Do you hate certain prog because of popularity?
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=75415
Printed Date: June 15 2025 at 09:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Do you hate certain prog because of popularity?
Posted By: WatcherOfTheSkies88
Subject: Do you hate certain prog because of popularity?
Date Posted: January 26 2011 at 23:01
|
Ever since I've joined the PA boards, I've noticed some posters who will hate certain progressive rock songs/albums just because they happen to be popular among the majority of rock/progressive rock fans. For example, one poster made fun of me because I recently bought some albums that he deemed "cliche". FYI, those albums were Soft Machine's first 5 albums, Caravan's 2nd and 3rd albums, and ELP's first. I haven't heard those albums before, so why would it be bad to listen to them, just because they are popular? Maybe they are popular for a reason (i.e. they have great music on them!)? Just because an album is "cliche", does that mean I should never listen to it? And just cuz I bought those albums right now, doesn't mean I'm not going to get to the more obscure/underrated albums released by those artists later. Anyway, that's besides the point. I just have never understood why some progressive rock fans refuse to like popular/highly rated songs/albums just because they are popular. Whether a song/album is popular, or totally obscure... all that really matters is if the music is good. Am I wrong? I happen to think that "Close to the Edge", "Karn Evil 9", "A Plague of Lighthouse Keepers" and "Starless" are among the best songs I've ever heard... and that Third, ITCOTCK, CTTE, Nursery Chryme and Pawn Hearts are among the best albums I've ever heard. But I also love many more obscure progressive rock songs/albums. Does that make me a bad progressive rock fan? Do you consider yourself a progressive rock fan that only likes/listens to obscure progressive rock and hates any of it that is popular or highly rated? If so, why? |
Replies:
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: January 26 2011 at 23:04
| No. Certain prog is popular because it's bad. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 26 2011 at 23:06
|
People just get bored with discussions about bands anyone with taste will like or at least respect* (King Crimson, Yes, Caravan, Soft Machine) so they've gotta be edgy and contrarian. Truth is the classic albums by those bands are probably better than anything else they'd recommend. Anyone who hates highly rated stuff just for that reason is a hipster and we should shun them. * Except for ELP. Most of their stuff is laughably silly. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 26 2011 at 23:09
|
There are people like that here. They are either too full of ego issues or they really have inferiority complexes... which in the end is saying the same. ------------- 
|
Posted By: WatcherOfTheSkies88
Date Posted: January 26 2011 at 23:10
That makes sense.  |
Triceratopsoil wrote:Posted By: SaltyJon
Date Posted: January 26 2011 at 23:24
For what it's worth, I'd say those were all great purchases. That's the only ELP album I can really enjoy, and I love the other two bands here. I don't only listen to obscure stuff. I do listen to more of it, because most of the RIO/Avant stuff hasn't gotten much press over the years, but I also enjoy a lot of the "big" groups (Yes, Zappa, VdGG, Gentle Giant, King crimson, etc). ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Salty_Jon" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: January 26 2011 at 23:41
| Don't understand what's wrong with liking music that's well known and loved at all. A lot of my favorite albums are widely recognised as being great - like Pawn Hearts, Relayer, Doomsday Afternoon, etc. .. the fact that some are less widely recognised, like Fat Again, doesn't make the music any better or worse. |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: January 26 2011 at 23:45
|
No, it just comes up more.
I, for instance, dislike plenty of bands/albums that aren't popular to go along with my dislike of Genesis, Camel's The Snow Goose, and Soft Machine's Third but they come up a lot more due to their popularity.
It's just more noticeable when you dislike something everyone else likes. -------------  Time always wins. |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: January 26 2011 at 23:48
| I've tried, time and again, to enjoy rush and pink floyd. They bore me to tears. Do I dislike them because they're popular? No, I hate them because they're about as interesting as watching paint dry. The fact that people seem to get their rocks off with these plodding dullards is perplexing, but well, what can you do... |
Posted By: Mastosis
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 00:13
|
I don't care if it's popular or not; I don't let other people dictate my musical taste. I like it because I like, not because some random dude I've never met before tells me to like it.
------------- A wise man once said, " I have always wanted to be quoted." 
|
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 00:29
|
Without being constrained by anybody, yesterday I have listened to: Artension Anekdoten Tuatha De Danann Ron Geesin Senmuth Hiro Yanagida Can Ska-P I don't know if it means anything. There are no connections of any kind between Can and Ska-P. ------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 01:01
My opinion as well. Of course there are, and always will be, people who hate prog (or ANY genre of music) bands that are popular. |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 01:22
|
The more popular prog, at least the classics, owed more to distribution than quality. The most popular bands (Pink Floyd, Yes, Genesis, ELP, Jethro Tull) all had major record label contracts. Before the internet, you pretty much got what the local record store had or maybe mail order something you were lucky enough to know about. With what I have discovered of the classic era due to the internet, many of those popular bands would not have made it to my collection. Worth ridiculing someone over? Of course not. But I likewise will not listen to any assertion that popularity has any basis on quality. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 01:50
|
We are talking about 'inverted snobbery'. This is an offshoot of the whole mentality surrounding Punk and has been adopted in some respect towards 'progressive rock music'. The bands that come into the potential hate category are Yes and ELP mainly because they were massively popular. Its okay to like early Genesis but not anything after 1975. Its extremely cool to like anything from Italy as it was largely undiscovered.And Gentle Giant are the band you must like especially as no one hardly took any notice of them when they were around. The height of good taste!
