Progressive rock: a man's genre?

Easy Livin wrote: As an all inclusive site, it probaby best to avoid racial or genre stereotyping. Let's just enjoy the music.

As much as I hate this thread, I do think it's interesting that the famous musicians of many genres tend to be fairly homogeneous. But it's hard to discuss that without people getting angry.

The Dark Elf wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Easy Livin wrote: As an all inclusive site, it probaby best to avoid racial or genre stereotyping. Let's just enjoy the music. As much as I hate this thread, I do think it's interesting that the famous musicians of many genres tend to be fairly homogeneous. But it's hard to discuss that without people getting angry.   Yes, we wouldn't want the truth interfering with political correctness.

I think female singer songwriters/ troubadours are more interesting today then the male counterparts, espessially in Norway and Sweden, like Lykke Li and Susanne Sundfør more spontanous and free thinkers,  braver I would say.

Pietro Otello Romano wrote: I was just thinking that a topic about the reason why, mostly prog doesn't appeal to anyone but white male, is quite a sterile discussion, without the opinion of anyone else that is not a "white male", and I was calling any of them available to join this topic because their opinion only could add some interesting information in the matter.

Edited by rogerthat - May 22 2011 at 10:18

Pietro Otello Romano wrote:   ...and I don't know why, they work quite hard to may look prog as a silly and useless genre too. Unfortunately not even in Europe or USA. Here for example M. Jackson is the king of pop, and weird enough, Genesis are the ones for sillies! However, I am mostly agree with your post, but what we can do about that?

Lozlan wrote: Ah. This topic, yet again. I recently had the humbling experience of playing Floyd's Animals for my fiancee (who is a classically trained pianist, a feminist literary scholar, and a rabid fan of contemporary indie-girl rock and classic disco). She was very quick to remark on the exclusionary nature of the music - it was not created to appeal to her, it did not address issues of womanhood, it deals with dystopic concepts that have been repeatedly branded as purely masculine. As men, we have the distinct privilege of being constantly pandered to by art. The differences between men and women's appreciation of art (be it prog, dadaist poetry, or Victorian literature) do not lie in fundamental differences between the genders; instead, the difference is derived from the overarching oppression of patriarchy. Think about it this way: There is a traceable correlation between ice cream sales and murder rates. We could, after a moment's digestion of the data, assume that murdering people causes people to buy more ice cream, or vice versa. However, the actuality is that people eat more ice cream and murder more people when it is oppressively hot outside. Similarly, women finding prog unenjoyable does not point to a fundamental difference in their appreciation of art and sentiment. It is so easy to make lazy mental correlations! Remember that art does not exist in a vacuum: it is always the product of the artist's dominant episteme. That means that men make art that is inaccessible to women because it is a very direct expression of the oppressing gender's positionality in society. I very much doubt that a slave would ever revel ion the music created by an oppressive master. In short, prog is a little boy's treehouse with a cardboard sign nailed to it saying, quite clearly, 'NO GIRLS ALLOWED.' I do love the genre, obviously, but arguments like the one opening this thread can occasionally make me embarrassed to be a prog fan. Also, all this nonsense about women not writing great books is ridiculous. Ursula K. LeGuin, Margaret Atwood, Joanna Russ, Octavia Butler, Virginia Woolf...the list of truly groundbreaking women novelists is as vast as the sea. In fact, it was women who pioneered the novel as a viable form of art. Writers like Orwell and Huxley pale (in my humble opinion) in comparison to the Bronte sisters, George Eliot, or Mary Shelley.

Just when I thought we had extracted all possible silliness from this topic....

Why does art have to specifically discuss issues of womanhood to avoid oppressing women? Is Free Jazz by Ornette Coleman an oppressive tool of the patriarchy as well? There are no words about anything, and as far as I know there were no women involved in the original production of the album. Even the cover art is by a man!

I think that many of the words written about this subject on this forum are embarrassingly sexist, and I'll even concede from my fuzzy memory that 1984 is probably a bit sexist. But I think it is you who is being sexist by saying that women apparently can't enjoy dystopias because they're often not about women. Animal Farm isn't even about human beings, I cannot imagine how one could make it "feminine." 

