Fanboyism in progressive rock
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Blogs
Forum Description: Blogs, Editorials, Original articles posted by members
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=60082
Printed Date: April 25 2024 at 19:18
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Fanboyism in progressive rock
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Subject: Fanboyism in progressive rock
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 09:05
|
There is simply way too much fanboyism in prog rock circles, and here I don't mean things like just liking every single thing your favourite band releases because sometimes that is a defensible opinion. Yeah, I know that "fanboy" originally meant "completist", but here I use the word in the newer sense where it describes a kind of snob who only really likes a specific work/series/genre/artist/publisher and will hence go to ridiculous lengths to explain its alleged superiority to everything else. "Fan" is an abbrevation of "fanatic", after all. This often happens from an ignorant position because the person in question has limited exposure to stuff outside the narrow niche of interests in question. If I sound harsh here, I should inform here that this criticism is also directed at myself because until around roughly a year ago (or even less, depending on the definitions) I used to be pretty bad about having a ridiculously narrow field of interest and not giving stuff outside it much of a chance. This isn't the same as just liking some genres and artists more than others. No, the litmus test is that whenever a fanboy or fangirl ever gets into something outside his/her field of interest, it's either excused as a guilty pleasure or just because it has some connection to whatever it is that he/she actually happens to like, either by having inspired "approved" material or involving some of the same people. For example, a Star Wars fanboy would watch The Bridge on the River Kwai because Alec Guinness is in it and The Dam Busters because George Lucas said it inspired the space battles in Star Wars, but not bother with other WW2 movies because they don't have anything to do with Star Wars. Now, what does all this have to do with progressive rock? Well, I've noticed this kind of attitude much more often in fans of progressive rock than of any other type of music. Depressingly frequent manifestations of this include:  People insisting that other sub-genres of rock'n'roll don't have proficient musicianship or ambitious concepts at all.Treating progressiveness or stylistic complexity as something that's good in itself rather than as a means to an end.Endless nitpicking over what's "really" progressive and what isn't, which starts to look like an excuse to dismiss artists and albums out of hand if they don't live up to some arbitrary and possibly revisionistic standard of what progression really is.Whenever someone doesn't like progressive rock, it's treated as a sign of either some malicious conspiracy or stupidity on part of whatever group of people that's perceived as not appreciating progressive rock enough.Only really liking music from other genres (e. g. jazz, metal) on the condition of how much it resembles (or is influential to) progressive rock.In general having a very "sacred cow" attitude to artists and albums that are seen as classics of the genre.I'm not saying that all of us are like that, it might be 50/50 or one of those vocal minorities everyone talks about but all those hoary clichés I just listed sure as hell pop up a lot around these parts. It's bad enough that rock'n'roll fandom often lapses into dogmatism and overtly nostalgic reverence for the past when it's supposed to be irreverent and iconoclastic and not holding anything sacred... but when fans of a sub-genre that stands for thinking even further outside the box show this many symptoms of having a really narrow perspective, I think we need to take a good look at ourselves. For example, let's take the stuff about musical proficiency: It's not just that craftsmanship is being exalted for its own sense (and as much as I know this is a stereotype, it can result in some lifelessly formal music) but that it looks like a lot of the time it's implicit that the only valid standard of good musicianship whatsoever is whatever (the person using the term judges) works within a progressive rock paradigm. To go back to the stuff I mentioned about this also being aimed at myself, I can point to that thread I made a long time ago that applauded Neil Young for having a song that sounded vaguely like King Crimson. From my current perspective, of course, that thread looks ridiculous. Apples and oranges, isn't that what they say? Yeah, I know that all hardcore fans of a genre or members of a subculture can be like this but in my experience this is a more common problem in prog-rock fandom than with metalheads or punk rockers, who both have a (often undeserved) reputation for being a bunch of genre chauvinists! ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Replies:
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 09:54
|
very nice...... People insisting that other sub-genres of rock'n'roll don't have proficient musicianship or ambitious concepts at all. well those people are idiots... simple enough. There are many.. many examples of the stupidity of that line of thinking. Treating progressiveness or stylistic complexity as something that's good in itself rather than as a means to an end.this point is what caught my eye about your post. The biggest sin of prog fans, complexity is not prog it itself, but very often a means to an end. The question is ...what is that end. The Answer is ......not coincidently.. what prog is really about. the merging of rock music with art.. .the artistic aesthetic. That is why bands like Floyd, Hawkwind, even Caravan that were not 'complex' music are recognized by all but the pig-headed of prog fans ...as prog. Conversely... complexity does not make music prog. Does not? hahah... let's make that should not... but it is. That is the genrification of prog. Endless
nitpicking over what's "really" progressive and what isn't, which
starts to look like an excuse to dismiss artists and albums out of hand
if they don't live up to some arbitrary and possibly revisionistic
standard of what progression really is.forget 'progression'... that ties into the preceptions of 'prog', where the whole notion has been twisted ass-backwards and complexity is seen as end all instead of a possible byproduct. Prog as a means of describing progressive music is a laughable notion since 1977. Whenever
someone doesn't like progressive rock, it's treated as a sign of either
some malicious conspiracy or stupidity on part of whatever group of
people that's perceived as not appreciating progressive rock enough.prog is a niche genre.. just like punk rock. The 'us vs. them' mentality is what binds many prog fans together. Only
really liking music from other genres (e. g. jazz, metal) on the
condition of how much it resembles (or is influential to) progressive
rock.that doesn't bother me much, personal tastes are what they are. I like country music.... so what.. if someone likes only music related in some to progressive rock. So what... they may have more shallow tastes.. but in the end. Who cares really... In general having a very "sacred cow" attitude to artists and albums that are seen as classics of the genre.find me a branch of music that doesn't have it's sacred cows.. prog is no better or worse ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Stooge
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 10:45
|
Nice blog. I'm not perfect either, so I'll see how some of your theories apply to me.People insisting that other sub-genres of rock'n'roll don't have proficient musicianship or ambitious concepts at all. I definitely see this alot, but have seen it also applied to other genres (metal and jazz) as well. The longer I have been listening to music and play music (I play bass), the less I care about the technicality of the music and I also learn that in just about any genre there are musicians that could play circles around some of my biggest influences. Treating progressiveness or stylistic complexity as something that's good in itself rather than as a means to an end.That pretty much sums up why I can go from loving Dream Theater one week and hating them the next.  Endless
nitpicking over what's "really" progressive and what isn't, which
starts to look like an excuse to dismiss artists and albums out of hand
if they don't live up to some arbitrary and possibly revisionistic
standard of what progression really is.I tend to mainly nitpick when it comes to what bands are included on prog archives. At the end of the day, it isn't my decision who makes it, and I won't get too upset either way. Heck, I'd consider the Beastie Boys to be rather progressive, but wouldn't put them on this site, and hell would freeze over before this happens anyway. Whenever
someone doesn't like progressive rock, it's treated as a sign of either
some malicious conspiracy or stupidity on part of whatever group of
people that's perceived as not appreciating progressive rock enough.Most so-called progressive bands (as classified by PA) aren't for everyone. I know there are some genres of music that I can't fully appreciate (country, polka, a good amount of punk, ...), and I wouldn't expect my intelligence to be questioned by fans of those genres, so why should I do so to them?? Only
really liking music from other genres (e. g. jazz, metal) on the
condition of how much it resembles (or is influential to) progressive
rock.This will attract me to certain artists initially, but may only hold my interest for so long. In general having a very "sacred cow" attitude to artists and albums that are seen as classics of the genre.I tend to hold some of my favorite artists close to my heart, but am willing to hear out others opinions before I get overly protective of them. As long as a criticism of a band isn't a personal attack on the artist or myself, I can let it slide. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 12:03
For me fanboy has always been about discovering a band and finding an irresistible need to add everything from the artist's catalog to you collection as soon as possible, then having to get whatever's new right when it gets released. So I guess the shoe doesn't really fit me as outlined in your initial post. 
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Bitterblogger
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 16:38
|
Slartibartfast wrote:Posted By: Any Colour You Like
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 21:37
|
I have always seen fanboyism to be essentially blind/ignorant musical fundamentalism. That is, "I'm right, because X is the best band, all their works are *****star, and all your bands are crap".
But I also beleive that it can be good, especially in creating solid fanbases in more obscure genres like prog, or death metal or indie. It also depends on the maturity level of the fanboy, a 12 year old may not have the neccessary skills to view/argue a topic in a civilised manner, and thus falls back on cliched fanboyisms. Whereas an adult may respect other concepts, whist still vehemently favouring a band or bands.
In prog, I think it comes down to the latter, because by their very nature most prog fans are open minded. There will always be those who err into fanboyism in prog, they are elitists, and generally should be ignored.
