Print Page | Close Window

The best ones have a immediate impact

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=90784
Printed Date: October 25 2014 at 19:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The best ones have a immediate impact
Posted By: rdtprog
Subject: The best ones have a immediate impact
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 16:17
I am curious if some agree with me, when i say that the best songs we can hear on a progressive rock cd are the one that have a immediate impact on you. I mean when you can clearly feel the sense of the melody and you are immediately affect positively by it. And the songs that take many takes to get something out of it don't have such strong melody and are easily forgotten. For those kind of songs it takes great songwriting by the artists to be able to connect emotionally to the listener. I don't want to say by this, that only songs that have a strong or catchy melody have a impact on you, but that they are the songs that are the most memorable for us and, that we want to listen over and over again. There also songs that we can enjoy for the sound, the atmosphere or the complexity, but i think that those things should never overshadows the melody in the songs.

I think that the bands that have strong songwriting ability, by creating the best songs, are rare. Is this what we call "genius" , "gifted"? Is melody the essential part of music and the at a point where sometimes we can say that its surpassed the artist, just like he was control by a higher energy impossible to describe.

Genesis, Yes, Pink Floyd, PFM, Rush are in the category that i have in mind, and soul... when i am thinking about great songs with a sense of melody, which mean more than a succession of notes and tones, but something that reach the listener deeper,  a bit like when you find yourself humming or when people say that they can't get the songs out of their heads.



-------------
“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”
― Frank Zappa

"I am not afraid of Death, I just don't want to be there when it happens".

- Woody Allen








Replies:
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 16:25
I don't agree with you. I think the best songs are often the ones that require a little time to fully digest and appreciate. If your theory were true, then we would be forced to conclude that highly accessible pop/dance music is really good, which of course it isn't.

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


Posted By: knumorvid
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 16:30
^This


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 16:45
^ that.
 
Exhibit A:


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


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 16:47
^Those

-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: QuestionableScum
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 16:50
I completely disagree. There are many songs and albums that are now among my favourites that took me several times to get because they are not driven my a catchy melodic hook.

In fact an excessive focus on immediacy in melody can lead to bland music that is very predictable. Much mainstream pop is catchy and pleasant in an immediate melodic sense, but with such music I can often predict where the melody and chord progressions are going.

Also, if your theory regarding melody were true then Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg and many other musical geniuses could not be said to have created great pieces. But their music is still highly regarded nearly 100 years after their death.

It takes time to develop the listening skills to appreciate music that is not driven by an immediate melodic hook, as most contemporary music conditions us to listen to all music as if it were driven by melodic hooks.


Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 16:52
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

^ that.
 
Exhibit A:

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


-------------
“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”
― Frank Zappa

"I am not afraid of Death, I just don't want to be there when it happens".

- Woody Allen







Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:02
^Nonsense.

-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:04
^This.

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


Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:07
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

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

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

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


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:11
If we're going to start down that old "musical taste is subjective" road again, we might as well close the thread right now (and all threads on PA, for that matter) for all the good we will get out of it.

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


Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:12
Originally posted by QuestionableScum QuestionableScum wrote:

I completely disagree. There are many songs and albums that are now among my favourites that took me several times to get because they are not driven my a catchy melodic hook.

In fact an excessive focus on immediacy in melody can lead to bland music that is very predictable. Much mainstream pop is catchy and pleasant in an immediate melodic sense, but with such music I can often predict where the melody and chord progressions are going.

Also, if your theory regarding melody were true then Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg and many other musical geniuses could not be said to have created great pieces. But their music is still highly regarded nearly 100 years after their death.

It takes time to develop the listening skills to appreciate music that is not driven by an immediate melodic hook, as most contemporary music conditions us to listen to all music as if it were driven by melodic hooks.


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


-------------
“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”
― Frank Zappa

"I am not afraid of Death, I just don't want to be there when it happens".

- Woody Allen







Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:13
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

If we're going to start down that old "musical taste is subjective" road again, we might as well close the thread right now (and all threads on PA, for that matter) for all the good we will get out of it.

No, but we should refrain from absolute statements such as "highly accessible pop/dance music is obviously not really good". Because that's not obvious in the slightest.


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:16
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

If we're going to start down that old "musical taste is subjective" road again, we might as well close the thread right now (and all threads on PA, for that matter) for all the good we will get out of it.

No, but we should refrain from absolute statements such as "highly accessible pop/dance music is obviously not really good". Because that's not obvious in the slightest.


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


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


Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:20
I didn't say we should refrain from all absolute statements, just from the type of absolute statement you made, in which you implicate that something should obvious to everybody when in fact many people disagree with you. There's a difference between "this is what I think and you may disagree" and "this is what I think and if you disagree, you're wrong".


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:23
It's incredibly tedious to write "IMHO" after every declarative sentence one makes on a forum where all the topics are inherently subjective. Can we just agree that anything anyone says implicitly carries the "IMHO" tag so we can avoid this sort of foolishness in the future?

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


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


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:26
Sturgeon's Law applies.

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


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:43
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

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

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

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


Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:45
^ isn't that a fish


Posted By: QuestionableScum
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:45
Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:


Originally posted by QuestionableScum QuestionableScum wrote:

I completely disagree. There are many songs and albums that are now among my favourites that took me several times to get because they are not driven my a catchy melodic hook.

In fact an excessive focus on immediacy in melody can lead to bland music that is very predictable. Much mainstream pop is catchy and pleasant in an immediate melodic sense, but with such music I can often predict where the melody and chord progressions are going.

Also, if your theory regarding melody were true then Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg and many other musical geniuses could not be said to have created great pieces. But their music is still highly regarded nearly 100 years after their death.

It takes time to develop the listening skills to appreciate music that is not driven by an immediate melodic hook, as most contemporary music conditions us to listen to all music as if it were driven by melodic hooks.
Are you listening to Stravinsky, Bartok often of is it just the opinions of others? Maybe you can see that there is a line between pop and classic, and its progressive rock. Not totally catchy and not completely submerge in too much complexity.


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

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



Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:50
Originally posted by QuestionableScum QuestionableScum wrote:

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

And why would it be? In accordance to rdtprog's "theory", much of their music has made an immediate impact on me.


Posted By: QuestionableScum
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 17:57
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:


Originally posted by QuestionableScum QuestionableScum wrote:

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


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

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


Posted By: wilmon91
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 18:02
It's interesting to talk about direct impact versus gradual impact in music. From my experience I can't say that music having a direct impact is generally superior to music with a slower impact. Both kinds are good, and equally valuable as qualitites. The word catchy can be unfair. What I don't like is too much repetition. Pop music with a repeated short melody can be deisgned just to force you to remember it. When the catchiness depends on repepetition the melody doesn't even have to be good, it just has to be repeated enough times. It's an immediate, annoying impact.
 
