The best ones have a immediate impact

rdtprog wrote: Dean wrote: ^ that.   Exhibit A: This is a good example of a cd that i have mixed feelings about it, precisely, because the melody has been lost in the way the band have linked all the passages of the songs together, like was missing a coherence in all the great ideas put in it.

I think that is a good reason why it is a "grower" - because it isn't instantly likable with a contiguous flow of melodies; it takes time to appreciate the skill that Wakeman in particular used on that album in connecting those disparate melodies. Conversly I don't like Close To The Edge as much because of how the three different "songs" on the title track are linked together - the cohession is there but only on a superfical level for me - I still hear them as three seperate songs followed by a medley of them as a coda that arrives like an afterthought and that isn't particularily satisfying (for me). Relayer achieves this far more coherently, but that album had an immediate impact on me so does not qualify as "Exhibit A" in this case.

I can only say that the music which has stayed with me the longest, is music which took quite a few listens for me to appreciate. I'm sure that this is why very few of them are hit singles.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: QuestionableScum wrote: I enjoy Stravinsky and Bartok myself, but my point was to say that because their music is still enjoyed by others nearly 100 years after it was produced this shows that their music is not forgettable. And why would it be? In accordance to rdtprog's "theory", much of their music has made an immediate impact on me.

It took me several listens to truly enjoy Bartok and Stravinsky, and I know it has taken several listens for other people. So while it may have had an immediate impact on you, I think for many it was not something that immediately connected with them.

Therefore, it seems that just because something does not have an immediate impact it does not mean that it is forgettable. Also, the OP's theory made some comments about the melodic character of music, and as much as I love Stravinsky and Bartok, their music is not particularly melodic. Dissonance usually dominates over consonance in terms of harmony.

rdtprog wrote: QuestionableScum wrote: I completely disagree. There are many songs and albums that are now among my favourites that took me several times to get because they are not driven my a catchy melodic hook. In fact an excessive focus on immediacy in melody can lead to bland music that is very predictable. Much mainstream pop is catchy and pleasant in an immediate melodic sense, but with such music I can often predict where the melody and chord progressions are going. Also, if your theory regarding melody were true then Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg and many other musical geniuses could not be said to have created great pieces. But their music is still highly regarded nearly 100 years after their death. It takes time to develop the listening skills to appreciate music that is not driven by an immediate melodic hook, as most contemporary music conditions us to listen to all music as if it were driven by melodic hooks. Are you listening to Stravinsky, Bartok often of is it just the opinions of others? Maybe you can see that there is a line between pop and classic, and its progressive rock. Not totally catchy and not completely submerge in too much complexity.

I enjoy Stravinsky and Bartok myself, but my point was to say that because their music is still enjoyed by others nearly 100 years after it was produced this shows that their music is not forgettable.

While I can see why someone would say progressive rock lies somewhere between classical and pop, I think this way of viewing things is misleading and not particularly helpful because progressive rock, pop, and classical are terms that refer to so many disparate forms of music.

thellama73 wrote: It's incredibly tedious to write "IMHO" after every declarative sentence one makes on a forum where all the topics are inherently subjective. Can we just agree that anything anyone says implicitly carries the "IMHO" tag so we can avoid this sort of foolishness in the future? Also, if you disagree with me, I do think you're wrong, because naturally I think I am right, or else I would think differently  (IMHO)

I think that the best music is usually the one with the most immediate impact. You don't, so we disagree. Does that meant that I think you're wrong? No, because my statement applies only to my tastes and yours only applies to your tastes. Our statements aren't opposites of each other, so it's possible for both to be true (and both are indeed true, unless one of us is lying to himself) at the same time, even though we disagree. It's when you make statements that apply to everybody's tastes that it gets problematic. When you say "accessible pop music of course isn't good", the term "of course" implies that the statement is self-evident. It makes no sense to talk of self-evidence when you're only talking about your opinion (everything is self-evident to oneself, as you pointed out). You don't have to add "IMHO" when you're talking about your own opinions. You just shouldn't make assumptions about other people's opinions, because such assumptions are usually false.

It's incredibly tedious to write "IMHO" after every declarative sentence one makes on a forum where all the topics are inherently subjective. Can we just agree that anything anyone says implicitly carries the "IMHO" tag so we can avoid this sort of foolishness in the future?

Also, if you disagree with me, I do think you're wrong, because naturally I think I am right, or else I would think differently  (IMHO)


Edited by thellama73 - November 26 2012 at 17:24

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: If we're going to start down that old "musical taste is subjective" road again, we might as well close the thread right now (and all threads on PA, for that matter) for all the good we will get out of it. No, but we should refrain from absolute statements such as "highly accessible pop/dance music is obviously not really good". Because that's not obvious in the slightest.

Tell that to the guy who started the thread with the word "best."

QuestionableScum wrote: I completely disagree. There are many songs and albums that are now among my favourites that took me several times to get because they are not driven my a catchy melodic hook. In fact an excessive focus on immediacy in melody can lead to bland music that is very predictable. Much mainstream pop is catchy and pleasant in an immediate melodic sense, but with such music I can often predict where the melody and chord progressions are going. Also, if your theory regarding melody were true then Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg and many other musical geniuses could not be said to have created great pieces. But their music is still highly regarded nearly 100 years after their death. It takes time to develop the listening skills to appreciate music that is not driven by an immediate melodic hook, as most contemporary music conditions us to listen to all music as if it were driven by melodic hooks.

Are you listening to Stravinsky, Bartok often of is it just the opinions of others? Maybe you can see that there is a line between pop and classic, and its progressive rock. Not totally catchy and not completely submerge in too much complexity.

thellama73 wrote: If your theory were true, then we would be forced to conclude that highly accessible pop/dance music is really good, which of course it isn't.

First of all, who says it isn't? There is some highly accessible pop (not sure about dance) music that I value just as much as, say, "Close to the Edge" and "Dancing with the Moonlit Knight". Pop is not inherently worse than prog, although I do find its hit-to-miss ratio to be lower. But even that is up to personal opinion. Secondly, you're misrepresenting his statement. He said that the best music is usually the one that has an immediate impact on you, not that all music that is accessible is good. There is plenty of accessible music out there that doesn't have any impact on me at all. But in general I find it true that when I listen to an album, the songs that appeal to me the quickest are also the ones I will continue to like the best. I've loved my favorite album, "Close to the Edge", since the first listen and the same holds true for most of my favorite music. Time may alter my opinion a bit in either direction, but it rarely happens that I suddenly start liking a song that I disliked before and vice versa. Sometimes I'm ambivalent, and in that case it may take a few more listens for me to decide if the positive sides or the negative sides win over (this happened with Jethro Tull's "Orion" and Camel's "Freefall" for example). Some songs are so complex that it's hard to get a complete overview on first listen. But even then, if the song is really good, some parts of it will stand out to me right away.

All of my favorite music has a strong 'hook' somewhere in it, but I see 'hooks' where most people don't. Like Captain Beefheart music for example. So maybe I'm a lover of catchy pop music at heart, just with a broad definition of what constitutes 'catchy'.


Edited by HarbouringTheSoul - November 26 2012 at 17:12

^Nonsense.