I don't hold prog in preference over other genres. I like the prog artists I like for the same reason I like the non-prog artists I like. They created art that succeeded in moving me. 

-Thought out composition

-Interesting/unexpected/dynamic harmony and rhythm

-Longer structures that allow for more music to unfold and build to something by the end

Much of classical/romantic music lines up with these too, and I go back in forth with which one I'm more obsessed with.

I like progressive music because of that depth and effort that is heard in so many bands. Whether it's emotional depth, lyrical depth, or musical depth, i just like the idea of someone trying to make music that has the listener really experience something. 

I think in general i like music that appeals to all parts of us, mind, body and soul (whatever that is). 

Keyboards! 

Drummers who don't just 'keep time'

Abstract lyrics ( I don't see why lyrics have to be meaningful but anyway there is Peter Gabriel covering that base)

Great and varied atmospheres

Unpredictabilty ( ie The Mars Volta)

Light and dark contrast which you don't find much in any forms of music other than prog

ESCAPISM! (reality is overrated)

Why do I listen to so much prog? Because prog is a special animal. It's big. It's fun for everyone. It's beyond words, really, no matter how much we discuss it. It satisfies nearly all sorts of folks: those who want the marriage of melody and simple songwriting, those who want showmanship, etc. I want prog because it offers these things:

1) Insanity on all levels, be that composition techniques, virtuosity, or experimentation. I love rhythmic and sonic assaults. That's the wild side of prog.

2) The diversity of genres absorbed (so it can satisfy a lot of people, especially me, who enjoys eclecticism). That's the open-minded side of prog.

3) The people who make this kind of music are really good with creating atmospheres. I may not know much about you as an individual or a musician from an atmosphere, but it's a start.

Pretty much anything goes. On an additional note, I love the music I love because 

4) it's not the unimaginative and impersonal drivel I hear on the radio and in the mall near me. Also ... 

+2

You have mentioned almost all the non-prog artist who I'm used to like 

Nor do I.

I don't define the music I prefer by genre alone, nor can I honestly say I prefer one genre over another. If it hits the pleasure-centre of my brain then I'm going to be happy regardless of the genre of music it is. I don't sit here counting the number of beats in a bar, analysing the degree of complexity in the composition or marvelling at the dexterity and skill of the performers; I listen to music for the emotional responses it creates - and for some Prog is as sterile and un-emotive as an Open University lecture about 17th century crop-rotation on the Somerset Levels while others can get the James May " http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/new-series-behind-the-scenes-james-is-feeling-it" rel="nofollow - fizz in the nether regions " at the merest mention of a new release by their favourite artist (for me that could be Pink Floyd, The Enid, PoS, Opeth, Philip Glass, Siouxsie Soiux, The Cure or Fields of the Nephilim for example - it's genre-non-specific). I am unmoved by Jazz (to be pedantic, I am moved to switch it off) and that shares many of the characteristics that most applaud in Progressive Rock - for all it's technical, compositional, structural and other musicological similarities with Progressive Rock, Jazz remains outside the pleasure zone for me.

I spend a lot of time here because there is more to talk about in the field of Progressive Rock, (my interest is mainly in the history and the modern perception of that history, but it's not limited to that either), this is because what we currently regard as Progressive Rock is broad (but not necessarily very deep) and impinges on other areas of music that also interest people, such as jazz-fusion, folk, psych, metal, electronic and avant garde (however, NOT classical).

But very little of that talking ever seems to be about the music - sure we have endless debates about "what is Prog", tiresome "X is better than Y" discussions, the perennial "who invented Prog" arguments and the countless "X is/is not Prog" bickering and they never resolve so are doomed to repeat ad infinitum. But when we start to talk about the music it all falls apart, or takes the path of least resistance and/or results in a round of self-congratulation, patting ourselves on the back for liking music that we believe is more erudite and more worthy than those we regard as lesser forms of music (like Pop or Grunge or R&B). 

In that respect Prog fans have a lot in common with Audiophilists - we all know what it is when we hear it but we cannot express that empirically and when we make any attempt to rationalise it we fail ... miserably (in the ten years of this forum's existence we have never produced a universally agreed answer to any question regarding Progressive Rock and we have [not] produced a robust definition of "what Prog is" - we cannot even reach a consensus on ItCotCK). Like those who make bold claims about a piece of esoteric hardware that plays no integral role in the performance of an audio system we attempt elevate the music we like to something it is not in order to validate the buzz we get from listening to it. I see no need for this: like what you like without justification or validation.

