[mynameishere]

but the music industry wised up in the '70s". And wise up they did. Slap a couple of singles on an album, populate the remainder with filler, charge more

No, that was the model they used in the 50s and early 60s--singles were much more expensive than today's 99 cents, and very profitable, and the albums were intentionally designed to get a few more bucks out of a few hits. By the 70s, the decent groups didn't really try to write singles--it was all album-oriented music.

[hmottestad]

I just think about Robbie Williams. Every time he comes out with a new album -one- song plays on the radio for a few weeks and people buy the CD because of that song. Now though I guess people would just buy that one song and not bother with the rest. Not saying the other songs were bad, it's just that the one on the radio is the one our ears get spoon fed.

[LaSombra]

Progressive rock and conceptual albums would probably not exist if today's iTunes model existed in the 60s and 70s.

I can't imagine a Thick as a Brick or The Wall in an iTunes pay-by-the-song world.

[guard-of-terra]

I have a pet theory that progressive rock happened when there was a top number of educated young people in USA and UK. People who this music targets. People who actually bought music in numbers.

After that population started to age, and now music has to target your mom (and also teenage girls and boys who "consume" music now), and chances your mom doesn't want to dive into conceptual albums.

That kind of made music stupid.