Print Page | Close Window

Is Prog Underrated?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Recommendations/Featured albums
Forum Description: Make or seek recommendations and discuss specific prog albums
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=114298
Printed Date: June 18 2018 at 22:41
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Is Prog Underrated?
Posted By: SteveG
Subject: Is Prog Underrated?
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 13:46
Is prog just the b*****d stepchild of rock or does it have a real musical pedigree in the outside world?

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.



Replies:
Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 13:48
Both??

-------------
“War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.”

― George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four



"Ignorance and Prejudice and Fear walk Hand in Hand"- Neil Peart





Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 13:50
Both? Ok, please elaborate.

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 14:14
Well, Prog has most definitely had moments where it definitely is rock music. However, there have also been moments where it came from left field and has had moments outside of rock music

-------------
“War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.”

― George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four



"Ignorance and Prejudice and Fear walk Hand in Hand"- Neil Peart





Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 14:24
^ Agree 100%. But does prog being outside of rock make it more of an art form than being part of rock? Its just your opinion, but I'm curious to see how prog is perceived by both prog and non prog fans. And I assume you're part of the former. 

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 14:41
The question isn't "What is Prog?"

But the answer is: "Not quite everything!" (:


-------------
http://www.ebay.com/sch/musicosm/m.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1" rel="nofollow - http://www.ebay.com/sch/musicosm/m.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 14:42
Like most art/genres that in one way or another falls between two stools or more it tends to have a harder time than the "purer" art forms. Its not rock, not jazz, not classical, not academic, not from the streets... so yeah I think its pretty safe to say that its underrated by many who refuse to give it an actual chance. But then again its kind of overrated by the "prog-believers" so I don't know. More than anything its misunderstood. 

-------------


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 14:59
Well...yeah. 

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 15:47
I saw on a website earlier today where progressive rock came in third(behind heavy metal and hard rock respectively). It even beat punk and alternative. That's pretty good. So yeah, I would say the days of prog being this obscure genre that hardly anyone has heard of are clearly over. 


Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 15:48
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^ Agree 100%. But does prog being outside of rock make it more of an art form than being part of rock? Its just your opinion, but I'm curious to see how prog is perceived by both prog and non prog fans. And I assume you're part of the former. 

I don't think prog is perceived as being outside of rock any more than any other rock subgenre(including jam bands and post rock). 


Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 18:08
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^ Agree 100%. But does prog being outside of rock make it more of an art form than being part of rock? Its just your opinion, but I'm curious to see how prog is perceived by both prog and non prog fans. And I assume you're part of the former. 


I read it wrong. Lol. Yeah, I am part of the former

-------------
“War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.”

― George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four



"Ignorance and Prejudice and Fear walk Hand in Hand"- Neil Peart





Posted By: Larkstongue41
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 18:18
If we consider how it is mocked by most critics and a lot of the general public despite having contributed to some of the biggest (mainly technological) advancements in the history of rock music, then yes it is.

-------------
"Larks' tongues. Wrens' livers. Chaffinch brains. Jaguars' earlobes. Wolf nipple chips. Get 'em while they're hot. They're lovely. Dromedary pretzels, only half a denar."


Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 20:59
The most important thing here is that Steve gets rid of that scary avatar and bring back the cute doggy peering through lattice.

-------------
There is no act more pretentious and self-indulgent than labeling another's art as pretentious and self-indulgent.
Always copy to clipboard before clicking Post Reply.


Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: March 27 2018 at 22:43
We are the most oppressed people of the world, we have to fight for our rights, we have to fund our own nation where nobody oppress us anymore!


Posted By: Frankh
Date Posted: March 28 2018 at 00:33
Yes.

It is underrated.

-------------
Perhaps finding the happy medium is harder than we know.


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: March 28 2018 at 02:11
Depends which side of the fence you're on!

-------------

Pythagoras with the looking glass reflects the full moon...
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand-new tune...


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 28 2018 at 04:20
Originally posted by Tapfret Tapfret wrote:

The most important thing here is that Steve gets rid of that scary avatar and bring back the cute doggy peering through lattice.
Done.

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: hellogoodbye
Date Posted: March 28 2018 at 04:24
Like the french poet René Char would say : Prog is looking for the livable head.


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 28 2018 at 04:45
Hey, no more vague quotes from poets or I'll bring back creepy Freud! LOL

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: M27Barney
Date Posted: March 28 2018 at 05:06
"Those who can be made to believe in absurdities. Can be made to commit atrocities!" - Descartes....
Er, ooh crap wrong board....
By me - No,
by the proletariat philistine sheeples - YES!


-------------
Play me my song.....Here it comes again.......


Posted By: hellogoodbye
Date Posted: March 28 2018 at 05:17
OK Steve

https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-duck/


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 28 2018 at 05:36
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Is prog just the b*****d stepchild of rock or does it have a real musical pedigree in the outside world?


Prog is often treated by mainstream rock fans with the sort of suspicion befitting the profoundly deaf being offered a guide dog.

All cynicism aside, yes it has had an enduring and discernible influence on practically every musical development since its inception (inside and outside of rock)


-------------


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 28 2018 at 08:13
Hi,

Prog/Progressive for me, is not underrated, or overrated. It is MUSIC, and regardless it will resonate as long as it attracts people to it, be it live or Memorex ... sorry couldn't help it!

If you look at music history, the periods of material that CHANGED the norms, were the ones that ended up being remembered and are a part of the history of the art form.

Some think that rock music, is too much pop song defined and simplified, and as such its history within the realms of "music" will be limited, when so much more can be done with more instruments or compositionally. I will not agree with Ian Anderson, who said that everything has been done in rock music that can be done, and its over, but the changes within it, to electric and then to something else, and now to the DAW, kinda tells you that the music is not solid enough to be carried as a musical element that will change the history of the art form. Jazz, for example stands to benefit more by adding the odd things and time changes to classical music, which are ... still ... not quite being reflected as "classical composers", most of which  have disappeared due to the possible chance of 10 minutes of fame and a million dollars.

I have always thought that many of the well known pieces by various folks that are considered historic and tops in the Progressive/Prog world, should be considered serious composed material, and that makes a band a "composer", which I think is the future definition for the history of music. Up until now the single person got the credit, and now it's 2 or 3 or 4 or more folks together that become known as the composer, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that.

The only thing that makes this "underrated", or even "overrated", is the fact that this is being done amidst a very large group of "fans", and not quite folks that are well knowledgeable about music itself, or its history (myself included ... mine is peripheral, I would say!), in order to be saying/asking some of the things they are. But the things that hurt the understanding and appreciation of the music itself, for me, is the bunch of posts about which is "better", and which "guitar" is more important. Weird when no one that we know ever asked which violin made ... something ... better than the rest of the music! Or which conductor made it more important!

Those kinds of questions, can only ask senseless questions that do not always mean a whole lot, or have any direct relation to the music and the presentation of it at all. Go read about any major artist, and that is their biggest complaint.

All in all, the "rating" (over or under) is really meaningless ... and I really think that we should respect the music for what it is ... one of the most valuable of all human expressions, and how it can help us at so many times in our life, compared to any other art. It might not be our favorite, but it still stands up ... and as such, a rating is meaningless to our own experience.


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the art is all about!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 28 2018 at 08:53
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

I have always thought that many of the well known pieces by various folks that are considered historic and tops in the Progressive/Prog world, should be considered serious composed material, and that makes a band a "composer", which I think is the future definition for the history of music.

All in all, the "rating" (over or under) is really meaningless ... and I really think that we should respect the music for what it is ... one of the most valuable of all human expressions, and how it can help us at so many times in our life, compared to any other art. It might not be our favorite, but it still stands up ... and as such, a rating is meaningless to our own experience.


(I know I'm going to regret this) Why do you continue to assert (or even care) that what are considered the finest creations of Progressive Rock would withstand even the flimsiest scrutiny under which formal academic music is routinely subjugated? Sine qua non: There are pop music songs that move me profoundly e.g  God Only Knows, The Long and Winding Road, Waterloo Sunset, Jumping Jack Flash (the list goes on) I'm sure that when pressed, you would agree to having your own list based on those times that resonate within your own personal experience. Cut to the chase: why does what floats your boat leave the rest of us feel like like landlocked Bolivian frigates (pun intended)


-------------


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 28 2018 at 11:58
Ah, yep. I would have to agree. I consider prog to be a performing art. Its just not a fine art.

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 30 2018 at 20:43
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Ah, yep. I would have to agree. I consider prog to be a performing art. Its just not a fine art.

That's the problem. For me, it IS a FINE ART. 

What makes you think that playing an instrument today, was any different than 400 years ago, and that people did not respond to it?

I tend to consider a lot of the "progressive" material, nearly the same as any classical music. I do not like to separate them as "just rock music", because their effect on me, is no different than the 5th, the 3rd, Thus Spake Strauss, or the Bolero, and a thousand other pieces.

If you ask me, instead, is Punk "overrated", I might say yes, but being a theater/film person, so many of these "scenes" are a public/social reaction, and while they may not be "important" musically, they are from a different perspective, in showing a social issue.

It reminds me of the Bertold Brecht and Kurt Weill thing ... you and most folks don't give a damn about the theater (or even Bowie's Baal!), but the real strength of the whole thing is its message, and it's as if the music was not as important.

Just remember that I am the one trying to "elevate" the quality of the music we love, and you are (for my tastes) bringing it down by suggesting this or that of my choice is not as good as your choice, and I'm not sure that what you are saying is helping define, and make the music we love more important. If anything, by consistently trying to bring me down, you are in effect denying the music its strength, in other areas that are often not mentioned or discussed.

