Prog = Literature

^I want to agree, but i'm afraid of all previously mentioned beret-wearers

the point is that you can't define literature, same as you can't define 'literary music' as i will tentatively call it.... i think that would satisfy 'hardcore' subjectivists

Henry Plainview wrote: I'm afraid your argument is too wooly to convince the hardcore subjectivists (how do you define great literature?), even if I can't bring myself to agree with them, but I would like them to comment on a proof I thought of (I was going to make a thread for it but I might as well just put it here).   Some people are smarter than other people. Some people are more mature than other people. These people do things in life that are smarter and more mature than stupid, juvenile people because that is who they are. Creating art is something people do, and since it is a product of the person, it can be influenced by the degree to which they are stupid and juvenile. Therefore, a stupid, juvenile person can create stupid, juvenile art that can and should be recognized as stupid and juvenile, just as we recognize when a person is acting stupid and juvenile, so that they may correct their behavior in the future.   QED

Just because a person is stupid/juvenile does not mean the art they make is. Given that how do you evaluate whether a stupid person makes good art or bad art?

MaxerJ wrote: Some part of me refuses to accept all music as 'equal'. No matter the amount of beret-wearing music lovers telling me that 'it's all about feeeeling' i can't accept that Jay-Z singing about his ninety-nine problems is at the same musical level as Peter Hammill singing about lighthouse keepers... Bad analogy. You get what I mean though. This is a good analogy for me. The lyrics which express the ninety-nine problems in pop music seems to be more enjoyed by the norm. While most of that norm may analysis the guy who listens to songs about lighthouse keepers and conclude that he is an ideal candidate for psychiatric treatment  It's a common peeve among proggers. Even people on this site will tell you in soothing tones that we can't get angry at mainstream because it's just as musical as any other type of music. Yes it is, but to me in a more contrived manner.                                                                                                                             Once I got annoyed. But now I'm okay with that. Because it's like saying The Princess Diaries is as much a book as Great Expectations: it's true. Let me explain: We need to treat music like we treat books. Find a literary theorist. Ask them to define literature. They'll tell you it's undefinable. Find a Twilight lover. Ask them to define literature. Same thing. But I bet you if you ask them if Twilight is literature, most of them - if not all - will say no. Why? Because even the general public understands the difference between literary books and books made for entertainment. But why can't the general public understand the difference between Gene Simmons and a real musician? This has never worked in music. Most people just don't have a musical background. To them the guitar player in Grand Funk Railroad sounds the same as Jeff Beck. Why? Because they only hear what's on the surface, which is distortion. They are not listening to notes. They are listening to the sound of distortion. That famous cry of a guitar string bending. The one that we hear on many TV commercials in America. Sort of the way that Michael J. Fox fooled about with the guitar on Back To The Future. If everything sounds like that, and plus it's on the airwaves then it's excepted by most.                                          And although that line is blurred sometimes, the majority know where most books stand within that division. Of course, with the breakdown of Structualism we can see everything as literature, but I won't go into that here. What's important is that even Post-Structualists understand that there is some undefined magic stopping Harry Potter from being read like The Lord of the Rings - both are well written, humorous and often emotional, but LOTR is seen as literary. What I'm trying to say is, why spend all this time trying to define 'progressive' when someone's already done the work for us? Although i think we'd need a different word to encapsulate all the music it would entail that is not deemed 'progressive' by our lovely mods... What are your thoughts? I can go onto a speil about how we are in the Formalist era of music if you'd like... I understand your point and it is interesting to ponder over, but for me it's always felt like them or us. They(the top40 fans), can start with 10cc and end with KC and the Sunshine band. I can start with 10cc and end with Miles Davis, then be told by the ooga shaka's of the world to turn off the MILES EDIT: Sorry about the links. They don't go anywhere - just an accident with Word...