Yep basically I agree with the OP.
 |
Posted By: JS19
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 01:51
|
I think it comes down to the old tradition, that the fewer people have heard something, the better it must be. It's absolute tosh anyway, but it's the attitude that fuels the indie scene, and obviously we have some 'indie proggers' here (not a compliment). My opinion: If you enjoy something, great, doesn't matter what it is, or how popular it is, and no-one else has to share your view either, so why bother trying to force anyone else to?
------------- 
|
Posted By: petrica
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 02:03
Good point. I'm always keeping an eye on what people are saying. But the final decision should be of course a personal one. |
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 02:10
|
Right, I wasn't around when prog was being "invented", so I hold no historical respect for "In the Court of the Crimson King". And let me tell you - it is massively overrated. It has two good songs, 2 all right songs and one truly awful (Moonchild). I don't not like it because it's popular - but maybe that makes me hate it more, that everyone gives it five stars. It may be ground-breaking, but it's just not a great album in my opinion.
But really, popularity does not equal greatness. Yes, popular albums CAN be great, but when you're talking about old sentimental albums, they sometimes have the tendency to be overrated in my opinion. Also nothing wrong with listening to obscure stuff. It can be great to - it can be just as great as the popular albums, but because no one's heard it, no one's going to tell you that.
I agree with this to an extent but I am very unlikely to buy an album that has a one star rating on this website, for example. Usually I go for ones that are fairly well-rated, or try to listen to a track or two first. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile 
|
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 02:13
------------- 
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 02:30
Who does this? I've never seen anybody do this. So much of the discussion here is a war waged against non-existent strawmen, and these strawmen always have one primary characteristic: insincerity. Conveniently, insincerity is also almost impossible to prove. Perhaps it's something we fear within ourselves?
------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Nathaniel607
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 02:44
Yeah that's a really good point. http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=1903" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=1903 In the Court of the Crimson King. Only 7% of total ratings are below 4 stars. If anything, it's the opposite... most prog fans are corrupted by popularity. I mean seriously - Moonchild is so awful!  ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Nathaniel607" rel="nofollow - My Last FM Profile
|
Posted By: friso
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 03:08
|
I don't hate popular prog, but I do feel irritated once in a while by people who worship the popular masterpieces without rational valuation of these albums. I'd much rather see people write good, critical reviews about lesser known masterpieces of the genre.
Furthermore I must admit that I do approach 'popular prog' with much care. Often these albums are easy to get into or have an amazing production. The latter can really be blessing, but somehow a good recording can make people less critical toward composition and level of inventiveness. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 03:13
I don't think the stated reason some people dislike popular prog is because of its popularity. For many, bands like Genesis, Yes etc, are simply not experimental enough, and are therefore less deserving of a prog tag. At the end of the day, there is no such thing as a good or bad music, there is only music you do like and music you don't like. Don't let the opinions of others get to you. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 03:57
This, in spades. I respect everyone's right to like or dislike a piece of work, but I will never understand the attitude that because it was/is popular, it is somehow bad. It isn't. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 04:26
Who has said this? We're all arguing against a position that nobody in the discussion is willing to defend! Just like when we complain about pop fans who won't listen to anything besides Top 40 or elitist avant-garde fans who only like constant dissonance or symphonic fans who are close-minded and won't try anything new or prog metal fans who are close minded and only like prog metal or Raga Rock fans for being complete jerks and losers (although that last one is only because it's easy to pick on people who don't exist). Does stating our dislike of a stereotype validate us in some way? This is something that comes up not just here but fairly frequently on the internet generally (less charitable communities call their version of this behavior a "circlejerk") and I find it baffling. Also, Watcher, I didn't see the post you refer to in the OP, but I am 99% sure that poster was joking when he called your choices cliche. Or perhaps he was annoyed that you were adding a post in the recent purchases thread when someone on this site buying ELP and Caravan is not exactly revelatory. I don't know, I'd have to see the post and who made it to read any intent into it without guessing, but you're not going to find any serious opposition to listening to well-regarded albums of a certain genre before trying to find the obscure stuff.