But I have experienced both kinds of impact at the same time. When I heard Steve Hackett's Spectral Mornings, I really liked it at first listen. Very easy to like. It felt like an easygoing album, sounded nice, and put me in a good mood. But I didn't suspect the depth it had. With more listens it grew into becoming something more than just enjoyable and fun. And it has a lot of sophisticated stuff in it. Once I sat in front of the piano trying to play The Ballad of the Decomposing Man. I could only figure out the first chord, then I gave up. Spectral Mornings grew into something magical. But "Every Day", a hackett classic, is pretty easygoing with memorable melodies, but it doesn't feel like a radio song being confined to a format, it has it's own life with an original form, and free guitar soloing at the ending. Most important is that each song has it's own life and freedom in expression. I like a mixture of simple direct elements and sophisticated, advanced elements, because I like the idea of pop with concentrated meliodies and grooves , but also advanced classical related stuff which allows for the full range in creativity.


Posted By: pitfall
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 18:20
I can only say that the music which has stayed with me the longest, is music which took quite a few listens for me to appreciate. I'm sure that this is why very few of them are hit singles.


Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 18:25
The tracks that have immediate impact don't always impact people because of their melody or even chord progressions. Sometimes it can impact through sonic richness, form, or context within an album.

Many rewarding tracks or albums can be liked on second, third, or fourth listens. As has been said by many here, Tales from Topographic Oceans. I might add, too: Relayer, Kid A, King of Limbs, Thick as a Brick and countless others that may have escaped me on first listen. Not to mention the fact that Genesis has never impacted me aesthetically (yet), and a couple people (okay, lots of people) happen to like them here. Wink

You may like a song that impacts you instantly, and that's fine. I do too; however, if you say that instantly impacting music is necessarily better than gradually impacting music, or vice versa, we have a problem. By saying so, you have necessarily prescribed one mode of listening/appreciating over another (instant gratification in music is better than gradual gratification in music), which is very limiting to aesthetic taste and can cause one to miss out on a lot of masterpieces.

Not to mention the fact that listeners mature and different music will impact them at different times.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 18:32
Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

^ that.
 
Exhibit A:

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

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


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 18:46
This thread is so incredibly subjective. I can't say if a piece of music hits me hard the first listen, that it is all together definitively better!? No way man! Same goes vise versa. That includes any genre as well. If we wantbyo get into crazy semantics like categorizing songs that are better based on their genre cause it grows on ya quicker does that mean its better? No no no I think not, but is their a musical skill level difference? I would think so.

Let's bring out a fun scenario shall we. TEARS FOR FEARS. Ok they are pop/electronic rock group and we will compare to YES. Let's take a song from each band. For TFF-- Shout, For YES--Siberia

which is the song that is most likely gonna grow on ya first to call it 'best' in this regard???
I DON'T KNOW CAUSE IM NOT YOU!!! This thread is way too subjective, but quite humorous   Lol

-------------
Threshold still have all the goods that makes them one of the best classic rock/Prog metal bands in the world. 2014's For The Journey is worth a serious listen.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 18:47
I neither write off music that doesn't have an immediate impact nor do I conclude that music that does is just shallow and fluff.   Both positions are extreme and not very helpful to a person who wants to enjoy more music. 


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 19:22
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

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

-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 19:27
Originally posted by progbethyname progbethyname wrote:

This thread is so incredibly subjective. I can't say if a piece of music hits me hard the first listen, that it is all together definitively better!? No way man! Same goes vise versa. That includes any genre as well. If we wantbyo get into crazy semantics like categorizing songs that are better based on their genre cause it grows on ya quicker does that mean its better? No no no I think not, but is their a musical skill level difference? I would think so.

Let's bring out a fun scenario shall we. TEARS FOR FEARS. Ok they are pop/electronic rock group and we will compare to YES. Let's take a song from each band. For TFF-- Shout, For YES--Siberia

which is the song that is most likely gonna grow on ya first to call it 'best' in this regard???
I DON'T KNOW CAUSE IM NOT YOU!!! This thread is way too subjective, but quite humorous   Lol


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


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


Posted By: menawati
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 19:52
Varies a lot. Some things that hit me first time are still my favourites and other things I didn't like on a first few listens have grown to be favourites.

-------------
They flutter behind you your possible pasts,
Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 19:58
Originally posted by Dayvenkirq Dayvenkirq wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

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

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


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 20:03
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq Dayvenkirq wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

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


This is well said. I find that Tales has a cohesiveness between the movements that is lacking in most other prog epics, and a large share of that credit does indeed go to Wakeman. It's sort of like the difference between A Beethoven symphony (the fifth, for example, in which all the movement's are built on the rhythm short-short-short-long) and a Mozart symphony (in which the movements are entirely unrelated.)


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


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 20:40
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:


Originally posted by progbethyname progbethyname wrote:

This thread is so incredibly subjective. I can't say if a piece of music hits me hard the first listen, that it is all together definitively better!? No way man! Same goes vise versa. That includes any genre as well. If we wantbyo get into crazy semantics like categorizing songs that are better based on their genre cause it grows on ya quicker does that mean its better? No no no I think not, but is their a musical skill level difference? I would think so.

Let's bring out a fun scenario shall we. TEARS FOR FEARS. Ok they are pop/electronic rock group and we will compare to YES. Let's take a song from each band. For TFF-- Shout, For YES--Siberia

which is the song that is most likely gonna grow on ya first to call it 'best' in this regard???
I DON'T KNOW CAUSE IM NOT YOU!!! This thread is way too subjective, but quite humorous   Lol
It's a music forum. Every thread is subjective. If you want objective threads, go to a science forum or something. I feel like I'm going to scream having to listen to you idiots.


Think your right. I should lighten up a bit.

-------------
Threshold still have all the goods that makes them one of the best classic rock/Prog metal bands in the world. 2014's For The Journey is worth a serious listen.


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: November 26 2012 at 21:34
Basically "no" but a concession to "yes".
 
I think we proggers have our own perception of what we can find as "instantly melodical", which can vary across quite a broad range compared to people who have not been exposed to prog or jazz or classical music.
Many stuff other people might find unlisteneable will probably catch our attention on first listen, but what this stuff is depends a lot on what kind of music we are fond of, symphonic, math, RIO, fusion, post-rock or whatever.
 
So it's a difficult question. I would say a conditional "well yes, melody plays an important part" but we must acknowledge that the very word "melodical" is subjective, in particular for us proggers.
 
Personally I would also add to "melody" "harmony", frequently it's not the monophonic melody that catches my attention but the polyphonic harmonies, the relationships between melody and backing notes.
 
Much of the music I love did not get me on a first listen but only after repeated and carefull listenings, but I reckon that some melodies / harmonies got me from the first listen and have remained favourites.
 