I assure you I am aware of correlation vs causation, but I really have no idea what it has to do with the rest of your paragraph. I'll give you some of its neckbearded fans are certainly repulsive, but how does progressive music itself actively discourage women from listening to it?

I don't think anyone said anything about women writing books? Although Frankenstein sucked kthx. 

Henry Plainview wrote: Lozlan wrote: Ah. This topic, yet again. I recently had the humbling experience of playing Floyd's Animals for my fiancee (who is a classically trained pianist, a feminist literary scholar, and a rabid fan of contemporary indie-girl rock and classic disco). She was very quick to remark on the exclusionary nature of the music - it was not created to appeal to her, it did not address issues of womanhood, it deals with dystopic concepts that have been repeatedly branded as purely masculine. As men, we have the distinct privilege of being constantly pandered to by art. The differences between men and women's appreciation of art (be it prog, dadaist poetry, or Victorian literature) do not lie in fundamental differences between the genders; instead, the difference is derived from the overarching oppression of patriarchy. Think about it this way: There is a traceable correlation between ice cream sales and murder rates. We could, after a moment's digestion of the data, assume that murdering people causes people to buy more ice cream, or vice versa. However, the actuality is that people eat more ice cream and murder more people when it is oppressively hot outside. Similarly, women finding prog unenjoyable does not point to a fundamental difference in their appreciation of art and sentiment. It is so easy to make lazy mental correlations! Remember that art does not exist in a vacuum: it is always the product of the artist's dominant episteme. That means that men make art that is inaccessible to women because it is a very direct expression of the oppressing gender's positionality in society. I very much doubt that a slave would ever revel ion the music created by an oppressive master. In short, prog is a little boy's treehouse with a cardboard sign nailed to it saying, quite clearly, 'NO GIRLS ALLOWED.' I do love the genre, obviously, but arguments like the one opening this thread can occasionally make me embarrassed to be a prog fan. Also, all this nonsense about women not writing great books is ridiculous. Ursula K. LeGuin, Margaret Atwood, Joanna Russ, Octavia Butler, Virginia Woolf...the list of truly groundbreaking women novelists is as vast as the sea. In fact, it was women who pioneered the novel as a viable form of art. Writers like Orwell and Huxley pale (in my humble opinion) in comparison to the Bronte sisters, George Eliot, or Mary Shelley. Just when I thought we had extracted all possible silliness from this topic.... Why does art have to specifically discuss issues of womanhood to avoid oppressing women? Is Free Jazz by Ornette Coleman an oppressive tool of the patriarchy as well? There are no words about anything, and as far as I know there were no women involved in the original production of the album. Even the cover art is by a man! I think that many of the words written about this subject on this forum are embarrassingly sexist, and I'll even concede from my fuzzy memory that 1984 is probably a bit sexist. But I think it is you who is being sexist by saying that women apparently can't enjoy dystopias because they're often not about women. Animal Farm isn't even about human beings, I cannot imagine how one could make it "feminine."  I assure you I am aware of correlation vs causation, but I really have no idea what it has to do with the rest of your paragraph. I'll give you some of its neckbearded fans are certainly repulsive, but how does progressive music itself actively discourage women from listening to it? I don't think anyone said anything about women writing books? Although Frankenstein sucked kthx.

First and foremost, nice opening. Always a pleasure to be needlessly and rudely dismissed in the midst of what has the vague potential to be an intellectual debate. Woot.

I'll admit that, in summoning up the spectre of false correlation, I was a little vague. Let me specify: Men look at women. Women do not listen to prog. Men come to the conclusion that women are 'too emotional' to appreciate prog, that they 'dislike atonality,' or any number of ridiculous conclusions based in gender essentialism. This is a false set of assumptions made by not contextualizing the data. We exist in a fundamentally patriarchal society that conditions women from birth. Personally, beyond the observable difference in genitalia, I'm completely unconvinced that there are any differences between men and women that can't be explained away by this social conditioning.