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 03 2009 at 21:43
|
It's in EVERY circle of music dude. With music there will be fanboyism. That simple |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: August 04 2009 at 02:13
|
YES FTW!XD!!!!1111!!11!!1!1!1!1!!!! Fanboyism is so incredibly irritating at times, especially about bad stuff... Like Joey Jordison, Right JJ? ------------- 
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: August 04 2009 at 03:35
|
I have to agree with practically everything Toaster Mantis says here in his thread opener (and very eloquently to boot) The sort of callow immaturity he describes is endemic on most website forums. Gonna quote from my own review of Five Bridges by the Nice (my, how ironically self-indulgent of me) we cannot help but conclude with some irony, that those denizens of the 'rawk' world who pay lip service to libertarianism, experimentation and anti-establishment values can be, without fear of contradiction, some of the most conservative people on the planet. Solution - Implement an age restriction to ensure it's just we boring old farts are able to disappear up our own crinkly backsides debating the allegorical custard references in Close to the Edge (or similar) Youth is wasted on the young... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: August 04 2009 at 03:52
|
I think prog actually lacks fanboys in comparison to other genres. Doesn't make it less annoying when you come across a die-hard in the prog realm, but if anything we are way too apologist for liking what we like. It's like some people seem ashamed of prog and feel the need to bring up all the stuff outside the genre that they listen to (that's happened several times in this thread already, btw.) Even with prog artists, I see this. They will predominately list influences coming from other genres in album sleeves, but refuse to name those that are obviously closer to home. I think in the end it's because prog is a really, really small niche genre so three main things happen 1) The progger gets an intense persecution complex and responds by attacking all other genres. 2) The progger starts trying to branch out to other genres in order to be able to relate to a lot more music enthusiasts. 3) The progger realizes music is just a hobby and therefore learns not to sweat where his tastes place him in the music community. As always, the above 3 choices are abstractions and most of us are fractional compositions thereof. I'd say I'm about equal parts of all 3. Seriously, though, never ever have been on online web community where there has been so much infighting over trying to have a rosier outlook towards other communities. Edit: I will say this, I do think there's some music with an indefensible lack of substance and quality. It's a minority, but unfortunately very well publicized one. If this statements makes you mad, then boo hoo, so what? I have an opinion, it happens. ------------- 
|
Posted By: LARKSTONGUE
Date Posted: August 04 2009 at 07:59
|
Toaster Mantis' eloquent rant on elitism among progressive rock fans struck a real chord with me. The elitism, however, carries through to other musical territories as well. Having rather varied and broad exposure to many different kinds of music and art, I can say with certainty that this kind of mentality pervades most of the arts. Gustav Mahler, the last of a line of great Romantic composers that began with Johannes Brahams, and whose 9th Symphony predicted the break with tonality that was to open many new doors of musical expression (beginning with Arnold Schoenberg), had his works of genius summarily dismissed for fifty years by elitists in the classical avant-garde circle as being passe and locked into the box of Romaniticism.
In jazz, one hears all the accolades for Miles Davis, whose conceptual genius and ability to set a mood with music cannot be denied, but whose own technical abilities at the trumpet frequently left an awful lot to be desired.
As a young adolescent listening to Pink Floyd, virtually to the exclusion of anything else, I found myself extolling the virtues of everything they ever did as genius. Exposure to other areas of music has expanded my tastes considerably since those naive days, and I can now see just how silly that position was.
While I appreciate much of Gentle Giant's music, some of it just seems to be complex for complexity's sake rather than complex because the musical concept requires it. Some of their best material is also some of their most simple. The same holds true, but less so, with King Crimson.
The perception by some progheads that other forms of music aren't worth listening to is ludicrious. The same can be said of people who listen solely to other rock genres, exclusively to jazz or to classical music. This type of elitism stems frequently from an attempt to rationalize the subjective. Tastes are not static and tastes are not universal. To box onself in to listening to only one artist or to only one genre of music denies yourself the pleasure of experiencing an infinite amount of material.
Sure, it is okay to gravitate to certain forms or artists. And, if, in the final analysis, you wish to choose to listen to just one genre or artist, that of course is your right and your prerogative. But, in doing so, one must be conscious of the fact that your crush or love affair with the artist or genre may not be shared by others. You may also find, at some point, that the infatuation fizzles out.
After doing some exploring, and then coming back to have another look, you may find that that high school prom queen of a band or musical form you enjoyed so much may have turned into a 500 pound couch potato. To each their own. Love what you love but be willing to grow. Being rigid is rigor mortis and being unable to grow is being dead.
Thanks for your excellent post.
------------- ^ ^ ((( I ))) The fact is, no matter how |
Posted By: paragraph7
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 17:52
|
When reading the comments above yours, i was having very similiar thoughts to yours. I think that the whole reason why there even is threads or blogs like this one on this site is because prog listeners try to be as objective to music as possible. With objective here i mean that we try to go through and live as much music we can, and see where that gets us; which is the music we like the most?. There's no difference with a prog purist or a hiphop purist if the prog one hasn't ever even heard hiphop. I myself have listened to all those crappy genres more than i want to admit, but atleast now, i know which over time has pleased me most. If progg "fanboys" would mock other genres, especially the totally mainstream ones, they would actually have a more defensible ground than the hiphop or trance fanboys because most of these have never heard of prog, or those amounts of music that proggers have anyway. And here's the real funny thing, most proggers wouldn't even want to use that "defensible ground" to mock other genres, just because mocking other genres is not an objective and neutral approach in analyzing music. "Fanboying" is irritating yes, but if it's so fundamental in music in general, why do we try cleanse it so badly? Because it's prog we're talking about. ------------- What you cannot speak of, you have to pass on in silence. |
Posted By: reality
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 18:15
| I do not know what "Prog" is? I do not want to know what "Prog" is and anyone who tries to tell me what "Prog" is will get a cold ear. It is all just simple Rock music to me. Get over it! |
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: August 05 2009 at 19:10
|
I think prog fans ought to get out and become elitist in other genres and then come back to prog. I left prog and became a metalhead of the obnoxiously arrogant sort when I was younger. It is true that metalheads are a bunch of genre chauvinists. Interestingly, lots of metalheads are also interested in classical music because they see it as a relevant genre, kind of like proggers except metalheads often bizarrly shun jazz. Anyways,I swear being a metal elitist for 2 years really helped me exand my musical ideas and so when I came back to prog (although deep down I still see metal as a superior genre) I actually had a far more open mind. Interestingly, I feel that somehow this opened the door for me to reaccept pop music, although I don't know exactly how. I guess my point is that if you just forget about prog for a couple years, you will come back much more openminded.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury">   |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 06 2009 at 07:22
|
You want to see the fanboyism, that exists in dance music and DJ circles. It's intolerable and makes prog fanboyism look like reasonable opinion sharing. JJLehto's assertion that it exists in all musical circles is very very true. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: August 09 2009 at 03:50
The musical genre with the most ridiculously snobby fans is actually folk music, at least traditionally where you've had people booing at Bob Dylan for going electric. Things have probably changed within the last 30 years or so with bands that combined folk music with very modern genres getting other kinds of people into folk and some of them even becoming pretty popular e. g. Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds, Gogol Bordello or Katzenjammer. However, you can still find lots of folk purists who have such ridiculously strict standards of what's "authentic" that their tastes gravitate to stuff so peripheral and primitive it doesn't really represent traditional music at all. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: August 09 2009 at 04:32
Yeah, that's pretty funny... might have something to do with the stereotype of metalheads as insufferable genre chauvinists not being quite as true as it might have been 20 years ago, by the way. Though I can confirm that kind of metal purist does exist, I've actually met more people who mostly listened to metal than people who mostly listened to prog-rock who also were into all kinds of obscure folk singers and industrial noise bands. This isn't a completely good thing, though, since it's been a bit of a fad for the last 10 years with bands awkwardly combining metal with completely unrelated genres in a really literal way which sometimes does result in some good music (e. g. Aarni, Fantômas) but just as often is because of that suspiciously affected open-mindedness deathrabbit rightfully castigated... which I must restate is actually more common in metal than in prog. Again, it is just as ubiquitious as overtly exclusive fanboyism and is probably related to it in some bizarre manner but it's kinda grating in those that pride themselves on eclecticism. The people who are worst about these, however, are probably the "generically alternative" crowd as http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Six_o_the_Clock/the_garden_variety_hipster_cool_music_list - parodied by the RateYourMusic user Six_o_the-Clock . Do I sound confused? Well, that's probably because I am. What I'm trying to say with this post is probably that the inclusive and the exclusive snob are two sides of the same coin and equally annoying. Indeed, I suspect that a lot of the suspiciously open-minded are fanboys trying too hard to go to the other extreme and might branch out for the wrong reasons, e. g. trying to project a sophisticated image (even just for themselves) rather than to understand different art than what they're familiar with. I know that the golden mean is a cliché and not always true, but I guess that you have to do a balancing act in having to keep an open mind without being obnoxious or affected about it. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 09 2009 at 06:19
|
Good post, but isn't it a rather self critical, inward looking analysis? In my experience, most music fans, whatever be the genre, are too attached to specific genre(s) and are both reluctant to venture outside the resulting comfort zone and also grudging in giving respect to music they are not familiar with. Your post in fact seems to express the hope that prog rock fans would be different and you are disillusioned that this is not so; well prog rock fans are no different from blues fans or folk fans or metal fans, who do we think we are!! I would not even venture to generalize that prog rock fans have a larger attention span or are more patient because I am terribly impatient with blues jams for instance and also ambient music in general. I also agree that open-mindedness has become both a fad and a copout; the moment somebody comes along who doesn't like somebody else's favourite band, the former is asked to be more open minded about music. Likes and dislikes have nothing to do with open mindedness, because liking absolutely everything shows a lack of discerning capacity, if anything. I want to clarify that by "absolutely everything", I mean artists and albums, not genres because I am sure there is something to like in every genre, whether for me or not is a different story. I follow a simple thumb of rule to 'help' myself like music I am not unfamiliar with, just to not go in with any preconceived expectations at all. If I am familiar with the music, I have a good idea what to expect though I wouldn't hold it against the band if they did something different from what I expected but when I have no idea what to expect, I just listen with a blank slate and see for myself if I find anything to enjoy in it. This admittedly does not yield great results when you listen to more esoteric forms of music but that's fine with me; I don't HAVE to like everything, as long as I am not dismissive about music from a genre that I don't regularly listen to, I am ok. |
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: August 09 2009 at 16:31
|
Hmm, my cliche is that I always disagree with the golden mean, and I must do so again. It isn't a balancing act. We have the inclusive snob and the exclusive snob, but one can be far more openminded than the most inclusive snob and still not be one. I do agree, however, that the fusing genres awkwardly into metal trend is not very good. I really get tired with the fact that any time a band puts non-metal sounds into their music, they are hailed as creative and original. I love the new cynic album. That album to me is a perfect example of being extremely openminded without being pretentious and/or low quality. It is actually more openminded than these hipster metal bands could be, because while they are often different for the sake of being different, cynic are different because they have to be for the sake of their music. I think this also applies to prog rock. When king crimson added the string section to their song epitaph, it wasn't because string sections were hip, it's because the song demanded a bigger, more epic sound. By the way, great link. rogerthat, going into music with no preconceived expectations is how I always approach new music. Even bands I am familiar with I still clear my mind before hitting play. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury"> |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: August 10 2009 at 02:50
The reason that it annoys me more in progressive rock/art rock fandom than with, say, folk fans is probably that this is a "movement" that prides itself on eclecticism and thinking outside the box so to see it get so insular and dogmatic is rather jarring.  Also, I guess that on a prog rock forum it is more appropriate to discuss how this kind of fanboyism applies here than to other genres.  ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: August 10 2009 at 03:20
Yeah, I think that I oversimplified it by using the term "balancing act" and the best way to sum it up is that there's a difference between openmindedness and "openmindedness". Like that humorous list I linked to shows, a lot of the people I called inclusive snobs have surprisingly formulaic taste. (probably the same people who in the 1980s sneered at anyone who didn't care about reggae!) ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: SonicDeath10
Date Posted: August 14 2009 at 13:50
|
Everything you said took the words right out of my mouth. I hate how so many prog fans are like "Oh, this is JUST pop, it's stupid" as if it was really easy to write a compact, catchy melody with memorable riffs and strong playing. It isn't a sin to play pop: in fact, I think Rush was at their best when incorporating huge elements of pop into their music, and anybody that thinks that Yes doesn't have huge pop influences is a fool. Pop is just as vital and important a form of music as progressive, and probably even more important culturally.