/edit silly typo corrected.

And within my limited capabilities as a player, when I manage to play some Prog songs I enjoy it enormously, it's so much more fun to play than anything else.

Generally speaking I don't have anything against most Prog lyrics, they are better than most lyrics in other modern music. But besides, I am with you here, singer-songwriters are supposed to be a sort of poets who sing, modern-times troubadours, so if their lyrics are bad they basically have no reason of existence. For Prog music lyrics are not the raison d'etre, if they are good it is a welcome bonus but they are not a necessary ingredient for good Prog.

Indubitably true but the mode of creation is not reflected in the level of appreciation. Sure there are those who value such things but that is not what I was getting at when I talk of validation and elevating it to something it is not. Here I refer to the belief that Progressive Rock has progressed so far from its roots to be completely divorced from the genre(s) of Rock music that spawned it, that Progressive Rock should be afforded equal status with Art Music (as some but not all forms of Jazz have been) alongside Classical Music. To me this appears to be more to do with (self) aggrandisement of the listener and their esoteric musical appreciation than any concrete analysis (or understanding) of the music itself.

Aesthetics and the appreciation of beauty is defined by taste. Taste has little regard for how or why the music was created or the level of sophistication in the composition or performance - without that [taste] pizza would be merely fancy cheese on toast. [though I prefer a well made Welsh rarebit to cheese on toast and cheese on toast to pizza, but that's by-the-by, I'm just not a fan of cooked tomatoes and inedible oven-baked dough - for me pizza is a snack that has been elevated to a main meal merely by increasing its size and any satisfaction gained from it soon diminishes as the temperature drops during the course of gnawing your way across the plate - the last mouthful is seldom a pleasure]. We can all appreciate something we don't necessarily like (I appreciate Miles Davis as an innovator, musician and composer but I gain no pleasure listening to him or his music) - why I like or prefer listening something is for the pleasure I get from it and not to slake a thirst to hear it. If I were dehydrated I would not differentiate any branded bottle water from municipal tap-water ... or pond water if it were a matter of life or death, then I don't drink water for pleasure (and anyone who does is just weird).

Sure as Richard Feynman says (and I'm fond of quoting), understanding the science of a flower only adds to the aesthetic, I agree that with the aesthetic appreciation of music understanding the esoteric behind it can only add to the pleasure, it can never subtract. [well, not quite never, I'm sure I could think of many contrary examples]. But if the pleasure wasn't present beforehand then... *shrug*.

If we can analyse the aesthetic and replicate it then Prog that is "made by numbers" would be aesthetically comparable to the original yet it so often becomes a disappointing simulacrum of that which it attempts to emulate - the aesthetic of what appeals is not contained in the mechanics of 'going through the motions', but even then because of "taste" and "pleasure" there could be examples of following a well-worn template producing a more enjoyable piece of music. There are no absolutes. I've not heard sufficient Starcastle to posit that their best is more pleasurable to Yes at their worst.

You should try what many consider the first Prog album from Spain, called Musica Dispersa, it's completely sung in onomatopeic sounds (it's not in PA, it's a sort of acoustic folk-avant-garde and although the clip title says 1971 it' from 1970).

I think Yes is a poor example. We don't hear the lyric, we hear the voice as an instrument which is why it is possible to appreciate a lyric in a language we do not speak or understand.

Indeed, Jon Anderson used his voice more as an instrument than being too concerned about the meaning of what he was saying.

While Pedro (probably) makes such claims (who can really tell?) - he is not the first nor the only one. This debate has been around for as long as I can remember and is related to elitism.

It's a subjective topic, there can be little objectivity. Not sure what you're on about with methodology - would you care to elaborate further?

+1

...and now you've lost me completely. I'll just ignore your "methodology" comment .... and the "objectivity" one too. 

It can only be elitist if it is considered to be superior, otherwise it is niche. A "hit parade" does not measure superiority, it is a measure of relative popularity. I would not be surprise by a PA of 1971 being considerably less inclusive than it is now, but that would not be called elitism either.

But I enjoy prog regardless. And in some cases, a lot. 