Ex: Everyone thinks that PG was great with all the costumes and what not, and that Genesis died after that. No one talks about masks and costumes having its history going back at least to Greek Theater, and in Eastern theater in both China and Japan. This, would make Genesis, not very original! And is the main reason why I do not find that the music is better because the costumes were used. 

"Prog" and "Progressive" is as important a musical period, as Baroque, Romantic, and any other definition out there. Just weird that you seem to be strictly discussing top of the pops, against my posts.


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the art is all about!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 01:48
Yeah I'm closer to Moshkito's thoughts on this. As a professional artist myself a statement like this simply makes no sense at all: 
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Ah, yep. I would have to agree. I consider prog to be a performing art. Its just not a fine art.
Its a way of thinking about-and categorizing the arts that has been proven wrong countless times throughout the centuries. A lot of older autodidact/folk/outsider art is now counted as fine art. Self taught artists such as Paul Cezanne, William Blake, Max Ernst, Balthus, Frida Kahlo (or composers like Bohuslav Martinů, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Giacinto Scelsi...) often had a harder time careeerwise but eventually such things doesn't matter - as it shouldn't. Within the arts, because so much useless crap is produced and presented even at most important museums and fairs "everyone" puts far too much weight on the "where" rather than "what". But thankfully history doesn't care as much about such technicalities. Some prog will be canonized and a lot of academic arts - now respected and considered important will be dismissed and forgotten. 




-------------


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 01:56
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Ah, yep. I would have to agree. I consider prog to be a performing art. Its just not a fine art.

Just genuinely curious (not trolling/fishing for arguments); where do you draw the line? What constitutes a "fine art"? Hell, I'd argue prog (and classical, of course) is as close to a fine art in terms of contemporary music that we'll ever get here in the west.

I'm more inclined to agree with what Moshkito said above, as well. I didn't "get" what you meant by calling "my avatar a fake"; now I understand your point about Genesis borrowing costumes from Greek theater, and thus not being as original (despite appearing so at that point in history)!. Great stuff!


-------------

Pythagoras with the looking glass reflects the full moon...
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand-new tune...


Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 03:35
I'd think and have heard that many ambitious musicians appreciate some prog and are happy to take some influence from it, pretty much regardless of what they do. Then some of this may not be "prog mainstream" but rather some stuff the "progginess" of which could be a matter of controversy here.
Which is part of the tension between "prog" as a genre and genuine progressiveness. Developing into a genre with predictable characteristics runs counter to the potential to be innovative. Happily much of the music listed here still was done by open minded and inventive musicians, so deserves appreciation outside a specialist prog audience indeed.  


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 04:18
Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Yeah I'm closer to Moshkito's thoughts on this. As a professional artist myself a statement like this simply makes no sense all...
Its a way of thinking about-and categorizing the arts that has been proven wrong countless times throughout the centuries. A lot of older autodidact/folk/outsider art is now counted as fine art. Self taught artists such as Paul Cezanne, William Blake, Max Ernst, Balthus, Frida Kahlo (or composers like Bohuslav Martinů, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Giacinto Scelsi...) often had a harder time careeerwise but eventually such things doesn't matter - as it shouldn't. Within the arts, because so much useless crap is produced and presented even at most important museums and fairs "everyone" puts far too much weight on the "where" rather than "what". But thankfully history doesn't care as much about such technicalities. Some prog will be canonized and a lot of academic arts - now respected and considered important will be dismissed and forgotten. 


Makes no sense? Is that so? Well my friend, as you have just elaborated, at present prog is not viewed as "autodidact/folk/outsider art" and I can't see how it ever will. You are free to view prog as a fine art but I'm afraid that would be in error.

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 04:24
Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

[QUOTE=SteveG]

I'm more inclined to agree with what Moshkito said above, as well. I didn't "get" what you meant by calling "my avatar a fake"; now I understand your point about Genesis borrowing costumes from Greek theater, and thus not being as original (despite appearing so at that point in history)!. Great stuff!
I don't recall ever commenting on your avatar or even noticing it. You must have me confused with the other SteveG who goes by the name micky.

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 04:40
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

[QUOTE=SteveG]

I'm more inclined to agree with what Moshkito said above, as well. I didn't "get" what you meant by calling "my avatar a fake"; now I understand your point about Genesis borrowing costumes from Greek theater, and thus not being as original (despite appearing so at that point in history)!. Great stuff!
I don't recall ever commenting on your avatar or even noticing it. You must have me confused with the other SteveG who goes by the name micky.

No, I simply forgot to mention that I was referring to Moshkito in regards to calling PG a rehash, not you, sir!


-------------

Pythagoras with the looking glass reflects the full moon...
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand-new tune...


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 04:41
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Yeah I'm closer to Moshkito's thoughts on this. As a professional artist myself a statement like this simply makes no sense all...
Its a way of thinking about-and categorizing the arts that has been proven wrong countless times throughout the centuries. A lot of older autodidact/folk/outsider art is now counted as fine art. Self taught artists such as Paul Cezanne, William Blake, Max Ernst, Balthus, Frida Kahlo (or composers like Bohuslav Martinů, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Giacinto Scelsi...) often had a harder time careeerwise but eventually such things doesn't matter - as it shouldn't. Within the arts, because so much useless crap is produced and presented even at most important museums and fairs "everyone" puts far too much weight on the "where" rather than "what". But thankfully history doesn't care as much about such technicalities. Some prog will be canonized and a lot of academic arts - now respected and considered important will be dismissed and forgotten. 


Makes no sense? Is that so? Well my friend, as you have just elaborated, at present prog is not viewed as "autodidact/folk/outsider art" and I can't see how it ever will. You are free to view prog as a fine art but I'm afraid that would be in error.

Please explain your requirements for a medium to be considered "fine art"...?


-------------

Pythagoras with the looking glass reflects the full moon...
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand-new tune...


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 04:46
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Yeah I'm closer to Moshkito's thoughts on this. As a professional artist myself a statement like this simply makes no sense all...
Its a way of thinking about-and categorizing the arts that has been proven wrong countless times throughout the centuries. A lot of older autodidact/folk/outsider art is now counted as fine art. Self taught artists such as Paul Cezanne, William Blake, Max Ernst, Balthus, Frida Kahlo (or composers like Bohuslav Martinů, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Giacinto Scelsi...) often had a harder time careeerwise but eventually such things doesn't matter - as it shouldn't. Within the arts, because so much useless crap is produced and presented even at most important museums and fairs "everyone" puts far too much weight on the "where" rather than "what". But thankfully history doesn't care as much about such technicalities. Some prog will be canonized and a lot of academic arts - now respected and considered important will be dismissed and forgotten. 


Makes no sense? Is that so? Well my friend, as you have just elaborated, at present prog is not viewed as "autodidact/folk/outsider art" and I can't see how it ever will. You are free to view prog as a fine art but I'm afraid that would be in error.

Please explain your requirements for a medium to be considered "fine art"...? 

You appear to imply that you hold some objective measurement/quantification of standard, have yet to mention it, and thus keep begging the question on the topic on the last couple posts.


-------------

Pythagoras with the looking glass reflects the full moon...
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand-new tune...


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 04:47
Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Yeah I'm closer to Moshkito's thoughts on this. As a professional artist myself a statement like this simply makes no sense all...
Its a way of thinking about-and categorizing the arts that has been proven wrong countless times throughout the centuries. A lot of older autodidact/folk/outsider art is now counted as fine art. Self taught artists such as Paul Cezanne, William Blake, Max Ernst, Balthus, Frida Kahlo (or composers like Bohuslav Martinů, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Giacinto Scelsi...) often had a harder time careeerwise but eventually such things doesn't matter - as it shouldn't. Within the arts, because so much useless crap is produced and presented even at most important museums and fairs "everyone" puts far too much weight on the "where" rather than "what". But thankfully history doesn't care as much about such technicalities. Some prog will be canonized and a lot of academic arts - now respected and considered important will be dismissed and forgotten. 


Makes no sense? Is that so? Well my friend, as you have just elaborated, at present prog is not viewed as "autodidact/folk/outsider art" and I can't see how it ever will. You are free to view prog as a fine art but I'm afraid that would be in error.

Please explain your requirements for a medium to be considered "fine art"...?
I'm no being difficult but I believe it's up to you to argue why prog is a fine art, not why I feel it's not. 

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 04:51
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Frenetic Zetetic Frenetic Zetetic wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Yeah I'm closer to Moshkito's thoughts on this. As a professional artist myself a statement like this simply makes no sense all...
Its a way of thinking about-and categorizing the arts that has been proven wrong countless times throughout the centuries. A lot of older autodidact/folk/outsider art is now counted as fine art. Self taught artists such as Paul Cezanne, William Blake, Max Ernst, Balthus, Frida Kahlo (or composers like Bohuslav Martinů, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Giacinto Scelsi...) often had a harder time careeerwise but eventually such things doesn't matter - as it shouldn't. Within the arts, because so much useless crap is produced and presented even at most important museums and fairs "everyone" puts far too much weight on the "where" rather than "what". But thankfully history doesn't care as much about such technicalities. Some prog will be canonized and a lot of academic arts - now respected and considered important will be dismissed and forgotten. 


Makes no sense? Is that so? Well my friend, as you have just elaborated, at present prog is not viewed as "autodidact/folk/outsider art" and I can't see how it ever will. You are free to view prog as a fine art but I'm afraid that would be in error.

Please explain your requirements for a medium to be considered "fine art"...?
I'm no being difficult but I believe it's up to you to argue why prog is a fine art, not why I feel it's not. 