------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: trackstoni
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 04:40
this !  and more << when i see that , Thick as a Brick is #1 , and Passion Play is only Good or Excellent album ! Fragile is a Masterpiece but Relayer is not ! in this case i have to reconsider the most popular stuff ! ------------- Tracking Tracks of Rock |
Posted By: Harold-The-Barrel
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 05:20
No! If you'll pardon the pun, "I know what I like" and it doesn't matter to me who does or doesn't like it. I've no problem with popularity, if the music appeals to me, but as someone else mentioned, some bands get over exposed in these here parts, which can lead to a sub concious loathing of an artist for no other reason than they get talked about too much. All those albums you mentioned are excellent and are well worth checking out by all Prog fans, but there is a small snobbery factor going on here, the more obscure the band the better they must be...apparantly...? Its basically one-upmanship gone mad. ...but having said sometimes the obscure is betterPopularity! What is popular anyway? I mean bands who would seem to be popular, Porcupine Tree, Transatlantic, Opeth etc I don't know anybody outsde this forum who has even heard of them, never mind being able to critique their music! ------------- You must be joking.....Take a running jump...... |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 05:24
How can you share such a juvenile opinion? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 05:42
They're both very clearly joking. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 06:25
Henry's right, such is the way the proposition is framed, arguing against it would be tantamount to a troll self incriminating themselves. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 06:39
They are? How does one tell? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Junges
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 07:47
|
No. There is no reason for it. It is like hating Led Zeppelin just because they are one of the most recognized rock bands, but that doesn't make them bad. The music is what counts. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 08:05
|
!) Sometimes an artist is very popular, simply because they are broadly recongised to be extremely good at what they do on an artistic level.
2) Sometimes an artist is very popular, simply because what they do conforms to an industry proven formula of what sells to a broad audience. To be honest, I can't think of any prog bands who achieved popularity through the criteria in point 2. They wouldn't be prog bands if they had. Please don't point out the pop success of Genesis and Yes in the 80's. They were selling lorry loads of albums long before then.. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Xanatos
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 08:05
| Only hipsters will tend to hate a band just because of his popularity |
Posted By: Ixirn
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 08:06
|
I wouldn't say I dislike some of the more popular prog because it's popular, but I certainly dislike some of the popular stuff. I also tend to take a more negative angle towards stuff that is popular that i don't particularly like, compared to less popular bands, mainly to be a bit of a counterweight to all the overly enthusiastic fans. I find Dream Theater to be hugely overrated, and the same goes for Opeth and PT. I find TAAB to be uninteresting. The popularity of these (and I own albums by all of them) makes me more likely to voice negative opinions about them. If they weren't popular I probably would ignore them completely (like you tend to do with most mediocre stuff). Another point worth mentioning is that popular bands/songs/albums may tend to be more in the taste of the masses, and not so much for me (I realize that I sound like an elitist snob here). I don't mean that the taste of a lot of people is bad, but experience has taught me that if a random person says "You have to listen to this! It's awesome!", it pretty much never suits me, and the same goes for highly rated stuff on sites like this. There are exceptions to this, and I like some of the higher ranked albums on here, but the argument that popular usually doesn't fit me still stands. I have also discovered after looking at some ratings here that I tend to like the less popular stuff more. Take Pain of Salvation, which is a band I know very well. Their highest rated album (not by a huge margin, but still) is The Perfect Element. To me that is easily their worst album. Two of my favorite albums by them is Road Salt and Scarsick. They are way down at the bottom if you look at the ratings, between 0.5 and 0.85 points below the next album. I'm sure there are more examples of this too. The conclusion is: I don't really like a lot of the popular stuff, but that's probably more because it doesn't suit my taste rather than because it's popular, though there also is an element of hating the more popular stuff just because it's popular and I don't feel it deserves to be. |
Posted By: Prog Geo
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 08:17
|
Generally popularity bothers me!(especially in music)So,the answer is yes.But I don't hate certain prog.I usually don't choose to hear it.
------------- Sonorous Meal show every Sunday at 20:00 (greek time) on http://www.justincaseradio.com |
Posted By: hobocamp
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 08:20
Henry and Lemmie - the voices of reason in another emotion-filled and humor-blind thread. Onward through the fog!
|
Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 08:33
| And hipsters will like a band for no other reason than they are *not* popular. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 08:35
I'm guessing you at least give it a chance before deciding not to hear it again? ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 08:47
Same here. I personally don't care if the music is popular, either if it's considered prog or not. If I like it, I'll buy it and listen to it, if not, it will not make it to my collection, no matter what people say. I will always respect the work of an artist, either I like their music or not, but if I don't like it, I don't see the point of investing time and money on it.
