| Progressive pop | |
|---|---|
| Etymology | A "progression" from mid-20th century pop music formulas.[1] |
| Stylistic origins | |
| Cultural origins | Mid-1960s – 1970s |
| Derivative forms | |
| Other topics | |
Progressive pop ispop music that attempts to break with the genre's standard formula, or an offshoot of theprogressive rock genre that was commonly heard onAM radio in the 1970s and 1980s. It was originally termed for theearly progressive rock of the 1960s. Some stylistic features of progressive pop includehooks andearworms, unorthodox or colorful instrumentation, changes inkey andrhythm, experiments with largerforms, and unexpected, disruptive, or ironic treatments of past conventions.
The movement started as a byproduct of the mid-1960s economic boom, when record labels began investing in artists and allowing performers limited control over their own content and marketing. Groups who combinedrock and roll with various other music styles such as Indianragas andAsian-influenced melodies ultimately influenced the creation of progressive rock (or "prog"). When prog records began declining in sales, some artists returned to a more accessible sound that remained commercially appealing until the 1990s.
The term "progressive" refers to the wide range of attempts to break with standard pop music formulas through methods such as extended instrumentation, personalized lyrics, and individualimprovisation.[1]Treblezine's Ryan Reed acknowledged that the genre "sounds like an oxymoron" and is difficult to discern from other genres "without squinting". He explained that such "elusiveness is what makes 'prog-pop' a slippery term", although the genre is definable to a set of characteristics which follow:
... the material must be somewhat sophisticated, even highbrow, in a way 'mainstream' music is not—whether through left-field instrumentation, unusual time signatures or the general high caliber of musicianship on display. (There’s a decent chance somebody in the band went to music school, though that’s not a prerequisite.) But the pop component is equally essential: These songs have melodic lines, riffs, grooves and imagery thatleeches on to your brain.[4]
Similar torock and roll, the tonal structure of progressive pop overthrows harmony as its basic organizing structure. However, unlike rock and roll, progressive pop inverts received conventions, playing with them ironically, disrupting them, or producing shadows of them in new and unexpected forms.[5] Some stylistic features include changes inkey andrhythm or experiments with larger forms.[6][nb 1] Electronic techniques such as echo, feedback, stereo, loudness, and distortion may be used to give the music the impression of space and lateral extension.[5]
"Progressive pop" was originally the usual term forprogressive rock music.[8] The latter genre was influenced by the "progressive" pop groups from the 1960s who combined rock and roll with various other music styles such as Indianragas,oriental melodies, andGregorian chants, likethe Beatles andthe Yardbirds.[9][nb 2] The genre's initial premise involvedpopular music that was created with the intention of listening, notdancing, and opposed the influence of managers, agents, or record companies.[10] In general, progressive music was produced by the performing artists themselves.[11]
In December 1966,Melody Maker attempted to define the recent developments in pop. In this article, titled "Progressive Pop",Chris Welch categorised artists using terms previously associated withjazz; in the most advanced of these, "Avant-Garde", he placed the Beatles,Cream,Love,the Mothers of Invention,Pink Floyd andSoft Machine, while "Modern", the next category, comprisedthe Byrds,Donovan andthe Small Faces.[12] After the release of the Beatles' 1967 albumSgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, magazines such asMelody Maker drew a sharp line between "pop" and "rock", thus eliminating the "roll" from "rock and roll" (which now refers to the 1950s style). The only artists who remained "rock" would be those who were considered at the vanguard of compositional forms, far from "radio friendly" standards, as Americans increasingly used the adjective "progressive" for groups likeJethro Tull,Family,East of Eden,Van der Graaf Generator, andKing Crimson.[13]
In 1970, aMelody Maker journalist described progressive pop as music appealing to the masses, but less disposable than the "six weeks in the charts and the 'forget it' music of older pop forms."[14] By the late 1970s, "progressive pop" was roughly synonymous with "rock music".[15] Authors Don and Jeff Breithaupt define progressive pop in the 1970s and 1980s as a "leaner breed ofpomp rock" that was derivative of the Beatles.[16] ProducerAlan Parsons, who worked as an engineer on the Beatles' albumAbbey Road (1969),[17] remembered that even though he considered some of his songs "pure pop", others continued to categorize his band (the Alan Parsons Project) under the "progressive rock" label. Parsons thought "progressive pop" was a better name, explaining that "what made [our music] progressive was the epic sound and the orchestration which very few people were doing that at the time."[18]
During the mid 1960s, pop music made repeated forays into new sounds, styles, and techniques that inspired public discourse among its listeners. The word "progressive" was frequently used, and it was thought that every song and single was to be a "progression" from the last.[19][nb 3]The Beach Boys and the Beatles were among the earliest progenitors of progressive pop via albums such asPet Sounds andSgt. Pepper's, respectively.[4] AuthorBill Martin recognises the bands as the most significant contributors to the development of progressive rock, transforming rock from dance music into music that was made for listening to.[22][nb 4] Before the progressive pop of the late 1960s, performers were typically unable to decide on the artistic content of their music.[24] The Beach Boys' leaderBrian Wilson is credited for setting a precedent that allowed bands and artists to enter a recording studio and act as their own producers.[25]
