Ummagumma: an avant-garde, experimental masterpiece. Was hailed by many as a great album and loved by the masses, even though it was difficult to get into for the average person. Was a huge hit and a top 5 seller.
Thick as a Brick: was intelligent satire on the progressive rock scene. Number 1 seller, literally one 45 minute song with insane choreography and complexity.
Why don't interesting things such as those sell well today? How come very simple 3 minute pop songs dominate the best sellers? Not even lewronggeneration, I like some new music but come on
>Why don't interesting things such as those sell well today?
because popular music has gotten worse with time
there's still good shit but it doesn't sell well and you need to look for it
this is a sad truth that lerightgeneration tards and poptimists seem to deny but it's 100% true and has been for a very long time
>Why don't interesting things such as those sell well today?
Its not just today, you had that one short period of mid 60s to early 70s where that kind of stuff was acceptable to the masses. For the rest of the history of popular music, before and after, simple lowbrow stuff has dominated.
i think it's piracy
interesting music makes the round online, every week, and none of you pay for it.
if you had to pay in order to even check these albums out, these albums would be making a shit ton of money.
or at least a livable income.
but if you're savvy enough to find interesting music, you're also savvy enough to steal it, and that's the issue i think.
I actually don't think this was determined by the popular music scene being "different" back then when compared to today's. Yes it's a factor, but I think the single biggest reason is that the only way to get music at the time of release of those two albums was through vinyl, something not easily accessible to those without the funds to own a record player, a good audio system, and passable speakers, not to mention all the records themselves.
Shit was expensive, so back then the albums that sold were the good ones because only music enthusiasts were willing to shed the money for their hobby, as opposed to the general public that would rather spend it on something else.
I mean, just imagine, bubblegum pop WAS a thing already back then, but the people that liked that kind of music would listen to it on the radio mostly, as opposed to actually purchasing the record.
I can assure you that if we had today's music outlets like iTunes and digital media back then, the best sellers of the time would have been entirely different things.
And calling Ummagumma an avant-garde masterpiece is a stretch in my opinion. It was interesting to hear the band members stretching their wings and all but the I feel as if they perfected what they were trying to do on future releases.
It's true, sadly. Music hasn't been getting worse, of course, but it's hard to imagine albums like Ummagumma being popular these days.
The late 60's were a time of psychadelic and avant-garde stuff, though, so it's understandable. These years, a lot of great electronic and hip-hop albums are getting attention, and maybe in a few decades, a new mindblowing genre will hit the charts.
Well, you already hat The Beatles dominating the charts 50 years ago, at least during their pop/merseybeat phase. I could probably just google it, but did their late albums sell any less? Or did the 14 year old girls who bought Please Please Me grow up into the hippies who bought Revolver and Sgt. Pepper?
I bet you like electronic music because you're really clever, also none of that EDM crap cos you're not a pleb.
You also smoke pot and watch brass eye because le epic troll
rock on my brother!
Ummagumma isn't a masterpiece, nor was it loved by the masses. It has some interesting ideas, and it's probably Pink Floyd's most interesting album, but it stretches their abilities as musicians beyond what they were capable of. It's no wonder rockists will think it's worth saving when they've not heard any of the electroacoustic and concrete music that it is derivative of, but viewed in the context of that music it's not only far less original, but also it's just far less well crafted. That said it's not a bad album for sure, it is in fact a high point of the Floyd discography, but it's not a masterpiece.
What are you listening to? Sysyphus is one of their best suites. Grantchester Meadows is proto-shoegaze. Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict is a great sound collage. The rest are good. It's miles beyond anything that came after it. Only Pompeii and some earlier stuff equal it (in their discography).
You've gotten a lot of "people are dumber and worse" and shit in this thread but I don't think its the audience nearly as much as it is the artists themselves that are at cause for this.
I think a lot of artists would really like to make some far out shit like this but the fact is, its hard out there and most of us gotta bring home some food to put on the table. It's hard to take artistic risks when you're struggling to stay alive.
I very much doubt that the likes of Beyonce or Justin Bieber are "struggling to stay alive". They could literally make anything they want to and live comfortably for the rest of their lives on the hundreds of millions in the bank. But, they don't.
Speaking from a huge fan of prog music, I don't understand how people that are "into music" don't like prog. I mean, I like many other kinds of music but I have and will always have a soft spot for prog. I feel as if prog expanded the boundaries of rock music up to that point and completely changed the face of music. Bands like KC, Soft Machine, Yes, and among countless others progressed rock into a respectable art form. I respect people's taste in music, but people that outright deny progressive rock and any of it's forms I can't take seriously. Sorry for the vent
IMO, prog defied the norm of rock music. Extended compositions, odd time sigs, classical and jazz fusion within the music, symphonic styles, lyrical content, the list goes on. For someone to claim that it had no significance and it deserves to be overlooked and unappreciated, I guess I just can't understand it. Just my opinion though.
Also, prog is in a pretty bad state but not dead, there are several recent bands I really enjoy.
Any kind of music, from ultra minimalist to absouletly complex, orchestrated maximalism is good- so long as it is done tastefully. Unfortunately too much prog suffers from too much too muchness; as you say, "extended compositions, odd time sigs, classical and jazz fusion" are often incorporated into progressive rock, but with no thought given to the overall aesthetic consistency of the piece, leading to what might be described as 'tasteless kitsch'. There is progressive rock I like, Henry Cow, Faust, Third Ear band et al, but I too often find that the genre falls into a self-indulgent feedback loop along the lines of 'Great so we're playing jazz rock in 13/16 time with oboes, EWIs and bongo drums, why not throw in some fantasy lyrics about dragons and a yodelling solo?'.
Lol. I suppose what you find over indulgent noodling, I find to be good music. And I don't believe technical=good, but some great stuff tends to have virtuoso playing. I will admit there are some tasteless stuff that has been done in prog, but the overall aesthetic nature of most prog songs tend to outweigh the tasteless drivel. That being said, say the middle section ambient part of CTTE by Yes. One can say that's overblown pretentious crap, but I, and many others tend to find it to be sublimely beautiful.
But anon pop songs dominated radio at this time like they are dominating now. Yes, those album have great sales but no one is buying digital albums today anymore. Who knows maybe if To Be Kind came out in 70s with the same popularity it has today it would sell a million ?