The best ones have a immediate impact

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul Originally posted by QuestionableScum 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.

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.

Originally posted by rdtprog Originally posted by Dean ^ 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 neither write off music that doesn't have an immediate impact nor do I conclude that music that does is just shallow and fluff.   Both positions are extreme and not very helpful to a person who wants to enjoy more music. 

Originally posted by progbethyname This thread is so incredibly subjective. I can't say if a piece of music hits me hard the first listen, that it is all together definitively better!? No way man! Same goes vise versa. That includes any genre as well. If we wantbyo get into crazy semantics like categorizing songs that are better based on their genre cause it grows on ya quicker does that mean its better? No no no I think not, but is their a musical skill level difference? I would think so. Let's bring out a fun scenario shall we. TEARS FOR FEARS. Ok they are pop/electronic rock group and we will compare to YES. Let's take a song from each band. For TFF-- Shout, For YES--Siberia which is the song that is most likely gonna grow on ya first to call it 'best' in this regard??? I DON'T KNOW CAUSE IM NOT YOU!!! This thread is way too subjective, but quite humorous   Lol

It's a music forum. Every thread is subjective. If you want objective threads, go to a science forum or something. I feel like I'm going to scream having to listen to you idiots.

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq Originally posted by Dean ... it takes time to appreciate the skill that Wakeman in particular used on that album in connecting those disparate melodies. Wakeman? Wasn't the album a work of Anderson and Howe? "Rick, please, I want you to nail those keyboard parts."

Anderson and Howe produced the themes, melodies, concept and ideas. Excluded from that creative process Wakeman was left to connect the dots and provide the glue that holds it all together, which I suspect is why long sweeping swathes of synth are prevalent throughout creating atmosphere and more importantly, an ebb and flow of music - there are a couple of very good solos from him on the album, but that wasn't his role (and that's ultimately why he left). It's not his best work as a solo performer within a band, but it is some of his best work as a band member. Here (IMO) Rick Wakeman is forced to do what Rick Wright did so effortlessly - blend in.

Originally posted by thellama73 Originally posted by progbethyname This thread is so incredibly subjective. I can't say if a piece of music hits me hard the first listen, that it is all together definitively better!? No way man! Same goes vise versa. That includes any genre as well. If we wantbyo get into crazy semantics like categorizing songs that are better based on their genre cause it grows on ya quicker does that mean its better? No no no I think not, but is their a musical skill level difference? I would think so. Let's bring out a fun scenario shall we. TEARS FOR FEARS. Ok they are pop/electronic rock group and we will compare to YES. Let's take a song from each band. For TFF-- Shout, For YES--Siberia which is the song that is most likely gonna grow on ya first to call it 'best' in this regard??? I DON'T KNOW CAUSE IM NOT YOU!!! This thread is way too subjective, but quite humorous   Lol It's a music forum. Every thread is subjective. If you want objective threads, go to a science forum or something. I feel like I'm going to scream having to listen to you idiots.

Think your right. I should lighten up a bit.

Originally posted by thellama73 I don't agree with you. I think the best songs are often the ones that require a little time to fully digest and appreciate. 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.

I have read all replies and while some are deploring the subjective matter of the thread, i think that some tend to see the things in my perspective and others not, which is the norm in every philosophical thread. Its true that the term "best" in a title could be misleading, but a title is suppose to create a "immediate impact"..., so pardon me this intrusion. I was only making a observation of how my relation to the music can take different directions, and only that if i force myself to discover new kind of progressive music that is more complex, challenging or adventurous, i also in the same time, need to go back to beautiful melodies that doesn't have the repetition of pop music.

While some of view can discover some new things in a song by repeated listening, that is not to me the impact i was referring too. I am sure that a lot of you know on a first listening if a song have a impact on you and will still have in the future, and again i don't mean that it's a pop tune with catchy beat and melody, but it could be a song that contains many movements and a strong melody and it could be a classical song with no vocals. What could be subjective is that the classical pieces that have a impact doesn't reach me at the same level as a progressive rock song. I don't want to say that a form a music is better than another one, but only that the best composers on any music genre are the ones who have the art of touching  the audience with something in theirs songs that make that we want to hear their songs many times. It's like what we call here "The classic albums".

Originally posted by rdtprog I have read all replies and while some are deploring the subjective matter of the thread, i think that some tend to see the things in my perspective and others not, which is the norm in every philosophical thread. Its true that the term "best" in a title could be misleading, but a title is suppose to create a "immediate impact"..., so pardon me this intrusion. I was only making a observation of how my relation to the music can take different directions, and only that if i force myself to discover new kind of progressive music that is more complex, challenging or adventurous, i also in the same time, need to go back to beautiful melodies that doesn't have the repetition of pop music. While some of view can discover some new things in a song by repeated listening, that is not to me the impact i was referring too. I am sure that a lot of you know on a first listening if a song have a impact on you and will still have in the future, and again i don't mean that it's a pop tune with catchy beat and melody, but it could be a song that contains many movements and a strong melody and it could be a classical song with no vocals. What could be subjective is that the classical pieces that have a impact doesn't reach me at the same level as a progressive rock song. I don't want to say that a form a music is better than another one, but only that the best composers on any music genre are the ones who have the art of touching  the audience with something in theirs songs that make that we want to hear their songs many times. It's like what we call here "The classic albums".