I disagree; I don't think it's unreasonable to request you to assert a definition so we have context of where you're coming from, especially with how you're implying you have a standard, yet haven't shared it yet - only that others have the wrong idea or are in error in their stances. 

I never called it fine are, other people have, and they aren't explaining why. 

I'd like context for the arbitrary line in the sand. This board appears to be packed with people who enjoy vacillating between something being opinion, then a fact (or lack of explanation of how that works) when it appears convenient for them. 

I think it's perfectly pertinent to this discussion that you reveal your stance on what constitutes fine art, rather than possibly moving the goal posts on someone else after they state their stance. You seem to be the one resisting the label of fine art, so please, do tell.


-------------

Pythagoras with the looking glass reflects the full moon...
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand-new tune...


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 05:04
 I thought this was implied by the age old arguments against viewing pop music as fine art.  Very well, prog, at present,  fails to meet the criteria that would define it as fine art and falls into the camp of popular art and entertainment.

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 05:04
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^ I thought this was implied by the age old arguments agianst viewing pop music as fine art.  Very well, prog, at present,  fails to meet the criteria that would define it as fine art and falls into the camp of popular art and entertainment.

What's the dividing criteria that separates fine art from popular art and entertainment? That's all I'm trying to get at. The line appears to be blurred/people can't seem to agree, therefore there appears to be no objective metric, and thus everything is just a slightly more elaborate opinion.

I'm also completely fine with that. It's when people try (not you personally Steve) to act like there is a quantifying, objective metric when it's ultimately just still opinion on a higher level, that gets my goat (this board is packed with that).


-------------

Pythagoras with the looking glass reflects the full moon...
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand-new tune...


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 05:16
^ Ah yes, there we have it! This type of discussion is always based on subjective opinion but we, and especially I, fail to state so in our posts and responses with the preface of IMHO. Everyone who views prog as fine art have just as valid reasons for believing so as I have for not. These are only discussions, but sometimes with some very intuitive peers that sometimes makes it a  fascinating learning experience. At least for me.

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 05:26
Its with prog and popular music as in all other neighboring creative fields. Its not possible to come up with a 100% rule that you can use to measure and categorize different kinds of expression with. Experience and knowledge helps a lot though. Sometimes its difficult and sometimes easy to define but "everyone" knows Stalker, Wild Strawberries are both movies and art but Police Academy 6 and Sister Act 2 isn't... Considering whole genres as "not fine art" by default is what doesn't makes sense to me. 

-------------


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 05:39
^ I understand what you're saying. Perhaps it's because of the way prog music is treated. Wild Strawberries is treated as a fine art. It is discussed in university art classes. Books have been written about it and the Criterion Collection has special editions celebrating it as an artistic milestone. Perhaps when Close To The Edge is studied and celebrated in the same fashion, I will view the music on CTTE differently then the way I do now.

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 05:53
The demarcation between fine arts and popular arts and entertainment is effectively a European 18th Century one (the distinction does not seem nearly as prevalent in oriental cultures or the americas for that matter) The former were deemed purely aesthetic in intent and design (e.g. literature, music, painting, sculpture, poetry etc) while the latter were practically applied 'crafts' (pottery, decorative arts, weaving, embroidery etc) I would guess that comprehensive education, democratization, globalization and mass media have effectively rendered the historical educated v uneducated division that existed in the 18th Century as meaningless. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, on these forums, it all comes down to how your taste is perceived at the end of the day.
However, I still don't believe that Prog's 1st Gen masterpieces would stand up to the sort of scrutiny afforded to formal academic music e.g. what might be deemed the previous classical canon of music. That too might be subject to change, but for me we would have to lower the bar for Prog to gain entry.


-------------


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 06:28
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Is prog just the b*****d stepchild of rock or does it have a real musical pedigree in the outside world?

I vote redheaded stepchild of rock...  the last thing most people want with music is to have to think.  Rock at its heart is playful.. about fun, youth, energy and passion. You know.. the kind of music you put on to get psyched up to go hit the bars, be it to get trashed and dance on pool tables,  get a bar fight and toss the spoiled frat boy who spiilled your beer out the front window, or simply bust a bar stool over his head, set yourself on the prowl for some action and get on the prowl for pussy... or if you are like Mick in his 20's... all 3 in the same evening.  

Prog is often too serious and intellectual for its own good... books are made for the head.. rock is for the soul.  Prog occupies the meeting point and for some, perhaps many, that is a bit too much.  So no..  I wouldn't consider it underrated.. it is a niche form of music that really only appeals to certain type of listeners.


-------------
I find your lack of Bassoon disturbing.....


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 07:36
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Is prog just the b*****d stepchild of rock or does it have a real musical pedigree in the outside world?

I vote redheaded stepchild of rock...  the last thing most people want with music is to have to think.  Rock at its heart is playful.. about fun, youth, energy and passion. You know.. the kind of music you put on to get psyched up to go hit the bars, be it to get trashed and dance on pool tables,  get a bar fight and toss the spoiled frat boy who spiilled your beer out the front window, or simply bust a bar stool over his head, set yourself on the prowl for some action and get on the prowl for pussy... or if you are like Mick in his 20's... all 3 in the same evening.  

Prog is often too serious and intellectual for its own good... books are made for the head.. rock is for the soul.  Prog occupies the meeting point and for some, perhaps many, that is a bit too much.  So no..  I wouldn't consider it underrated.. it is a niche form of music that really only appeals to certain type of listeners.


You can have fun, be youthful, energetic, soulful and passionate whilst still thinking. You must be an advertising executive's wet dream...Oblivious, the fragrance for south of the (red)neck. There is nothing more pitiful than a nostalgia for something that never happened in the first place. I don't know anyone whose opinions I respect who takes Prog seriously or think it remotely intellectual. They would however, kick your disingenuous ass in a bar brawl (no contest)LOL


-------------


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 08:13
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^ Ah yes, there we have it! This type of discussion is always based on subjective opinion but we, and especially I, fail to state so in our posts and responses with the preface of IMHO. Everyone who views prog as fine art have just as valid reasons for believing so as I have for not. These are only discussions, but sometimes with some very intuitive peers that sometimes makes it a  fascinating learning experience. At least for me.


Absolutely. I must confess, my personal preference for philosophy, logic, and reason make me almost OCD when people don’t say “IMHO” (hence why I always try to), lol. I agree completely, though; it makes for great discussion and learning!

-------------

Pythagoras with the looking glass reflects the full moon...
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand-new tune...


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 09:17
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Is prog just the b*****d stepchild of rock or does it have a real musical pedigree in the outside world?

I vote redheaded stepchild of rock...  the last thing most people want with music is to have to think.  Rock at its heart is playful.. about fun, youth, energy and passion. You know.. the kind of music you put on to get psyched up to go hit the bars, be it to get trashed and dance on pool tables,  get a bar fight and toss the spoiled frat boy who spiilled your beer out the front window, or simply bust a bar stool over his head, set yourself on the prowl for some action and get on the prowl for pussy... or if you are like Mick in his 20's... all 3 in the same evening.  

Prog is often too serious and intellectual for its own good... books are made for the head.. rock is for the soul.  Prog occupies the meeting point and for some, perhaps many, that is a bit too much.  So no..  I wouldn't consider it underrated.. it is a niche form of music that really only appeals to certain type of listeners.


You can have fun, be youthful, energetic, soulful and passionate whilst still thinking. *emoti and huh? snip*

hahaha...  that didn't make a great deal of sense to me.. so let me snip the one part that did...

if you are thinking while being youthful, energetic, soulful.. and ESPECIALLY passionate.. then you are doing something wrong...

the great joy of youth, energy, soul and passion is NOT thinking ... it is living in the moment and the HELL with the consequences... like waking up in places you don't remember getting to... because you were NOT thinking or particularly coherent.

rock music has always been a vehicle for that. is has always been about energy, passion and a distinct lack of thought... thus the danger and appeal to youth that has underlaid rock since Elvis came along man.


-------------
I find your lack of Bassoon disturbing.....


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 09:36
^ Right on! Bring on the red(neck)heads! I wouldn't listen to prog if it was not part of rock. And the prog that strays furthest from the man from Tupelo holds no attraction for me.

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 09:41
funny Steve.. these days the prog that attracts me most is that which strays furthest from 'rock'. Then again I've fallen under the sway of Uncle and Auntie Rio-Avant.  I mean come on.. if one wants to rock...  you are likely best going with something that likely will NEVER find its way onto this site if not simply for pure music.. then definitely lyrically haha.

AC/DC for progarchives? Whole Lotta Rosie.. oh yes...  anti-intellectualism rock at its greatest.
btw.. Probably one of he few bands I don't believe I've ever seen a thread suggesting for inclusion haha


-------------
I find your lack of Bassoon disturbing.....


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 09:44
^ ha ha I definitely dig prog with a solid hook and beat but I absolutely loath AOR. Go figure!  LOL

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 09:47
never understood loathing for AOR unless you were a completely out there space cadet living in mama's basement non sexed prog elitist.. sure we have some here.. but umm.. never thought you for the type Steve haha

-------------
I find your lack of Bassoon disturbing.....


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 09:52
And that's my exact perception of an AOR lover! A pimply adolescent who masturbates to Come Sail Away while fantasizing about the blonde who sits in front of him in homeroom!

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 09:54
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

And that's my exact perception of an AOR lover! A pimply adolescent who masturbates to Come Sail Away while fantasizing about the blonde who sits in front of him in homeroom!

*spits last of first beer of day on monitor*

ummm you are confusing Rush fan for AOR fan...