I listen to a lot of prog because it's fun but some of the worst bands I've personally heard were prog. Dream Theater for example. I can't stomach that bloated bullsh*t. Same with Queensryche. Give me Renaissance any time. At least they had a good singer. sh*t, give me ABBA. They had two great singers.
The important criteria for any music should be whether it's GOOD not whether it has fifteen complex movements with seventeen keyboard solos and one hundred and fifty six instruments playing counter melodies at all time. That can be good. But it can also be really bad. Behold the Arctopus bad. ------------- "Good evening hippies." Bobby Boy |
Posted By: paragraph7
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 10:45
I agree with you completely. In this view there is something that i myself think is extremely beautiful, and which i think many prog listeners share. Dream Theater is a good example. I haven't really seen a five or even a four star rating on a Dream Theater album for a while, and this is because they just lack that what good pop actually has, i call it "catchiness". This should be a lesson to all prog bands, not to forget that while the music can be complex and skillfully hard it should still appeal to the ear in the way that you want to listen to it over and over again. I'm sorry DT fans, but i know only a few of DT songs that i have wanted to listen twice in a row. If we compare most of DT:s work with poppish prog songs like Rush Limelight or Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here, DT fails to deliver in the way these two songs do, even if they are simple and easy. What i earlier regarded as beautiful is, that i think most prog listeners see this point. This is in my opinion a very wide and objective view, and i cannot really see how one could be more objective. ------------- What you cannot speak of, you have to pass on in silence. |
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 12:52
|
I think you are on to something, but maybe you take it too far. Cachiness is not required to make good music by any means. I love lots of avant garde music that is not catcy at all. The problem with a lot of dream theater is that they are writing as if their music was meant to be catchy. I mean, their music is very strongly melodic, sung with classic rock falsetto vocals, played completely cleam and at a good tempo for pop music. Basically, my point is that Dream Theater have a lot of the stylings of pop music, but they don't write good pop music, so those stylings just go to waste and oftimes make the music more tedious.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury"> |
Posted By: paragraph7
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 15:49
My point exactly. But i would have to disagree slightly on the topic of lack of catchiness in "hard" music as avant garde. Gentle Giant for me was a good example. I started understanding their music at the same moment as i found something "catchy" in them(The chorus of Knots for example). What i'm now realising is that "catchiness" is for me the same as just music that i like, how about that!. Well this could go into semantics, but i agree with your point on DT. ------------- What you cannot speak of, you have to pass on in silence. |
Posted By: MA2003
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 23:22
|
Woo, new member, first post. Yeah, I just signed up. In my honest opinion, Pop music was Pop music fifteen years ago. I've noticed a shift on how simple Pop music has become. Britney Spears "Oops I Did it Again" was much more complex than most of the music on the charts today. These days, they're using the same chord progressions over and over, and one melodic chorus (where which most of the verses are pseudo-rapping) is repeated almost endlessly (for example, Lady Gaga - Pokerface whos very popular nowadays). Most songs these days are written by song productions groups from other countries (a lot of them are European). Who I assume, writes music at a conveyor-belt factory quality churning out pop tunes considering that it seems pretty simple than what pop was during the mid 90's and the entire 80's. It seems radical, but I believe that writing Pop Songs of today's quality is not as hard as it sounds. You know, I keep thinking that Prog has been giving a bad name. Bands like Dream Theater (which I have a love/hate relationship with, haha) tend to be portraying Prog unconsciously in a way I don't want them to be. Dream Theater are not the only ones. Musically, I feel that Prog has changed in such a way that bands that COULD be classed as Prog, are now under a different tag like Post-Rock, because Prog is no longer defined as an experimental genre, but rather, a genre of Organs and Moogs, obvious soundscapes, odd-time but already done time-signatures. Prog of course does not have to be complex. I think Prog was at one point more about being intentionally profound. It is my opinion that, manufactured music is not musically profound. I think there is a difference between pop music, and commercially manufactured built music to appease the masses and make money. Now of course I haven't talked about fanboyism much. I'm more or less talking about my own fanboyism with Prog. I love it because a majority of its bands, take things to a philosophical level.. Of course though, I like all sorts of music, Pop, R'n'B, Hip Hop, Electronic Music. anything. I've listened to a lot of things, from Bartok to Biggie. But most genres as pop, I only listen to if the music is profound enough for me to want to listen to it. With Pop, I would listen to Michael Jackson, Prince, Journey, Van Morrison etc. Hip Hop, Bone Thugs and Harmony, NWA, Eminem, Nas, Chamillionaire. In other words, I have adapted the philosophy of Prog (seriousness musically and artistically, well, most of them are) to other genres for my preference. Most serious pop, rock, rnb, rap musicians are from the past. The thing is, I live in a country where most musical styles are what is on TV. To find anything remotely experimental you have to go to the bar in the local city that is located on the far end, which is tiny as hell. There are no prog bands in New Zealand (none either by my definition, or as a mainstream prog band). 85% of my nationality listen to either Hip Hop (more danceble and slow jam stuff than actual rap) or they listen to reggae hardcore. |
Posted By: Any Colour You Like
Date Posted: August 17 2009 at 23:28
|
^^ I'm from NZ and yes, there are some New Zealand prog bands... but not many. Oh, and I don't listen to Hip Hop or Reggae.  Welcome to the Archives, good to have another Kiwi onboard. |
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: August 18 2009 at 00:05
|
^(up 2) I think pop music today has moved on from the 90's. Between the days of oops I did it again and now, there was a mimimalist movement within pop which is still felt today. That might be why you noticed the shift. There was for a while a bizarre set of hits such as gwen stefani's "hollaback girl" which had pretty much no melody nor harmony, and this sort of inspired many of those pop producers to cut down on their instrumentation. The shift towards minimalism has been largely superceded by the shift towards auto-tune, and lots of more complex pop is coming back in style now, but remenants of minimalism such as lady gaga still remain. It's not really a conveyer belt situation though, because pop is constantly changing. The guys who write pop are the ones chasing the zeitgiest; it takes a lot of genius and intuition to keep the hits coming when the tastes of the public are so fickle. Also, I'm not saying minimalism is bad. For example, I really love single ladies by beyonce, which is very minimalist, but features this utterly sick polytonal bass synth line. However, I think you are right about prog music how it used to be intentionally profound and now is not, but rather a stylistic imitation of the prog music of old. Paragraph7, even though gentle giant is possibly "catchy," consider one of the soundscapes by robert fripp (gates of paradise, the outer darkness, for example), or modern classical works like Schoenberg's violin concerto. There is no catchiness to those songs, yet I consider them to be utterly fantastic. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury"> |
Posted By: paragraph7
Date Posted: August 19 2009 at 07:01
I hear you. It is very likely that i just haven't stumbled across music that i like which wouldn't be catchy. But could there on the other hand be a possibility that because of those works of Fripp etc. do not show clear catchiness, the catchiness is "found" when one just likes them as a whole? My point is, it's maybe just a matter of how we ourselves have defined what is catchy and what is good music. To me there's not much of a difference. ------------- What you cannot speak of, you have to pass on in silence. |
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: August 20 2009 at 15:05
|
Well, I think there is a way to break down music into two building blocks: hook and atmosphere. Either one of those alone can make for good music, however most of the music we like has both, and the hook is what makes it catchy.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury"> |
Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 18:23
I agree with all of this, damn straight.