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 09:15
Is this the defintion of the hipster? Because by this logic a vast number of proggers are pure hipsters. Just http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=75241" rel="nofollow - hear them talking about mainstream music and tastes . I thought the hipster is the person who thinks that certain slightly unconventional mainstream music he likes is the best, most exquisite and avantgarde music ever. Like indie-rock, which is just a subsection of pop culture. Whenever I mention an indie and highly popular band that I like, I get called a hipster  So one of these two definitions must be wrong, they pretty much contradict each other. |
Posted By: Prog Geo
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 09:22
Yes!!! ------------- Sonorous Meal show every Sunday at 20:00 (greek time) on http://www.justincaseradio.com |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 09:50
|
Maybe some people just don't like popular bands because they don't like them? You can't just assume that it's because they're popular. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: AllP0werToSlaves
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 10:16
I agree 100%.
|
Posted By: wilmon91
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 10:26
|
You can't just use the word "popularity" , you must distinguish between classics and music of current popularity. If I read a book by Shakespeare, am I mislead by "popularity"? Or Bach - is he overrated? Classics of all sort usually have a guaraneed quality in it, usually it is something that's made an impact on followers that came later. You can listen to an obscure band that is highly influenced by one classic, well known band - but why ignore a highly influential band that inspired a great number of later bands?
Recent popularity regarding modern, current things , is another thing. Of course, if one hates a band, it's because of it's popularity. If it was totally unknown - and bad - why would you bother wasting energy on it?
You can direct your anger either towards an artist, or the listeners and fans of the artist. Without listeners the artist wouldn't be popular.
I don't hate any artist. I was extremely frustrated in the nineties with commercial radio stations and people's music habits. The commercial stations started in sweden in -95. I hated it, not just because of the music, but because of the few amount of songs in rotation which caused a crazy repetition. And of course, commercials and insane jingles on top of that.
Today it's different, radio isn't as popular. It has to do with the fact that now people can listen to all kinds of stuff without having to pay for it, everyone has mp3 players and mobile phones which enables you to listen to anything anytime. The positive thing is that people can try different things and explore music in a way that was impossible 10-15 years ago. I have heard of commercial radio stations that have had to shut down because lack of listeners, which is great. That's the only thing I have wholeheartedly hated, the radio stations, and one of my big frustrations I have with people is the acceptance of the insane repetition of commercials and individual songs. I rarely listen to a song more than once a day - maybe twice in rare occasions. It's the whole phenomenon of people surrendering to collectively accepted habits without thinking for themselves that I have a problem with, but that's mostly a thing of society, not a thing specificaly related to music. ------------- http://www.lastfm.se/user/wilmon91" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 11:08
|
Some people here are relatively new to prog and need to found out and talk about these popular bands. Cool. Other people are here to discover and marvel about all those fantastic obscurities. Cool too. So depending on the situation, some people have a need for those endless polls and discussions about the popular bands. Others are tired to death with them (tired of those polls I mean, not the bands  ) |
Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 11:30
|
Well done for noticing OP. It does happen here whether people deny it or not. It's their way of basically saying "look at me, I am going against the norm, I am superior to you because I prefer Ummagumma to Wish You Were Here, for example" Also, certain members are keen on making irrelevant posts: such as, in a poll between song A and song B, they might mention how their favourite is song C, by a band only they and other superior people have heard of........ ------------- http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Hawkwise
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 11:47
But i doI prefer Ummagumma to Wish you were here , ------------- 
|
Posted By: King Manuel
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 12:19
|
I don’t like King Crimson and I don’t like Porcupine Tree!
I just don’t like them! Find their music unappealing, often irritating, sometimes plain boring, it has a vibe which I don't like .... That are my reasons. Not their popularity. If my dislike would be for the sake of popularity I would not like Genesis, Yes, Van der Graaf Generator, all bands which I love!
Just not liking something because it is popular is as irrational as not liking something just for the fact that it was relaesed after 1989!  ------------- Don't Bore Us, Get To The Chorus |
Posted By: Xanatos
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 12:23
|
Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 12:28
Yes but if you preferred Wish you were Here to Ummagumma, would you mention it so often? ------------- http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: infandous
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 12:35
|
Obviously, if you don't like popular music, there is something seriously wrong with you and you should seek psychiatric help immediately. Your taste in music obviously sucks, and that is an indisputable fact. |
Posted By: zwordser
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 12:36
|
I agree with what some have posted or at least hinted at here: "popular" can mean different things. I would make a distinction between highly rated, well know bands among most Progressive Rock listeners (generally represented by large number of ratings, esp. high ratings on this site), and progressive rock that is or has historically been played for a wider audience, particularly on the airwaves, such as classic rock stations. As for myself, I currently focus on exploring bands/albums in the former category, simply because there are thousands of bands/albums, and I want to discover why majorities of listeners have rated them highly--it is an indication of quality as much as "popularity". So far, I have not been very disappointed. And I confess, I enjoy a bit of recreational snobbery when I play some of the more obscure music in the presence of folks who don't normally listen to the stuff. I've already had several comments about me and my obsession with "weird-ass" music. More people in the general population have heard the music the second type of "popularity", and often think of it as "pop" or "classic". I do like most of it (widely know hits from Pink Floyd, Rush, or Yes). I tend not to listen to these particular songs as much because they're a bit worn out for me, as I used to listen to a lot of classic rock stations where they were frequently played. And when I do listen to them, I typically prefer to listen to them in the context of the entire albums. ------------- Z |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 12:37
There's really no point in saying it. Everyone assumes that. Can't people just accept that people have different taste than them? ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 12:54
|
Anyway - what are the reasons for liking (or hating) the music you like (or hate)? There seems to be a tendency towards a subjectivist approach (I like it because I like it), but doesn't this exclude the existence of objective properties ascribable to music (e.g. 'good' and 'bad') and render whatever reason completely arbitrary? Others might claim that music can be said to be objectively good, that there are such things as good music and bad music - independent of what you happen to think and like. Personally, I think the subjectivist view excludes the possibility of actual reasons for liking (except random and personal ones) as well as discussions about what is good and bad. I believe in the subjectivist view and sometimes wonder why this place is full of reasons why some band is good as well as discussions where the participants assume that music actually has (value-laden) properties. Can you do that while maintaining that taste is completely subjective?