Citing a quantitative study oftempos in music from the era, musicologistWalter Everett identifies the Beatles' 1965 albumRubber Soul as a work that was "made more to be thought about than danced to", and an album that "began a far-reaching trend" in its slowing-down of the tempos typically used in pop and rock music.[26] In mid-1966, the UK release of the Beach Boys'Pet Sounds was accompanied by advertisements in the local music press saying that it was "The Most Progressive Pop Album Ever!"[27]Cleveland's Troy Smith believes that the album "established the group as forefathers of progressive pop, right from the beginning chords of 'Wouldn't It Be Nice', aWall of Sound style single".[28][nb 5] In October,Pet Sounds was followed by the psychedelic and elaborately arranged single "Good Vibrations". According to Reed, the song became the "most obvious starting point" in the genre.[4]
The Beatles'Paul McCartney intimated in 1967: "we [the band] got a bit bored with 12 bars all the time, so we tried to get into something else. Then came[Bob] Dylan,the Who, and the Beach Boys. ... We're all trying to do vaguely the same kind of thing."[30] In the opinion of author Simon Philo, the Beatles' progressive pop was exemplified in the double A-sided single "Strawberry Fields Forever" / "Penny Lane" (1967).[31] In a further example of the reciprocal influences between themselves and the Beach Boys, the Beatles demonstrated "paradoxical lyrical content matched by music that was at once 'young' and 'old', rock andTin Pan Alley,LSD and cocoa, progressive and nostalgic" – all features that were shared onSgt. Pepper's.[31] Musicologist Allan Moore writes: "At that time,Sgt. Pepper seemed to mark rock music's coming of age ... Now, of course, with jaded memories, we think of it as ushering in an era of pomposity, with varying degrees of seriousness ... The question after 1967 was whether 'progressive' pop/rock was to be trusted, because it was dealing with issues 'deeper' than simply interpersonal relationships. In the long run, the answer turned out to be 'no' (at least, that is, until a later generation of bands discovered the delight of pastiching the Beatles)."[32]
Towards the end of the 1960s, progressive pop music was received with doubt[33] and disinterest.[34] The Who'sPete Townshend reflected that "a lot of psychedelic bullshit was going on", referring to "garbage" being promoted in the charts, and that many artists who were doing ambitious works were instantly being labelled "pretentious". He believed: "Anybody that was any good ... was more or less becoming insignificant again."[35] In 1969, writerNik Cohn reported that the pop music industry had been split "roughly eighty percent ugly and twenty percent idealist", with the eighty percent being "mainline pop" and the twenty percent being "progressive pop [developed to] an esoteric feel". He predicted that in ten years, the genre would be called by another name (possibly "electric music"), and that its relationship to pop music would be similar to the one betweenart movies andHollywood.[36] While progressive pop did not "shrink to a minority cult", as Cohn wrote one year later, "in England, I wasn't entirely wrong ... But, in America, I fluffed completely – theWoodstock nation has kept growing and, for all his seriousness and pretensions to poetry, someone likeJames Taylor has achieved the same mass appeal as earlier stars."[37]
.jpg)
Progressive rock (also known asart rock) was ushered in the 1970s, directly following the combination of classical grandiosity andpop experimentalism from the 1960s.[9] Although it reached widespread popularity, from 1975 onward, the genre declined in sales and was played with less frequency onFM radio.[38] According to Breithaupt and Breithaupt, this created a vacuum for "a host of new, milder 'serious' bands, whose humor (Queen), pop smarts (Supertramp), and style (Roxy Music, mach two) would ensure their survival into the eighties. ... they met the melodic requirements of AM radio while still producing thoughtful, original work."[16] Bands like Queen andElectric Light Orchestra (ELO) played a type of progressive pop that was grounded in prog-rock without compromising their chart success.[39] Reed cited ELO's "Mr. Blue Sky" as the "definitive statement" by ELO'sJeff Lynne, who "infus[ed] the Beatles’ kaleidoscopic post-Peppers sing-alongs with symphonic grandeur."[4][nb 6]
The Buggles'Geoff Downes, who considered his band to be a continuation of ELO and10cc's progressive traditions, says: "Those early 10cc records such as [1973 debut]10cc andSheet Music were pretty out there, andGodley & Creme took that even further. EvenABBA had sections in their music that were quite intricate. We loved all that studio trickery and experimentation. Parallel to that were bands likeYes, who were experimenting in the studio in a more progressive rock format."[42]Porcupine Tree founderSteven Wilson opined that there were "hugely ambitious" progressive pop records in the 1970s and 1980s that were "quite accessible on the surface, but if you [chose] to engage with them on a deeper level, you [could] find layers in the production, musicianship and some thoughtful lyrics."[43]
Prog-pop records sold poorly and appeared unfashionable following the emergence ofnew wave andpunk rock.[4] By the late 1970s, the era of record labels investing in their artists, giving them freedom to experiment and limited control over their content and marketing had ended.[44] Corporateartists and repertoire staff began exerting an increasing amount of control over the creative process that had previously belonged to the artists.[45] Some of the major progressive bands transitioned to a more commercial sound and deemphasized the evocation of art music. By the early 1980s, the prevailing view was that the prog-rock style had ceased to exist.[46]
Some mainstream pop acts, such asTears for Fears, continued the traditions of prog-pop.[4] In 1985,Simon Reynolds noted that thenew pop movement attempted to "bridge" the divide between "progressive" pop and its mass/chart counterpart, describing their general relationship as "one between boys and girls, middle-class and working-class."[3] In 2008,The New York Times' John Wray observed a recent progressive pop trend that involved large bands or collectives "with a disdain for clearly defined hierarchies", noting examples such asArcade Fire,Broken Social Scene, andAnimal Collective.[47]
| By style and subgenre | |
|---|---|
| Related genres/scenes | |
| Associated theories | |
| Media | |
| Miscellaneous articles | |