|
Posted By: rwhite
Date Posted: August 27 2009 at 01:54
|
This thread brings up some interesting points. I agree with what some of you have said with regards to pop and "hooks". I can't tell you how many times I have read or heard reviews, articles, comments, etc. dismiss- ing or putting down (sometimes indirectly) music that has hooks or is catchy. When you think of it though, it seems like all of the most notable, enduring names in music had hooks running throughout their material, no matter what their stripe. In this respect, they were all pop acts. Now I certainly don't mean to devalue music which delves into areas where the musical structures are more atypical & nonstandard. Here the music may either seem to lack hooks or be much more difficult to discern. This music must be judged on a case by case basis. I do believe, however, that the truly talented music artists exploring this territory, are the ones who are continually engaging the listener by making it interesting. Too often, I have listened to some music artist setting out to make a longer number meant to be taken seriously. It will usually have some musical idea presented early on. But then they just repeat the idea endlessly, usually with some sort of accompanying "heavy" instrumental drone, and it's just so boring. Often it will make me even fall asleep. Now of course, there is certain music where that may be the purpose. In that case, it's fine. So my parting shot is: so called pop music that is well written, well performed and well produced shouldn't be put down because it's not as ambitious or as "heavy" as other music, such as the music typically discussed on this forum. |
Posted By: jimbrown87
Date Posted: August 27 2009 at 16:27
|
Fanboyism as described by the OP is a natural phase for a lot of
people. A lot of people care so much about this thing called
progressive rock that they blind sight a lot of music around them. I
used to be this way. I remember when I first started listening to
progressive rock, I started with listening to Dream Theater in 2000 and
I was obsessed with them for about 2-3 years. I collected their
discography over the course of that time and became familiar with all
of their material. I'd also defend them every time they were mentioned
negatively. I wanted to spread the Dream Theater gospel as I call it
now :P. Which is what it becomes for some people, not just Dream
Theater of course but anything that you listen to that you can't
immediately find fault with. The cool thing about Dream Theater wasn't their music, but their musical connections. From DT I was able to listen to bands like, Transatlantic, Flower Kings and Spock's Beard. Their influences led me to King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, ELP, JT etc... The more bands I found the less interested I became with Dream Theater. I found that they were the tip of the ice burg. The thing I found at the base of the ice burg surprised me. Contemperary Classical music, a whole lot of jazz, afro-cuban music, Indian/raga music. Instead of progressive rock being the home, it became the vehicle to these different, yet deep avenues of music. Something that pop music doesn't do at all. Fanboyism in music is a part of an adolescent phase in developing a healthy and mature passion for music. I've listened to a lot of music since I first started listening to Dream Theater. My approach to other people's taste in music has changed a lot since then and instead of having to defend the bands I listen to I can be satisfied in the fact that I found music that I'm passionate about. Then I can let the music "speak for itself" on it's own marits. Artists and bands that are currently in heavy rotation are Devin Townsend (my new DT :P), Mum, The Decemberists, maudlin of the Well and Carl King (Sir Millard Mulch, Dr. Zoltan). |
Posted By: SonicDeath10
Date Posted: August 27 2009 at 17:23
|
You have a point about fanboyism: you tend to go through that when you're younger. I did that for a long of groups, but by the time I came to prog I was quite late out of that phase. Except I was pretty annoying about Peter Gabriel and Genesis for awhile, but they were my first big prog band. I got some people into them, and annoyed most people, and got annoyed that others got annoyed. I was like that with Sonic Youth too, when I was younger, as well as Glenn Branca and later, Frank Zappa.
I come from the different end of prog then you, though. You got into Dream Theater first. I TRIED listening to them after absorbing King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, ELP, Jethro Tull, Gentle Giant, Kraftwerk, Faust, Can etc. Stuff that is really out there. To me, the album I listened to, it wasn't really that interesting. Too metal. I know that's a huge pull for some people. *shrug*
I guess there are still pulls of fan boy in me. I can't wait for the Beatles Boxset. I'm buying that come hell or high water. Same with the upcoming Kraftwerk box set. Can't wait for that. They're actually hinting that they may also release a boxset of their first three albums, the first time those babies were ever officially released. That has me excited. I'm also in a Cluster and Tangerine Dream mode and feel like scraping everything up by them.
Don't get me started on The Who! ------------- "Good evening hippies." Bobby Boy |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: August 29 2009 at 03:49
That is an interesting perspective, and backed up by my observation about how I used to be like that but grew out of it at some point. Then again, I've had friends whom I listened to lots of music with who never really were like that either even when I was... maybe it's more of a personality type thing? I've changed a lot over the last couple of years at a quicker pace than ever, same thing with my taste in music. You could suggest that introverted people have very strictly defined tastes and extroverted people have wider tastes, that would certainly be consistent with how I've changed but on the other hand I've met enough exceptions to that pseudo-thesis to say that would be an extremely hasty generalization. A better explanation could be that the way you listen to music usually changes fundamentally as you get older, even though it's the same music you like there are more things you begin paying attention to. For example, I no longer really like anything completely uncritically but at the same time I'm wary of having a completely academically detached attitude to music because I went through that kind of phase too and that was not much fun at all. This isn't really a balancing act since reducing it to the golden mean would be simplifying it into polar opposites... sometimes you need more to start again from scratch with only some really basic principles of aesthetics. You could also synthesize the best lessons to be drawn from the various perspectives upon music with the "glue" holding it together being the principle that it's the context (personal, historical, subcultural/genre-related) that really matters. Right now that's more or less the opinion I have. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Col.Nuke
Date Posted: August 31 2009 at 15:33
|
Prog rock was allowed to have fanboys in the 1970's. Because of the fact that prog has adopted so many musical styles and genres under its wing, it can no longer truly be refered to as "prog rock" but rather as progressive music in general. So, I guess you could say that prog rock fanboys could be refered to what we know as "prog purists", who only consider artists such as Gentle Giant & Yes to be progressive. Prog purists, I fart in your general direction. Other than that, great topic.
 |
Posted By: oddgirlout
Date Posted: September 03 2009 at 10:20
|
Good post, Toaster Mantis! The link cracked me up, as I move in social circles that could be described as hipster-y, and yes, that was pretty spot-on. I think I have an entire post or blog entry about this in me that I'll have to write down at some point. I agree this is usually a symptom of youth. I think for many (I know it was for me) music was/is a big part of the development of identity, and sometimes that becomes conflated. People "defend" their music in ways that seem incredibly personal, and that's because it is. Often, when I was in school, if a person had a major change of aesthetic it was directly related to the associated music. Going back to school in September was always interesting for me, to see who had become a punk, goth, metalhead, etc., over the summer. So I think in that context it makes more sense when people react emotionally to someone saying "That band is crap!", because they are probably hearing on some level, "You are crap!" Okay, developmental psychology aside, I think genres which exist outside of mainstream acceptance tend to have more of this fanboy syndrome (FBS?) because the genre is to some degree marginalized. Punk, metal, prog, while all of these forms have had moments of mainstream commercial success by and large they tend to exist apart from it. Comparatively, something like jazz (which has many similar thematic and conceptual approaches to some prog) has a degree of cultural acceptance and even approval, so while jazz fans might experience similar marginalizing of their genre, it is still paid lip service as a valuable pursuit. Say you like jazz to a non-jazz fan and chances are they'll nod solemnly, as opposed to saying you like prog. If the person even knows what that means they'll be more likely to go "I HATE that stuff." That can lead to defensiveness, for sure. It is interesting, though, how genres tend to evolve into more conservative forms of themselves. With the development of any new music, almost immediately people begin to codify and describe it. This is human nature and how we tend to relate to ideas. Ironically, while this gives a sense of cohesiveness to a general artistic approach like punk, metal, prog, it does then limit what can (easily) be accomplished within that framework. A friend of mine was in a fairly influential independent punk band in the 90's, and they were told by the premiere punk review publication at the time that their album wouldn't be reviewed because it had a cello on it, and was therefore not punk. This obviously was based in a very essentialist idea of what punk music was, and of the same cloth as the kinds of prog fanboy behaviour listed in the OP. I think, with time, you can develop a more sophisticated appreciation for the music you associate your likes with, and that allows you much more opportunity to discover new things you might enjoy. Part of this comes with having a sense of humour about yourself, which then removes the need to defend or codify things quite so vigorously. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 03 2009 at 13:53
Go write it. Maybe this will actually get me arsed to follow other people's rants in this forum....
I've never noticed the "people changing subcultural allegiance every summer" phenomenon, or at least not as often as you did. Maybe it's more common where you live? At the high school I went to, the metalheads stayed metalheads, the goths stayed goths, the neo-hippies stayed neo-hippies etc.
