What makes people find Prog boring?

OK, I didn't read things in this thread, so I can write something not influences and something which is not reaction. Yet.

What makes people find country music boring ? Maybe not so variations, direct approach to listener. I listen country from time to time (I call it brain-nap), but take for example hip-hop music. It's not boring, lyrics are often shocking, aggresive, not boring. Dull and stupid, maybe, but not boring. Music can be boring and repetitive, but guitar riffs can be too when put in bad way. For example I don't find hip-hop music boring, because I hate it.

Prog music is everything but boring, it's the definition of progress - to be not as everything normal now, to be not boring. Prog rock was used as act of taking music from normal rock to prog heights, what means that it shouldn't be boring anymore, if it's true prog.

Whew

Hi floydispink!

Very interesting question. I've puzzled over this myself.

Maybe a brain that comes across a very different kind of music for the first time really is not able to distinguish between all the sounds?

I guess you all know the story about Columbus' ships being invisible to the "indians", because their brains had no frame of reference to percieve them?

Maybe prog works the same way on modern brains. It may " all sound the same", because unaccostumed brains filter some sounds out or translate them in a way different to that of an accostumed brain.

Liking prog would be a matter of training then, like Urik said. Also gradual exposure would help to process it.


For example, I was introduced to prog gradually by my dad. We started with the related stuff and it got more complex as I got older.
My sister didn't take part in the education.

In her teens my sis played alt- and tenor-saxophone. When she started to play in a quartett, I tried to introduce her to some "different" sax stuff. I played Van der Graaf Generator's "Lost" for her. I was sure she would love it. But after listening to it, she was just confused:
She swore that there was'nt any saxophone in it!
Even after I pointed out the sax to her, it still took her a lot of time to integrate Jackson's sound with her idea of "saxophone".


So, I think it is unfair to accuse first-time listeners of short attention spans. It may be that they really hear only mush.

People may just need a bridge to get into prog gradually. After all, the jump from Britney to King Crimson is a big one. Way bigger than the ones we make between prog albums. And still, many proggers seem to need multiple spins to "get" some albums.


More thoughts on this, please?
It's a great question by floydispink!

I think that what it comes down to is that the people who listen to the simple music are just plain simpletons-

Paranoid_Eyes wrote: I think that what it comes down to is that the people who listen to the simple music are just plain simpletons

EVERYONE WITH DIFFERENT TASTE IS AN INFERIOR LIFE FORM, YEAH!

Paranoid_Eyes wrote: I think that what it comes down to is that the people who listen to the simple music are just plain simpletons-   CASE STUDY TIME   Gave my frined (listens mainly to pop/trancestuff) my mp3 once to listen to- she gave it back 2 minutes later

You might be confusing the general with the particular here methinks....yes, the dancy boppy 'keech*' that pollutes the airwaves finds a captivated audience for sure, but never confuse complexity with either depth or substance. Bob Dylan and Lou Reed have rarely ventured further than 4 chords and verse chorus form, but neither's art is simple. Similarly, there are some bands included on this website who offer up only empty, vacuous and sterile virtuosity.

* keech is a Scottish word that translates as the contents of one's botty .

Prog is an aquired taste... It works the opposite way round to the typical pop song. Pop songs provide instant gratification, memorability and enjoyment, but too many additional listens tend to render them obnoxious and eventually unlistenable. Paradoxically, Prog music is hard to listen to with a virgin ear, but upon additional hearings and therefore an increased familiarity, the music becomes more enjoyable. Hence, prog music is harder to get into, but ultimately longer-lasting, whilst pop and mainstream music is quick to please, but also quick to dullen. HENCE, whilst pop music constantly flits like a butterfly between the flowers of trend and statistic, accumulating myriads of fans, then losing them in the next season, prog has remained a stalwart rock in a small segment of the population's hearts and playlists for over 40 years. We are the prog rock rocks!

jonnyfrostbite wrote: Prog is an aquired taste... It works the opposite way round to the typical pop song. Pop songs provide instant gratification, memorability and enjoyment, but too many additional listens tend to render them obnoxious and eventually unlistenable. Paradoxically, Prog music is hard to listen to with a virgin ear, but upon additional hearings and therefore an increased familiarity, the music becomes more enjoyable. Hence, prog music is harder to get into, but ultimately longer-lasting, whilst pop and mainstream music is quick to please, but also quick to dullen. HENCE, whilst pop music constantly flits like a butterfly between the flowers of trend and statistic, accumulating myriads of fans, then losing them in the next season, prog has remained a stalwart rock in a small segment of the population's hearts and playlists for over 40 years. We are the prog rock rocks!   This certainly does not discredit prog naysayers as simpletons, merely that perhaps they have not dedicated the necessary amount of time it takes to get into prog music. Heck, they may even be listening to a form of prog music and not even know it. It's the people who haven't even tried to listen to the genre that can be said to be ignorant, though perhaps stubborn is a better adjective. But if you have tried, and it is not to your taste, so be it; I have met techno and trance-orientated molecular biologists, and Genesis and Gentle Giant-loving janitors, and I know enough about music to know that your taste in it does not define you.

Or perhaps the stubborn ones are us for listening and listening to something that requires so many listens to get a hold on.

ExittheLemming wrote: Paranoid_Eyes wrote: I think that what it comes down to is that the people who listen to the simple music are just plain simpletons-   CASE STUDY TIME   Gave my frined (listens mainly to pop/trancestuff) my mp3 once to listen to- she gave it back 2 minutes later You might be confusing the general with the particular here methinks....yes, the dancy boppy 'keech*' that pollutes the airwaves finds a captivated audience for sure, but never confuse complexity with either depth or substance. Bob Dylan and Lou Reed have rarely ventured further than 4 chords and verse chorus form, but neither's art is simple. Similarly, there are some bands included on this website who offer up only empty, vacuous and sterile virtuosity. * keech is a Scottish word that translates as the contents of one's botty .

Confusing musical tastes with intelligence as some previous posters have just done is actually the triumph of stupid arrogance over real intelligence.

Edited by The T - August 24 2009 at 17:08

The T wrote: Confusing musical tastes with intelligence as some previous posters have just done is actually the triumph of stupid arrogance over real intelligence.   I have known so many "simpleton" pop music fans who are true geniuses and so many absolutely socially-imbecile prog fans. Yes, they might know a lot about abstract useless things, but put them in the real world and they're just.... useless.   Please have some more respect for other people.   (and learn how to type before calling people "simpletons" )