Posted By: zeqexes
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 01:57
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I don't agree with you. I think the best songs are often the ones that require a little time to fully digest and appreciate. If your theory were true, then we would be forced to conclude that highly accessible pop/dance music is really good, which of course it isn't.

I agree, although I do think that some accessible pop is quite good.


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


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 03:51
Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:

I am curious if some agree with me, when i say that the best songs we can hear on a progressive rock cd are the one that have a immediate impact on you. I mean when you can clearly feel the sense of the melody and you are immediately affect positively by it. And the songs that take many takes to get something out of it don't have such strong melody and are easily forgotten. For those kind of songs it takes great songwriting by the artists to be able to connect emotionally to the listener. I don't want to say by this, that only songs that have a strong or catchy melody have a impact on you, but that they are the songs that are the most memorable for us and, that we want to listen over and over again. There also songs that we can enjoy for the sound, the atmosphere or the complexity, but i think that those things should never overshadows the melody in the songs.

I think that the bands that have strong songwriting ability, by creating the best songs, are rare. Is this what we call "genius" , "gifted"? Is melody the essential part of music and the at a point where sometimes we can say that its surpassed the artist, just like he was control by a higher energy impossible to describe.

Genesis, Yes, Pink Floyd, PFM, Rush are in the category that i have in mind, and soul... when i am thinking about great songs with a sense of melody, which mean more than a succession of notes and tones, but something that reach the listener deeper,  a bit like when you find yourself humming or when people say that they can't get the songs out of their heads.

The simple short answer is NO, i love a lot of music, that i cant hum.
 
 
 


-------------
My Music: www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com
My blog: www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 04:48
I have read all replies and while some are deploring the subjective matter of the thread, i think that some tend to see the things in my perspective and others not, which is the norm in every philosophical thread. Its true that the term "best" in a title could be misleading, but a title is suppose to create a "immediate impact"..., so pardon me this intrusion. I was only making a observation of how my relation to the music can take different directions, and only that if i force myself to discover new kind of progressive music that is more complex, challenging or adventurous, i also in the same time, need to go back to beautiful melodies that doesn't have the repetition of pop music.

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


-------------
“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”
― Frank Zappa

"I am not afraid of Death, I just don't want to be there when it happens".

- Woody Allen







Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 05:11
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

^ that.
 
Exhibit A:

That is one of the best examples why I don't agree with the theory of the OP.
It took me some time to appreciate Tales, and now it's one of my favorite Yes albums.
Same goes for some other albums, like Camel's classic albums: it took me some time to really appreciate them.
I thought they were boring when I first listened to them.
Still, sometimes I think the theory is right after all: sometimes I hear a song/album for the first time, and I think by myself that one day I might really like it.
It's just not a matter of always.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 05:26
Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:

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

While some of view can discover some new things in a song by repeated listening, that is not to me the impact i was referring too. I am sure that a lot of you know on a first listening if a song have a impact on you and will still have in the future, and again i don't mean that it's a pop tune with catchy beat and melody, but it could be a song that contains many movements and a strong melody and it could be a classical song with no vocals. What could be subjective is that the classical pieces that have a impact doesn't reach me at the same level as a progressive rock song. I don't want to say that a form a music is better than another one, but only that the best composers on any music genre are the ones who have the art of touching  the audience with something in theirs songs that make that we want to hear their songs many times. It's like what we call here "The classic albums".
In that case I think you may be more *wrong* than I first imagined... I use the word *wrong* here in desperate need of another that more adequately conveys what I mean - I don't mean you are incorrect, because that is obviously not true for you, I mean that would be wrong for me and probably lots of other people reading this if that were our philosophy. Therefore it is not the generalisation implicit in the title or any explanation you've given. Many of us become quickly innured to songs that have immediate impact, and that is evident here in the misuse of that other word of contention - *overrated*. Bottom line is there is not general formula for what makes a classic album a classic album, it's not melody, catchiness, structure, subject matter, complexity, length or even who composed it (so no, I don't think the best composers are the ones who have the art of touching), yet it is possible that some classic albums some or all of those traits, and some that have none. No golden rules or everyone would be doing it.


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


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 05:59
Originally posted by QuestionableScum QuestionableScum wrote:

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:


Originally posted by QuestionableScum QuestionableScum wrote:

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


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

Sure, it took me several listens to 'truly enjoy' their music, simply because it's too dense and complex to absorb in one go. But nevertheless something caught my interest right away. This might not hold true for everybody, and neither do I claim it does, but it holds true for my experience.

Originally posted by QuestionableScum QuestionableScum wrote:

Also, the OP's theory made some comments about the melodic character of music, and as much as I love Stravinsky and Bartok, their music is not particularly melodic. Dissonance usually dominates over consonance in terms of harmony.

Melodies can be dissonant. There's this tendency in casual conversation to use the word 'melodic' to mean 'consonant' or even 'catchy', but that's not true. Both Stravinsky's and Bartok's music is perfectly melodic. It just might be harder for the ear to parse these melodies, because they're often outside of the harmonic relations we are familiar with.

Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

You may like a song that impacts you instantly, and that's fine. I do too; however, if you say that instantly impacting music is necessarily better than gradually impacting music, or vice versa, we have a problem. By saying so, you have necessarily prescribed one mode of listening/appreciating over another (instant gratification in music is better than gradual gratification in music), which is very limiting to aesthetic taste and can cause one to miss out on a lot of masterpieces.

Gratification isn't the same as what the OP called 'impact'. What I call 'impact' is when I recognize something in a piece of music that interests me. That doesn't mean I instantly enjoy the whole piece, but it gives me the indication that it's something I might enjoy. I have yet to come across a piece of music that didn't interest me at all on first listen and later became something I enjoyed. Of course, when I say 'first listen', I mean a real listen, not just putting the music on in the background while doing something else.

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I feel like I'm going to scream having to listen to you idiots.

That, we can all agree on, is objectively rude and insulting. I reiterate: It's not about adding "IMHO" to every opinion. It's about accepting that when it comes to taste, other people's opinions can coexist happily with yours. When you say "accessible pop music of course isn't good", you're trying to invalidate the opinion of everybody who might actually enjoy accessible pop music. Had you said "pop music sucks", that would have been fine. I would have disagreed (and rather vehemently so), but it would have been a valid statement of your opinion, regardless of whether you designated it as such. But when you add something like "of course", which implies that what you said should be self-evident to everybody, you're no longer just stating your opinion, you're implying that something must be wrong with everybody who disagrees because he doesn't see the truth that you find so obvious. That is offensive, even if you add "IMHO".