The funny thing is that I have never, ever experienced in person this looking-down-on-progressive-rock thing which I would like to describe with the neologism "progsecution" that about 2/3 of this forum consists of whining about. It's even funnier that progressive rock fans complain much more about people not liking the same music as they do than metalheads and goths do despite metal and gothic rock getting made fun of far more often. Though within the last couple of years, both of those genres seem to have gone through a rehabilitative phase like disco and synth-pop did, or at least they're more respected than they used to be though only here in Denmark where liking either genre will now get you seen as sophisticated instead of self-important. I get the impression this isn't the case at all in say the United States or in Great Britain. Anyway, back to progsecution: I think the biggest evidence for it being mostly fanboy paranoia is the fact that even when it became famous to blame everything wrong with Western society right now on the hippie movement earlier in this decade... you know, back when the entire industrialized world took a turn for the right, I didn't notice psychedelic and progressive rock take any heat as a result. At least not as much as beat generation literature took. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: September 04 2009 at 07:31
I've come to this far too late, but I'd like to throw my two cents in - seen as this is one of the most interesting, stimulating threads I've seen in a long time. Kudos to TM for starting it .First of all, I don't know if (personally speaking, of course) I would use the word 'fanboy' to define the attitudes you listed in your initial post - though I'd definitely employ the 'fan' part of it, as a short form of 'fanatic'. More than simple fanboyism, which is usually manifested in the ways you mentioned (completionism and so on), I'd say it is an extreme form of elitism, or even 'superiority complex'. Other groups require their members to 'pledge their allegiance' by wearing a sort of uniform to signal their identity as a member of the group (see the 'are we a subculture?' thread for more on this subject). Prog goes about it in different ways, more subtle perhaps, as you pointed out in your list. Now for my comments: People insisting that other sub-genres of rock'n'roll don't have proficient musicianship or ambitious concepts at all.Very common on this forum, much less so on other discussion boards I know. I don't want to sound ageist, but generally this attitude is typical of younger prog fans. Those of my generation or older generally show a much broader outlook, having been exposed to a lot of different music genres in their lifetime. Treating progressiveness or stylistic complexity as something that's good in itself rather than as a means to an end.Same as above. There are prog albums which are next to unlistenable just because the musicians think changing time signature every five seconds is the best thing since sliced bread - instead of realising that the end product sounds like a shapeless, directionless mess. Endless
nitpicking over what's "really" progressive and what isn't, which
starts to look like an excuse to dismiss artists and albums out of hand
if they don't live up to some arbitrary and possibly revisionistic
standard of what progression really is.This site is living proof of that, with some members displaying positively Taleban-like attitudes to everything that does not conform to their idea of prog - no matter how authentically progressive it may be. Whenever
someone doesn't like progressive rock, it's treated as a sign of either
some malicious conspiracy or stupidity on part of whatever group of
people that's perceived as not appreciating progressive rock enough.See the plethora of threads about how everyone else hates prog - as if people lost sleep in trying to devise ways to put prog down. The truth is, most people will choose the path of least resistance when it comes to music, books, or movies - which means, they will go for stuff that does not tax the brain too much. If things were different, Hollywood would have gone bust long since. Only
really liking music from other genres (e. g. jazz, metal) on the
condition of how much it resembles (or is influential to) progressive
rock.See those who state that they don't like Band X because they are not prog enough, or those who have to insert the word 'proggy' when discussing a non-prog band or artist in the General Music section. And then, of course, how to forget those who see prog in every band or artist they like, and therefore call for their addition to the database? In general having a very "sacred cow" attitude to artists and albums that are seen as classics of the genre.This is not always true, as proved by the numerous ELP bashers, or by the 'modern vs classic prog' diatribe that is alive and well on this and other site. Thanks again for the great topic  ! We need more of the same sort. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 04 2009 at 07:55
Now that - I like -------------
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 04 2009 at 10:55
From what I've read the word "fanboy" was originally used back in the 1980s by comic book collectors to describe the totally OCD kind of completist, but recently it seems to mean more often the "my favourite work/genre/series/artist is perfect and hence the only one that really matters" mentality I describe in the OP whereas completists are usually called just that - completists. Granted, some fanboys are completists but the two groups aren't synonymous at all... for example, going "Oh no it's ruined forever!" over a series or artist radically changing direction because you consider the old version infallible is pretty stereotypical fanboy behaviour.
Fits very well into what Jim Brown said earlier about this being a phase a lot of people go through in their teenage years. It is the same thing with the "I'm too hip to actually like anything except in a detached academic sense" attitude that is fanboyism's evil twin, I might add.
Would you name any examples here? The fact that you might be talking about something I like piques my interest because I no longer listen to anything uncritically... yeah, I might sound like I'm displaying that overtly detached attitude that I used to but in fact that's now made me more forgiving.
The funny thing is that I think you might be falling into that trap here again, and I was about to point to the mainstream crossover success of prog rock and for that matter artistic cinema (like Easy Rider and Midnight Cowboy) in the late 1960s/early-to-mid 1970s as a counter-argument... then again, maybe that was a historical anomaly brought about by the freewheeling disillusioned-but-not-cynical spirit of the times. When it comes to music there's also how rock music in general has very slowly been through a process of re-orienting itself towards being exclusively by and for fringe subcultures since the 1980s. With literature there's also how some fairly high-brow authors (e. g. James Ellroy, Cormac Mac Carthy) becoming popular and yielding a lot of bestsellers... but maybe they're the exceptions that prove the rule. 
I think that here we have a generation gap on display... every generation has its own historical context and perspective, even within fans of the same genre. This is not to say that people from different generations can't like the same music (or art of any kind) just that it won't be for the exact reasons. This might be why, as certain people have observed, retro-rock bands often resemble each other more than they do the classics. Another example: The whole "people who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s thinking rock'n'roll peaked back then" business is quite a pet peeve for a lot of Gen-Xers, especially music reviewer Jim Derogatis who's best known here as the author of Turn on your Mind but also edited a book called Kill Your Idols a while ago that was an attack on the traditional list of rock classics' being informed by Baby Boomer nostalgia. Its underlying premise is that loyalty to the institution of "the classics" actually runs counter to the spirit of rock music. I've never actually read that book because I can't find it but I would like to out of curiosity... http://www.jimdero.com/KillYourIdols/Idolsforeword.htm - the prologue certainly sounds appetizing http://www.jimdero.com/KillYourIdols/Idolsforeword.htm - . (and it was one of the things that inspired me to starting this thread) It's probably a similar conflict we're seeing here, with the entire progress business added as a second axis for the conversation to wrap itself around. So, we get different canons of classics depending on who you ask and age is no doubt a big factor here. For the record most of the contemporary prog-rock I like is generally not categorized as such because of "scene politics" and the associated obsessive nitpicking around genre classifications that is probably my number one pet peeve in music.
Thanks. To be honest, I'm surprised this thread was as well-received as it was because with this one I set out to really kick out the jams though I also did go out of my way to make it clear this was from an insider perspective. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 04 2009 at 10:57
Now thats more interesting - why is the majority of people not putting any affort into having a better cultural experience than the one stuffed into your mouth/ear/eye ect.
Are they not able too ?
Are they too lazy ?
Or maby the "mainstreem" art is infact better than the Avantgard, and we are all just snobs ?
NB.: I wonder how many Proggers in here, have seen more "Dogme" film, than film from hollywood
stupidly copy/paste the plot from a cartoon. (Batman Superman Spiderman : You got the picture) ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 04 2009 at 12:20
Well, look in the mirror... you have Lily Allen and 3 Doors Down on your last.fm top artists. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 04 2009 at 22:01
I don't think the freewheeling spirit alone explains it, I think people also had more time for stuff like music. I am at a disadvantage here because we in India are far behind the West in terms of urbanisation and its effects on the social system, divorce and suicide rates have only now shot up to levels high enough to catch the public eye. But couldn't it simply be that video games and the computer have supplanted music as a source of entertainment, thereby leaving people with a shorter attention span for music? I am not blaming computers or modern lifestyle, there's nothing to be got out of blaming, I am just making a normative observation. It's unreasonable to expect people to devote as much time to music (or books for that matter) as they could earlier because the socio-cultural factors operating today are different. Again, I speak more from my experience and it may not hold true in other parts of the world. I wasn't even born in the 70s but I do know that back then, means of entertainment here were limited and that may have actually allowed people the time to get the best out of what they had whereas today they are spoilt for choice. I also think that if a child grows up almost completely on a diet of video games, it's unlikely that he/she would suddenly develop a serious liking for music and vice versa. Books and music have been my favourite source of entertainment since I was a child, partly because my parents couldn't afford to buy me video games and didn't think too much of it was a good idea. If this hadn't been the case, I would have been no different from the XBox kids on whom Wilson unleashed his wrath! Social conditioning is a lot, lot more important than people care to admit. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 05 2009 at 02:27
Wouldn't the longer list of entertainment options logically make people more likely to investigate stuff that's out of the mainstream? On the other hand, you could also say that the internet has sped up the process of Western culture getting increasingly fragmented because thanks to message boards like this one, it's now possible to only get your reviews and opinions on music or movies or literature from people with mostly the same tastes as yourself. This could be another reason why fanboyism is more common in the younger generation.
I grew up with video games and I'm seriously into music and literature. Well, at least I like to think that I am. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 05 2009 at 02:53
Ideally, it should but that doesn't seem to happen and instead people use a little bit of all these entertainment options and are perhaps too constrained for time as a result to go off the beaten path. You have said later in your post that you DID grow up on video games. I want to ask you how old you are, because I want to know at which point this business of forming warring camps based on genres started. I don't have anything against so many genres PROVIDED they are only used to give a quick reference in terms of what to expect from an album, but it's quite silly how people form clubs for extremely fragmented scenes of music and want to have nothing to do with those who are not part of these 'clubs'. It does appear that in metal it's having the effect of artists pandering to these factions (they have to if they want to survive) and such obsessive fragmentation can only be counter-productive in the long run.
I only said it's UNLIKELY, not impossible. For one Toaster Mantis, I could show you a hundred others readily who didn't grow up on music and are not likely to be ever more than casually interested in it in their lives. The exceptions make the rule, they don't break it. In any case, I wasn't completely weaned off video games either and I did bring my PC crashing down a few times by playing NFS all the time but it never surpassed music and books in my priorities and ultimately I outgrew it. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 05 2009 at 03:18
I am 21 years old. Maybe it should be mentioned that I also learned to read much earlier than average, and that I completely stopped playing video games at all back in high school. As for the increasing fragmentation of music genres I think that started in the 1990s, possibly in the late 1980s too. I don't remember reading about that much inter-scene rivalry as in within the same genre that happened in the 1970s. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 05 2009 at 03:21
Was that a "Yes i watch stupid cartoon movies" ?
I guees my last fm showed resently played tracks at a time where i had my mum visiting.