-------------
I find your lack of Bassoon disturbing.....


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 09:57
Yes, I did that quit often in the past until I realized that the Rush fans were getting older, bigger and tougher than me! But yeah, they're one and the same!! LOL

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 09:57
with a fresh one....Beer

-------------
I find your lack of Bassoon disturbing.....


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 10:12
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

 I thought this was implied by the age old arguments against viewing pop music as fine art.  Very well, prog, at present,  fails to meet the criteria that would define it as fine art and falls into the camp of popular art and entertainment.

Not sure this is true, and you and I and many of us are doing our best to improve that.

IF, all the whole thing is popular music and entertainment, then nothing that we discuss and talk about as "progressive" or "prog" would have survived 45 years and still be discussed, played and talked about.

In general, and not only for music but most arts, the ones that "survive" and are still seen and mentioned and read, are the ones that become a "fine art" as a part of the history of the art itself.

I don't think that anyone can really put together a comprehensive guide as to a demarcation line between "fine art" and "art" and then "popular art", since, SPECIALLY THESE DAYS WITH INTERNET, it can all be seen and heard and read and appreciated, when 75 years ago,  some works never were seen on the other side of the world. Or even BEFORE, where there was no photography to show what someone in Europe did, or what Japan or China had to offer.

It is my contention, that the reason why we think of a lot of this music as "popular" is because of the media attention to it. And I, personally do not see the problem if a King Crimson gets attention and becomes better known and appreciated for their musicianship, which I do not think that any of us will ever question, even if it is "popular". Likewise, some of the greatest actors of the 20th century, dancers, composers, also were affected by "publicity" and became better known and appreciated, yet, no one has shown you or I anything (except a couple of romanticized movies) about Valentino, and other great actors at the turn of the century, but you and I know all about Burton and Olivier!

Somewhere along the way, we have to look at these things more objectively. And the "media" and this total BS about "favorites" and "likes" and "dislikes" needs to take a hike. it is hurting the ability to improve the discussion and the standing of the whole thing. Here we are trying to show how it has survived history ... and then the next two or three posts are trolls. That is incredibly sad, and while they have a right to their comments, in the end, they are hurting the discussion by not giving a darn.

We are in the "age of the media", and we are STILL influenced to the point of being completely controlled and totally brain-washed by top of the pops designs that are run by folks that OWN the media, which means that a lot of the lesser selling things are not getting the respect and attention that they should and a place like PA, is FANTASTIC AND SPECIAL about that ... so helping ensure that we become even more important and valuable in this discussion is, for me, a goal for a lifetime, and I will be glad and happy if we can get a percentage or two of improvement, so that silly toilet paper rags stop printing articles about this and that progressive stuff and really shake it down and bad.

People like Rick Wakeman, Vangelis, Mike Oldfield, Edgar Froese/Tangerine Dream, will forever be remembered and talked about, because of their dedication to the music and the works they were involved in. Many folks make fun of 2 versions of YES out there, and yet, they are both very good and the only thing it shows is that 50 years later, the music is still important, valuable and outstanding.

Now, I'm not sure that you will be appreciated calling all of the folks named above as "popular artists" and nothing else ... you'll probably get treated very badly by a lot of folks around here. And it would not be fair, to their abilities and musicianship, which over the years can be said to ... outstanding. Many composers, hope to be able to do half as much in their lifetimes! But calling Rick Wakeman a hack? Sorry, that is something he is not, and his ability and work is not a joke! It's fine art, even if you think that someone else is a better keyboard player!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the art is all about!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 10:15
Hi,

One last comment.

Try to listen to Rachel Flowers do her piano versions of Keith Emerson, and other musical pieces. It shows a side of the compositions that Keith put together, and when you listen to them as a solo piano piece, it just shines, no different than a Mozart, or Chopin, or anyone else. 

To me, that is the perfect example of what makes "fine art", and the fact that one person, can "translate" the so-called "popular and entertainment" music, into something that is outright beautiful and fantastic ... supreme compositional skills and an amazing touch for detail and feel, like you would never SAY ABOUT ANYONE ELSE out there.


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the art is all about!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 13:57
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

However, I still don't believe that Prog's 1st Gen masterpieces would stand up to the sort of scrutiny afforded to formal academic music e.g. what might be deemed the previous classical canon of music. That too might be subject to change, but for me we would have to lower the bar for Prog to gain entry.
Perhaps compared to the canonized works from early baroque to early modernism but from there on till 2018 the bar is already considerably lowered. As much as I actively listen, investigate and occasionally enjoy the spectralists, minimalists, serialists, electro-acoustic & aleatoric music + whatever academic trend - I think the distinction between the often insistingly anti-social musical experiments of the 20th century from the correct schools and say the ones that represent the b*****dized versions - whom managed to communicate these ideas to a slightly broader audience... as 60's/70's african-american avant-garde jazz (by now thoroughly included in the "fine arts") and say... bands such as Can, Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream, Soft Machine... (who knows maybe Yes and King Crimson as well, I'm not sure and its not my decision) the b*****ds already seem to be "winning". Not nessecarely compared to the real geniuses Bartok, Shostacovich, Penderceki... still making music for "an eternity" but the rest. 

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Is prog just the b*****d stepchild of rock or does it have a real musical pedigree in the outside world?

I vote redheaded stepchild of rock...  the last thing most people want with music is to have to think.  Rock at its heart is playful.. about fun, youth, energy and passion. You know.. the kind of music you put on to get psyched up to go hit the bars, be it to get trashed and dance on pool tables,  get a bar fight and toss the spoiled frat boy who spiilled your beer out the front window, or simply bust a bar stool over his head, set yourself on the prowl for some action and get on the prowl for pussy... or if you are like Mick in his 20's... all 3 in the same evening.  

Prog is often too serious and intellectual for its own good... books are made for the head.. rock is for the soul.  Prog occupies the meeting point and for some, perhaps many, that is a bit too much.  So no..  I wouldn't consider it underrated.. it is a niche form of music that really only appeals to certain type of listeners.


You can have fun, be youthful, energetic, soulful and passionate whilst still thinking. You must be an advertising executive's wet dream...Oblivious, the fragrance for south of the (red)neck. There is nothing more pitiful than a nostalgia for something that never happened in the first place. I don't know anyone whose opinions I respect who takes Prog seriously or think it remotely intellectual. They would however, kick your disingenuous ass in a bar brawl (no contest)LOL
I think having decided that prog can't be taken seriously because its just dumb rock is just as silly as taking academic music too seriously. Prog is fun, rock n' roll and all that but that doesn't mean i listen to ELO and Art Zoyd with the same mindset. Should I be embarrassed that Rock Bottom is just as profoundly moving, challenging and cathartic to me as Verklärte Nacht? That would be actual, insecure snobbery to me.

-------------


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 14:56
Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:


I think having decided that prog can't be taken seriously because its just dumb rock is just as silly as taking academic music too seriously. Prog is fun, rock n' roll and all that but that doesn't mean i listen to ELO and Art Zoyd with the same mindset. Should I be embarrassed that Rock Bottom is just as profoundly moving, challenging and cathartic to me as Verklärte Nacht? That would be actual, insecure snobbery to me.


I don't recall saying Prog was 'dumb rock' but just that like yourself, I don't listen to it with the same aesthetic criteria as I would say, Bartok, Stravinsky or Ives etc. (You ever read a Yes or ELP lyric?Wink) What I consider the finest popular music (Beatles, Beach Boys, Who, Kinks, Stones etc) is capable of moving me every bit as much as some of the classical masters both of us have mentioned

-------------


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 15:08
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


the great joy of youth, energy, soul and passion is NOT thinking ... it is living in the moment and the HELL with the consequences... like waking up in places you don't remember getting to... because you were NOT thinking or particularly coherent.




Would one of those places be Trump's America? Wink

-------------


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 17:56
yeah... that shoe fits doesn't it...  the textbook example of the HELL with the consequences not thinking or being politically coherent.

Trump has to be considered our first Cult President.. very rock and roll indeed


-------------
I find your lack of Bassoon disturbing.....


Posted By: Saperlipopette!
Date Posted: March 31 2018 at 18:34
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


I don't recall saying Prog was 'dumb rock'  
No, it wasn't a quoting attempt. You (and Micky combined) certainly implied that taking progressive rock somewhat seriously was worthy of ridicule. To me only outdated conventions tells us that Kindertotenlieder (by Mahler/Rückert) is somehow "fine art" in a way that Rock Bottom isn't. I believe this selective approach to the arts will change as it has done many times before. I don't have complete overview and I'm not arguing against any of your moving The Who, Kinks or Beach Boys experiences... and although I started crying while listening to a few of my favorite Shangri Las-songs a couple of days ago - in this context I'm just more pro-(genuine)progressive rock. At least today I am. 
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


I don't listen to it with the same aesthetic criteria as I would say, Bartok, Stravinsky or Ives etc. (You ever read a Yes or ELP lyric?Wink)
Never gonna defend Jon Andersons new age nonsense or whoever wrote about that apocalyptical armadillo (can't stand ELP anyway) - but I can guide you towards some librettos to operas by Mozart, Richard Strauss, Donizetti, Rossini mm... that will make you long for the philosophical and existential poetry printed on the Tales Topographic Oceans or Tarkus lyric-sheet


-------------


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 01 2018 at 06:25
Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


I don't recall saying Prog was 'dumb rock'  
No, it wasn't a quoting attempt. You (and Micky combined) certainly implied that taking progressive rock somewhat seriously was worthy of ridicule. To me only outdated conventions tells us that Kindertotenlieder (by Mahler/Rückert) is somehow "fine art" in a way that Rock Bottom isn't. I believe this selective approach to the arts will change as it has done many times before. I don't have complete overview and I'm not arguing against any of your moving The Who, Kinks or Beach Boys experiences... and although I started crying while listening to a few of my favorite Shangri Las-songs a couple of days ago - in this context I'm just more pro-(genuine)progressive rock. At least today I am. 
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


I don't listen to it with the same aesthetic criteria as I would say, Bartok, Stravinsky or Ives etc. (You ever read a Yes or ELP lyric?Wink)
Never gonna defend Jon Andersons new age nonsense or whoever wrote about that apocalyptical armadillo (can't stand ELP anyway) - but I can guide you towards some librettos to operas by Mozart, Richard Strauss, Donizetti, Rossini mm... that will make you long for the philosophical and existential poetry printed on the Tales Topographic Oceans or Tarkus lyric-sheet


Point taken about the nonsensical plots of many venerated operas that make Brain Salad Surgery seem like gritty urban realism. Maybe their being sung in languages other than English has provided a camouflage from closer critical scrutiny? (the same might be true for much RPI....)