Regarding the "exhibit A" that's being used in this thread, my opinion on Tales has stayed pretty much the same from my first listen to the most recent one: It has some good parts and some boring parts. The magnitude might have changed - I like the bulk of "Ritual" more than I used to while a good portion of "The Remembering" has just grown duller and duller - but not my general opinion - I've always liked the bulk "Ritual" and disliked a good portion of "The Remembering". Repeated listens (and there were many of them) have improved my awareness of what's going on, but they have only confirmed my initial assessment. The good parts are still good and the crappy parts are still crappy.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 06:07
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:


Regarding the "exhibit A" that's being used in this thread, my opinion on Tales has stayed pretty much the same from my first listen to the most recent one: It has some good parts and some boring parts. The magnitude might have changed - I like the bulk of "Ritual" more than I used to while a good portion of "The Remembering" has just grown duller and duller - but not my general opinion - I've always liked the bulk "Ritual" and disliked a good portion of "The Remembering". Repeated listens (and there were many of them) have improved my awareness of what's going on, but they have only confirmed my initial assessment. The good parts are still good and the crappy parts are still crappy.
There you go then. There are no golden rules and no generalisations. One size definitely does not fit all. Every possible scenario for people liking or disliking this album that could exist probably does exist and that still disproves the OP. Hence "Exhibit 'A'Wink


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


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 06:17
The albums I consider masterpieces usually struck a chord with me on the first listen.  Tales from Topographic Oceans, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, Mei, etc.  They all grabbed me and held on.

There are exceptions. albums that took time to sink in.  The Hemulic Voluntary Band is one of those.


-------------
http://epignosis.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Listen to the new Epignosis album for free- it's good for your health


Posted By: Sagichim
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 06:55
I think it's right and wrong. With some albums, on the first listen I realized I was listening to something great but some just went over my head or took some time to digest or fully discover.
It happened to me just a few weeks ago with the debut album by Druckfarben. When it was finished I knew it was a 5 star album.


-------------
"One good thing about music, when it hits you feel no pain.."


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 07:38
Hi,
 
If "melody" was the main definition of music, almost all the composers of the 20th century would never have made it, or be discussed today.
 
"Melody" is the simplest thing to work around in music ... but it is also the most over rated part of music, and the one part that often is not even the major part in it.
 
Popular music milks the easiest parts of the music, so you can have that guy playing the clarinet for the housewives in the afternoons and such ... and the guitar 30 second has become the barbie doll of all pieces of music that everyone gets attached to ... other than the naked girl of course!
 
In general, the best ones usually always have an impact in one way or another and none of the groups you mentioned had an immediate impact, btw ... in fact PF had serious issues with Syd at the lead, and some of the things they were doing live, were not the pop songs on the albums, which created a live issue for the band. YES, spent a long time trying to get it down and together, and it was their 3rd album that kicked in. Rush, I prefer not to discuss and PFM was already an established band by the time we heard about them in the rest of the world ...
 
Generally, I prefer to state that you can not put down superior muscianship and work ... a hit comes and goes ... but the works of the best will be remembered for a much longer time!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 07:39
Originally posted by sagichim sagichim wrote:

I think it's right and wrong. With some albums, on the first listen I realized I was listening to something great but some just went over my head or took some time to digest or fully discover.
It happened to me just a few weeks ago with the debut album by Druckfarben. When it was finished I knew it was a 5 star album.
That won't necessarily make it a Classic Album - you could be sick of it this time next week/month/year/decade. Many albums have been 5-star albums after I've listened to them once or twice that have dropped to 4 or even 3 later.


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


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 07:42
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

In general, the best ones usually always have an impact in one way or another and none of the groups you mentioned had an immediate impact, btw ... in fact PF had serious issues with Syd at the lead, and some of the things they were doing live, were not the pop songs on the albums, which created a live issue for the band. YES, spent a long time trying to get it down and together, and it was their 3rd album that kicked in. Rush, I prefer not to discuss and PFM was already an established band by the time we heard about them in the rest of the world ...

The social impact of a group has nothing to do with the personal impact of a piece of music, which is what the OP was talking about.


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 07:46
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by sagichim sagichim wrote:

I think it's right and wrong. With some albums, on the first listen I realized I was listening to something great but some just went over my head or took some time to digest or fully discover.
It happened to me just a few weeks ago with the debut album by Druckfarben. When it was finished I knew it was a 5 star album.
That won't necessarily make it a Classic Album - you could be sick of it this time next week/month/year/decade. Many albums have been 5-star albums after I've listened to them once or twice that have dropped to 4 or even 3 later.


A good example of this for me would be Thick as a Brick vs. A Passion Play. I immediately fell in love with TaaB, but over time it lost it's lustre and now I don't care for it as much (I still think it's a great album, just not the flawless masterpiece I once did.) A Passion Play took longer to appreciate, but I now rank it as one of my top two or three records of all time.

The same goes for 2112 vs. Hemispheres. 2112 had a more immediate impact on me, but over time I came regard Hemispheres as a superior piece of music by far.


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


Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 08:00
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

A good example of this for me would be Thick as a Brick vs. A Passion Play. I immediately fell in love with TaaB, but over time it lost it's lustre and now I don't care for it as much (I still think it's a great album, just not the flawless masterpiece I once did.) A Passion Play took longer to appreciate, but I now rank it as one of my top two or three records of all time.

Interestingly enough it was the exact opposite for me. I loved A Passion Play on first listen but grew off it over time (even though I still like it), whereas I initially regarded Thick as a Brick as good but inferior, and now I think it's the band's masterpiece. Admittedly, that was during a time when I thought "obscure" means "better".


Posted By: Sagichim
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 08:05
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by sagichim sagichim wrote:

I think it's right and wrong. With some albums, on the first listen I realized I was listening to something great but some just went over my head or took some time to digest or fully discover.
It happened to me just a few weeks ago with the debut album by Druckfarben. When it was finished I knew it was a 5 star album.
That won't necessarily make it a Classic Album - you could be sick of it this time next week/month/year/decade. Many albums have been 5-star albums after I've listened to them once or twice that have dropped to 4 or even 3 later.


I didn't say it would be a classic album I said it was a very good album. I don't think classic means masterpiece or even 5 star album.

Like Llama mentioned, there are several albums which I once considered as flawless but now I don't think so anymore. But some albums remained the masterpieces they were.



-------------
"One good thing about music, when it hits you feel no pain.."


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 08:11
Originally posted by sagichim sagichim wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by sagichim sagichim wrote:

I think it's right and wrong. With some albums, on the first listen I realized I was listening to something great but some just went over my head or took some time to digest or fully discover.
It happened to me just a few weeks ago with the debut album by Druckfarben. When it was finished I knew it was a 5 star album.
That won't necessarily make it a Classic Album - you could be sick of it this time next week/month/year/decade. Many albums have been 5-star albums after I've listened to them once or twice that have dropped to 4 or even 3 later.


I didn't say it would be a classic album I said it was a very good album. I don't think classic means masterpiece or even 5 star album.