|
Posted By: Hawkwise
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 13:12
I Only Like Music i Like 
-------------
|
Posted By: Andy Webb
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 13:31
|
People might call the popular prog "cliche" because it essentially defined most of the music on this sight. ELP's st album was spectacular, and many bands were influenced by that. People might not like it now because it seems like there isn't that much "spark," but back then it was revolutionary (or maybe not, but still) ------------- http://ow.ly/8ymqg" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 14:25
Of course. Taste in food is completely subjective. I like pizza because I like sauce and cheese. I dislike salad because I don't like lettuce, tomatoes, or onions. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 14:30
|
If you use a value to determine whether something is good or bad, then it can be done. Or at least it acquires some objectivity. If we measure music by thematic and structural complexity, pop is low, prog-rock is medium-low to medium, classical music is high at the top. If we measure music by other means (which still lack a proper standard scale anyway, as the previous example I just mentioned, but at least the answer is easier to see) then the results might be different. For example, popularity would come up with pop on top. But just saying "X is better than Y" without any framework is impossible to consider objectively and falls in the realm of pure subjectivity. And people can be purely subjective. And they have all the right to be.
-------------
|
Posted By: CloseToTheMoon
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 14:38
|
I dislike "certain" Prog, because it doesn't appeal to me. If it's avant-garde strictly to be avant-garde, I can't get into it. Sorry. That's why I'll never understand Jazz. Basically, I'll do the reverse and check something out if it seems to be popular by a trusted source. I just downloaded maudlin of the Well's Part the Second because I see it all over the place and I love it. ------------- It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 14:49
|
I don't like prog (or music) in general if its overtly/overly poppy. Most of the "popular" prog bands tend to be more pleasing to the ears...but thats just how it goes. At the end of the day its the music that matters.
In regards to the giants of the past, those albums are classics for a reason, which are much more likely to be known by large groups of people than a random band who released one album of experimental sounds in the mid 70s in only 350 copies. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 15:21
|
I don't really see the point in hating any kind of music... Unless it's badness and frequency you are exposed to it interferes with you mood or way of life in some way. I don't think any particular prog act can do that to anyone, as it's surely not played in your local pub or nightclub. I also can't understand why you are troubled with such behaviours in third parties... specially over the internet. This thread has no point at all.
------------- 
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 17:01
I certainly don't. These bands got major record contracts because they were the best of their time. Try and disprove otherwise.
All prog bands were a hard sell because they couldn't get played on the radio unless they got lucky with a 'hit' like Tull perhaps.Therefore to achieve popularity did mean something.Of course we all have our own tastes and will take what we want but the principle of 'inverted snobbery' dictates that less popular bands must be 'better' because the more popular bands must have pandered to a commercial approach in some way to achieve popularity and that somehow makes their music inferior.The less popular bands were not infected by this and so their music is 'purer' and superior.
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 17:38
|
Hi,
Not really ... but sometimes the amount of fan abuse and demands and comments are really annoying ... you can easily use the Jay Cutler example recently ... there is no loyalty, care, understanding, and sometimes the publication and institution that publishes that kind of stuff needs to be taken down a peg. However, doing so, would intervene with one of America's most cherished BS's ... which is used and abused! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: wilmon91
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 18:16
I would claim that. But absolute objective taste is an abstract idea, and an impossible thing to possess, unless you have entered a higher form of consciousness and become one with the Absolute. Personal taste is a mixture of subjective experience and objective reason.
No. But I'm gonna take food as an example , as Equality did. Everyone has their own tastes. But still there is good and bad cooking. A fine restaurant makes better food than the average lunch restaurant. It's no question about it. To make the best cooking you have to master the art. And that requires knowledge, passion, inspiration etc. Just as with music. Can you really make great music if you have no passion for it? Well, some might like it. Some might like overcooked broccoli. Maybe becasue they haven't tried perfectly cooked broccoli.
It's more complicated with music, but you can still make objective distinctions, at least in regard to individual aspects of the music.