In short, buying ice cream obviously compels people to commit murder, and women disliking progressive rock obviously means they have a basic genetic difference from men that prevents them from liking 'complicated' music.

EDIT: Admittedly, one is comparing two solid statistical facts, and one is deriving inference from an if-this, then-this supposition. Unfortunately the reasoning behind women's observed dislike of prog can't really be proven or disproven, only argued; even so, It would be really interesting if we could gather some info on how women actually feel about prog, or even some hard data concerning the gender-trend of prog purchasers. If only I'd gone ahead and gotten that psych degree!

Yes, there was discussion concerning books in this thread. Someone was bemoaning the lack of a woman-penned Brave New World, and I was pointing out that women have written lots and lots and lots of tasty perfect literature. Want a woman's dystopia? Read Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, or potentially LeGuin's The Dispossessed. They're every bit as riveting and complicated as the finest Orwellian nightmare.

Oh, and if Frankenstein sucked (a concept I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around), you should try reading any of the other multitude of novels Mary Shelley wrote. Unfortunately she's fallen victim to the One Woman, One Novel syndrome that plagues female writers, but The Last Man and Mathilda are masterpieces.

As for women reading or listening to men's music/lit...progressive rock is both an intensely innovative and intensely self-indulgent musical genre. This self-indulgence is the result of privilege working behind the scenes to determine artistic output. On the surface we can claim (correctly, too) that prog is striving to elevate popular music to the level of the symphonic and jazz masters; but I ask you, how many of those composers were women? For centuries it was impossible for female composers to achieve any shade of recognition, with the result that classical music is explicitly a man's world. This actually serves as another fantastic example of false correlation: there are no famous female composers, so women must not compose classical music. I can't count on both hands and both feet the number of times I've heard classically trained male musicians comment on women's obvious compositional deficiency, based solely on their under-representation amid the company of Bach, Brahms, and Mendelssohn.

 Oppressed peoples always, ALWAYS pick up on expressions of privilege, especially in art; as Audre Lorde stated, it is impossible to deconstruct the master's house with the master's tools. Although I don't universally agree with this supposition, it does go far in signifying that the master's tools are easily identifiable to those straining for freedom or equality.

Okay. Said my piece. I now humbly await further dismissal.


Edited by Lozlan - May 25 2011 at 14:15

All these big words and literary mumbo shmumbo, references to art and books and such.......hogwash!!

Slaughternalia wrote: Alright, I realize that there are certainly female proggers, but compared to other genres, the fan base it overwhelmingly male oriented. Don't deny it. I have met tons of prog rock fans, and not a single one has been female. Without sounding sexist, why do you think this is? Personally, I think it has to do with the female mind often finding more of an emotional connection with more personal, nice sounding music. When I asked my mother why she hates Genesis so much, she said it sounded dissonant and made her feel anxious. Sorry if that sounds sexist, because I'm really not at all. What are your thoughts?

Definitely a man's world, look at us here.

But sorry, this "I think it has to do with the female mind often finding more of an emotional connection with more personal, nice sounding music" makes me feel uneasy.

The 'nice' part is why my wife dislikes Prog, because it is too docile, way too mellow, flowery and 'nice' sounding, not to say cheesy (paraphrasing some of her thoughts here)
Not sure what you mean with 'personal' music. All music that hits me, hits me 'personally'. I guess that's the same with everyone, man and woman alike.

Prog is mind music, technical, a bit cold, contrived, it's not sexy, at least not compared to singer songwriters, disco, indie and other genres which have a fanbase that balances more towards female fans.






Edited by Bonnek - May 25 2011 at 16:52

CPicard wrote: ^What? If women had a so low attention span, they would listen to hardcore-punk! Rubbish nonsense! You should get out to the opera or some jazz concerts to see if your great theory is so right. Yes, it sounds agressive and abrasive, but, for Hell's sake, I even went to several free jazz / improvised music where there were women on stage and in the public! Not to mention a she-friend of mine who is really, really fond of opera (and metal, and traditional folk music)