Like Llama mentioned, there are several albums which I once considered as flawless but now I don't think so anymore. But some albums remained the masterpieces they were.

The OP has since clarified that the "best" in the thread title kinda refers to classic albums, so that's kinda implicit from now onwards.


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


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 08:18
That kind of thing have happened an uncountable amount of times for me.
Lots of albums was in my top 20 playlist for a year or so, but never got back into my top 100.
 
NB: I still dont understand "A Passion Play",  may be I should give it a few more times.


-------------
My Music: www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com
My blog: www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 08:21
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

I still dont understand "A Passion Play"


It's a story about a hare who lost his spectacles. Observe:

The entirety of "A Passion Play" is simply an allegorical retelling of the more direct story of the Hare Who Lost His Spectacles."

In both cases the main character loses something(an object or his life) "and so I'm dead, the young man said"; "the hare has lost his spectacles"

The protagonist requires guidance to progress "a sweetly scented angel fell"; "without his spectacles he appeared completely helpless"

A group of unhelpful onlookers gathers, seeming to take pleasure in his predicament rather than really empathizing with him. "for the gory satisfaction of telling you how absolutely awful you really are.": "I have good eyesight, insight and foresight"

An ineffective solution is proposed. "show me a good man and I'll show you the door."; "you must go in search of the optician."

An alternative, equally foolish solution is proposed. "Flee the icy Lucifer. Oh, he's an awful fellow!"; "You can take him in your pouch."

The protagonist realizes the uselessness of the others' help "here's the everlasting rub, neither am I good nor bad."; "it had become quite plain to hare that the others knew nothing about spectacles."

He realizes that the solution to his problem had been with him right from the beginning. "I'd give up my halo for a horn, and the horn for the hat I once had."; "After all, hare did have a spare pair."

Doesn't it seem obvious now?


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


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 09:09
Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:

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


While in general, a track I like is one that made an impression on me the first time, it is not always the case and one of the exceptions is significant - King Crimson.  They are my favourite prog rock band and yet, initially, I stinted over them and spent several distracted listens trying to find something to enjoy in their music.  And then *boom* it clicked.   I would say the more flexible you are in trying to listen to something from a different perspective, the more likely it is that this sort of thing would happen to you.   For a long time, I thought of Kate Bush as just another talented artist and was not particularly fond of her albums.   I more or less completely disliked Kid A the first time I heard it and didn't feel like returning to it.   If you are of the "I know what I like and I like what I know" kind, you probably tend to gravitate to what is familiar and then, yes, first impressions can make or break the deal.   I have seen people make a snap judgment within seconds of listening to a song about whether they should check out some band or artist.    Please note that I am not saying one approach is better than the other, just that there is no one universal best approach for everyone.   Some people hate it when it is not memorable, some people hate it when it is and the rest are somewhere in the middle.


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 10:58
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

"Melody" is the simplest thing to work around in music ... but it is also the most over rated part of music, and the one part that often is not even the major part in it.
Ah! ... Hurts already.

Pedro, as an aspiring songwriter I can tell you this much: you clearly have no idea how difficult it is to come up with a really good melody. If what you said there was true, the Beaver and his Tarantulas would have no problem getting as good as, say, Nick Drake ... I think ... .

-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 11:18
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:


Originally posted by Polymorphia Polymorphia wrote:

You may like a song that impacts you instantly, and that's fine. I do too; however, if you say that instantly impacting music is necessarily better than gradually impacting music, or vice versa, we have a problem. By saying so, you have necessarily prescribed one mode of listening/appreciating over another (instant gratification in music is better than gradual gratification in music), which is very limiting to aesthetic taste and can cause one to miss out on a lot of masterpieces.

Gratification isn't the same as what the OP called 'impact'. What I call 'impact' is when I recognize something in a piece of music that interests me. That doesn't mean I instantly enjoy the whole piece, but it gives me the indication that it's something I might enjoy. I have yet to come across a piece of music that didn't interest me at all on first listen and later became something I enjoyed. Of course, when I say 'first listen', I mean a real listen, not just putting the music on in the background while doing something else.


By gratification, general aesthetic or cerebral interest is included. I also mean a "real" first listen, disinterested contemplation of the piece of music. Also, your distinctions still don't account for the fact that a piece can hold interest in different ways to different people, and that impact is not necessarily indicative of quality. Even if you or the OP mean so in a subjective sense, that the kind of music one would like is instantly impacting on first listen, if you look at most of the other comments, you'll see that it doesn't necessarily hold true for everybody. And again, you are also ignoring the fact that listeners mature and look for different things than they did previously. 


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 11:36
Usually it's the more lengthy complex pieces that take longer to really enjoy and get a stronger appreciation for, but it's that lengthy adjustment period that makes it so great. In other words, the longer the adjustment the more likely that piece of music will stay with you longer.

This is just my experience. THICK AS A BRICK is a good example for me. Didn't love it at first, but after setting with it a few times more I began to hear things that I loved and didn't hear the first time. You see, with a more lengthy involved piece of music it's really hard to take in everything that is going on instrumentaly the very first, maybe even 2nd, listen.

What makes prog so great is its repeat value. Their is so much to discover and pay attention to even after several listens.



-------------
Threshold still have all the goods that makes them one of the best classic rock/Prog metal bands in the world. 2014's For The Journey is worth a serious listen.


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 12:07
Many of the albums I love the most are albums I have listened to hundreds of times and I know in every detail, and it is this deep knowledge and understanding of the album that makes me still enjoy them so much (even if by now I may not listen to them often anymore, but I still love them).
 
However this is not a golden rule. Some of these albums which I have listened to hundreds of times (and therefore were favourites at some time) have lost their magic with time.
And obviously there are albums which I have discovered too recently to have been able to listen to them hundreds of times (and therefore I am still on the way of getting to know them in full detail) which have already gained my love.
 
I remember that for a long time I did not like The Lamb's In The Cage melody, I found it corny, but I finally came to like it.
 
All the combinations are possible.


Posted By: Josef_K
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 14:19
I actually do think that many pop songs have good melodies, if only a bit "empty" at times. The thing is that they often lack anything interesting beyond that, and so they are of no interest to me. Still, I completely agree on that the melody in the chorus of say "call me maybe" is easily stuck in your head. Does it make it a good song? No, not at all. Does it make it likely to be commercially successful? Yes of course. Those are of course two different things.

When I first listened to Yes, I was disturbed by the atmosphere and the "jumping" feeling in lots of the riffs etc, it felt like they had taken the bad parts from classical music and based their music on that and rock. After plenty of listens, I finally began to like Roundabout. After even more listens I liked Fragile. Then Close to the Edge after adapting/developing my taste even more. Then I got so obsessed with Close to the Edge that I wished they could have made it double the length... this was when I discovered my favorite album (guess which ^^). 