If interested you can check again here : http://www.last.fm/user/tamijo-lfm - http://www.last.fm/user/tamijo-lfm
NB.: Skal du med ind og se The Mars Volta
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 05 2009 at 03:25
You are 'ahead' of me. I used to play computer games even in college and I am two years older than you. Hmm...yes, late 80s and early 90s sounds reasonable to me. This was when Norwegian black metal bands famously declared war on death metal, saying it would ruin and corrupt metal and what not. Also, sometime in the late 80s, Metallica played in the same concert as Bon Jovi and apparently told the crowd they wouldn't get spandex and ooh baby here. Deeply ironic in light of what Metallica would do later and also rather offensive. I dislike Bon Jovi passionately but if some people do like it, what's wrong with that, why poke fun at their tastes? |
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: September 05 2009 at 09:19
I would disagree.The fragmentation of metal has actually led to great innovation, since each genre has developed on its own without accepting much outside influence. Would power metal be the same today if the major bands had been "innovative" by incorporating elements of other metal genres into their music? There wouldn't be much of an identity for future bands to work off of, and the genres would move closer together stylistically instead of farther apart. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury"> |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 05 2009 at 09:25
It has happened anyway, Gothenburg/melodeath and symphonic gothic metal? These do melt the boundaries between power metal and other genres. Fragmentation might give a distinct identity to bands but how do they then distinguish themselves if they all work within the same narrow parameters that define the genre? Especially thrash metal has got to the point where unless you forget about every single riff you have ever heard, you can't help feeling a sense of deja vu. In my opinion, only doom metal unfailingly produces something fresh year after year and this is because doom metal bands incorporate elements not only from metal but non-metal genres. Acid Witch...psychedelic doom. Had a release in 2008, awesome, easily one of my favourites from this decade. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 05 2009 at 14:32
More like "I find it weird that you pull the beleagured defender of high culture persona while listening to some pretty damn populist music." Re-investigating your recent listening habits I don't feel like changing my mind , RHCP or The Cure aren't exactly underground or elitist. Oh, and I actually happen to enjoy the occasional superhero movie though right now I'm really sick and tired of the genre. (same thing with serial killer movies) For the record, if my avatar isn't enough of an indication I probably watch more arthouse/cult movies than the average person though didn't those get some mainstream crossover here in Scandinavia thanks to the Dogme 95 movement? It seems like occasionally the "plebs" will actually look into the subterranean caverns of esoteric and artsy stuff.
Maybe maybe not, it's gonna be in December and chances are I'm gonna be really busy that month. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: September 05 2009 at 15:20
|
You have a point. I think maybe genres need to develop in isolation to other genres, and then it's ok to fuse with other genres afterwards. You can't create a new sound if you are only mixing styles, although sometimes, like in the case of thrash, you need a breath of fresh ideas from other genres. I still hear plenty of innovative bands that are in one solid genre and even disdainful of other genres.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury"> |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 05 2009 at 16:14
|
The problem isn't subgenres, genre hybrids and rivalry between local scenes.... I guess the real problem is when subversion of the formula becomes a formula on its own and trying to categorize everything into its own narrowly defined little sub-sub-genre encourages this kind of development because it makes it easier for a style to go from one artist's signature style to a marketable cliché. It might be a strawman I'm putting up here but some of the nitpickery over sub-sub-sub-genres I've witnessed is pretty damn ridiculous. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 00:46
It depends on how the styles are mixed. If it's done in an extremely gimmicky and patchy manner, it won't really take the genre forward. On the other hand, if done well, it could open up new possibilities and directions for the genre. It's interesting that you think of power metal as a genre working in isolation because I haven't really felt THAT to be the case at all; it has broken off a bit from the rest of metal but it also absorbs a lot of influence from non-metal music. The problem with power metal today is that it's very cool for a lot of extreme metal fans to profess how much they hate it and this means you don't have enough interest being created in the genre and perhaps even new, promising talent coming in. I don't know much about power metal but I know some people who do and they say there hasn't been a really good new power metal album in a while and this could be because of the antagonistic attitude of people in 'clubs' of other genres. It would be great if you bring up specific examples w.r.t that last sentence  because I personally don't think it's feasible beyond a point to keep coming out with fresh and interesting material whilst pretending that the rest of music doesn't exist; it would work for the first few years when the genre in itself is nascent and fresh but once the style is settled, it could lead to albums sounding terribly similar and familiar. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 00:49
Yes, and unfortunately there's way too much of this in metal, especially black metal. It's hard to understand people who get so possessive about extremely narrow scenes of an already relatively narrow genre. I mean in the larger scheme of all metal, black metal is just one more style and metal itself is part of the larger universe of rock. I am not saying one shouldn't have clear preferences but these shouldn't lead to fanaticism. |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 02:37
Would be more fair to say that what i listen to, can be any style as long as i like it.
But i dont c how that would influence a debate about why most people avoid looking into anything outside the mainstream culture.
On the subject of Fanboyism, if anything its may show that you are getting sucked in there a bit yourself.
Looking at a persons resent play list trying to draw conclution about the persons music taste, not that
great an idear.
 NB:
Cure was not mainstream for the first 4-5 albums, they became mainstream when MTV cought interest mid 80's.
RHCP cought my interest cos i listen a lot to The Mars Volta atm and i'we noticed that John Frusciante does take part on all the studio sessions, I got i friend who love em so i thought i'd take a closer look, borrowed the new John Frusciante album and a few RHCP albums.
For the record his solo album is great in a late 60's kinda way, but the RCHP gets me bored after a short while.
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 03:47
|
Let me clarify: I don't think there's anything wrong with listening to pop music, it's just that doing so while also maintaining an anti-populist stance (at least when it comes to movies) strikes me as a bit incongruous.
------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 03:59
|
Yes i got that.
But i was not making any elitist comment, infact i was trowing out a question.
Using the Movie as an example, cos i know for a fact that quite few people, dig deep into alternative movies, and to those that dont understand why some people "stick" with mainstream music, an
explanation may be hidden there.
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 04:43
|
Well, I can think of a bunch of pat answers to that but I also have a feeling that none of them suffice. Have you ever heard of a sociologist named Herbert Gans? Back in the 1970s he did some research into that and he found that how high-brow/alternative someone's tastes is usually correlated with level of education which again is a function of social class. At least it was back then. However, that analysis begins to look extremely reductionistic when you consider that in rock music a lot of bands that make a big deal out of how authentically blue-collar don't have the credentials to really back it up (e. g. The Clash, CCR, Rolling Stones - not meant as a swipe against their music, just their image) whereas you find bands that actually are from a working-class background just as often go into fairly high-brow multi-layered genre-bending music (e. g. the Beatles, Roxy Music, Type O Negative). As a matter of fact it's a bit of a common stereotype, the middle-class bohemian "snobbing downwards" in pursuit of humility so I am not sure how much the artists I mentioned here are exceptions to the rule. I believe that for reasons like this, another sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has devised some kind of dual-axis idea about how there's an economical and a cultural class system which are separate and only occasionally overlap though I don't remember that much of his theory. For that matter I'm not really sure either how this theory would explain that much other than stating the obvious. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 05:32
|
I think its very important, that most people just do not care that much about art in general.
I you dont care much, you will just crap whatever is around.
On the sociological level there will be a level of "statements" sending, you make a statement about who you are, or rather Who you want others to belive You are, by the art intrests you got. On the psycological level you even send these signals to yourself.
Like if you like to send the signal, that you are the normal famli' father, with a steady income, and a nice pension, on the right side of the law, You prob. wont be listning too death metal on the car radio.
Or hanging abound with a bunce of PUNK's at the local underground art gallery.
So in most cases having the Avantgarde taste in art, will be coupled with, beeing able to define yourself,
in a way that allows you to stick out from the norm. Something that quite a few would feel rather uncomfortable with, unless they are young and have friends with similar taste.
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 06:18
I completely disagree. Maybe there are people who do define themselves by their taste in art but I am not one of them and I haven't yet met anybody who listens to non-mainstream music or watches arthouse cinema that does so. Maybe I got lucky, huh? Anyway, I took interest in rock rather late in my so far short life, during college in fact. Those who knew me from before that time were a bit taken aback because I used to dismiss rock as noise earlier  and they also wondered how much I had changed. I told them I had only changed the music I listen to and hadn't changed as a person and my still cherubic countenance convinced them that this was indeed the case. Art is just something that happens to interest me and provoke thought in me. For somebody else, it could be shopping, could be gadgets, could be cars. To identify oneself with the art one appreciates is dangerous imo, UNLESS you eventually MAKE that art yourself in which case it makes perfect sense. Oh, and I am a shaky driver and at the same time get too immersed in the music I listen to ever think of listening to death metal or any music I am passionate about while driving. I would probably play popular radio (or Camel ) just to insulate myself from the cacophony of horns on the road in rush hour. Everybody who knows me in person will tell you I am a normal chap and I am on the right side of the law. In fact I didn't take up audit practise after becoming a certified accountant because I am uncomfortable about being pressurized by companies to sign cooked books. And wait, a good friend of mine listens to tons more of death metal than me and he's as much of a nice guy as I am. Extending your logic, every death metal fan should be a closet anti social thug and I don't think that is the case. |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 06:33
as the only reason anyone would like a particular band/style ect. ; will me many other factors involved
and the most important will and should offcourse be that you like the music/painting/book/film.
That said if you think its not at all about message sending, take a look around you whenever you are
attending a concert, i think you will pick up a few people there uniformed in a way similar to the style of music.
