll again were a godsend to the music press. Say a few outrageous things, dress outrageously and most importantly just be accessible and play live practically every week; while the big groups had either packed it in for a few years or were in tax exile; and who can blame the press for latching on to it.

This article by Mick Farren from the NME 19th June 1976 has been widely shared before but still resonates for how, not only the press but more importantly the readers felt at the time. And note...no mention of prog but that were an irrelevance at the time that Farren was writing.

Mick Farren: The Titanic Sails at Dawn – a classic feature from the vaults

The Ramones and the Flamin' Grovvies played the Roundhouse on 4th July...

Forget 1977 as Year Zero, 1976 was far more important.

 

I think people were just a bit bored by 1976. One thing you notice is that there weren't a lot of really new bands breaking through but an awful lot of bands made up of people who'd been in other bands, people who had been playing since the 60s. Things needed freshening up. I'm talking rock music here, other genres were doing fine.

 

You’re absolutely right. I’m a huge Yes fan, but I can see why a lot of fans were turned off by Tales From Topographic Oceans and Relayer, and I can also see why there was a reaction to that, especially amongst the next generation. Mind you, Yes had one more great album in them with Going For The One (1977), before the wheels of the bus came off with Tormato (1978). But then they successfully regrouped...several times.

 

Tormato is great. And that's despite the inner turmoil the band were going through at the time. I do think that record is a fascinating product of a changing market though. Don't Kill the Whale is the first thing they did that sounds like a single but the popular-single commercial aesthetic hadn't really kicked off yet so it can look like a flounder when really Yes were just trying to open up and be a bit more accessible stylistically at that point. Obviously they weren't ready to go full=on punk or Disco so it was always gonna be a tough album to pitch. Personally, I like the compromise, there's a ton of nice - and sometimes complex - music on there.

 

Rolling Stone did not seem to get it either back in the day...

Rolling Stone's 500 Worst Reviews of All Time (work in progress) - RYM/Sonemic

 

Tales From Topographic Oceans and Relayer were well received by most of Yes fans during those times, albeit not as unanimously as Close to the Edge. I suggest you hear Jon's interview below for interesting details he set off on those albums' making, release and tours.

Yes interviews: 7/11/17 - New York



Yes, Jon Anderson's Musical Adventure Isn't Over | Here's the Thing | WNYC Studios

C'mon man... I'm startled to hear that, over and over again.... like "hey we are all so tired of doing these weird prog stuff... what about dumping off these crazy innovations that we started doing just some years ago and come back to all our previous down-to-earth stuff?" ...LOL

This is obviously not the reason for the most short life ever of a music form (I mean 70's prog) in the annals of music history.

 

Did I mention prog? It's been said on this thread already, but punk had nothing much to do with prog, which had passed its peak by that time anyway, it was the stale state of rock music in general that was the problem. Anyway, I thought proggers were supposed to be all open-minded and accepting of other music forms? You're kinda disproving that in this thread. Not only you though, to be fair.

 

Are you kidding with me?
What other music form would you mention then by saying they were getting bored of??
And please don't come up again with yet another generations about prog fan mindsets around here.

 

Read my edited post. Why would they be taking any notice of prog in 1976?

 

By 1977 most prog bands already reached their peak. King Crimson was disbanded, Genesis were about to become a 3 man band, Yes were a past their prime act. So does Jethro Tull and ELP.
Pink Floyd were on an internal crisis, etc

Perhaps the greatest exception is Rush, who were coming out from the fore and lead the prog scene in the late 70s/early 80s

So, I don't think Punk killed prog. Just as what happened years later with Grunge and 80s hard rock. Most of those 80s bands already reached their peak when Grunge came out.

It's just a natural thing. Kids in the early 70s were looking for the next new big thing. And 5-6 years is a lifetime when you're in your teens.

 

The heyday of prog was over by '76 - a lot of punks had been prog fans but, you know what, "Interview" by Gentle Giant isn't a patch on their earlier albums or "Flow Motion" by Can or whatever etc etc. '76 and '77 was more about the Eagles and bad Rod Stewart albums or this great new band, Firefall or Widowmaker blah blah blah.

 

I don't believe I was the one who brought fan mindsets into the thread?