I am currently experiencing a very similar process with bands such as Camel, Gentle Giant and King Crimson. I would say that if you do NOT like something the first time you hear it, but keep coming back because you believe there might be something to it after all, then odds are you have stumbled upon what will reveal itself as a masterpiece, at least in your subjective opinion.


-------------
Leave the past to burn,
At least that's been his own

- Peter Hammill


Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 15:51
I am going to simplify the thread by a simple question. What are the songs or albums that you listen the most over a long period of times? So now the debate will be over and will move to another debate.Wink Immediate impact or not., melodic or not...

-------------
“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”
― Frank Zappa

"I am not afraid of Death, I just don't want to be there when it happens".

- Woody Allen







Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 16:08
Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:

I am going to simplify the thread by a simple question. What are the songs or albums that you listen the most over a long period of times? So now the debate will be over and will move to another debate.Wink Immediate impact or not., melodic or not...


I was hoping we could shift the thread topic to a discussion of my exceedingly clever analysis of A Passion Play. Unhappy


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


Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 17:12
I am thinking about a cd that took me many listening to have a impact on me and the only one i can think of is the live album "Playing the Fool" by GG. But it was more a cerebral thing for me, and it was to impress my friend who was a big fan of the band. I must say that is one of the most interesting band for the mind in prog rock, because the sophistication and complexity of their music. But , again i have said another big word (mind) that will make some waves.

-------------
“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”
― Frank Zappa

"I am not afraid of Death, I just don't want to be there when it happens".

- Woody Allen







Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 20:32
Many times extreme reaction has a recoil. Many of the albums that I find the best took some growing and many that I was head over heals for became annoying (Most The Mars Volta and Dream Theater albums being examples).  Magma did not impact me at first but are now amongst my favorites.

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


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 02:17
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

I still dont understand "A Passion Play"


It's a story about a hare who lost his spectacles. Observe:

The entirety of "A Passion Play" is simply an allegorical retelling of the more direct story of the Hare Who Lost His Spectacles."

In both cases the main character loses something(an object or his life) "and so I'm dead, the young man said"; "the hare has lost his spectacles"

The protagonist requires guidance to progress "a sweetly scented angel fell"; "without his spectacles he appeared completely helpless"

A group of unhelpful onlookers gathers, seeming to take pleasure in his predicament rather than really empathizing with him. "for the gory satisfaction of telling you how absolutely awful you really are.": "I have good eyesight, insight and foresight"

An ineffective solution is proposed. "show me a good man and I'll show you the door."; "you must go in search of the optician."

An alternative, equally foolish solution is proposed. "Flee the icy Lucifer. Oh, he's an awful fellow!"; "You can take him in your pouch."

The protagonist realizes the uselessness of the others' help "here's the everlasting rub, neither am I good nor bad."; "it had become quite plain to hare that the others knew nothing about spectacles."

He realizes that the solution to his problem had been with him right from the beginning. "I'd give up my halo for a horn, and the horn for the hat I once had."; "After all, hare did have a spare pair."

Doesn't it seem obvious now?
Sorry i was that unclear - i understand the story !
My point was, that "A Passion Play", is one classic albums, that never got to me, and I am a HUGE Tull
fan, I love TAAB, MITG, War Child, Songs from, Aqualung, Storm W., Heavy H. 
I have no idear why, but that one does not ring my bell. 


-------------
My Music: www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com
My blog: www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 03:00
There are not many albums that had an immediate impact but here are some of them.... now i have got my computer camera to work I can post them....




and these vinyls



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


Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 14:20
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

I still dont understand "A Passion Play"


It's a story about a hare who lost his spectacles. Observe:

The entirety of "A Passion Play" is simply an allegorical retelling of the more direct story of the Hare Who Lost His Spectacles."

In both cases the main character loses something(an object or his life) "and so I'm dead, the young man said"; "the hare has lost his spectacles"

The protagonist requires guidance to progress "a sweetly scented angel fell"; "without his spectacles he appeared completely helpless"

A group of unhelpful onlookers gathers, seeming to take pleasure in his predicament rather than really empathizing with him. "for the gory satisfaction of telling you how absolutely awful you really are.": "I have good eyesight, insight and foresight"

An ineffective solution is proposed. "show me a good man and I'll show you the door."; "you must go in search of the optician."

An alternative, equally foolish solution is proposed. "Flee the icy Lucifer. Oh, he's an awful fellow!"; "You can take him in your pouch."

The protagonist realizes the uselessness of the others' help "here's the everlasting rub, neither am I good nor bad."; "it had become quite plain to hare that the others knew nothing about spectacles."

He realizes that the solution to his problem had been with him right from the beginning. "I'd give up my halo for a horn, and the horn for the hat I once had."; "After all, hare did have a spare pair."

Doesn't it seem obvious now?
Sorry i was that unclear - i understand the story !
My point was, that "A Passion Play", is one classic albums, that never got to me, and I am a HUGE Tull
fan, I love TAAB, MITG, War Child, Songs from, Aqualung, Storm W., Heavy H. 
I have no idear why, but that one does not ring my bell. 


So you agree with my analysis then?


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


Posted By: Ytse_Jam
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 18:17
I don't agree. Songs that take me at the first listens are usually the ones I get bored first, and some of my absolute favourite albums, like TAAB, Trilogy by ELP, or Stardust We Are by The Flower Kings, required me multiple listens to properly get into them.


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 19:40
Another factor is that when you discover a band which has already several good albums released but you had never heard yet, and you discover them by any particular album no matter which one in their release timing sequence and the band impresses you, it is likely that that album you heard first from the band will remain a favourite.
 
Just as example, I discovered Spock's Beard with The Kindness Of Strangers and it impressed me. Only later I heard The Light and Beware Of Darkness and their later albums. It's hard to tell which Spock's album I prefer the most now but Kindness will always remain a favourite.
It is likely that if the first album I ever heard from them was for example Beware, then it would be it to hold that special position.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 01 2012 at 14:18
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

In general, the best ones usually always have an impact in one way or another and none of the groups you mentioned had an immediate impact, btw ... in fact PF had serious issues with Syd at the lead, and some of the things they were doing live, were not the pop songs on the albums, which created a live issue for the band. YES, spent a long time trying to get it down and together, and it was their 3rd album that kicked in. Rush, I prefer not to discuss and PFM was already an established band by the time we heard about them in the rest of the world ...

The social impact of a group has nothing to do with the personal impact of a piece of music, which is what the OP was talking about.
 
There is no social impact without your reaction or mine, and no personal reaction, many times, without your friend telling you about something, or the board called Prog Archives, telling you, or helping you discuss something or other.
 
You can't have one without the other ... it's a symbiotic relationship, despite your not wanting to accept the basic fact on page one of Sociology and Psychology 101 in any college!
 
Seems to me that your sentence is off its rocker! A few smokes, or beers usually do that!
 
