Prog elitists

Blacksword wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: floyd4 wrote: I have friends that call Pink Floyd trash and "entry level music" and say that thrash metal is bad and simple because they can play the guitar riff easily. Obviously none of this makes sense, but if you've said this and still say these things, let me explain a few things. 1. There is no such thing as "entry level" music- Music is not an elite club, every band is on an equal level of being music-makers.  2. Just because a riff is uncomplex, doesn't make a song stupid or simple- Atom Heart Mother had a pretty simple riff, Aqualung has a simple riff, In the Court of the Crimson king has a simple riff. (by riff I mean melody.) If there's something I hate is complexity for the sake of complexity, that's why I can't resist more than 5 minutes of Gentle Giant. Music must be complex only if complexity plays a role in the track and flows naturally, not just to say "Look how difficult to understand is what I play". Gentle Giant is a good example. I actually used to think it was showing off. The band did not see it that way though. They weren't making music to say "Hey, look at us. We can do this and you can't. Na na na." Apparently that wasn't their motivation. I don't know if it was complexity for complexities sake either. For them it served the music. It needs to serve the music. That's the important thing. It's going to be subjective because one person's honest music is someone else's pomposity and pretentious bs.  I'm sure it wasn't their intention to be complex for the sake of it, and it's not like GG haven't written some genuinely good songs, but I agree with Ivan in terms of how they sound to me. It's like scientific prog rock without much emotion. At times they sound awkward and contrived to me.

I guess that's why I loved their first two albums so much, while what I have heard since then became gradually less enjoyable. Those first two ones were warmer and with beautiful interesting tunes... after Octopus it's just weird noise to me, or at least, not enjoyable.

siLLy puPPy wrote: What this boils down to is how many listens does an album take to understand where it is coming from. Pink Floyd is one of the most popular bands of all time because they were able to mix prog, pop and rock elements together in totally unique ways. That was a great thing. I love PF albums that many hate because they weren't accessible enough. DSOTM was brilliant in that it managed to go to the central point where EVERYONE could get it. That's brilliant to be assured but not the height of complexity. If you are having trouble with that term try comparing high school algebra to advanced calculus. Music is a form of mathematics and unfortunately requires the same discipline of graduating from one form to the next. Like i said previously in some sort of way, you really need to go through a series of upgrades in your programming to understand music that is intended for advanced audiences. Let me make this perfectly clear: WE LOVE PINK FLOYD! WE WORSHIP ROGER WATERS! WE LOVE DAVID GILMOUR! ALL OF THEM! That's not what the discussion is about. Elitism is a valid term. It is reserved for unthinkable heights of advancement and despite the elements of jealousy nevertheless exists for those willing to work their friggin arses off to understand. It's the ultimate payoff in music if you have the gonads to go there

Edited by rogerthat - February 17 2017 at 07:00

rogerthat wrote: There is nothing that GG's complexity helps them express that Pink Floyd cannot.

rogerthat wrote: Shiny globe wrote: rogerthat wrote: There is nothing that GG's complexity helps them express that Pink Floyd cannot. Please PF fans who have stopped listening to GG for that very reason make yourself known! And what's that supposed to mean?

Thatfabulousalien wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: [QUOTE=rogerthat][QUOTE=Larkstongue41] OK, then. What is your explicit definition of "complexity?"

I can't read music. Is this Chopsticks?

Shiny globe wrote: Former GG fans having become PF fans for the quoted reason would prove you right...

rogerthat wrote: Shiny globe wrote: Former GG fans having become PF fans for the quoted reason would prove you right... No and besides there is no right or wrong.

rogerthat wrote: I clearly said it was my opinion.

What we easily forget in a forum in which the most popular area is polls is that music is not about competition but about communication and exploration. I'm all for being experimental and open minded and this also makes me open to musicians exploring mathematical complexity of composition and what's in it. On the other hand, musicians may try to find out what happens if they make their music ultra-simple or use free structures or focus on sound rather than "compositions" (all of which give some listeners food to feel smug about what "elite" stuff they're listening to, I know what I'm talking about ). What musicians try out may fail but even failure of an experiment should normally advance music as a whole. Then the term "failure" is always relative to the listener, relative to communication between musician and listener, and obviously some music may fail to communicate to me but may succeed to communicate to somebody else.

But there's no competitive element to it, at least not "by nature". Some musicians and listeners may put a competitive element into it saying that GG is more complex and less accessible than PF and therefore somehow music by/for an elite, but ultimately this strikes me as "non-musical" in that it doesn't have to do with the sound produced and how it resonates with any specific listener.

Also I'm all for trying out less well known bands after having found out about a famous one like Pink Floyd, in which case indeed Pink Floyd is something of an entry, but this has nothing to do with being "entry level"; the notion of level is extra-musical, as is the notion of elite.

rogerthat wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: What this boils down to is how many listens does an album take to understand where it is coming from. Pink Floyd is one of the most popular bands of all time because they were able to mix prog, pop and rock elements together in totally unique ways. That was a great thing. I love PF albums that many hate because they weren't accessible enough. DSOTM was brilliant in that it managed to go to the central point where EVERYONE could get it. That's brilliant to be assured but not the height of complexity. If you are having trouble with that term try comparing high school algebra to advanced calculus. Music is a form of mathematics and unfortunately requires the same discipline of graduating from one form to the next. Like i said previously in some sort of way, you really need to go through a series of upgrades in your programming to understand music that is intended for advanced audiences. Let me make this perfectly clear: WE LOVE PINK FLOYD! WE WORSHIP ROGER WATERS! WE LOVE DAVID GILMOUR! ALL OF THEM! That's not what the discussion is about. Elitism is a valid term. It is reserved for unthinkable heights of advancement and despite the elements of jealousy nevertheless exists for those willing to work their friggin arses off to understand. It's the ultimate payoff in music if you have the gonads to go there It is not at all clear that 'pure' prog is advanced calculus to Floyd's high school algebra.  Where is Gentle Giant's Ninth Symphony-eque magnum opus?  They are also ultimately rock songs.  And I don't mean just in terms of genre, but the scope.  There is nothing that GG's complexity helps them express that Pink Floyd cannot.   On the contrary, I would argue that Pink Floyd are able to express more moods than GG even with their relative lack of complexity.  Music may have a mathematical element but it is not just maths.   If you want to reduce it to that, that's your look out, but don't try to present it as some sort of objective truth that you can impose on me.   FYI I have GG's albums among many other prog rock bands so I am sorry but I do 'get' the music contrary to your condescension and have heard them more times than I can possibly keep count of.  But the way you have attempted to define hierarchy in music itself is extremely narrow in scope and seems to drill down on what interests you (and which you seem to presume should be all  that should interest anyone else).  For example, when classical compositions have vocals, they are technically unimpeachable and performed at a level out of the reach of ordinary singers.  The same certainly cannot be said of GG's vocals.  It's nobody's fault if they chose to be satisfied with the mediocrity of Derek Shulman.   It is possible for a listener to ignore his vocals and focus on the music, which is what I do.  But you cannot argue that it is not a valid complaint for a listener to criticise Shulman's vocals because it's there and it sucks.   So, holistically speaking, GG is not high level art any more than Floyd because it is deeply flawed (whereas Floyd at least circa DSOTM/WYWH were, for lack of a better word, limited) and this goes for most prog/rock (either flawed and/or limited).  I specifically bring up vocals because the common excuse made on behalf prog is that being instrument-oriented music, it doesn't need strong vocals but this begs the question why classical or jazz find use for vocal virtuosos.  And that is just my opinion and you will have to live with it.