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 06:46
THAT is completely different from the example you gave earlier. Wearing band t shirts and headbanging and moshing is just harmless fun. Refusing to be a normal guy and a good father is not! At any rate, it's at least a little more serious than that, regardless of whether the consequences of this are negative or not. People identify themselves with the band during a gig to lose themselves in the reverie, makes it easier that way for some folks. But these people are not going to make, say, their Iron Maiden fanhood the one talking point of their lives wherever they go. |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 06:59
|
Maby You are right, hopefully You are. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 10:13
My first example with the last sentence is Averse Sefira. They have made comments in interviews like "I wish those sort of bands would just go play death metal" or "I take other genres with a grain of salt" in interviews, to badly paraphrase them. It's just my humble opinion, but I find them to be a terrific band, and quite innovative. However, let me address the rest of the post: I never meant it was good for genres to work in complete isolation. I don't even know if that is possible. However, you still need to establish a strong identity that is independent of other influences. I think the fragmentation of metal serves this purpose, and when I say a band is solidly in one genre, I don't mean that absolutely nothing creeps in (I hear classical ideas/aesthetics in averse sefira for example), but rather that they don't overtly take from other genres. What seems to work for metal is taking a little bit from other genres and then running with it. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury"> |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 11:20
Thanks for the recommendation, firstly, never heard of them before. Now, as for fragmentation, what you suggest seems reasonable but I think fragmentation in metal goes well beyond that and as ToasterMantis mentioned, there are sub-sub-sub genres where we get into very narrowly defined styles combined with a fanatic fanbase that insists that bands rigidly stick to such a style. That is what I think could be detrimental. I would of course have to sample Averse Sefira to make sure that you and I are not perhaps talking about the same thing because it could be that what they are up to is perfectly acceptable to me - in terms of originality, that is, likeability is a subjective issue anyway - and not what I would consider as focusing too much on one style. |
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: September 08 2009 at 12:46
|
I got into this site at 2006 recognizing strong sketches of fanboyims on my behaviour, and went out one year later because most of the rest seemed applying the same principles to me and I didn't stand that. Just curious I see mostly new blood postin' over here, while well-known hidden fanboys are now staying away. Best thread ever.PEACE. ------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 09 2009 at 13:50
|
Interesting discussion tamijo and rogerthat have been having... the reason I didn't drop in that this week I've been really business with college-related activities. Anyway, to that entire business about people's musical tastes being dictated by their identity and the social statements they wanna make I think there's some grain of truth to that but it's nowhere as simple. I do think that the entire institutions of "the classics" and on the opposite end of the axis "the avant-garde" play a role in what tamijo said, especially but definitely not exclusively in genres that have an associated subcultural identity. That's definitely a factor and this isn't just in music... a while ago I read a column in the book review section of Information (a Danish newspaper) about the Japanese author Haruki Murakami that explained his success as being that he was far enough out of the mainstream to appeal to yuppies who want to think of themselves as more sophisticated than the "hoi polloi" but not so downright out-of-left-field to completely throw those people off. On the other hand... well, well, well. A lot of people probably have that compulsion, and it does often make sense to generalize from people's general (sub)cultural tastes but that's rarely a complete picture. I've met people surprised to find out I listened to Eurythmics as well as people surprised to find out I listened to Motörhead. I basically think most people will be able to synthesize their own opinions on music and art in general at some point independent of any identity-dictating canon or at least distance themselves from the formative stage as they get older... could be getting more narrow taste, wider tastes or more refined in the sense of for example listening to more different genres and moods but having a higher standard for quality, however that is defined.It's probably more accurate to say that people's musical/literary/cinematic tastes are products of their personalities and the personality includes things like social identity. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 03:32
|
Yes that might be the way to include both the fact, that you are often able to detect some clues about peoples music taste from their social ID, and the fact that when you take a closer look, it often turns out
that its a bit more complicated than that. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Repner
Date Posted: October 08 2009 at 22:54
|
This reminds me of someone that used to go on another site I used to go on. A die hard avant garde fan. Main annoyance with him is he was one of those "This is good music. This isn't." types that ram his opinion down your throat. I swear he fished for reasons to dislike bands, because his excuses were very desperate to say the least. Anyway he had this strong hatred for prog due to it all basically "all being the same."  Yeah. You read right. I mean fair enough if he isn't a fan of it. A lot of people aren't anyway. But he was essentially what people usually consider a "prog fan stereotype" (rants about how his taste is superior etc etc), only as an avant garde fan instead------------- 
|
Posted By: la Volpe
Date Posted: October 20 2009 at 21:10
Well one good example of fanboyism is Progarchives. Everyone trying to put in the list their favourite non-prog band just because they would die if they had to acknowledge they like something that is not progressive rock... |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: October 21 2009 at 03:56
Yeah, it was mentioned a couple of time earlier by Raff. It's the categories "proto-prog" and "prog-related" that are good ideas in theory and useful but in practice often end up functioning as weasel-words... at the same time, there are some bands I'm surprised aren't on the archives (Soundgarden, for example) but maybe that's a subject for another thread and even then I'm not sure if I care enough to make a bit fuss about it. I mean, haven't we have enough "exactly what is progressive rock" threads? ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: October 21 2009 at 03:57
Just curious: What's the kind of "avant-garde" music he listened to? Really experimental noise rock and stuff like that? ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Repner
Date Posted: October 30 2009 at 21:05
|
Yeah actually. That would be an example. -------------
|
Posted By: Andy Webb
Date Posted: October 26 2010 at 19:22
|
For me, I like to call it "Dreamtheaterfanboyism" ------------- http://ow.ly/8ymqg" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Pastor Rex Cat
Date Posted: January 01 2011 at 23:19
To the best of my recollection, I had an experience as a metalhead (ether in the 1980s or '90s) of wondering off into other genres for a good long stretch of time and then going back to metal, and finding the energy of the music to be enhanced or revitalized. There's a benefit. No elitism is necessary to me. Just self honesty and giving ones self the permission to wonder. |
Posted By: kglenz
Date Posted: February 12 2011 at 19:38
| Call it what you want - but some music does have superior qualities due to technical musicianship & theory. Art is not all the same (other than the meaninglessness) just as not all math problems are not equal. Socrates spoke of "opinion" not of equal validity. Opinion based upon fact is better. It's OK if disco or Pearl Jam is your thing, but don't try to equate a work on the same level technically/mathematically/ theoretically if it is not. It is not about elitism - it is about standing up and recognizing publicly & socially where others seem to be blinded. It's about giving credit due to artists that have poured their time & sweat into crafting a medium that touches one to the core. It's about righteous anger when some "act" sells millions due to a video vs. a group of artists that are bringing down the house due to ability and heart, touring the highways & byways to promote a legitimate standard over some teen one hit wonder fad. I prize this claim, I am a fanatic about people bending the air for peaceful social gatherings & talented sharing of hearts & minds. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 14 2011 at 19:31
Holy Toledo Batman ... and I didn't even write all this!
I usually say that people that do this usually have very little taste in music ... by the time you hear a lot more music and different kinds, usually the first thing to go is labels ... but those who can not listen to Beethoven or Bach and have no idea of what music is all about are the ones that are defining "progressive" music ... and most of them can not even see, or understand what the time and place was all about that brought the music up on its own in the first place.
It's really sad, and although I hate to say ... "uneducated" ... in the end, it is ... and specially so when the defense is their favorites, not a music discussion or art discussion! ... it's KC and the jagged guitar ... not anything else ... and has very little to do with "progressive music" on top of it! And like Keith didn't learn from the classics! Right!
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 14 2011 at 20:11
Or you can use the recent one ... about little bits and pieces of music that Keith or Tony did ... as if no one ever had done anything like it ... and the best one I ever heard is not even in rock music, or jazz ... it's in Tosca, Act 2 in the opening sequence, where a violin in the background does a couple of single notes going downwards on the scale ... and my visual identification for it? ... easy ... it's as if they were tears falling down the singer's face as he sangs the aria ... there is not a whole lot in rock music I have ever heard that is as good as that ... maybe a couple of things Keith Jarrett has done, or Terje Rypdal or Egberto Gismonti, or Amon Duul 2 ... but the rest? ... not worth the mention because here you can only quote Tony, Keith, Rick and all th rest is crap and not good enough!
Sorry Keith or Tony or anyone else ... but very little is anywhere as pretty or as subtle as that ... and so beautiful. It takes a movie to bring it out, because you would not be able to see it on stage, and on a CD ... it's a lost cause with these 3 minute rock and prog fans! The hard part is teaching these commercial music "fans" that there is music, and then there is stuff that sells to make you think that it is good or better ... and you still go by Lady Gaga or some other "star" because they must be good if they are on TV and your progressive faves aren't.
Like your mom doesn't look at Elvis or James Dean?
It's the American way ... it's all TV and make sure you follow it and stay on it, and kiss the stars ... and many of us do exactly the same thing with "progressive music" ... many of us do not know anything else in life ... it's all they know, so me, or you, saying anything about it, is many times futile and frustrating ... not to mention fruitless because you end up getting trashed by a dog or a cat!
Tha's actually acceptable to me, since Neil is quite free form and does his own thing and even at his age, he has not given up and still stands with us ... the difference being that he does what he does, and London is not the boss ... or the imperialist!
Neil has always been a bit of a Fripp, not necessarily with his guitar, but with his voice ... and that is something that is hard to do, and sometimes it is laughed at as ... not singing ... which was the first thing everyone said when he went solo the first time alone on a piano! In the end, he is a true American artist, and deserves the credit for the amount of work and vision. He is one of the few that never quit! And that is a lot more that can be said for Genesis, KC, ELP or Pink Floyd! ... and on top of it? ... Neil still sold!
To me, in the end, this is a reflection of the leadership ... and the people they select to work with/for them ... and nepotism has been around forever ... people still choosing people that agree with them, because they do not think that they can not gain from a different opinion ... they never studied mathematics or science, enough to realize that is not true at all, btw! .... and we do not have to discuss leadership! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 14 2011 at 20:36
That is philosophy, and not accepted by some dogs here!  Besides what does philosophy have to do with music ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: February 14 2011 at 20:53
Or in America ... to say that they learned the commercial advertising really well and that they will have 2.1 kids, get divorced and then try again, and get diabetes courtesy of your doctor at 55, and then cancer at 60, so the medical establishment can go milk the insurance companies for every penny they got and the government allows it and agrees with it!
Too much is about "popular" this and that, and I am not sure that anyone can have an individual identity, but yes, they will be good boys and girls with a nice social identity ... all the monkees look alike after all!