MaxerJ wrote: Some part of me refuses to accept all music as 'equal'. No matter the amount of beret-wearing music lovers telling me that 'it's all about feeeeling' i can't accept that Jay-Z singing about his ninety-nine problems is at the same musical level as Peter Hammill singing about lighthouse keepers... Bad analogy. You get what I mean though. It's a common peeve among proggers. Even people on this site will tell you in soothing tones that we can't get angry at mainstream because it's just as musical as any other type of music. Once I got annoyed. But now I'm okay with that. Because it's like saying The Princess Diaries is as much a book as Great Expectations: it's true. Let me explain: We need to treat music like we treat books. Find a literary theorist. Ask them to define literature. They'll tell you it's undefinable. Find a Twilight lover. Ask them to define literature. Same thing. But I bet you if you ask them if Twilight is literature, most of them - if not all - will say no. Why? Because even the general public understands the difference between literary books and books made for entertainment. And although that line is blurred sometimes, the majority know where most books stand within that division. Of course, with the breakdown of Structualism we can see everything as literature, but I won't go into that here. What's important is that even Post-Structualists understand that there is some undefined magic stopping Harry Potter from being read like The Lord of the Rings - both are well written, humorous and often emotional, but LOTR is seen as literary. What I'm trying to say is, why spend all this time trying to define 'progressive' when someone's already done the work for us? Although i think we'd need a different word to encapsulate all the music it would entail that is not deemed 'progressive' by our lovely mods... What are your thoughts? I can go onto a speil about how we are in the Formalist era of music if you'd like... EDIT: Sorry about the links. They don't go anywhere - just an accident with Word...

I'm genuinely sympathetic to all the points you raise in this post (no I ain't being sarcastic) but it is unfortunate that you have chosen to equate musical artistic merit with literature

Why ?, because music communicates to us with or without words/lyrics:

Music is the literature of the heart; it commences where speech ends - (Alphonse de Lamartine)

You are right, there are too many angst ridden liberals round here who cannot bring themselves to denote the crass and venal for what it is. Must be a post modern malaise epitomised by the semi -detached journalist wannabees who spout junk like 'just because you like it doesn't mean it has merit' blah yakkity blah. This might work for burgers but it don't work for art.

TGM: Orb wrote: Being cruel: 1. Ultimately, literature in books is a measure of age more than anything else. Give me a hundred years and I reckon Harry Potter will be considered as literature (coming of age story, modernisation of folklore etc...). Literary books generally are made for entertainment (for example, Scoop or pick-a-Shakespeare-play-at-random) and entertainment books generally have literary qualities. 4. Does this mean we can get rid of Dream Theater?

1 - Notwithstanding that is takes a considerable amount of nous to interpret 'Billy Bunter & the Tuckshop Mystery' as an allegorical critique on feudal land reforms in the 15th Century. Any intellectual half-wit can put a literary spin on anything. It's all there in the bible Morag , you just have to jumble the words up. The audiences in Shakespeare's day were about 70% illiterate but still had a considerably better grasp of the spoken word and contemporary current affairs than so-called educated people have now.

4 - No, behind that carefully calculated façade of cheesy metal, speed typing as substance and 3rd hand ideas, lurks a labyrinthine conceptual allegory of post modern mould - James LaBrie aka Jimmy the Cheese - ya geddit ?

Heh... there's been more replies from the people i already agree with.. I guess i was more trying to find a way to explain our view of music to more liberal, mainstream listeners.

Evan - It's more of that I want great bands and artists to recieve the honour they deserve, instead of turning on VH1 to watch 'The Best of 90's Pop!'

Henry Plainview wrote: I agree, for people are not always stupid and juvenile. My point was about the possibility, which people seem to be loathe to awknowledge, even though I cannot believe that in their hearts they think Beethoven and the Spice Girls are equal.   How do I evaluate? That is a fair question, and not one I can fully answer. I would argue that it is in the same way that I call something a terrible book and worse than Shakespeare, but I know the two are not really analagous since you can't subject music to the same logical analysis as a book. So we're back to the same fuzzy logic. Maybe I'll think of something smarter in the morning.

Henry Plainview - I think it's more than a possibility but exactly what you said - people can't really believe Beethoven and the Spice Girls are equal... so is it a hard step to agree that it's the same difference as Harry Potter/LOTR? I think you can treat music with the same quota as books. it would be good to get a universal leveler around here...

Toddler - The Hammill and Jay-Z thing was supposed to be a joke... Also i want to give mainstream listeners more credit than not being able to tell the difference between Jeff Beck and... anybody.