-------------


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 01 2018 at 07:14
^ bingo and a point I've made often..  prog does have a bad rep out there.  Pointing why it does, and agreeing with it to a certain extent is not the same as same rediculing those that enjoy having silly and often stupid attempts of intellectualism injected into rock music.  But do understand that the bad rep is not the product of w**kers unable to play more than 3 chords in a song.. it is for most people music is simply not an intellectual exercise and is supposed to be able fun.. not overly serious, not hyperintelletual by muso's no smarter than the average knuckle dragger.. not thinking but feeling.  As I've often said.. there is nothing better than good prog.. for the best of prog hits the heart and soul.. but conversely there is nothing worse than bad prog. Prog that forgets the heart and soul and piles needless complexity upon itself for its own sake... upon stupid and silly lyrical themes

-------------
I find your lack of Bassoon disturbing.....


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: April 01 2018 at 07:25
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

^ bingo and a point I've made often..  prog does have a bad rep out there.  Pointing why it does, and agreeing with it to a certain extent is not the same as same rediculing those that enjoy having silly and often stupid attempts of intellectualism injected into rock music.  But do understand that the bad rep is not the product of w**kers unable to play more than 3 chords in a song.. it is for most people music is simply not an intellectual exercise and is supposed to be able fun.. not overly serious, not hyperintelletual by muso's no smarter than the average knuckle dragger.. not thinking but feeling.  As I've often said.. there is nothing better than good prog.. for the best of prog hits the heart and soul.. but conversely there is nothing worse than bad prog. Prog that forgets the heart and soul and piles needless complexity upon itself for its own sake... upon stupid and silly lyrical themes
......... is Mystery To Me a Prog album ??? (........excellent though it is....)


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 01 2018 at 07:28
never considered it one?? Or any of their albums

-------------
I find your lack of Bassoon disturbing.....


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: April 01 2018 at 07:34
^ Oh, don’t be so serious. Hypnotised could fit on any Prog album we love. Wait till it gets the SWilson remix


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 01 2018 at 07:43
hisss.... he best dare not touch it... or I'll truly lose my sh*t LOL

-------------
I find your lack of Bassoon disturbing.....


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 01 2018 at 08:27
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

^ bingo and a point I've made often..  prog does have a bad rep out there.  Pointing why it does, and agreeing with it to a certain extent is not the same as same rediculing those that enjoy having silly and often stupid attempts of intellectualism injected into rock music.  But do understand that the bad rep is not the product of w**kers unable to play more than 3 chords in a song.. it is for most people music is simply not an intellectual exercise and is supposed to be able fun.. not overly serious, not hyperintelletual by muso's no smarter than the average knuckle dragger.. not thinking but feeling.  As I've often said.. there is nothing better than good prog.. for the best of prog hits the heart and soul.. but conversely there is nothing worse than bad prog. Prog that forgets the heart and soul and piles needless complexity upon itself for its own sake... upon stupid and silly lyrical themes

When someone thinks that Progressive music is just pop music, I like to refer them to go listen to RACHEL FLOWERS do Keith Emerson/ELP on a straight piano or just organ ... and by the end, it is like you are exhausted with the emotion content and design of the music, and how grand it was in the first place ... can you picture Keith actually showing this to his mates and then explain ... this part in that synth, this part in that one, and this part in the loo and this part in the mellotron ... and you can see the incredible detail and setup to help develop these pieces.

The compositional elements of Tarkus, and many other pieces, are second to none to very few, and you don't have to like ELP to appreciate great music ... just listen to this piano version, or organ version, and then just live down some of the ugly comments on a lot of this music. And I'm not sure that some of this is as "simple" as it is made out to be. Comparing ELP's version with Rachel's shows how out of it we are and unable to listen to things with a wide open state of mind!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the art is all about!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: April 01 2018 at 08:50
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

hisss.... he best dare not touch it... or I'll truly lose my sh*t LOL
I’m aware of this. Just wanted to rock yer boat. You know I’ve always found that baboon eating cake artwork fascinating and, well, for ‘classic rock’ it’s a winner. One of the rare high-points of the genre. And I know you don’t exactly agree with Wilson (I do....). Makes no differentiation.........


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 01 2018 at 08:53
well said Pedro...  it is a shame how many are not able to listen with a wide open state of mind.  Too many dismiss prog unfairly, tossing the whole baby out with the dishwater of those bands who do give prog a bad rep. However back then I suppose listeners did have more an open mind and yes.. groups like ELP connected not just with artsy fartsy types but just normal music fans.  

As I've noted many times over the years... we are in the midst of a similar time today with the dying off of major labels, magazines and f**king MTV who made beaucoup bucks by compartmentalizing music and its listeners to make it easier to market music to them. (and in large part demonized prog.. because.. well..  it suppose it might have fun.. prog is such an easy target. With a kick me sign on its back. See pictures of 70's Genesis or even Rush haha) 

Today's listener in large part, today's youth, can give a sh*t about tags and labels. Is is prog.. or not? Doesn't matter to most listeners today .. only what matters is if the music is good. Which again brings us back to the ills that prog occasionally has... forgetting that in the end...  forget the art, the complexity, virtuosity and all that jazz... what matters is if you can write good music that connects with people.  In that .. because of the post Napster generation coming of age.. much of the barriers between rock and prog (or to really be accruate call it Progressive Rock for prog is truly dead and should remain buried).. the lines between the youth and energy of blue collar rock and the artistic white collar Progressive rock have been blured.. perhaps for good for as we know.. Rock Music.. is dead. A few surivivors pushed by the survivors major labels putting out music that few really care about.. or buy as they once did. Old Pete called it.. just took decades for it too happen. 

IMO Progressive rock today is indeed the last chance rock has to survive for the death of the major labels might make it impossible for any of them to get rich.. but it gave them artistic control over their music and today anyone can make, produce and sell music. Rock may never occupy the top shelve of societies musical conscience.. but thanks to Progressive Rock.. it may well survive.. if underground.


-------------
I find your lack of Bassoon disturbing.....


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: April 01 2018 at 09:12
^ You just wrote a thesis on something no one gives a toss about !!

You’re awesome !!!


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 01 2018 at 09:43
hah... I didn't get that pretty forum tag for my good looks or my black acerbic humor. In fact.. I got in spite of it. Word was (from the highest of sources) the admin team was very split on my ascension to the hallowed ranks of collaborator ..but what sold them.. I know my music.  Better than most,.. less than very few.

Yes Tom.. I know few care about that. I hear that directly from today's artists... it is in large part why the prog revival of the late 90's early 00's has sort of fallen down the stairs.  Very little interest by 'prog fan' in what is going on today.... most are still stuck with their 70's heroes and don't care about today's groups trying to make it.


-------------
I find your lack of Bassoon disturbing.....


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 02 2018 at 04:17
My own opinion is that prog is more or less where it should be in public opinion. Its just an offshoot of rock that was given to flights of pretension and, at times, riddled with virtuoso overplaying. As Iain has noted, it does not stand up to academic scrutiny and cannot be placed in the same category as classical music, no matter how many "suites" a given prog song is professed to have. That aside, I feel that my interest in popular music would probably be greatly diminished or even nonexistent if not for prog rock. There's only so much Elvis and Television I can listen to before boredom sets in.

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 02 2018 at 08:23
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

My own opinion is that prog is more or less where it should be in public opinion. Its just an offshoot of rock that was given to flights of pretension and, at times, riddled with virtuoso overplaying.
...
As Iain has noted, it does not stand up academic scrutiny and cannot be placed in the same category as classical music, no matter how many "suites" a given prog song is professed to have.
...

I would not state that it was an "offshoot". More like an EXTENSION, in that some parts were merely extended, and this is exactly what happened in classical music that we have listed in history in the 1400's and then 1500's and then into Mozart and others. All of a sudden the music pieces are longer and have more to listen to, and just as you mentioned, it could be said to have flights of pretension and/or simply riddled with virtuoso over playing, something that has been used over and over and over and over and over as an excuse to NOT LISTENING to the music as a labor of love and dream extension. When you love something, it can only be 32 seconds long? Is that how long your loving is for your family?

Put it into a proper context! Stop thinking of it as a top of the pops and the idea and criticism will die off real quick!

That it does not stand up to "academic scrutiny" is more of an issue that a lot of academic places do not want to be known as the first to look at rock music, and consider some of its works, exceptional, and of a very good value in terms of the classical music traditions. 