Among the worst music of all kinds I think is the typical rock cover band. Not only do they lack any material of their own, but they play well known "rock hits" , designing the set list to please the audience as much as they can. Usually they stay as close to the original as possible. It serves a function - many people like to hear music they recognize. But the quality can't go beyond the ambition of serving the intended function. It's not about art and creativity.It's like the difference between a wine glass and a plastic wine glass (or a good wine and a bad wine - whatever). I would say, from a standpoint I would claim to have a lot of objective weight to it, that the quality of such concerts generally sucks.
But you can argue that if it is what it's meant to be - then it is perfect in it's own sphere, because the artist have achieved the goals of their ambition. But, as with the case with overcooked broccoli, lack of knowledge, vision, passion etc, sets a limit for the quality, which can't be exceeded unless the artist is willing to raise the ambition and strive for higher artistic levels. ------------- http://www.lastfm.se/user/wilmon91" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 18:27
|
It's funny, seems that some people has double standards A few days ago I said:
And a guy called Hobocamp made a scandal as if I had insulted him and Junges supported him. Now both are on this thread about the same issue, giving their opinions in a civil way. Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 19:12
Did you spank them, or something?  ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 19:38
|
No, I was spanked Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 19:45
Kansas are criticized because they're terrible, not because they're popular. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 19:54
Terrible for you Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 19:57
|
They're the equivalent of ear cancer. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 20:59
There's a literal modern definition of a hipster ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hipster&defid=2705928" rel="nofollow - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hipster&defid=2705928 ) and that's the one used most often. But I've seen hipster used as someone who really gets off on jumping bandwagons that one wouldn't expect them to jump on, like being a basement-dweller who blogs about the new Kanye West album or a crunkcore band. Because it's the incessant need to prove that you're unique that drives the heart of hipsterdom, and you can see how that relates to the "I'm so unique, King Crimson sucks" kind of prog fan, which as Henners pointed out, is largely a straw man. I've seen a few posts like that over the years, though. More on /mu/ because 90% of the people who post there are socially retarded high schoolers. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 21:08
Are you sure you're not talking about Nu-Metal? ------------- https://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/track/the-badger" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 21:10
| Wow that first definition on Urban Dictionary is long and surprisingly positive. And it pretty much confirms my intuition (but brings a lot more content). What you further say also makes sense in continuation to that definition. Thanks. |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 21:19
I hate certain prog.... but not because of popularity ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 21:23
|
Hipsterism tends to be about glorifying things that most people dislike or that have been stygmatized which is why you see lots of hipster prog fans. This has alot to do with being intentionally ironic, which is a major compliment in hipsterdom.
personally I love the aspect of hipster culture that brings attention to neglected stuff (for lack of a better word) but I can not stand the hipsters who place the irony and underground status above actual enjoyment. ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 21:37
|
Sounds tautological, but I like what I like. Or..I don't care if it's popular or not, my only parameter is my taste. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 21:55
-------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 22:04
|
Crunkcore ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: January 27 2011 at 22:20
"These bands got major record contracts because they were the best of their time." Might be the most absurdly untestable statement of the entire thread. Nothing about "who you know" plays into who gets record contracts, I'm sure. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 04:22
|
[Referring back to the original message]
Watcher! What nonsense! Just let the idiots rave! If I make speak for myself, I've loved SELLING ENGLAND (just about the most popular prog album hereabouts) ever sinds I first heard it 35 yrs ago. I still love it and I don't care what anybody says! (I love most of the Progarchives All-Time Top Twenty, and thank jebus I do!) It is ridiculous and childish to believe that you just HAVE to prefer more obscure and "difficult" bands. |
Posted By: Junges
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 05:31
First: I wasn't offended by your post. Second: This sentence in spades above, I didn't read this on that thread. The question was about Genesis. Third: I found your theories, arguments or whatever you want to call it, full of non-sense, that's why I was ironic. -------------
|
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 06:03
I don't understand..
So, there is good music - but the goodness of the music is actually impossible to reasonably grasp, but it exists? If it is so, it surely renders 'objective taste in music' nothing more than an abstract idea and also prevents reasonable objective judgements the about goodness of music. What concerned me yesterday was a hypothetical contradiction scenario that may rise if you accept a subjectivist approach to taste (I like it because I like it) and yet still want to give reasons as to why you like it. This, I think, poses a problem for a subjectivist view because it is common and natural to make sense of and explain your particluar taste in terms that not merely has to do with your personal preferences, your circumstances and your own more or less idiosyncratic beliefs. Seen from above, you just can't cant do that if you accept that taste is completely subjective. Anyway - the food analogy is a little 'off' in that making a good meal obviously requires skills that reasonably can be subjected to objective judgements - this is not the case with music, where such analogous measurable skills (e.g. how well and fast you play your guitar) play a rather insignificant role in the making of good music. Is it at all possible to explain and determine the goodness of some particular instance of music? I really don't think so. |
Posted By: hobocamp
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 08:02
I'm loving me some publicity. 
