Does the average person know what prog is?

^ Yeah, sorry, I misread what you've written before. What is with me this week?

hell no

I think the answer is pretty obviously a 'no'. Saying 'Prog' or 'Progressive Rock' as a response to "what music do you like?" has only gotten a response a couple of times... usually with techie types or old people. 

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Same rules apply as to pornography...

Some people say to me "ah, like progressive trance?" or other sh*tty disco stuff, and then I feel like i would kill myself :D

Originally posted by Prog_Traveller I suppose this question could be separated into two(or even three) separate categories. A. Does the average person know what prog is? B. Does the average music fan(not average prog fan-duh)know what prog is? C. Actually a third one can be added. Does the average classic rock fan know what prog is? Also, does the average music store worker know what prog is. I say most do. How much is age a factor? How about where they live, ethnicity, gender etc. I guess it's the sociologist in me(I have a BA in sociology)that is curious about these things. :) If there are any other similar threads to this one please point them in my direction.

Edited by areazione - June 01 2012 at 11:47

Originally posted by Dean ... I'm not sure what to make of this Pedro, it seems that you are exemplifying what you are describing by making generalised assumptions. Based upon my experience "young kids" are into music in exactly the same way we were when we were their age - the genre of the music is actually immaterial, the depth of knowledge, understanding, interest and (passive) participation does not change with the style of music - it is the nature of the mind between the iPod ear-buds to be obsessive. ...

Originally posted by rogerthat [QUOTE=Stevo]Its a good point.  And there is also the view taken by the sociologist Herbert Gans...that the high brow depends on the existence of the low brow, and the low brow requires the existence of the high.  I suppose prog is somewhere in the middle....so maybe it can stand alone(?)

Come on, high brow-low brow is all 19th century stuff.  Mosh says as much when he describes the big change of the 20th century so why he would still bring that up is beyond me.  What I was referring to as has nothing to do with high brow-low brow but an obsessive compulsion to slot all music into square pegs and round holes and pretend everything that doesn't fit is nonsense.   What 'we' listen to doesn't fit into those convenient slots for some other people, who also happen to be in the majority, and therefore they tell us that what we are listening to is rubbish.  In turn, some of us react with threads about 'average person'.  Just saying that elitism in music circa 2012 is just a reaction to certain attitudes and not much to do with a feeling of superiority.  
[/QUOTE

[/QUOTE]

Lack of availability of so called elitist music is what I call soft coercion.  It is the exact opposite of the situation of the 19th century when so called highbrow art was patronized by the ruling or wealthy class.  Today, you only have some fans or some musicians, like Metheny, deriding pop but there is no real pecking order.  There is only that which sells and is easily available and that which does not sell and is harder to acquire.   Music schools might adopt a condescending attitude towards pop or lowbrow music but again, these are only some groups of people or institutions that live in the past.  There is not much social endorsement of music elitism and there are certainly no class barriers in access to highbrow music anymore, if such a thing can still be said to exist.   Merely the artists or their fans believing themselves to be highbrow does not make it highbrow.  The fact of the matter is nobody gives a damn anymore if you are highbrow or lowbrow and those who believe their being highbrow makes them superior are not going to get a whole lot of respect.
[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Stevo [/QUO

Lack of availability of so called elitist music is what I call soft coercion.  It is the exact opposite of the situation of the 19th century when so called highbrow art was patronized by the ruling or wealthy class.  Today, you only have some fans or some musicians, like Metheny, deriding pop but there is no real pecking order.  There is only that which sells and is easily available and that which does not sell and is harder to acquire.   Music schools might adopt a condescending attitude towards pop or lowbrow music but again, these are only some groups of people or institutions that live in the past.  There is not much social endorsement of music elitism and there are certainly no class barriers in access to highbrow music anymore, if such a thing can still be said to exist.   Merely the artists or their fans believing themselves to be highbrow does not make it highbrow.  The fact of the matter is nobody gives a damn anymore if you are highbrow or lowbrow and those who believe their being highbrow makes them superior are not going to get a whole lot of respect.
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

  It has basically become untenable to generalize or stereotype music in certain boxes based only on how it is originated, by "educated" or "uneducated" musicians or for large or 'discerning' audiences, it doesn't really matter much now.  Popular music wins in the marketplace but it often has a shorter shelf life.  Some popstars have found it hard to handle fame and the attendant pressures and eventually paid the ultimate price, while 'art' musicians keep playing into the twilight of their lives.