The issue here, might be that an average rock fan, is not a great listener, in the sense that they also listen to other music's, appreciate music in general in its forms, and are aware of the various differences in music in a lot of its history. Some of the comments made, and found here, it's like ... who gives a cahoot about the history of music, since this or that is what I like, and that person is only showing their lack of maturity and knowledge, and ... let's just wait until they pull that on their wife and children, and see how much fun that will be for them!

It's really hard to not think of some of the works of Anthony Phillips as classical music, when "Slow Dance" (just to name one) is on par with any Symphony you have ever heard. But a metal listener will not bother hearing it, because it ain't metal, and is too long and has too much superfluous playing all around. Like Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven and others never did! The argument is stupid and only specifies that the person is not a good listener.

When you look at some of the groups listed and their history, considering it "underrated" or "overrated", is more of a disturbing lack of understanding of arts in one's life and society. Heck, everyone thought that surrealism was way overrated and then in the 60's totally underrated ... but it survived.

The fact that it survives, is what makes its history ... it was not "underrated", because it has been remembered and will continue to be so. We may die ... but the music and the art ALWAYS continues to live! You can not kill the human spirit, plain and simple, and in music, paint, words and other arts is the greatest example of its magnanimous strength and depth of desire and love. The question always is ... where are you?


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the art is all about!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 02 2018 at 08:25
Yeah, I can agree on extension instead of offshoot, but that's all.

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: April 02 2018 at 08:33
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

My own opinion is that prog is more or less where it should be in public opinion. Its just an offshoot of rock that was given to flights of pretension and, at times, riddled with virtuoso overplaying. As Iain has noted, it does not stand up to academic scrutiny and cannot be placed in the same category as classical music, no matter how many "suites" a given prog song is professed to have. That aside, I feel that my interest in popular music would probably be greatly diminished or even nonexistent if not for prog rock. There's only so much Elvis and Television I can listen to before boredom sets in.

THIS is the post I was trying to squeeze out of you the other day! Clap


-------------

Pythagoras with the looking glass reflects the full moon...
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand-new tune...


Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 02 2018 at 09:01
Then you should have just asked my opinion on prog. Wink  To be fair, I'm never forward about my own opinions as it's others that I'm interested in. Also, I don't want to get into a debate with Pedro (moshkito) LOL. 

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: Frenetic Zetetic
Date Posted: April 02 2018 at 09:36
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Then you should have just asked my opinion on prog. Wink  To be fair, I'm never forward about my own opinions as it's others that I'm interested in. Also, I don't want to get into a debate with Pedro (moshkito) LOL. 

I hear you my man LOL.


-------------

Pythagoras with the looking glass reflects the full moon...
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand-new tune...


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: April 02 2018 at 12:15
Put me quite happily in the Prog is for thinking camp and the Prog is fine art camp. That doesn’t actually exclude feeling and emotion blah, blah blah. There’s a great deal of enjoyment in thinking and a good deal of rebelliousness in thinking different. If that makes me out as too suburban, it’s because I am. If it’s too intellectual, well, there’s just no such thing.

-------------
A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now)


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: April 02 2018 at 12:37
Overrated.

Proof? People need to prove this genre is underrated.
/thread]



Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 02 2018 at 12:55
^ Come on, every other thread on PA is about something being underrated. So..

-------------
"Madonna and Lady Gaga are prog, Parliament/Funkadelic are more prog than the Beatles ever were.....Wrap your closed mind around that." said the joker to the thief.


Posted By: Blaqua
Date Posted: April 02 2018 at 13:18
In the 70s it was definitely not underrated as masses had embraced songs or/and albums by some prog rock bands. As regards prog rock's appeal to the masses nowadays, I think quality music in general and not just prog is underrated.  


Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: April 02 2018 at 15:11
Emotion and thinking are related in inseparable ways. Emotion can be complex and thought can be simple. Music aimed at thought or emotion only, disregarding the other, can never succeed.

The discourse on academic scrutiny and "fine art" itself is a cultural item quite devoid of emotion and  as such probably inferior to all kinds of music including baroque, classic, prog, punk, hip hop, you name it.


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 03 2018 at 06:49
Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

Emotion and thinking are related in inseparable ways. Emotion can be complex and thought can be simple. Music aimed at thought or emotion only, disregarding the other, can never succeed.

The discourse on academic scrutiny and "fine art" itself is a cultural item quite devoid of emotion and  as such probably inferior to all kinds of music including baroque, classic, prog, punk, hip hop, you name it.


That's not what's meant by 'formal academic scrutiny' which is certainly not just shorthand for emotion v thinking. It just denotes several thousand years of music theory and the emergent critical tools which are used to examine compositions as objectively as is practicable. It is not intended to provide demonstrable evidence that any particular music is objectively good or bad. Music criticism is never just an examination paper set by unfeeling and uncaring adjudicators hoping the composer will fail their test. (unless you're Ian PenmanWink)
The only art than might be deemed to fail is that where nothing is communicated and neither thought or emotion is stirred within the listener. As long as the reaction engendered in the listener is not deemed sentimentally banal, manipulatively shallow, or pandering to the basest appetites of a target demographic who would clearly be complete strangers to a site like Prog Archives, we have a bona fide elitist smasheroonie on our hands guv'nor.Big smile


-------------


Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: April 03 2018 at 10:57
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

  several thousand years of music theory

I doubt that there's several thousand years of music theory that can be put together in any consistent line. OK, the Romans and old Chinese may have had some kind of music theory but this is hardly related at all to how music is assessed by academia today. (I'd be actually open and curious to evidence that proves me wrong here. Oh I actually remember some stuff that the Greeks had... but we don't know how their music sounded if I'm not mistaken.)

Quote
and the emergent critical tools which are used to examine compositions as objectively as is practicable. It is not intended to provide demonstrable evidence that any particular music is objectively good or bad. Music criticism is never just an examination paper set by unfeeling and uncaring adjudicators hoping the composer will fail their test. (unless you're Ian PenmanWink)
The only art than might be deemed to fail is that where nothing is communicated and neither thought or emotion is stirred within the listener. As long as the reaction engendered in the listener is not deemed sentimentally banal, manipulatively shallow, or pandering to the basest appetites of a target demographic who would clearly be complete strangers to a site like Prog Archives, we have a bona fide elitist smasheroonie on our hands guv'nor.Big smile

Fair enough. There's a lot of theory, too, that shows how strongly music perception is a result of cultural practices that are everything else than "objective". I'm certainly not against music criticism or rating (I write the occasional review here myself), and neither am I against aiming for a "scientific" approach, but it is of key importance, in my view, to keep in mind its limitations and the fundamental impossibility to reach what is normally understood as "objectivity" in this endeavour.
 
What is this talk about "not standing up to academic scrutiny" other than to claim "demonstrable evidence that any particular music is objectively good or bad"? 


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 04 2018 at 03:30
Cultural practices may very well fashion much earlier historical music but such elements of a 'ritualistic' or 'indigenous' nature are completely outside an aesthetic evaluation of composition. Those strike me as closer to ethnomusicology if anything else. Very generally speaking, re 'what constitutes academic scrutiny': Some of the elements that are found to be pleasing or satisfying to an incredibly wide ranging demographic over millennia are:

introduction - theme/exposition - development - recapitulation - coda

Of course the above is really just sonata form broken into it's main discernible sections but the vast majority of musical works that continue to be celebrated as accomplished from all manner of genres and styles, contain most or at least several of the aforementioned building blocks. Practically all simple folk and pop tunes also obey these structures to the letter.

Those pieces that are considered less successful and have not endured, are found to contain significantly fewer of these elements i.e. less people find them pleasing or satisfying but that doesn't necessarily mean they are objectively 'bad'

That's also not to say that such structures are impervious to change or innovation but it takes a really long time (maybe THOUSANDS of years) for humans to let go completely of what they hitherto found satisfying in the arts.


-------------


Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: April 04 2018 at 05:18
I use the term "cultural practices" in a much more general way, so for example the western way of setting up a university system and academic culture is a cultural practice as well, as are conditions of musical performance, its role in education and the social setup of society etc. Globalisation may make us think that much of this is universal but in fact a lot can be traced to specific cultural origins and has become widespread not so much because of its universal qualities but rather because of economical and power relations and the like.

Speaking of "indigeneous" or "ritualistic" practices, I also think that it is important for understanding music how it originated from such practices in many places (this seems to me more universal than the structural elements you are referring to although for the moment I'm talking about my intuition rather than a solid knowledge of the literature and research). I think this is still reflected in much contemporary "use" of music (surely it plays an important role for rock music), and I think if you want to rule such elements out for "an aesthetic evaluation of composition", this evaluation loses some key aspects of music.

Discussing structure like "introduction - theme/exposition - development - recapitulation - coda" is certainly an important part of "academic scrutiny" of music but the role this plays in trying to make up an "objective" concept of quality is less straightforward. Groundbreaking music (including music that is academically acknowledged as such) sometimes proceeds just by destroying or changing such structures; and surely music that satisfies such a blueprint all too easily is easily dismissed as derivative (unless it has other qualitiues that makes it stand out).


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 04 2018 at 07:52
Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

I use the term "cultural practices" in a much more general way, so for example the western way of setting up a university system and academic culture is a cultural practice as well, as are conditions of musical performance, its role in education and the social setup of society etc. Globalisation may make us think that much of this is universal but in fact a lot can be traced to specific cultural origins and has become widespread not so much because of its universal qualities but rather because of economical and power relations and the like.