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 08:47
Ummm. I pointed out something entirely subjective which nonetheless possessed qualities which I could point to which serve as a reason for why I like them. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: infandous
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 09:04
You are Wrong. See how that subjective thing works? |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 09:13
-------------
|
Posted By: Anthony H.
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 09:16
There are tons of elitists here who like to tear bands down. My advice: ignore it and enjoy what you enjoy. -------------  |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 11:13
-------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 11:38
It is neither completely subjective nor completely objective. The mistake people make is in dealing in diametrical opposites of subjective and objective. It is just not so simple and it takes a lot of reasoning to clearly state what exactly makes a particular piece of music 'good'. Further, the word 'good' is misleading. Cert1fied used to say that prog is a sliding scale, there's no one definite 'it' that can be called prog but that there are levels of progressiveness. On similar lines, I would say quality in music is itself a sliding scale. So, it's not a question of good, but "good enough". That is to say, what may be good enough for you may not be good enough for someone else. I'll attend shortly to what may make it not good enough for that someone else. But, two questions to be settled first. One, is there something objectively good in music? Possibly yes. I would have a hard time understanding someone who thinks the entire body of work of J S Bach is BAD. It either means he has objectively bad taste, or that he has not 'observed' Bach's work carefully enough before passing judgment or that he is simply prejudiced on account of factors which may not have much to do with Bach's music. But is there something objectively BAD? I don't think so. Why? Because what is bad by you (conversely) may still be good enough for someone. Someone mentioned basic rock and roll, that's a good example, it's "good enough" for a lot of people. There's seemingly nowhere for the sliding scale to terminate its downward slide, at deeper and deeper depths there may still be an audience for it. Why is that, now? Because of the tricky process of attaching value or worth to music. It is essentially just an arrangement of sounds and therefore not as tangible as food. So, it is possible to attach SOME value to any piece of music theoretically speaking. This may sound like a ready made argument for why music is COMPLETELY subjective but I am not satisfied. No, there are often clearcut reasons why one piece of music is better than the other, especially when they are not closely matched. The problem is simply that music appreciation is ill understood and ill executed. It depends heavily on the conditioning of the listener over the years, which leads him to lean towards one thing or other, sometimes unreasonably so. The problem is the listener doesn't know what is it that he should know , music is just so vast and it's easy to be completely blindsided to so much of it. So, he ends up forming a judgment when he is ill equipped to. Also, he may not be in the right mood or right environment to enjoy it, but how would he know this when he hasn't heard it before! With more exposure to music, a listener becomes better aware of "how good" it can get and then starts to get more selective but what if the listener never takes that step and only takes in whatever music he is easily exposed to, as in radio, VH1? This then pushes him the other way and what he does not immediately understand, he condemns. More exposure by the way is not an entirely hunky dory scenario. Frequently, and as seen on this forum too, it pushes people to value depth and complexity at all odds above everything else and in turn to make snap judgments on what sounds simple and rudimentary on the surface but what may in substance be quite brilliant. People effortlessly forget to pay attention to everything and to not get too hung up on some specific aspects of music that may not be as important as they take it to be. One point remains to be addressed, why is it that listeners constantly make subjective calls if they are not in the best position to judge it? The answer is that music can be enjoyed and liked without being fully understood, therein lies its beauty. It is not necessary to grasp everything that is intended in a piece of music and sometimes not grasping even a lot of it may still not be an impediment. It is perhaps also evident from the above para that it is a lot more difficult on the other hand to come to terms substantially with a piece of music and make a careful judgment on it. So, people simply go by their instinctive reaction and say a piece of music is BAD when they simply didn't like it for whatever reason. The two are NOT the same things at all but because people don't have the patience to actually decide the matter properly (and I wouldn't blame them for not doing so), they say something very subjective. On a tangent, this is where describing what you liked about the music and why you liked it is useful. If everybody says it's all subjective and I like what I like, it's very difficult to understand whose tastes yours would correspond with more and whose opinions you should rely on more. When somebody describes the, well, relatively less intangible aspects of music, it becomes easier to understand where he's coming from and your own experience of the album proves not to be so divergent from his as it might turn out to be if he simply said, "I don't know, I just like it, trust me, you will too!" One line summary of all of the above : music can be objectively evaluated to some extent, but not entirely, but people prefer to make subjective calls because it is easier, though much more misleading. |
Posted By: AllP0werToSlaves
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 11:42
|
From what I can gather from observation, it really doesn't matter what side of the fence you are on because it's essentially just a dichotomy. Mainstream rejects prog and embraces popular music, while hipsters rejects the popular stuff and seek more progressive/independent music. You can argue all day about who's superior etc, but in the end it's just musical preference creating a societal template, which in it's true essence is just as absurd as trying to "convert" people to prog, or being biased for arbitrary reasons etc. (IMOPO). Great discussion btw!
|
Posted By: wilmon91
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 12:20
I don't know if I said that, but yeah I agree! I think it's impossible to accurately describe the goodness of the music in words. It's easier to describe the badness : )
I agree. But the food analogy was also to demonstrate the difference between different ambitions. An ordinary hamburger is not a sublime food experience - but it isn't supposed to be, and the person making the hamburger doesn't have any intention of creating anything out of the ordinary. Why is elevator music not of high musical value? Mainly because it is made to serve a function, and the function is more important than the music itself.