Wink
 
Tongue
 
Cool


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 01 2012 at 22:58
^^^^  You are off the mark in terms of what the OP asked but it's an interesting point.  Would it really be the same thing if we were introduced to PF via Ummagumma instead of DSOTM?   How many of us would then be 'open minded' with one of the greatest rock bands of all times or, instead, write them off as pretentious jokers, never to listen to them again?   Today, we have the luxury of knowing where exactly these great bands hit their peak and can cherry pick the ones 'with an immediate impact' but even these great bands weren't great from day 1.   

I wonder if these canons like "greatest prog albums", greatest this and greatest that only serve to bias our mind and set our expectations at an unrealistic level.   I remember on a metal forum, somebody suggested that neophytes to metal should be introduced NOT through the best albums but through lesser ones which would still be good enough as a representation of the genre.  It was quickly shot down as a ridiculous idea, but I respected his point of view then and do so even more today.   We are not necessarily entitled to musical magic every time we listen to something.   There may be magic in the music but whether we perceive it as such also depends on whether we are enthusiastic or apathetic to the magician's tricks. As you said, it's a symbiotic relationship.  This is in a sense the bane of experience for a listener, it turns us into mistra-know-it-alls and takes us far away from the child within that could instantly fall in love with good music and didn't ask too much of the musicians. 




Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: December 01 2012 at 23:34
Not usually. Most of my favorite albums took a few listens to make it's mark.

-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">

The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: December 02 2012 at 03:16
To cut a long story short...........sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.............


Posted By: Ferturi
Date Posted: December 02 2012 at 03:20
I do agree with the OP in one thing: I think melody is the main focus of music, or at least it is for me; I see melody as the "soul" of a song or any piece of music, the most basic and distinctive part of it and the one I personally value the most.

However, I don't think a good, strong melody is synnonymous with being a "simple, catchy" one; actually, many of the best melodies I've listened to I didn't get the first time, and this is especially true with progressive rock. As the melodies (and the whole musical experience) of progressive rock are very complex and intrincate, it's natural that it'll take some time to really appreciate them.


-------------
"Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact. " - Homer Simpson


Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: December 02 2012 at 04:50
Originally posted by Ferturi Ferturi wrote:

I do agree with the OP in one thing: I think melody is the main focus of music, or at least it is for me; I see melody as the "soul" of a song or any piece of music, the most basic and distinctive part of it and the one I personally value the most.

However, I don't think a good, strong melody is synnonymous with being a "simple, catchy" one; actually, many of the best melodies I've listened to I didn't get the first time, and this is especially true with progressive rock. As the melodies (and the whole musical experience) of progressive rock are very complex and intrincate, it's natural that it'll take some time to really appreciate them.


Yes, i have put strong songs and catchy melody in the same sentence, which created confusion, and when i think it through, in progressive rock, the best songs have not much to do with catchy songs and songs that we can  easily playback in our head, i wouldn't be able to remember all the parts of one of my favorite track "Cinema Sow" even if i have listened to this a hundred times, but still it's a song that had a immediate impact on me, and that i can't get bored listening again 40 years later.


-------------
“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”
― Frank Zappa

"I am not afraid of Death, I just don't want to be there when it happens".

- Woody Allen







Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 02 2012 at 05:19
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

^^^^  You are off the mark in terms of what the OP asked but it's an interesting point.  Would it really be the same thing if we were introduced to PF via Ummagumma instead of DSOTM?   How many of us would then be 'open minded' with one of the greatest rock bands of all times or, instead, write them off as pretentious jokers, never to listen to them again?   Today, we have the luxury of knowing where exactly these great bands hit their peak and can cherry pick the ones 'with an immediate impact' but even these great bands weren't great from day 1.   

I wonder if these canons like "greatest prog albums", greatest this and greatest that only serve to bias our mind and set our expectations at an unrealistic level.   I remember on a metal forum, somebody suggested that neophytes to metal should be introduced NOT through the best albums but through lesser ones which would still be good enough as a representation of the genre.  It was quickly shot down as a ridiculous idea, but I respected his point of view then and do so even more today.   We are not necessarily entitled to musical magic every time we listen to something.   There may be magic in the music but whether we perceive it as such also depends on whether we are enthusiastic or apathetic to the magician's tricks. As you said, it's a symbiotic relationship.  This is in a sense the bane of experience for a listener, it turns us into mistra-know-it-alls and takes us far away from the child within that could instantly fall in love with good music and didn't ask too much of the musicians. 


I'm not so sure that Pedro is as off the mark as it first appears. How we receive an album is influenced by preconception, expectation, confirmation bias, peer pressure and a host of other sociological and psychological reasons. Sometimes our desire to "fit in" (albeit to an elite group rather than the general populace) or to appear cool and with-it can predetermine how we approach an album we've never heard before but have heard good things about. This of course can be countered by our need to be individual and different to everyone else, the desire to be seen to make up our own minds about something even when that contradicts public opinion. With that we attempt to resolve the dichotomy that presents by our own subjective reasoning and arrive at conclusions that are the best fit to our own tastes and predelictions. When that succeeds we confirm what others have told us, when it fails it results in an unresolved contradiction and the assertion that "X" is overrated.
 
Your Pink Floyd example is an interesting one, especially as they have been successful in straddling several genres of popular music in their history, from their Psychedelic/Space Rock beginnings, through Progressive Rock to Classic Rock. Where in the that chronology you start can determine your opinion of them. I recall a long debate here several years ago (when Wish You Were Here topped our chart for a brief time) where someone asserted that they were not a Prog band and did not deserve the "progressive" accolades lauded upon them or their position on the top of our chart. After pages of heated debate it transpired that person had never heard anything prior to Dark Side Of The Moon. Once "encouraged" to listen to Echoes and Atom Heart Mother his opinion changed. [as an aside, my introduction to Floyd was Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother - I cannot recall which was first because Iheard them both on the same day].
 
Taking all that into account there is more to what determines a "Classic Album" than passing old greys whistle test (also the ironic name of the famous UK TV programme that featured music that decidely would not pass such a test).


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


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 02 2012 at 05:26
"Off the mark" was probably the wrong word, I meant that it was a somewhat tangential response to a more specific question.    


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 02 2012 at 05:30
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

"Off the mark" was probably the wrong word, I meant that it was a somewhat tangential response to a more specific question.    
Accepted. And on reflection I think we've both said the same things in our replies.

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


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 02 2012 at 07:49
 
Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:

I am going to simplify the thread by a simple question. What are the songs or albums that you listen the most over a long period of times? So now the debate will be over and will move to another debate.Wink Immediate impact or not., melodic or not...
I don't single out songs for repeated play and I cycle through my collection as there's no point in having an album if you don't listen to it every once in a while. Wink



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


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 02 2012 at 10:17
Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:

I am going to simplify the thread by a simple question. What are the songs or albums that you listen the most over a long period of times? So now the debate will be over and will move to another debate.Wink Immediate impact or not., melodic or not...



