Prog elitists

Guldbamsen wrote: Where's the mellotron for feck's sake? Ahhh...well then it's not really prawk now is it?

Catcher10 wrote: Guldbamsen wrote: Where's the mellotron for feck's sake? Ahhh...well then it's not really prawk now is it? That kid in your avatar is a prog elitist, I can see it developing already........poor kid, the horror! More crotales please.....

He likes his prague to be rough, unfiltered and raucous...preferably with bassoons and silver spoons.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Thatfabulousalien wrote: I can't say I've ever understood the stigma surrounding complexity, different types of music with different intentions use different materials  There's no stigma. If I didn't like complexity I would listened disco instead of Prog. But complexity needs a logic, a reason, not just to prove you can do what nobody can or dare.

Merrimack Mike wrote: I think part of the problem is that people mix up technical virtuosity and complexity.  Just because a piece of music is difficult to play doesn't mean it's musically complex (Exhibit A: Eddie Van Halen's Erruption).  On the other side, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that a piece of music that sounds easy to play lacks complexity.   (What is or is not easy to play is another argument altogether.) Some listeners--elitist or not--assume that because Floyd's music develops slowly and contains fewer notes than, say, Yes' music, it must not be complex prog.  When I listen to DSOTM from start to finish,  I'm always blown away by the way the melodies, harmonies, solos and special effects interlock to form an extended musical (and social and philosophical) statement.   All that seems pretty complex to me.

Larkstongue41 wrote: Guys, let's face it... there actually is some kind of an objective 'musical merit hierarchy' and Pink Floyd is nowhere near the top. Now let me explain myself before jumping at me. I get as well as anybody else that music is a subjective thing, but I would argue that it is not entirely subjective. Call me elitist if you want but I sincerely believe it is possible to some extent to classify different musical acts in terms of musical richness. I'm not speaking about "complexity" but about fluid musical development and innovation. Putting aside subjective biases, there is no way on Earth I could put bands like, say King Crimson and Asia on the same level. I think all of you are also able to objectively say that some bands deserve more praise than others.  That being said, I'm far from meaning that Pink Floyd is inferior and that it should not be enjoyed as much as other bands. Hell, I listen to some stuff that I consider to be of low musical value but I can still get emotions out of it. I'm certainly among the rare ones on this forum who likes people like Elton John, the Ramones (and punk rock in general), Cage the Elephant, Fleetwood Mac and many others.

rogerthat wrote: Larkstongue41 wrote: Guys, let's face it... there actually is some kind of an objective 'musical merit hierarchy' and Pink Floyd is nowhere near the top. Now let me explain myself before jumping at me. I get as well as anybody else that music is a subjective thing, but I would argue that it is not entirely subjective. Call me elitist if you want but I sincerely believe it is possible to some extent to classify different musical acts in terms of musical richness. I'm not speaking about "complexity" but about fluid musical development and innovation. Putting aside subjective biases, there is no way on Earth I could put bands like, say King Crimson and Asia on the same level. I think all of you are also able to objectively say that some bands deserve more praise than others.  That being said, I'm far from meaning that Pink Floyd is inferior and that it should not be enjoyed as much as other bands. Hell, I listen to some stuff that I consider to be of low musical value but I can still get emotions out of it. I'm certainly among the rare ones on this forum who likes people like Elton John, the Ramones (and punk rock in general), Cage the Elephant, Fleetwood Mac and many others. There really isn't.  What you are doing again is substituting complexity for merit (though you claim otherwise) and also attaching a higher value to pure musical innovation than other aspects (like lyrics or production, where DSOTM was far reaching).  But it's the final product that listeners listen to.  I have said this before but it's not Floyd's fault if they understood better than their prog peers how to make a great studio album.  The great prog rock bands would probably leave Floyd in the dust live but making a point while still saying concise was not their strong suit.  How many dark compositions have Yes come up with over an entire career ?  Now consider that Floyd cover the gamut of emotions, whether it's the cynicism of Money, the anger of Us and Them or the fear and helplessness of Great Gig in the Sky.  If it was so easy, why couldn't nobody else think of it in 1973?

^ Be careful. You're mixing popularity with prestige there.

I don't mean to pass off as rude, but you must really mindlessly listen to music if you truly believe that Gentle Giant and Floyd stand on the same level composition-wise. 

Edited by Larkstongue41 - February 16 2017 at 19:20

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

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 siLLy puPPy - February 16 2017 at 19:51