Does intelligence matter?

I wouldn't deny that it shows some kind of musical intelligence, or to phrase it differently, a certain level of understanding of music, but "a kind of" is the key word here.  Music itself is very broad, with different emotive, lyrical and analytical aspects resonating to varying degrees.  Progheads tend to be strong on the analytical side but not necessarily so on the emotive and lyrical side.  So it is not necessary that a person who doesn't like prog is too dumb to grasp its complexity; maybe he simply cannot see why somebody would want to endure so much un-emotional noodling to derive some appreciation from it (as I don't when I listen to more by-the-numbers, generic prog that doesn't have much to say to me).  And that is just a different, and equally valid, perspective of music, not a reflection of intelligence.  By the way, Saperlipopette did cite some study that apparently revealed Beethoven fans to be more intelligent than modern pop listeners, so, I have to correct you, he has attempted to correlate intelligence, and not just musical intelligence, with music tastes. 

s1carlson0589 wrote:   I like believing my taste in music is better than others. Everyone does, that's why they find their music appealing.

Once again, I would request you to please avoid generalizing.  Maybe everybody that you know shares your perspective there.  I want to learn more about my tastes and prefer music that is better for MY tastes, obviously.  And my tastes are a function of my previous exposure to music and my socio-cultural background.  It would be very difficult for me to judge my tastes to be better than others on that basis unless they share the same cultural background and have listened to broadly the same kind of music.   For example, my cultural background makes it very difficult for me to come to terms with opera and merely even listen to that overwrought mode of singing for more than a few minutes.  Should I therefore judge my tastes to be far superior than the millions who must have listened and enjoyed opera over the years or respect cultural differences and let it be?  Where exactly does intelligence figure here?  Many 'intelligent' classical music fans claim that jazz leaves them cold.  But jazz also has a lot of capability for complexity and technical brilliance.   Music is not just all these analytical components, after all; the chosen tones, the selection of instruments and their programming all affect us profoundly.   

Besides, how does it matter to me in the least?  I am not thinking about other listeners in the world when I am drawn into the 'inner world' of an artist that I love listening to.  All I care about is my selfish enjoyment and pleasure.   I look for people with similar tastes not because I want to talk to others with a similar level of intelligence but simply because I am more likely to find some more music that I might enjoy that way.  On the other hand, by not disdaining genres that I don't like as representing lower levels of musical intelligence, I keep my options open and explore more music instead of listening to more of the same.  

s1carlson0589 wrote:   If you didn't think it was better in some way, you wouldn't prefer it.

Better for me, yes.  It need not necessarily be just as good for somebody else.  If music was taught and graded in schools across the world, then we could perhaps judge who is a better music listener in the way we would who is a better engineer or lawyer.  Being that that is not the case, it is a bit like saying the flight from London to New York is much better than the flight from Chicago to Mexico (I have no clue about that, by the way).  Maybe it is, but it is a pointless comparison because if somebody needs to go from Chicago to Mexico, he is not going to wish he was travelling on the London-New York flight instead.  

s1carlson0589 wrote:   It's like living in a world where everyone sees a kids coloring book with crayons and thinks it's an incredible painting, being none the wiser.

Isn't there a difference between an unqualified "incredible" and the more definitive "most incredible painting in the world"?  As long as nobody is comparing it to Mona Lisa, a slightly hyperbolic appreciation of a kid's attempts to draw does nobody any harm.  Of course, if the child thinks what he drew is better than Da Vinci, he needs to be educated.  But where do pop and prog figure here (see above my comparison between Camel/Renaissance and Beatles/Wonder); they serve entirely different needs and cannot be evaluated like that.  

s1carlson0589 wrote:   Furthermore, I enjoy believing that my intelligence is what draws me to progressive rock. It's like a paradigm.

If you wish to believe that, it's not for me in any case to restrain you from doing so.  I believe it simply reflects an obsession with the analytical side of music.  I KNOW that that's drew me to prog, eventually...now it depends on what drew each such listener to prog and what does he like most about it.  

s1carlson0589 wrote:    Maybe I am rambling, but I think this is where ego comes back into play. Swimming against the stream and traveling the path of strong resistance is a step one must go through to understand much of progressive rock. (for the most part)

I would readily agree with that argument - since I am independent in my worldview and don't feel burdened to conform to the norm - had it not been for the fact that prog was in fact popular in the 70s.  We need to 'go against the grain' to discover prog simply because it has become relatively obscure and therefore harder to find - and people who listen to experimental music probably also put themselves through this journey - and not necessarily because of something intrinsic to the music.   

s1carlson0589 wrote:   It makes one think there is something better about taking the more difficult and less traveled path, building more confidence and a larger ego when it comes to these topics.

Then perhaps that also reflects a lack of belief and confidence in the chosen path if it must be reinforced by artificially establishing a measure of superiority to people you haven't met.  Artists, prog or otherwise, who go against the grain do so because  they believe in pursuing their artistic expression through various works and not so much to feel superior.   I therefore have far more respect for a Robert Fripp than one of those myspace black metal bands who seem to exist solely for the reason of feeling superior to others on account of their obscurity and 'commitment to uber grim necro kvlt values' and don't have much else to say, don't have their own voice.  To further add...

s1carlson0589 wrote: That's why I think a certain degree of pretentiousness is necessary in progressive rock. Just like most scientists start cringing when they hear someone spouting theology.

If the goal is clear, singleminded pursuit thereof should be sufficient motivation.     It is only when the vision is muddled that another ideological wall has to be erected to match the one you dislike.  

And I remain opposed to that idea because intelligence is too broad based a term to be applied so liberally.  It is too all encompassing.

Saperlipopette! wrote: Well known (if flawed) studies has shown that Beethoven fans are generally much more intelligent than fans of modern/commercial R&B/pop/hip-hop (and eveything else included in the study).

Which well known studies and what is their reliability, if any at all?  There are only a small minority of people who could be called Beethoven fans in the present day and an even smaller fraction of that would respond to a study.  What evidence do we have that suggests that the average 'intelligence' level of Beethoven fans back in the day was also high enough to make Stephen Hawking sweat?  Yes and ELP were massive live attractions back in the 70s and their albums sold plenty copies.  In other words, the "R&B/hip hop" of their day.  So what is that then supposed to mean?  That intelligence levels of the human race were at an all time high in the 70s or simply that there is no strong correlation between music and intelligence?

Saperlipopette! wrote: Does that really surprise you or anyone else?

See above, I cannot even accept these 'findings' without examining their veracity so the question of being surprised or not surprised doesn't arise.  

Saperlipopette! wrote: Of course you can be the smartest person on earth and only listen to stupid hits excusively (or not listen to music at all), but it doesn't work the other way around.

Why not?  The fact that some people posting on this thread actually believe there is a correlation between somebody's music tastes and his intelligence level...what does it say about their own intelligence levels?  How long before extreme preconceived notions about a person emerge from something as insignificant as music preferences?  

Saperlipopette! wrote: And no, you're not supposed to look down on or sneer at anyone because they listen to pop (don't we all?)

Again, who's the we here?  My boss only listens to whatever is the equivalent of old pop here and devotional songs and he is a very intelligent and well informed person.  

Saperlipopette! wrote:  or that complex stuff is difficult to grasp for idiots.

Again, more assumptions.   How do you really know that?  Have you ever considered that it has far more to do with the things we direct the attention of our brain towards?  People choose from a myriad set of obsessions - it could be sports cars, alcohol, music, cinema, a sport or game, even equity stock.  As you spend more and more time obsessing with a specific field of interest, you will tend to learn more and more about it and eventually be in a position to articulate your thoughts on the subject clearly.   THAT is the 'difference' between the 'average pop listener' and 'average prog listener' that people talk about through several threads on this forum and some of whom find therein an opportunity to pat themselves on the back.   A typical pop listener may simply be somebody who has a few songs in his IPod and really doesn't listen to much music at all while a typical prog listener is likely to have an obsession with music.   It is very unlikely, though not entirely impossible, that a prog listener would have a very casual relationship with music and not express much interest in it.  That does not necessarily correlate to the intelligence levels of the people themselves.  It may say something about the intelligence with which they can express their views on music and that is what some people, including apparently yourself, have latched on to in forming a theory that prog fans are more intelligent than blah blah blah.  

Saperlipopette! wrote: You're not supposed to do or become anything other than what you are, if that's what you're afraid of. We're just discussing because somebody created this topic.

Er, thanks but I have no fear of being so influenced by this discussion as to become what I am not.  I had posed rhetorical questions, which I was sure you'd have grasped.  

Aside from all this, I chose those specific examples from prog rock with good reason, because they are more derivative and less musically adventurous.  Shifting the comparison to UZ would take away from the point because my very question was in what way is Camel more cerebral than Stevie Wonder?  I fail to see.  His chord progressions are far more interesting, generally speaking and the sheer breadth and diversity of Beatles's work speaks for itself.