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.