DJPuffyLemon - ... wut? Okay I think i understand, but selling out is a bit of an old idea... It's only really relevant when talking about.... Rabin....

RAAAAAAAAAAABBBBIIIIIIIINNNNNNN!

ExittheLemming - Well, one of the desires of Structualism and beyond was to unify how we saw mediums in the over-term of 'text' eg. a book is a text, but so is a song, and so is a game. So yes, music speaks to our soul in a way books can't but similarily books can give descripitive and metaphorical images songs can't really... if someone went into seven verses of describing a house, it would get pretty boring, but this much text is given without a thought in books.

TGM - 1. Yes, Dickens is a good example of this, but Ian McEwan is already accepted as a fairly literary writer.
           2.This is what i was trying to get at... yes, prog is not at all the literature of music, classical is easily, but I think certain excellent prog songs deserve to be called literary with these classical... classics. After all, that's what we're all here for - to relieve that moment when you heard your first amazing progressive song and were blown away.
           3. That was the point. Many have tried to define lit, but Eagleton has pwned them all...
           4. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO yes.

Mr. Prog Freak - I totally agree with the Art Rock thing. This is a discussion I had in a Lit Studies lesson once - whether Art is Literature, or Literature is Art. Literary theorists tend to think the latter, but everyone else thinks the former... It's hilarious because it really doesn't matter at all.

You know what would be awesome? If the CEO of Warner Music held a press conference tomorrow and told the world the past twenty years of music has been one huge, meta-textual concept album... AWESOME

Henry Plainview wrote: I'm afraid your argument is too wooly to convince the hardcore subjectivists (how do you define great literature?), even if I can't bring myself to agree with them, but I would like them to comment on a proof I thought of (I was going to make a thread for it but I might as well just put it here).   Some people are smarter than other people. Some people are more mature than other people. These people do things in life that are smarter and more mature than stupid, juvenile people because that is who they are. Creating art is something people do, and since it is a product of the person, it can be influenced by the degree to which they are stupid and juvenile. Therefore, a stupid, juvenile person can create stupid, juvenile art that can and should be recognized as stupid and juvenile, just as we recognize when a person is acting stupid and juvenile, so that they may correct their behavior in the future.  QED

You are absolutely right.

theBox wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:  "More artistic" doesn't imply though that it's always more enjoyable or just generally better. There's bad artistic music and great mainstream music, and vice versa, and everything in between. This sums it up for me. And on the topic of "juvenile" and such....let me ask you one question: How would J.S. Bach, Bethoven etc react if you played them "Supper's ready" or "Close to the edge" and so on??? I bet they would dismiss it as juvenile trash because frankly, the level of complexity and scope of any of these compositions are (based on an objective musical analysis) far beneath of that of any of the works of the aforementioned classical composers. Yet WE consider them "da bomb". I guess that makes as juvenile and stupid too...

I don't know ... if Mozart was anything like he was portrayed in that movie (by Tom Hulce), I bet he would have been head-noddingly amused.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - October 02 2009 at 07:23

terryl wrote: people who read literature and the commercial stuff in bookstores learn to read and write to a level where they and understand words, sentences, paragraphs, and writings. You are taught in school about the perception of 'good literature' and 'poems' and whatnot. So after you grow up you make judgement about what you read whether they are literature or not. These are subjective anyway, but as you already said many people know in their guts Twilight is not the same class of literature as the Name of The Rose. As for music, not everyone learned to understand how music is composed from notes and chords, and how each instrument is played, etc. It is a bit more difficult for them to make that line that marks good music from bland.  This is from a person who doesn't speak English natively so pardon if i have made some mistakes. Hopefully you get what i am trying to say.

Man I completely agree with you, and I'd like to add something else. I guess it's easier for all people to understand the difference between Literary and non-literary books, cause the "language" of books are just words. You begin to hear words before you are born, and language is present through all your life, you speak words, hear words, write words, etc... So, in the end, people have a lot more training in language stuff than in music stuff..

You can listen to music without knowing what music is, how it is plaid, how it is written, etc.. but you can't read a book without "knowing how to read"...

I guess I kinda made my point, people who doesn't have a musical training, or at least the will to understand music beyond the "sound of distortion", as someone else said, use to stay just in mainstream music, which for me ain't bad at all...