Social identity! ... geeeezzzzus! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: February 14 2011 at 21:25
|
Wait, wait wait..... People who don't like Prog are idiots? How.... absolutely true. Except when its a girl not liking Prog then it is just cute. Hell, any mediocre thing that a girl likes is cute. For guys, yes they are stupid, uninformed, and soulless. Remember what Rick Davies sings: Hey Brother, where's your soul? Not Hey Sister, etc. etc. Copy this post and turn it into a religion. My mother was a virgin. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 14 2011 at 22:06
|
Ivan in blue to separate my comments.
What really makes me sick is this attitude of making us believe we should be ashamed of loving Prog over most music, hey I'm here at least 3 hours a day, if I don't admit I love Prog over almost anything, I would be a liar. I'm a Prog fan (not a fanboy), and admit it proudly, if somebody doesn't like that we talk about progressiveness or how great the classic bands are (as well as the modern), then that person is wasting his time here. Most of us love, breathe and sweat Prog, and it's time to admit it without any shame. Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 15 2011 at 11:05
I have met quite a lot. I would say most people into prog for a long time take that approach. Of course, it's their right, but prog is not all there's to music.
Agreed that sacred cow-ism is not as much in say metal circles where you'd get crucified for disliking Black Sabbath or Morbid Angel, among others. Some defensiveness towards the big prog bands will remain, that's normal tendency.
But prog is a spirit, an approach, not a genre. How can you love it over "other music"? Progressiveness is found in many forms of music, not just prog rock. If you like prog rock at the exclusion of other progressive music, doesn't that smack of some amount of bias, regardless of whether you're entitled to your prejudices? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 15 2011 at 11:29
I disagree, I believe Prog is a genre, not an approach,. you are mistaking progressive (Adj): Describes the approach of some bands to make music that is beyond the parameters of mainstream, like lets say REM, early U2 for example. Progressive Rock: A determined genre that was born in the middle 60's and lasts until today, divided in several well defined sub-genres. We are here to talk about PROGRESSIVE ROCK (The genre) A band can be Prog and not progressive, because they may play in the style of the 70's Prog icons, and there are multiple progressive mainstream bands who are beyond their time but have no relation with Progressive Rock. And Yes, I love Progressive Rock over Rock, Pop. Punk, etc BTW: We are not talking about prejudices, some people like POP, others Jazz, I like Prog more than the rest.......What's the difference?. Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 15 2011 at 19:33
Both these things are true only to a limited extent. So I am not confusing the two words, I don't think prog rock as a genre is something rigidly defined. Pop too by the way is just an umbrella term for flavour-of-the-moment music and jazz, rather than a genre, is a form of music, like rock.
|
Posted By: grantman
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 07:47
| yes the genre does suffer a rather terrible stereotype , a loyalty that goes beyond admiration,the point is as you get older most become wiser about his/her choices in music, and the scope becomes wider.Hopefully the fanboy type of thinking (i.e everything that a personal favorite band or genre is not so significant anymore, but the creative or concept is more important than style i.e metal,classic,jazz) that will remain to the listener so that everything a certain band releases is not seen as a masterpiece, but has flaws or can be an all out waste, as i said earlier as we get older things can change. |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 23:49
|
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 18 2016 at 11:56
|
I know that you specified that this wasn't what you were talking about, but I'm definitely someone who tends to love (almost) everything from my favorite artists. But that's what makes them my favorite artists in the first place. In general, not just with my favorite artists, I'm not someone who tends to think that either song-to-song or album-to-album quality varies that much for most albums/artists. That's not a popular opinion, but that's how I tend to react to albums and artists. Re what you were talking about, I'm pretty guilty of this: "Treating progressiveness . . . as something that's good in itself." I took out "as a means to an end" because I tend to be a formalist, so that I see the form as the end. Really, what I like best, in general, is music with quirks, delivered via material that has at least some roots in the traditional and at least slightly sophisticated melodic and harmonic craftsmanship reflected in pre-rock era pop music. I also have a strong attraction to anything with funky or "grooving" rhythms. The above doesn't mean that the music has to be pop. I just want it to have some roots in the melodic and harmonic craftsmanship that pre-rock pop exemplified. (Think of standards like "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered".) I'm not really that genre-oriented. I'm just quirk-(and groove-)oriented as above. Usually the further afield something moves from some combination of those three factors--quirkiness, melodic and harmonic sophistication with some structural relation to traditional pop music, and funkiness/groove-orientedness, the less interested I am in it. There are exceptions--for example, some ambient music is among my favorite stuff, but that's generally the key to whether I'll like something and just how much I'll like it. |
Posted By: socrates17
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 07:40
|
Ah. Human nature. I remember reading an interview with Robert Wyatt in the NME in 1974, where he complained that music fans were becoming too much like football club fans. It wasn't enough to root for your team, you had to wish ill on their competition, and on specifically hated rivals most of all. (The US equivalent would be Yankees vs. Red Sox.) And that was in '74. It ain't limited to sports and music. I participate in a forum dedicated to airlines and airliners and discussions on aircraft often devolve into flame wars between Boeing fanboys and Airbus fanboys.
|
Posted By: Flight123
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 08:18
| My sons are 16 and 18, and to me, music looks a lot less 'tribal' then when I was a teenager in the late 70s. We used to get attacked by skinheads for having long hair! |
Posted By: vmartell
Date Posted: July 27 2017 at 21:20
|
Wow - replying to a post from 2009! - I registered to PA just to do that! (also I kind of never noticed PA had a forum )Well - this is an all-round phenomenon - let me tell you, in addition to a prog fan I am also a serious classical fan; to my friends in that circle, I need to treat prog (or any pop) as guilty pleasure... And guess what the behaviour is very similar! One of those friends caught me listening to Joy Division's "Unknown Pleasures" - could you believe he chided me for listening to "boy band" stuff? really? joy division sounds like a boy band? Two more examples comes from another prog forum - someone put David Guetta and Jean Michel Jarre in the same bag (as DJ music) while talking about the recent JMJ tour where he was on stage with a drummer and another keyboard player. Come on!... Second example, talking about Steven Wilson's Pariah - I believe the comment was that simplistic stuff like that was gonna climb up the top 40 chart... really? I believe the examples above betray complete ignorance of the genres that are being put down by comparing to others supposedly superior - be it prog or classical. I can tell you my classical friend has ZERO knowledge of what pop boy band sounds like. Anyone with a real interest in electronic music and a knowledge of EDM knows that live, Guetta only queues music as opposed to JMJ and even other EDM acts like the orbital, the chems, bt and even daft punk that do a lot of live playing. And of course, the poster calling "pariah" top 40 material really has no idea what the top 40 sounds like these days. All of the above, were speaking without knowledge and out of prejudice - and to me, that is fanboyism - and it doesn't have to be progressive! Actually, it is weird to be on the other side - and I mean having prog dissed as simplistic crap! Another classical friend who also happens to be a very knowledgeable jazz fan was giving me hard time about prog as compared to those, that is, "real jazz" and "real classical". He was laughing extremely hard about how we marvel at 20 mins pieces... well, "my friend", he said, "that is just a short Haydn symphony"... then he called me names... On the other hand, that is kind of true, isn't it?... v
|
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: July 28 2017 at 14:34
| Fanboys can be narrow minded but not always. I have noticed there are a lot of Rush fanboys. To me it can get annoying. I'm talking about people who act like there are no other bands on the planet except Rush. I came close to being like that with Yes at one point but instead I used my intense interest in Yes(and Rush and Genesis too for that matter)as a starting point to discover other bands. So for me Yes led to Genesis which led to Rush and PF, KC etc. Things just kind of snowballed. A fanboy is maybe someone who is caught up on a certain sound and only likes one or two bands who make that sound(ie Rush). With Rush a lot of their fans seem to like heavy metal and only listen to heavy metal which is weird because Rush aren't heavy metal. That's fine I guess because there are those who only like prog rock. So I guess there are those who only like a certain genre(and not just a certain band)and get caught up in that at the expense of everything else. Like I said a lot of Rush fans are like that but there are fans like that with other bands too. I'm probably not a total fanboy for Rush and Yes even though they are two of my favorite bands because they have put out stuff that is less than perfect to say the least. Fanboys tend to think band x can do no wrong. |
Posted By: Frankh
Date Posted: September 17 2017 at 16:51
|
Interesting discussion but in the end this is what it's all about: If I like it, then it is good. If I love it, real good. (Your results may vary. And probably should. Necessarily should. Then, if our paths cross you can try to communicate your enthusiasms to me and I mine to you.) Interesting phenomenon: some of the music that has become most beloved to me I disliked at first. But allowed time and an open mind and the content and it's intent to do their work. |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: September 17 2017 at 18:38
|
you don't need to be a fanboy (or fangirl) to be a completist -------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: M27Barney
Date Posted: September 18 2017 at 05:46
|
Ahhh but what prepares the mind for prog? It's like when you eat eggs & bacon - then drink breakfast tea - who hasn't noticed how good the tea tastes after the palette has been prepared! Perhaps a little bit of pop (or some-other music) - prepares the consciousness for prog and the appreciation of the genre..... Maybe this is why the fanboy suffers such duff taste-buds? Maybe even prog band's themselves used this tool - "More fool Me" as an example in there lurking like the ice-berg amongst the pinnacle-works of symphonic prog..... ------------- Play me my song.....Here it comes again....... |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: September 18 2017 at 06:29
you probably mean "palate", not "palette" ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 18 2017 at 09:09
|
Fanboyism in prog rock tends to tip toe on the edge of elitism a la 'my preferred music is far better than X because it is more complicated to play and furthermore displays clear nods to Bartok and Schoenberg'....which of course is complete bollocks. If one person likes complex music over a more simplistic model then more power to them. What this doesn't equate to is a objective measure of the actual music. If music had any inherent value then we wouldn't be the only species listening. Then again I've come across some pretty awful cases of fanboyism in both hip hop and metal circles, where supposed music lovers proclaim one style of music to be the absolute bee's knees and everything else is just sh*te. This says far more about the person in question than the actual music at hand. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |