’Accessible’ - What does it mean in Prog?

Poxx wrote: Alagithil wrote: Jimi Hendrix for Brains over Heart? Huh? No, Hendrix is for Soul. You resurrected a year old pointless thread with an incorrect statement. That's cool.

I think this thread has plenty of point. It's a wide-ranging topic with plenty of conversation left in it.

If we weren't interestered in resurrecting old things, we wouldn't be at a prog site.

And I'd like some explanation of why my statement was incorrect; I think the emotion in Hendrix's playing was more important by far than his technical prowess.

So I guess I'm not cool after all...

As to accessible, it is very subjective. I for one, find Fragile to be one of the less accessible albums I own, mostly because of its crunchiness, a factor which makes it harder for me to listen to. Some, however, find it one of the most accessible prog albums. But subjectivity is generally not entirely personal. If I put out an album of me saying, "Grr," for 45 minutes, most people would make the subjective judgment that, say, any given Beatles album is better than it. But that point is about subjectivity, not accessibility.

The word accesible is a very relative word as one can see in the dictionary; it has many meanings. Therefore it is difficult to use it without some form of bias. When you say some music is accesible you're usually  making a preassumption about the general masses. It is difficult to make an assumption about an individual, but often times we feel we can define what the social conscience is. 

I tought I'd recougnised some familliar faces!

Jimi Hendrix for Brains over Heart? Huh? No, Hendrix is for Soul.

Wrath_of_Ninian wrote: Well spotted Sigod, maybe we all should tone it down a bit. Hows about "My favourite accessible band is..."   I'll go first: My favourite accessible band is The Doors - no problems getting through them, or slamming them, or fitting them to newly built houses.

I would think that an accessible piece of music (of any genre) would be one that conforms to pop/rock standards, as other members have pointed out - ie use of standard time signatures, simple, easy to sing melodies and catchy choruses with memorable lyrics.

Even those terms are "fluffy", and not necessarily correct, as, for example, Marillion's "Script for a Jester's Tear" album is accessible to the point that many mistake it for being very simple music - and yet there are complex time signatures (although not as complex as, say, Yes), there is an abundance of complex counterpoint (layered melodies), songs typically have no chorus, and the lyrics are exceptionally complex. There is, however, an abundance of beautiful melody, "pure" diatonic harmony, and an absence of sudden changes, except for dramatic effect.

So maybe it just boils down to a piece having beautiful melody - but what makes a beautiful melody?

I can't really answer that, of course, but I could suggest that a melody that invites listener involvement is one that follows simple steps on the whole, and exists in a duplex form - a "questioning" phrase and an "answering" phrase. Using diatonic shifts through "natural" tonal modulation to related keys, consistently resolving chromatic clashes both vertically and horizontally whilst maintaining simple rhythms with crosstalk only for effect are all tools a composer can use to make a piece more accessible.

As well as melody, harmony, rhythm and form, the 5th aspect to bear in mind is the overall texture. Generally, the "softer" and more conventional, the more accessible. I'm not talking solely about dynamic here, but also use of instruments.

Just to confuse matters, I'm not suggesting that everything should sound like Clannad in order to be accessible - although there is a tempting agreeableness to that argument. Of course, harshness in timbre can be used, just as louder dynamics, for contrasts in texture - but these contrasts should be used for effect, and generally not in a jarring way.

None of which explains "Rhapsody in Blue", "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Money" by Pink Floyd (it's in 7/4 for much of the duration...) or Beethoven.

Supertramp are a very accessible band, yet have many proggy elements. They're so accessible that their status as a prog band is continually questioned by some. To say a particular Frank Zappa album is accessible, however, would probably be a relative comment - e.g. I find "We're Only In It For The Money" to be one of his more accessible albums.

In short, I don't think "accessible" refers to a particular style, but that there are key elements that are readily identifiable. Of course, it is such a flexible word that we could easily use it in the sense of "accessible to most proggers" (e.g. Genesis, Marillion).

Henry Cow, OTOH can easily be regarded as inaccessible in broad terms, due to non-conformity of many of the ground rules I suggested above. I still find much of his music hard to listen to - and I rarely revisit it in the way I would revisit, say Gong or Pink Floyd. The Legendary Stardust Cowboy and Stockhausen ARE inaccessible to all but those with warped minds...

My thoughts

Edited by Certif1ed

Well spotted Sigod, maybe we all should tone it down a bit.

Hows about "My favourite accessible band is..."  

I'll go first:

My favourite accessible band is The Doors - no problems getting through them, or slamming them, or fitting them to newly built houses. 

easily understood: able to be appreciated or understood without specialist knowledge

I agree that muscical description is of value when you are looking to buy a new record. Hopefully though, the one making the review has listened to enough music to make a good description and comparison to other bands. I think though that "accessible" can be used pretty objectively in a review, just as a descrition of compositional structures, harmonies used a time signatures can give meaningful information.

To much personal mumbo jumbo is usesless in a review in my humble opinion too, but there is a tendency that music critics have little or no education, while art critics often has higher degrees from university, which at least have given them a better tool for writing somewhat to the point. Being an educated writer though is never a guarantee for a good review, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

No, I appreciate the point you are trying to make with the dictionary definition, but its not really what I was getting at.  I know what 'accessible' means!  I am actually more interested in the second point you made about it being "a handy word for 'easy to listen to'" (as you put it).  What makes something easy to listen to?  In YOUR opinion? And conversely, what makes something difficult to listen to?

I know its difficult to convey feelings about music in words but should we be bothering to review and grade music in terms of 'ease of listening'?  Especially when the level of ease is entirely dependent on the character of the listener. 

I just wanted to hear how people classify 'accessible' music, as the term seems to be appearing with alarming regularity these days, and with no discernible benefit for the potential listener.