Complicated subject...
------------- http://www.lastfm.se/user/wilmon91" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 15:54
I'm starting to think that if the band name was something other than a place (a state actually) in America that it might get a little more respect and appreciated.
I never disliked it, but by that time I was already into the Germans, and French and Italians, and ... Kansas was not foreign enough for me ... didn't mean it was fine and ok, but ... I had already founf something that resonated better with my spirit and person.
Carry on Wayward Son! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 16:39
|
If you judge any prog based on it's popularity rather than it's own merits or faults, you aren't exactly thinking for yourself, are you?
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 17:23
To answer the original question directly: No. That would be silly.
 Some information on Kansas: The state is notorious for being flat and dull, yet the band formed in the college town of Lawrence, which has a vibrant intellectual culture within it. The state is also notorious for being windy, and I think the band has used that as a kind of metaphor for its mercurial music (to which some may reply, "pretentious gasbags" but to each his own). Extra trivia: The state is named after a Native American tribe called the Kansa, which means People of the South Wind.------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: Zombywoof
Date Posted: January 28 2011 at 17:36
|
I love music! I'll listen to anything and enjoy it if it's too my tastes. For instance, today I have heard, "Leg End" - Henry Cow, "Fourth" - Soft Machine", and Chicago's second record ... and enjoyed all of them. Why shouldn't I? ------------- Continue the prog discussion here: http://zombyprog.proboards.com/index.cgi ... |
Posted By: SMSM
Date Posted: January 29 2011 at 12:32
|
I like e.g. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, YES's Fragile, Genesis Trick of Tail and other early/mid 70's prog recordings that sold in the millions because of the musical environment allowed such quality recording to sell extremely well
I do not like e.g. YES's 90125, or Genesis post Duke recordings which are one of their best selling recordings of all time because the were better pop recordings being put out. e.g. Strangeways, Journey, Kate Bush, even Gentle Giant's Giant for a Day and Civillian (masterful pop recordings)
|
Posted By: esky
Date Posted: January 31 2011 at 13:41
| Never really understood this Marillion thing or its popularity. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 31 2011 at 13:44
|
Oh it's quite easy... many people liked them ... -------------
|
Posted By: Mellotron Storm
Date Posted: January 31 2011 at 15:33
I agree.You see certain people taking shots at bands who are popular like PORCUPINE TREE for example and you just have to take it with a grain of salt. I've been guilty myself for being negative towards KANSAS.I think they were a very talented band but they just weren't my style.That's fine,but taking every opportunity to take a negative shot at them would be wrong.Maybe it's just a case of having good manners. ------------- "The wind is slowly tearing her apart" "Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN |
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 07:31
I see. It's a rather sneaky argument but it's still a purely personal reason, and not the kind of reason I was after. What I was interrested in one who believes something along these lines: The goodness of some music can in some way or other be described objectively. It can be argued that the works of Bach must be better than Itsy Bitsy Spider without reference to what one happens to like and think. The music of Bach has a goodness property objectively discoverable for all rational beings, some music hasn't got such a goodness property. I take this to be common and intuitive, and yet if you accept that taste is completely subjective (also commonly accepted..) you will have to abandon an assumption that the works of Bach are - as a fact - better than Itsy Bitsy Spider, and - ultimately - all debate and discussion about music (or art..) is thus rendered completely senseless.
What concerns the quality of music I agree that a continuum is more realistic than a dichotomy (also with regards to category-status and subjectivity/objectivity) - it is of course a matter of degree. For logical (semantic) reasons though, I think the other end of the quality continuum is 'bad' and not just 'not good enough'. Goodness is absence of badness, and badness is absense of goodness. I can see why 'an objectivist' would like to avoid the notion of bad music - it's very judgemental to believe that a large number of people listen to objectively bad music. If you take experience to be the core of what music-listening is all about (I do), there is bad music - some music just gives you a bad experience, listenig to Rush, for example, is very unplesant, it provides a bad experience - hence the music is bad. For me, it isn't more complicated than that. This conclusion is of course very subjective, I can't provide reasons (that I don't like Geddy Lee's voice is true, but the badness of his voice can't be justified objectively and thus it's not a reason as such) and I can't be pursuaded by arguments that assume the existence of some 'goodness' property objectively discoverable for me in the music of Rush because I heavily doubt such an existence. I can of course change my mind or have my mind be chagend, but not by sense-making and/or reasoning. While it is intuitively true that the works of Bach just must be better than Itsy Bitsy Spider or in no way can be bad, I'm still not convinced..
|