I guess I am not old enough for the 'long period of times' part!   Seriously, though...it depends and I really couldn't slot it neatly in any such box.   I have listened to a very simple but touching song like Brain Damage many, many times but also Is There Anybody There which just has a voice chant and then mournful guitar and violin.   I have also listened to Kontarkohz pt 2, The House The Street The Room and other compositions which are not really melodic in the generally used sense of the word many times.   I am not trying to deliberately take a...er, post modern position, that's honestly what my music taste is like.    Some jazz music doesn't fall neatly into either of the two categories you mentioned nor into the other end of the spectrum.  It's sort of catchy but not infectious.  It's not always very dissonant and is very often too relaxed to possess tension.  But the ghazal aficionado part of me doesn't find all these blue notes very melodic either.  That's the beauty of music for me. If I knew exactly what I liked most, it would be boring for me.  Might as well stop listening to any new music in that case.


Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: December 02 2012 at 12:10
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

In general, the best ones usually always have an impact in one way or another and none of the groups you mentioned had an immediate impact, btw ... in fact PF had serious issues with Syd at the lead, and some of the things they were doing live, were not the pop songs on the albums, which created a live issue for the band. YES, spent a long time trying to get it down and together, and it was their 3rd album that kicked in. Rush, I prefer not to discuss and PFM was already an established band by the time we heard about them in the rest of the world ...

The social impact of a group has nothing to do with the personal impact of a piece of music, which is what the OP was talking about.
 
There is no social impact without your reaction or mine, and no personal reaction, many times, without your friend telling you about something, or the board called Prog Archives, telling you, or helping you discuss something or other.
 
You can't have one without the other ... it's a symbiotic relationship, despite your not wanting to accept the basic fact on page one of Sociology and Psychology 101 in any college!
 
Seems to me that your sentence is off its rocker! A few smokes, or beers usually do that!
 
Wink
 
Tongue
 
Cool

It was an exaggeration to say they have nothing to do with each other, but what I meant to say is that you were talking about a different type of "impact" than the OP. No reason to make outrageous assumptions about me.


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: December 04 2012 at 11:36
Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:

Genesis, Yes, Pink Floyd, PFM, Rush are in the category that i have in mind, and soul...
 
I agree that Floyd and Yes are instantly accessible... But not Genesis. At least, not for me. I didn't get all the fuss about Genesis for decades. I would try to listen, but after the first or second listen, would give up. Finally, a few years a go, I forced myself to listen and re-listen and re-listen, only because it was praised so highly. Finally started to make sense to me.
 
I don't know if anyone else has had the same experience concerning Genesis...
 
One of my favorite albums of all time is Van Morrison's ASTRAL WEEKS. When i first heard it, it sounded like an indecipherable mess, chaotic and unlistenable. For a year, I'd put it on now and then, and then take it off in disgust. But for some reason, I kept going back to it. After that year, the full force of it hit me suddenly one day, and it's remained one of my favorite albums ever since.
 
I don't expect many here listens to Husker Du, but their album ZEN ARCADE was similar. Hated it the first time I heard it; took me awhile to get it, but now it's one of my all-time favorites.


Posted By: Galactic Melt
Date Posted: December 04 2012 at 11:47
Although I love Marillion and Genesis, it was Triumvirat that had an immediate impact on me. "Spartacus" and "Pompeii" are two masterpieces of prog, and the first time I heard both I was floored. 


Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: December 04 2012 at 17:03
Originally posted by Galactic Melt Galactic Melt wrote:

Although I love Marillion and Genesis, it was Triumvirat that had an immediate impact on me. "Spartacus" and "Pompeii" are two masterpieces of prog, and the first time I heard both I was floored. 


Yes Triumvirat was another immediate impact as ELP, a bombastic impact...Wink


-------------
“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”
― Frank Zappa

"I am not afraid of Death, I just don't want to be there when it happens".

- Woody Allen







Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 09 2012 at 10:59
Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:

Originally posted by Galactic Melt Galactic Melt wrote:

Although I love Marillion and Genesis, it was Triumvirat that had an immediate impact on me. "Spartacus" and "Pompeii" are two masterpieces of prog, and the first time I heard both I was floored. 


Yes Triumvirat was another immediate impact as ELP, a bombastic impact...Wink
 
I wold disagree here.
 
Triumvirat, was Harvest/Hignosis' answer to the overlydone/overrated stuff that ELP was doing by that time.  On top of it, Manticore had released PFM and Banco, and they were getting some very good reviews, for their work, and all of a sudden, ELP looked lazy and tired ... where as these bands were standing out ... really well for not only their individuality, but their creativity.  ELP promptly dropped the bands on account that they did not sell ... because they did not support them at all! Money was wasted on electricity, instead, is the joke!
 
KAYAK should also be listed in the middle here. Also a Harvest/Hipgnosis release.
 
Triumvirat became a favorite in Santa Barbara by the station's less educated jocks that played stuff that was more familiar to their ears, rather than the really different stuff that was out there. In this sense, Triumvirat is a bit more conventional, but they were still very good.
 
It also tells you, that the keyboard sound was massive in those days ... and one that we "think" is the ultimate representation of "progressive" ... and it is NOT, and distorts the mucianship in many other bands that were far more experimental and creative.


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com


Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: December 09 2012 at 11:37
^^^Interesting to hear your impressions regarding Triumvirat, people.
            Personally, Triumvirat had an immediate impact on me, and was the initial reason i got into prog, (In the spring of 1985, a friend lent me Illusions On A Double Dimple and Old Loves Die Hard, while i thought Old Loves was okay, Illusions Immediately floored me in a really positive way, and still does to this day) 


-------------
"and what music unites, man should not take apart"--Helmut Koellen                               


Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: December 09 2012 at 12:18
Fates Warning's PARALLES album hit me pretty good. Very accessible album. Actually, I've never met anyone who doesn't like the album. It's winner. :)

-------------
Threshold still have all the goods that makes them one of the best classic rock/Prog metal bands in the world. 2014's For The Journey is worth a serious listen.


Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 19 2012 at 08:13
Originally posted by progbethyname progbethyname wrote:

Fates Warning's PARALLES album hit me pretty good. Very accessible album. Actually, I've never met anyone who doesn't like the album. It's winner. :)
 
I saw this band with Queensryche and Dream Theater here in Portland ... and the two better known bands had the name and fame ... and this band was pretty much ignored by the audience as they meandered in and out of the hall!
 
I have heard a bit more of their stuff since, and sometimes I look at this band as far better defined and interesting than the other 2 -- that endup sounding repetitive, instead of creative!


-------------
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com



Print Page | Close Window

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