ExittheLemming wrote: This is why the lyrics to DSOTM are so brilliant i.e. some very unpalatable and complex ideas are presented in a way that practically anyone can understand irrespective of their intellect.

Death, wasting time, the root of all evil? Unpalatable and complex? Where? Isn't it the absence of those qualities that actually makes the album an accessible piece of work?

... and ...

ExittheLemming wrote: It's also quite telling that the music on this benchmark Prog album is predominately simple both rhythmically and harmonically.

Didn't they use some slightly unconventional chords on some of the songs on DSOTM ?

I believe that in this comment you imply that the quality of some prog works doesn't come from just complexity or contrivance. Some prog works win because they are simple, and possess a transparent lyrical/musical substance to them. That's another thing I love about prog - it's dichotomic, two-sided in nearly every department. It doesn't have to rely on just one thing, one idea, one characteristic. It can be simple or complex, eclectic or homogeneous, soft or loud, easygoing or intense, accessible or uncompromising, ... or a mixture of any of those qualities, and your body of work would still have a chance of becoming truly glorious.

Prog is a niche where an artist gets to stand out! You build something, and it just keeps evolving, and it may or may not retain some appeal value (which is, unfortunately, where the idea of bad prog probably starts, but of course "bad" can be merely a figment of our imagination, whether it's collective or not).

If you honestly claim to have never noticed this difference in preferences, I don't have anything further to say on this discussion.  

ExittheLemming wrote: How does 'some slightly unconventional chords' (and we can safely throw in the famous riff in 7/4) equate to ripping up the harmonic and metric rulebook?

I never said anything of the kind. I was just making a point that the album is not predominately simple harmonically.

I said I was not interested in pursuing the discussion on left brained or otherwise music further.  Not that I am exiting the thread per se.

Never said the CREATIVE and the ANALYTICAL are separate.  But creativity in coming up with great tones need not go along with creativity in coming up with different or unexpected harmonic ideas.  We can see this split quite clearly in rock.  Ambient/psychedelic rock often tends to eschew development in a linear sense because the focus is on the tone and exploring different facets of the tone.  Whereas if you take jazz rock, a lot of it can sound very similar tonally (would say that about plenty of Canterbury as well) and the difference is more in the note selection by itself.  These are not necessarily reflective of opposing personality types (and never said as much) and great music can often combine great tones with great melodic or harmonic ideas.  But there can be a subconscious preference for one over the other and since it's subconscious, it's potent and difficult to reverse.  I am surprised at the surprise being expressed over this idea because I have frequently encountered it.  I would recommend an artist to somebody who would come back in a minute complaining there was a tone or a set of tones that turned them off and I'd find I had never noticed it because I was so much taken up with the chords or some such aspect that I overlooked the tones.  I am flexible with tones and not so flexible with ideas that sound cliched.  For some people, it's the tones they want because they listen to music that sounds great to their ears and they don't mind it if the ideas are not so bold.  I am ok with music sounding like practically anything as long as it's daring. 

I never accused you of such. It is a common conclusion that is drawn from psychometrics of which the left-brain/right-brain idea is the erroneous pop-science explanation.

rogerthat wrote:   But creativity in coming up with great tones need not go along with creativity in coming up with different or unexpected harmonic ideas.  We can see this split quite clearly in rock.  Ambient/psychedelic rock often tends to eschew development in a linear sense because the focus is on the tone and exploring different facets of the tone.  Whereas if you take jazz rock, a lot of it can sound very similar tonally (would say that about plenty of Canterbury as well) and the difference is more in the note selection by itself.  These are not necessarily reflective of opposing personality types (and never said as much) and great music can often combine great tones with great melodic or harmonic ideas.  But there can be a subconscious preference for one over the other and since it's subconscious, it's potent and difficult to reverse.  I am surprised at the surprise being expressed over this idea because I have frequently encountered it.  I would recommend an artist to somebody who would come back in a minute complaining there was a tone or a set of tones that turned them off and I'd find I had never noticed it because I was so much taken up with the chords or some such aspect that I overlooked the tones.  I am flexible with tones and not so flexible with ideas that sound cliched.  For some people, it's the tones they want because they listen to music that sounds great to their ears and they don't mind it if the ideas are not so bold.  I am ok with music sounding like practically anything as long as it's daring.

-------------
What?