I can't help but think that's like saying without picture frames there would be no painting as people would just confuse the exhibits with the art gallery wall paper. Wink Education, economics, media and societal elements all play an important role in what we get to see and hear as consumers but do not shape what I believe are our innate aesthetic criteria for what we find pleasing or satisfying in a work of art. As humans we seem compelled to look for patterns in any external stimulus and quickly become bored and 'switch off' if none are found or if those that we can discern become too predictable. (Listening to new music is always and exactly like this)

Speaking of "indigeneous" or "ritualistic" practices, I also think that it is important for understanding music how it originated from such practices in many places (this seems to me more universal than the structural elements you are referring to although for the moment I'm talking about my intuition rather than a solid knowledge of the literature and research). I think this is still reflected in much contemporary "use" of music (surely it plays an important role for rock music), and I think if you want to rule such elements out for "an aesthetic evaluation of composition", this evaluation loses some key aspects of music.

It's interesting to observe that the initial phase of any sound source is referred to as it's 'attack' portion and this is no accident as in prehistoric times, any audio was evaluated on whether it might be a potential threat e.g. a predator, a stranger from outside the tribe or your terrified lunch. I think that sometimes we confuse the organization of sound (music) with sound itself. Being eaten alive and having to sit through Schonberg's Pierrot Lunaire might feel similar but we can safely leave the bearskins at home for the latter.

Discussing structure like "introduction - theme/exposition - development - recapitulation - coda" is certainly an important part of "academic scrutiny" of music but the role this plays in trying to make up an "objective" concept of quality is less straightforward. Groundbreaking music (including music that is academically acknowledged as such) sometimes proceeds just by destroying or changing such structures; and surely music that satisfies such a blueprint all too easily is easily dismissed as derivative (unless it has other qualitiues that makes it stand out).

As I stated earlier, what is referred to broadly as sonata form is not set in stone and you are correct in stating that innovation very often goes against convention and breaks the rules (like Rock'n'Roll did in the 50's and Stravinsky did in 1913 with The Rite of Spring) That said, even those iconoclastic works that purport to destroy orthodoxy still contain the indelible vestiges of those incredibly resilient structural elements. Maybe we can alter the DNA of music until is becomes quite unrecognizable but without DNA itself we would surely perish?







-------------


Posted By: miamiscot
Date Posted: April 04 2018 at 08:35
Underrated by most.
Overrated by most on here.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 04 2018 at 09:25
Originally posted by miamiscot miamiscot wrote:

Underrated by most.
Overrated by most on here.

Yes, Daffy Duck!

Wabbitt Season!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the art is all about!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 04 2018 at 10:12
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

..... Also, I don't want to get into a debate with Pedro (moshkito) LOL. 

LOL
 




-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin


Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: April 05 2018 at 07:46
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


I can't help but think that's like saying without picture frames there would be no painting as people would just confuse the exhibits with the art gallery wall paper. Wink Education, economics, media and societal elements all play an important role in what we get to see and hear as consumers but do not shape what I believe are our innate aesthetic criteria for what we find pleasing or satisfying in a work of art. 

I disagree but ultimately this is a matter of scientific thought and empirical observation; without these we may just believe the different things we want to believe without any possibility to get to agreement.
You may have a look at this, by Pierre Bourdieu:
 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url?url=http://www.academia.edu/download/36960054/Distinction_A_Social_Critque_Of_The_Judgement_Of_Taste_By_Pierre_Bourdieu.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm0l1BqqZHDCkPf8kw-liW3oigF9cA&nossl=1&oi=scholarr&ved=0ahUKEwjpxqXznaPaAhViGsAKHRb7BawQgAMIMCgAMAA

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


As I stated earlier, what is referred to broadly as sonata form is not set in stone and you are correct in stating that innovation very often goes against convention and breaks the rules (like Rock'n'Roll did in the 50's and Stravinsky did in 1913 with The Rite of Spring) That said, even those iconoclastic works that purport to destroy orthodoxy still contain the indelible vestiges of those incredibly resilient structural elements. Maybe we can alter the DNA of music until is becomes quite unrecognizable but without DNA itself we would surely perish?

We can discuss about how important such structure is to music perception and appreciation in general, and how widespread its use, but that's entirely different from using it for the "evaluation" of specific works. Even using a certain "academic" tradition of evaluation (with which I wouldn't necessarily agree), any level of quality is achievable by any level of compliance or noncompliance with such structural principles. This is simply not what counts (or let's say it counts a tiny little bit at most). But then I'm perfectly fine using it in analytic ways, for understanding rather than for assigning value.
 


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 05 2018 at 08:47
Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


I can't help but think that's like saying without picture frames there would be no painting as people would just confuse the exhibits with the art gallery wall paper. Wink Education, economics, media and societal elements all play an important role in what we get to see and hear as consumers but do not shape what I believe are our innate aesthetic criteria for what we find pleasing or satisfying in a work of art. 

I disagree but ultimately this is a matter of scientific thought and empirical observation; without these we may just believe the different things we want to believe without any possibility to get to agreement.
You may have a look at this, by Pierre Bourdieu:
 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url?url=http://www.academia.edu/download/36960054/Distinction_A_Social_Critque_Of_The_Judgement_Of_Taste_By_Pierre_Bourdieu.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm0l1BqqZHDCkPf8kw-liW3oigF9cA&nossl=1&oi=scholarr&ved=0ahUKEwjpxqXznaPaAhViGsAKHRb7BawQgAMIMCgAMAA

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:


As I stated earlier, what is referred to broadly as sonata form is not set in stone and you are correct in stating that innovation very often goes against convention and breaks the rules (like Rock'n'Roll did in the 50's and Stravinsky did in 1913 with The Rite of Spring) That said, even those iconoclastic works that purport to destroy orthodoxy still contain the indelible vestiges of those incredibly resilient structural elements. Maybe we can alter the DNA of music until is becomes quite unrecognizable but without DNA itself we would surely perish?

We can discuss about how important such structure is to music perception and appreciation in general, and how widespread its use, but that's entirely different from using it for the "evaluation" of specific works. Even using a certain "academic" tradition of evaluation (with which I wouldn't necessarily agree), any level of quality is achievable by any level of compliance or noncompliance with such structural principles. This is simply not what counts (or let's say it counts a tiny little bit at most). But then I'm perfectly fine using it in analytic ways, for understanding rather than for assigning value.
 


What does 'scientific thought' and 'empiricism' have to do with what has been observed over millennia to be what the vast swathes of humankind readily avow they find satisfying in art? The statement 'Any level of quality is achievable by any level of compliance or non-compliance'  is something that plankton might choose to have us believe they choose their dinner partnersWink


-------------


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 05 2018 at 09:05
Hi,

I think we forget that "structure" is something that is academically developed (sometimes) as a way to define something. Thus a piece of music having this and that, is almost the same thing as saying that there is no doubt that a new piece, that is trying to change the well known patterns, will be totally different, even if just setup backwards.

Creativity, normally, means that the current standard and design and format, is not satisfying for that composer/group, and those are the INNOVATORS of our time. Are they underrated, or overrated is a complete other story, and the only way we can evaluate that is by thinking that public sentiment is what defines its "value" ... which we know is not a good thing, since so many composers in the history of music have gotten totally thrashed for the work they did, only to be appreciated enormously 50 years after they left us.

I, personally, think that this is better looked at as a history. And as the example on another thread, the group was NOT overrated THEN, but today, with all this internet and groups everywhere, half the folks at PA would probably think it was overrated and pompous. The only thing that was pompous, THEN, was the rock press that liked to think they were more important than the art itself, and tried to create events and social changes with music that was not even honest to the core about what it was doing.

Well, sadly, even YES and Jon Anderson were not as spiritual inclined as they were making out to be, and tried throwing it all under the bus with RELAYER, and instead ended up with dead meat of an elephant that too many folks disliked! But guess what ... the format! It was now a familiar format, which TFTO was NOT at all, so in essence they went backwards!

A lot of the material that we love today and consider the top of the best stuff was NOT overrated ... but I can tell you that if ITCOTCK was released this morning, that half the folks in PA would trash it, and think it's just crap and has so much "noodling" and has no consistency whatsoever as an album for the fans to enjoy. These thoughts, would not even be talking about the "music" ... just comparing the songs to their "favorite" metal and thrash and formats that they know. Even today, only "Epitath" might be considered "conventional", and even then it's like pushing the idea of the format! So, yeah, fans today, not understanding the time it was born, would say it was overrated, but yesterday, in the late 60's when you and I heard this ... it was more than an anthem. It was a guide for a lifetime of fantastic music and artistic work, and believe you me, I for one have appreciated that since then! I think some other folks here do too!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the art is all about!
www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: April 05 2018 at 09:06
Quote
what has been observed over millennia to be what the vast swathes of humankind readily avow they find satisfying in art?

Well this is actually an empirical statement, isn't it? I'm not sure to what extent this holds and I'd be very surprised if you were. To me it looks like a statement of your subjective belief, nothing more. Which is fine of course except that you wanted to make the case for objectivity here if I'm not mistaken.
Quote
The statement 'Any level of quality is achievable by any level of compliance or non-compliance'  is something that plankton might choose to have us believe they choose their dinner partnersWink

And yet it may be true, and verifiably true, in the sense that you can specify a reasonable set of rules and I (or a music scientist who's more knowledgeable than me) can show you a piece that disregards any number of them and is still held in highest esteem. (John Cage's 4'33'' may do the trick for many of these games but even without that I'm pretty sure it can be done.)




Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 05 2018 at 09:44
Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

Quote
what has been observed over millennia to be what the vast swathes of humankind readily avow they find satisfying in art?

Well this is actually an empirical statement, isn't it? I'm not sure to what extent this holds and I'd be very surprised if you were. To me it looks like a statement of your subjective belief, nothing more. Which is fine of course except that you wanted to make the case for objectivity here if I'm not mistaken.
Quote
The statement 'Any level of quality is achievable by any level of compliance or non-compliance'  is something that plankton might choose to have us believe they choose their dinner partnersWink

And yet it may be true, and verifiably true, in the sense that you can specify a reasonable set of rules and I (or a music scientist who's more knowledgeable than me) can show you a piece that disregards any number of them and is still held in highest esteem. (John Cage's 4'33'' may do the trick for many of these games but even without that I'm pretty sure it can be done.)




There is no such thing as a 'music scientist' (as if someone is qualified to prescribe your emotional responses to music are 'wrong') You and I have ears and a brain, so both us are more than qualified to evaluate music. The Cage piece was an exercise in conceptual art i.e  a demonstration of the impossibility of the idea of 'silence' As to what that has to do with an evaluation of musical composition is probably best known and kept to yourself.

-------------


Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: April 05 2018 at 15:13
ExittheLemming: I think you're getting me quite a bit wrong here. I was bringing in the music scientist or musicologist or whatever as someone who may have a better overview of stuff and may be well informed what in academic circles (which were originally not brought up by me in this discussion) is highly appreciated, certainly not as somebody who has a licence to prescribe right or wrong responses. That's not my line of argument here; ascribing relevance to what can or cannot stand up to academic scrutiny was where you were coming from if I remember it right.


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 06 2018 at 02:16
Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

ExittheLemming: I think you're getting me quite a bit wrong here. I was bringing in the music scientist or musicologist or whatever as someone who may have a better overview of stuff and may be well informed what in academic circles (which were originally not brought up by me in this discussion) is highly appreciated, certainly not as somebody who has a licence to prescribe right or wrong responses. That's not my line of argument here; ascribing relevance to what can or cannot stand up to academic scrutiny was where you were coming from if I remember it right.


If by 'music scientist' you mean someone who is qualified to teach or lecture about music at tertiary level, I can't help you there as I'm neither trained or qualified in music save the entry level standard issue 'two ears and a brain' I mentioned earlier. I guess that type of insight would need to come from a professor of a faculty of Music. There might even be one traipsing around on Prog Archives as we speak Shocked
I know that neither of us is conflating highly regarded with popular and as an aside, George Bernard Shaw was right: Those who can do, those who can't: teach.

Or alternatively, write completely humorless treatises on what qualitative criteria they believe all music should be measured (neither us believe that approach is legit)
Spoiler alert - these tomes are drier than a legionnaires socks but probably contain what most people denote by 'formal academic scrutiny'

Lawrence Kramer 'Why Classical Music Still Matters' - this critical musicologist (and composer) pitches into your camp with a hermeneutic model encompassing cultural practices, performance and media formats which he posits is inclusive of all conceivable genres. How surprised would you be to learn that I thought the whole thing 'post-modern w**kspeak?'Wink

Julian Johnson 'Who Needs Classical Music?'  - (Prof. of Music, Royal Holloway University of London) takes a scalpel to the fondant mood music of Reich, Glass, Nyman et al and deems similar minimalist contemporary developments as 'inimical to thought' and a 'commodification of deliberate depthlessness'. He maintains that conventional academic scrutiny is an antidote to the 'value-free relativism of the marketplace'. Not a happy camper throughout but very well written

Roger Scruton 'The Aesthetics of Music'  - is actually quite enjoyable as this English professor of aesthetics gets incredibly angry in placesBig smile and the end part is him pulverizing popular music (quite indiscriminately) to a bloody pulp. An archly conservative view on the metaphysics of sound and the primordial demarcation between tone and sound (like the cavemen I alluded to earlier). Scruton holds particular disdain for what he feels is the reckless abandonment of tonality initiated by the 2nd Viennese school (Schoenberg, Berg and Webern) and holds firm to the view that traditional analytical criteria are not rendered obsolete by contemporary developments in composition

It might be a self fulfilling prophecy of course, but I couldn't find any examples of anyone from 'musical academia' arguing completely the opposite i.e. that conventional 'formal academic scrutiny' could be proven to be completely spurious and had no longer any vestigial value for the analysis and comprehension of composition. (Although Lawrence Kramer, somewhat the outlier, comes pretty close in places)

Not sure how much further we can take this discussion but you now have three accredited sources of 'formal academic scrutiny' to choose from. The rest is up to you.


-------------


Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: April 06 2018 at 18:52
ExittheLemming: Certainly an interesting discussion although now I feel less clear about what your position actually is than before, particularly about how much relevance you ascribe to "academic scrutiny". In any case, I don't know the books you're recommending but you did a good job giving me an idea of what's in them and how they are relevant to this discussion.
Quote
I couldn't find any examples of anyone from 'musical academia' arguing completely the opposite i.e. that conventional 'formal academic scrutiny' could be proven to be completely spurious and had no longer any vestigial value for the analysis and comprehension of composition.

...and that wouldn't be my position either.
This may be difficult to understand or to stomach about what I'm thinking (or I may not have explained it well). I actually think that insightful analysis of music (academic or not, but surely you find some of it in academia) is very worthwhile, for comprehension, for inspiration, for widening the view. What I do *NOT* think is that any of it can correctly claim to have universal validity, but neither do I believe that its value depends on that. And neither do I think that its main business is to "measure", to assign higher or lower rating to works. Doing insightful valuable analysis of music in my view is almost orthogonal to the "rating" business; whether certain works do or do not "stand up to" academic scrutiny is a discussion that is very marginal to elaborating the qualities, effects and workings of music in ways that could teach listeners and musicians something helpful and inspiring.

Of course criticism and rating can be part of such analysis and as you rightly illustrate, academic musicology is full of it. But then you will find much disagreement there (particularly, but certainly not exclusively regarding some notorious 20th century work, be it by Schoenberg, Cage, Glass, Miles Davis or the Beatles), and I can't help thinking that the idea that in such cases one is "objectively right" and another one is "wrong" is rather ridiculous, and the real "beef", the real value to human culture of such analyses  doesn't come from the measurement at all. You may smell some relativism in what I write and rightly so, I'm not convinced by the case for universal aesthetics (or if at all, then at such a low and elementary level that it hardly serves to set up any more sophisticated measurement). If you go into the literature, it's like discussing controversial music - some make the universalist case and some don't buy it... the literature is not going to decide this for us, we have to make our choices and I make a different one from yours, but of course presenting this as a "choice" with no ultimate objective truth behind it means that I have already framed it in the way I'm thinking.

In any case, this is why I think that the concept of "over/underrating" is generally quite misleading. It suggests that there is some "true" rating out there that a "correct" rater could match and others could get wrong. But I think that all ratings and all references for them are made by people and differently made by different people. Claiming that something is over- or underrated means saying that "most get this wrong but I get it right" and there's no authority out there that will rubber-stamp such a claim, not even those whose title may suggest their authority. But then I still claim that what these people say is of some use and value - just that this is quite independent of and detached from the "measurement" aspect.




Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: April 06 2018 at 19:27
Prog started in the second half of the 20th century and as such it was from its beginning surrounded by postmodern ideas on aesthetic, particularly the idea that the modern ideal of originality and progress may have run its course already, basically everything has already been invented and we can now only recombine and comment rather than create something truly new. With this of course came the fundamental uncertainly about values and the relativist tendencies to which I (at least partly) adhere.

This is quite manifest in Prog, the first innovations of which were about "re-combination" of ideas, rock and classical composition, rock and free improvisation, and then (still more connected to modern ideals) technological innovation combined with futuristic/SF aesthetic ideas. Then the willingness of many of the main protagonists by the end of the 1970s to leave their earlier achievements behind and try some new re-combination, together with the ever growing influence of markets and commercialisation; w8ith an emergence, in parallel, of some artists who rather tried to conserve and develop approaches that at the age of just 10-15 years were too young, in their view, to be already left behind. In all this one can see, in my view, a fundamental insecurity about aesthetic value, which is actually quite typical for the time, which comes with its own aesthetic quality or interest.

Personally I rate those artists highest who could steer through these developments in a confident and unmistakably personal and unique way. Firstly Can (including the solo work that followed the end of the band, I didn't choose my avatar for nothing). Czukay and Schmidt in particular as students of Stockhausen even had an academic music background (and Liebezeit was an established jazz drummer when Can started) and used this, and an insatiable curiosity for all kinds of music and sounds from all over the world, to produce their very own rich mix of influences, with a strong element of spontaneity, wilful primitivity and allusion to deep hypnotic and ritualistic roots of music, without ever standing still. In similar ways, although with very different results, Robert Fripp and King Crimson also created their very own sound and updated it continuously with new influences, particularly wide open to seamless integration of whatever new band members would bring in. Further examples are Magma and Art Zoyd; these and a handfull of other artists managed to put down so strong roots that they never lost their orientation when integrating new influences and "going with the time", but on the other hand their hearts, brains and particularly ears were always open enough to the big world of sound (and everything else) that they never stood still and managed to produce something fresh over four decades and more.

Of course I don't want to dispute the role of other prog heroes such as Yes, Pink Floyd or ELP at particular times, and chances are that in 100 years these will still be better known than more obscure artists such as Art Zoyd. Who survives in public perception is not a matter of quality alone and achieving 5-10 years of greatness combined with popularity will give an artists better chances to be remembered than four decades of flying confidently under the radar, but still, I'd expect that whoever rediscovers the work of Can, King Crimson, Magma or Art Zoyd in whatever time on whatever strange paths of music interest will be thoroughly amazed. Which of course is just my subjective opinion.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk