| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Certif1ed 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
 Posted: October 26 2007 at 13:43 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
It's largely true.
Rock music is a form of Popular music - but many people use the terms in different ways and find it very hard to get that perspective.
Take it to the next level, and what most people call Pop music is actually derived from Folk Music - but that's quite an involved argument. To put it into a nutshell, strictly speaking, much classical music is popular music too - and also derived from folk music.
Commercial music is something else - it doesn't have to be popular.
In my (personal) view of the music world, there are 3 forms of music; Folk, Art and Commercial (which includes Ecclesiatic). The 3 blur into each other at various points, but nevertheless, are the 3 main roots.
Hi Cert, don't want to disagree with you, but IMHO you're speaking in a different level, yes it's true what you say about Folk, Art and Commercial, but things and terms have evolved.
|
Terms haven't really evolved, they've simply acquired sets of new meanings - the meanings I choose to use follow many years of research, and don't imply that other meanings are incorrect - indeed, many words have multiple meanings, as Robert Plant almost said...
The whole splitting of sub-genres is just a convenient set of handles - see, I'm not disagreeing here, the plain fact is that both sides are correct, it's just that most people don't consider the root meaning in the way I do.
The way I use the terms gives me a perspective that I find very helpful and precise, while I find the current multiplicity of diffuse terms misleading and often unhelpful - there are too many people saying X belongs to subgenre Y, and others saying no it doesn't.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Commercial has also split in various genres, popular is just an adjective that qualifies how well is some music received by the general audience.
But POP has turned into a sub-genre of Commercial music, like Rock for example.
Now POP is widely described as an individual genre with it's own characteristics and even structure.
POP and Prog are commercial music but they are different and separete sub-genres of it.
|
Not really - you're using Pop as a genre label - which is correct.
See, I'm not trying to contradict or argue with what you're saying here, merely to clarify the position that I'm putting forward;
It is also correct that Pop is a shortened form of Popular - that meaning hasn't gone away, it's just that some circles use it in one way more than in another - some people use it to describe a particular sound or style, some use it to describe an attitude or approach and so on.
When we use these terms, we should clarify what we mean. Some people use the term R&B, but don't actually mean Rhythm and Blues - and still others use the term "Swing", but are not talking about Glen Miller or any other 1940s big band.
I differentiate Commercial music here from Folk music (music of "ordinary" people") and Art music (music written with artistic intentions, often based on the study of music itself).
Commercial music is music written purely for a commercial cause - it could be music for the Greek Olympics (we know it was written), for the Roman Games, for the Church, for Television commercials - or other reason beyond purely artistic. Typically, it is studied music - it needs to fulfil a function, and is written to that end.
Quite obviously, these are not black and white - and nor are they supposed to be. If you imagine them as 3 primary colours contained in circles that overlap, you should get the idea.
As with a prism and light, this is just one way of looking at the various aspects of music - and I think it's pretty watertight. A diagram would probably spell it out better - but the whole point was to show how, in music, both sides of an argument can be correct, depending on how the terms are used - which is why the terms should be properly defined - this is what I was saying about multiple meanings.
And the same goes for Prog-Related - it contains shades of Prog-Rock, hence is music that may be of interest to Prog Fans who don't want to listen to hardcore stuff all the time, but don't want "dumbed-down" music either.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
[QUOTE=Certif1ed]
Actually, it goes back further than that, to the Ancient Greeks.
We agree in that Certified, the roots go further, but when is the point in which Classical music (I know the term is wrong, but even the proffesional critics use Classical to describe all the Art music from Medieval to the date, in Spanish we use thye generic term Musica Selacta in opposition to Classical Music) is formally recognized?
From what I read and learn it's between the IX and XI Centuries.
Iván
|
|
Well, since the term is incorrect and vague, the period it also refers to is vague.
To enable any sort of precision, we should first define what we mean by Classical music - because we're not referring to a single style by any stretch of the imagination!
If we say that it's acoustic music written with an artistic goal, then we still can't be sure;
Take my example of music written for the Greek Olympics. It's possible - in fact, I'd say extremely likely that the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians and so on had music for rituals, and there would have been music made by the ordinary folk as well as music made for people of Court which was non-ritual (Commercial, Folk and Art Music).
Interestingly, Wikipedia says this;
In other words, the term has been used and abused and changed about ever since its inception.
The way I see it, is that it has the two meanings - the known correct one, which tells us about the actual style, and the known and more widely used incorrect one, which tells us vaguely that it's not pop, rock or jazz music.
...hope you weren't wanting a more definite answer 
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 26 2007 at 12:44 |
Certif1ed wrote:
It's largely true.
Rock music is a form of Popular music - but many people use the terms in different ways and find it very hard to get that perspective.
Take it to the next level, and what most people call Pop music is actually derived from Folk Music - but that's quite an involved argument. To put it into a nutshell, strictly speaking, much classical music is popular music too - and also derived from folk music.
Commercial music is something else - it doesn't have to be popular.
In my (personal) view of the music world, there are 3 forms of music; Folk, Art and Commercial (which includes Ecclesiatic). The 3 blur into each other at various points, but nevertheless, are the 3 main roots.
Hi Cert, don't want to disagree with you, but IMHO you're speaking in a different level, yes it's true what you say about Folk, Art and Commercial, but things and terms have evolved.
Commercial has also split in various genres, popular is just an adjective that qualifies how well is some music received by the general audience.
But POP has turned into a sub-genre of Commercial music, like Rock for example.
Now POP is widely described as an individual genre with it's own characteristics and even structure.
POP and Prog are commercial music but they are different and separete sub-genres of it.
Actually, it goes back further than that, to the Ancient Greeks.
We agree in that Certified, the roots go further, but when is the point in which Classical music (I know the term is wrong, but even the proffesional critics use Classical to describe all the Art music from Medieval to the date, in Spanish we use thye generic term Musica Selacta in opposition to Classical Music) is formally recognized?
From what I read and learn it's between the IX and XI Centuries.
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 26 2007 at 12:46
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: October 26 2007 at 03:31 |
Ghost Rider wrote:
Sorry about interrupting your nice discussion, but a question comes to mind... How is all that relevant to the original title (and purpose) of the thread? There have already been lots of arguments about whether prog is pop, but my intent was NOT to have another discussion on that particular topic. I don't know, perhaps there wasn't anything left to be said... |
Well, if Classical is not Classical, and Baroque is not Baroque, then it follows that Prog may not be Prog - and hence Prog-Related even less so.
Would I go off topic on one of your discussions, GR?
Edited by Certif1ed - October 26 2007 at 03:31
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24439
|
Posted: October 26 2007 at 03:23 |
Sorry about interrupting your nice discussion, but a question comes to mind... How is all that relevant to the original title (and purpose) of the thread? There have already been lots of arguments about whether prog is pop, but my intent was NOT to have another discussion on that particular topic. I don't know, perhaps there wasn't anything left to be said...
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: October 26 2007 at 03:17 |
reality wrote:
What!!! I just posted something about not arguing with people who obviously do not know what they are talking about. I guess I should listen to myself.
|
There are some very intelligent people on this forum - I think that comment is unfair. Anyone can mis-intepret a post on a forum - especially one that is as strongly international as this.
reality wrote:
1. Pop is short for Popular music or commercial music which Prog is defiantly a part of. What you are referring too is a sub-genre of Popular Music also called pop. I am sorry I assumed you knew what I was talking about. Also remember when ELP came out with Pictures at an Exhibition, they were not doing it for people over thirty but for teenagers. My father did not listen to it, he called it annoying kids music as he put a Verdi Opera on. Most people on this site are under 25 (there is a post about that somewhere) so youth is still very involved.
|
It's largely true.
Rock music is a form of Popular music - but many people use the terms in different ways and find it very hard to get that perspective.
Take it to the next level, and what most people call Pop music is actually derived from Folk Music - but that's quite an involved argument. To put it into a nutshell, strictly speaking, much classical music is popular music too - and also derived from folk music.
Commercial music is something else - it doesn't have to be popular.
In my (personal) view of the music world, there are 3 forms of music; Folk, Art and Commercial (which includes Ecclesiatic). The 3 blur into each other at various points, but nevertheless, are the 3 main roots.
reality wrote:
2. Excuse me but what we term Classical comes straight out of the ecclesiastic tradition formulating around the fifth century C.E.
|
Actually, it goes back further than that, to the Ancient Greeks.
reality wrote:
Understandable notation by modern standards came by the eleventh century, but that does not mean the western classical tradition was created then. The medieval period (476 – 1400) is first by what is called the seven periods of Classical music,
|
Hmm - never heard it called that before, although I see what you mean.
reality wrote:
followed by the Renaissance (1400-1600), next is the common practice period including Baroque (1600-1750), Classical ( 1750-1820) and Romantic (1820-1900) and then the modern and contemporary period which includes 20th century classical (1900 – 2000) and contemporary classical (1975 – current). Thus we have a line of continuity from the Fifth century to the present. This is consistent with the "generic" broad term of Classical as is used in most music survey courses at most if not all universities (The education level most music fans have). Also note I said it is a comparison to western art music (not referring to non western classical music as most people do not associate that with the generic term) which is undisputedly rooted in the early Medieval period. This is all consistent with the modern understanding of the development of the classical tradition. So it is a very apt term especially in the terms I used it.
|
Careful with your use of the term "classical tradition" - it doesn't strictly apply except to the Classical music period which you identify above.
"Classical tradition" is misleading unless you apply it to Classical style in the stricter sense - if you use it in the broader sense, then it loses relevance and meaning.
It's confusing, having the term "Classical" mean different things, but when they're used widely in general Academia, it's hard to refute the "incorrect" usage.
Also, in American teaching, it's common to describe the music as "Classic" rather than Classical - a bugbear of mine along with the horrible usage of the word "tone" to mean "note"... don't get me started
reality wrote:
More specific usage (though not as common to the average music fan) is either from Bach to Beethoven or the period of 1750 - 1820 is also known as Classical, Neither of which I was referring too. |
...albeit C.P.E. Bach was writing in that style a decade or so previously, and is widely attributed as the godfather of Classical music (in the sense of the style, not the general sense) - and also the godfather of Sturm und Drang:
The Classical style/tradition is of clean lines and symmetry/artistic asymmetry with functional decoration, which contrasts with the ostentation of Baroque or the cleaner,more natural lines of Rococco, often confused/lumped in with Style Galant and the dramatic Sturm und Drang.
The period described as "Baroque" is technically incorrect in several ways, as many styles existed (including the ones I mentioned), were regional, and also cross over into the commonly held Classical period. Baroque is a convenient way of pinning the music down - but it's hard for me to consider J.S. Bach's music as Baroque in a strict sense.
I know that the way you outlined it is the way it's taught - but all of those are guidelines to assist students at a relatively low level in their understanding of how the various styles developed.
...just wanted to flesh that one out a bit - shows that "Classical music" (broad sense) is just as, or even more confusing and full of sub-genres as "Popular music" (broad sense).
Does that make sense? 
Edited by Certif1ed - October 26 2007 at 03:18
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Shakespeare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 18 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 7744
|
Posted: October 25 2007 at 20:29 |
|
OW says the news.
|
|
heyitsthatguy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 17 2006
Location: Washington Hgts
Status: Offline
Points: 10094
|
Posted: October 25 2007 at 20:28 |
|
breaking news at this hour, THE NEWS IS ACTUALLY BREAKING!!!!!
|
|
|
|
sircosick
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 29 2007
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 1264
|
Posted: October 25 2007 at 20:27 |
Oh please...... Gentlemen, did I agree totally with Reality in some moment? All I did was made clear his statement which was a little misunderstood and bashed IMO, but saying also that that's a valid point to see this issue. I can disagree on this one as probably as I could agree..... since the statement in question is not mine  Now, Debreguy made a good point: ALL extreme fanboy of a genre become a bit arrogant when it comes to defending his beloved style. But we all gotta reckon that prog is not any genre of music (prog lovers know what I'm referring).... As PHP said, based on facts, prog is more complex and elaborated and whatever...... but not better, since there's not a universal taste..... there's no "truth" when it comes to tastes. All I reccomend is to take more seriously to the innocence and simplicity of that statement by Reality... Personally, I don't like generalizing, btw...... but let's not get angry because of that omnipresent arrogance thing xD If we all accept, reckon and tolerate that there's no facts (boundaries) to our tastes diversity, there's no point to discuss here 
|
|
The best you can is good enough...
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 25 2007 at 13:04 |
reality wrote:
What!!! I just posted something about not arguing with people who obviously do not know what they are talking about. I guess I should listen to myself.
1. Pop is short for Popular music or commercial music which Prog is defiantly a part of. What you are referring too is a sub-genre of Popular Music also called pop. I am sorry I assumed you knew what I was talking about. Also remember when ELP came out with Pictures at an Exhibition, they were not doing it for people over thirty but for teenagers. My father did not listen to it, he called it annoying kids music as he put a Verdi Opera on. Most people on this site are under 25 (there is a post about that somewhere) so youth is still very involved.
I believe I gave you enough quotes proving that POP music is not a short word for Popular only, it's a defined genre with it's own characteristics that are exactly the opposite to what the Progressive Rock movement represents.
But if you need them, here it goes again:
Originally quoted by Ivan_Melgar_M
|
-
-
pop music
music of general appeal to teenagers; a bland watered-down
version of rock'n'roll with more rhythm and harmony and
an emphasis on romantic love [syn: pop] http://dict.die.net/pop%20music/ |
-
-
Pop music generally uses a simple, memorable melody and emphasizes the rhythm, often with syncopation, and stripped down to a basic riff or loop which repeats throughout much of the song. Pop songs usually have a verse and a chorus, each with different musical material, well as a bridge connecting them in many cases. The lyrics often concern romance and relationships.
The vocal style found in much pop music has been heavily influenced by African American musical traditions such as rhythm and blues (R&B), soul music, and gospel. The rhythms and the sound of pop music have been heavily influenced by swing jazz, rock and roll, reggae, funk, disco, and is currently influenced by hip hop in many cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music |
|
The name appeared because POP music is normally the most popular in the market, but it has turned to be a genre.
If you ask me, you are making the same mistake as many. POP is withiout any doubt a genre.
2. Excuse me but what we term Classical comes straight out of the ecclesiastic tradition formulating around the fifth century C.E. Understandable notation by modern standards came by the eleventh century, but that does not mean the western classical tradition was created then. The medieval period (476 – 1400) is first by what is called the seven periods of Classical music, followed by the Renaissance (1400-1600), next is the common practice period including Baroque (1600-1750), Classical ( 1750-1820) and Romantic (1820-1900) and then the modern and contemporary period which includes 20th century classical (1900 – 2000) and contemporary classical (1975 – current). Thus we have a line of continuity from the Fifth century to the present. This is consistent with the "generic" broad term of Classical as is used in most music survey courses at most if not all universities (The education level most music fans have). Also note I said it is a comparison to western art music (not referring to non western classical music as most people do not associate that with the generic term) which is undisputedly rooted in the early Medieval period. This is all consistent with the modern understanding of the development of the classical tradition. So it is a very apt term especially in the terms I used it.
A quote speaks more than 1,000 words
|
Classical music is a broad term that usually refers to music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of, Western art, ecclesiastical and concert music, encompassing a broad period from roughly the 9th century to the 21st century.[1] The central norms of this tradition became codified between 1550 and 1900, which known as the common practice period.
|
Is this enough? I rather believe The Oxford Music Dictionary than you.  But if you want more, agaion you have more:
|
History of Classical Music
Medieval (c.1150 - c.1400)
This is the first period where we can begin to be fairly certain as to how a great deal of the music which has survived actually sounded. The earliest written secular music dates from the 12th century troubadours (in the form of virelais, estampies, ballades etc.), but most notated manuscripts emanate from places of learning usually connected with the church, and therefore inevitably have a religious basis.
Gregorian chant and plainsong which are monodic (i.e. written as one musical line) gradually developed during the 11th to 13th centuries into organum (i.e. two or three lines moving simultaneously but independently, therefore almost inadvertently representing the beginnings of harmony). Organum was, however, initially rather stifled by rigid rules governing melody and rhythm, which led ultimately to the so-called Ars Nova period of the 14th century, principally represented by the composers de Vitry, Machaut, and Landini.
|
I won't search for more quotes.
BTW: The Medieval era you describe is referred to the HISTORICAL period, not necessarilly exact to the Musical eras.
There was music in the early Medieval, but it was still not considered Classical Music (Wrong term, but commonly uased), it was mostly Folk in the Troubadoresque mood, without any notation, it's in the Gothic era when Popular music splits completely from what will be known as Classical.
More specific usage (though not as common to the average music fan) is either from Bach to Beethoven or the period of 1750 - 1820 is also known as Classical, Neither of which I was referring too.
BTW: Bach is a Baroque musician, not Classical, Bach died in 1750, year that marked the beginning of Classic Era.
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 25 2007 at 14:04
|
|
|
|
reality
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 318
|
Posted: October 25 2007 at 02:13 |
|
What!!! I just posted something about not arguing with people who obviously do not know what they are talking about. I guess I should listen to myself.
1. Pop is short for Popular music or commercial music which Prog is defiantly a part of. What you are referring too is a sub-genre of Popular Music also called pop. I am sorry I assumed you knew what I was talking about. Also remember when ELP came out with Pictures at an Exhibition, they were not doing it for people over thirty but for teenagers. My father did not listen to it, he called it annoying kids music as he put a Verdi Opera on. Most people on this site are under 25 (there is a post about that somewhere) so youth is still very involved.
2. Excuse me but what we term Classical comes straight out of the ecclesiastic tradition formulating around the fifth century C.E. Understandable notation by modern standards came by the eleventh century, but that does not mean the western classical tradition was created then. The medieval period (476 – 1400) is first by what is called the seven periods of Classical music, followed by the Renaissance (1400-1600), next is the common practice period including Baroque (1600-1750), Classical ( 1750-1820) and Romantic (1820-1900) and then the modern and contemporary period which includes 20th century classical (1900 – 2000) and contemporary classical (1975 – current). Thus we have a line of continuity from the Fifth century to the present. This is consistent with the "generic" broad term of Classical as is used in most music survey courses at most if not all universities (The education level most music fans have). Also note I said it is a comparison to western art music (not referring to non western classical music as most people do not associate that with the generic term) which is undisputedly rooted in the early Medieval period. This is all consistent with the modern understanding of the development of the classical tradition. So it is a very apt term especially in the terms I used it.
More specific usage (though not as common to the average music fan) is either from Bach to Beethoven or the period of 1750 - 1820 is also known as Classical, Neither of which I was referring too.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65792
|
Posted: October 24 2007 at 23:23 |
|
OK, OK, we're bloody arrogant... but so what? It doesn't mean I don't like some pop music-- look; you can eat a gourmet meal and the next day thoroughly enjoy a tuna sandwich.. you can watch a brilliant film and then be entertained by a mindless sitcom, right?
the thing is, nobody likes to be called arrogant for appreciating something...
Edited by Atavachron - October 24 2007 at 23:23
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 24 2007 at 23:08 |
reality wrote:
Clarification:
1. The quotes I used were paraphrased versions of actual quotes from actual threads put on this site by many longtime members with many posts. I do not know anything further than that.
Yes, there may be a Prog fan who is also an a$$hole, but I also read in a well known magazine a guy posting the 10 best keyboardists in history and saying...and I quote...."We could make a list with 20 Progressive Rock keyboardists, but who could care for that crap"
That guy is being also an a$$hole arrogant,. there is one of those in every genre.
2. I used classical as a generic term as it is used in common english language practice to refer to western art music. Actualy the term "Classical" covers not only the Classical period but the six other periods ranging from the fifth century to the present.
Not exactly, Classical music is a wrong term to talk about cult music, and what you described as Classical didn't started in the 5th Century, but about the 10th or 11th Century, and codidfied only after 1,500 AD.
3. Prog is Pop music (and that may be why I like it) the big prog bands have hooks and catches just like Brittany.
False, Prog is not POP, that's an aberration
This are some accurate definition of POP:
-
-
pop music
n : music of general appeal to teenagers; a bland watered-down
version of rock'n'roll with more rhythm and harmony and
an emphasis on romantic love [syn: pop] http://dict.die.net/pop%20music/ |
-
-
Pop music generally uses a simple, memorable melody and emphasizes the rhythm, often with syncopation, and stripped down to a basic riff or loop which repeats throughout much of the song. Pop songs usually have a verse and a chorus, each with different musical material, well as a bridge connecting them in many cases. The lyrics often concern romance and relationships.
The vocal style found in much pop music has been heavily influenced by African American musical traditions such as rhythm and blues (R&B), soul music, and gospel. The rhythms and the sound of pop music have been heavily influenced by swing jazz, rock and roll, reggae, funk, disco, and is currently influenced by hip hop in many cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music |
As you see, there is no relation between POP as a genre and Progressive Rock as a genre.
4. I concede on Brittany though as there is a difference between a purely commercial music (otherwise known as boardroom music) and commercial music with artistic intent (which includes Prog).
You don't need to say that, here there is people who loves many other genres, I include for example among my favorites, such artists and bands as Meatloaf, Jackson Browne, Cat Stevens, The Cranberries, Fleetwood Mac, among many others.
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
reality
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 318
|
Posted: October 24 2007 at 22:35 |
|
Clarification:
1. The quotes I used were paraphrased versions of actual quotes from actual threads put on this site by many longtime members with many posts. I do not know anything further than that.
2. I used classical as a generic term as it is used in common english language practice to refer to western art music. Actualy the term "Classical" covers not only the Classical period but the six other periods ranging from the fifth century to the present.
3. Prog is Pop music (and that may be why I like it) the big prog bands have hooks and catches just like Brittany.
4. I concede on Brittany though as there is a difference between a purely commercial music (otherwise known as boardroom music) and commercial music with artistic intent (which includes Prog).
|
|
P.H.P.
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 01 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 334
|
Posted: October 24 2007 at 21:22 |
sircosick wrote:
Despite the doubtful arguments of Mr. Reality, his final purpose is an undeniably truth that seemed to hurt an important group of people here (say Rocktopus ) The arrogance of the average proghead is a very known fact, that has no relation to listen to unpopular music, Iván; even I'd say the opposite: because of the fact that we listen to a non-mainstream genre of music, we use to believe we're better than the ""common"" people who listen to.... say pop, rap, tecno, etc.....
So, I think our mate Reality made a valid attempt to say what I just did (and of course, adding his golden sentence: music is music!!)
|
Well, what you said is quite not true... known fact?? what are you talking about? it's not about to believe "we're better than poppers", but see, with objectivity, and throwing aside any personal position, Prog is "better" than most mainstream music, better in the sense of musicality, composition, performance, etc. Even if I would like don't know...Pop? Rap? I would have to admit that Prog musicaly could be superior to what I like, but I could agree then: "but I prefer Pop, because it's don't know, happy?" or "I tend to find something that Rock or Prog couldn't ever give to me", but that would be totally subjective and part of something we all have, taste, so nothing wrong with that... What we Prog-heads say is just repeating an objective true obtained from the musical analysis, but for others (basically for those who haven't heard enough Prog), it's a true fact that could hurt sensibilites, but sometimes for people, truth is hard to conceive and accept... So arrogance??, come on!, you should have understood it already..
Edited by P.H.P. - October 24 2007 at 21:35
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: October 24 2007 at 20:42 |
sircosick wrote:
Despite the doubtful arguments of Mr. Reality, his final purpose is an undeniably truth that seemed to hurt an important group of people here (say Rocktopus ) The arrogance of the average proghead is a very known fact, that has no relation to listen to unpopular music, Iván; even I'd say the opposite: because of the fact that we listen to a non-mainstream genre of music, we use to believe we're better than the ""common"" people who listen to.... say pop, rap, tecno, etc.....
So, I think our mate Reality made a valid attempt to say what I just did (and of course, adding his golden sentence: music is music!!)
|
Arrogance ... Average prog head .... known fact ??? The extreme fan of any genre of music will be arrogant in defending or promoting his favourite music. The average guy or gal, though, is more likely to be easy going in their adoration of music's various genres. If you noticed my avatar, could you really state that I am somehow feeling superior because I like prog rock ? Heck, in many a thread, some of my posts get more positive & fun reactions to the AC/DC Bon Scott symbol then the actual writing. Usually something along the lines of "hey, Let there be Rock", or "who says proggers don't like music" . There are some here that overstate the fact that prog is not "mainstream". They are oblivious to the reality that most genres are not. Or that prog is unpopular, or that prog acts do not attain the same commercial success that "mainstream" acts do - well, guess what, there are as many country, punk, jazz, metal, dance, funk, world beat, et al musical groups out there who have yet to sell more than a few hundred copies of ALL their releases. Yet how many here bemoan that fact. None. And as for some believing they are better or superior because they listen to prog ... well that happens in all genres. What's that - jazz is the only real music ... swing was just business ??? You can't be punk, 'cause you're not dressed right ??? "We play alternative music " Alternative to what ??? SO I again state my analysis - reality simply got pissed off by some overbearing idiot & believes that the one, the specific, can describe the all, the general . . . Somehow, I figure he never met me or any of the many here at PA who are actually pretty secure in the fact that the music we like is really the music we like because, well ... we like it. Prog or Not. AC/DC or not.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
sircosick
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 29 2007
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 1264
|
Posted: October 24 2007 at 19:07 |
Despite the doubtful arguments of Mr. Reality, his final purpose is an undeniably truth that seemed to hurt an important group of people here (say Rocktopus ) The arrogance of the average proghead is a very known fact, that has no relation to listen to unpopular music, Iván; even I'd say the opposite: because of the fact that we listen to a non-mainstream genre of music, we use to believe we're better than the ""common"" people who listen to.... say pop, rap, tecno, etc..... So, I think our mate Reality made a valid attempt to say what I just did (and of course, adding his golden sentence: music is music!!)
|
|
The best you can is good enough...
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: October 24 2007 at 18:22 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
reality wrote:
Have you ever read some of the posts on this website. Egomania! "I am smarter than you because I listen to prog" "my music is better than your music because you do not understand mine" "We proggers listen to our music deeper than others listen to their music" There have even been posts that talk about people who wear Prog as a badge of honer!
Are you reading the same posts I am?
For God's sake, Prog is unpopular, so nobody will boost his/her ego listening unpopular music. Db steps in - I believe the psychological intent would be to say " I am different from you as I do not follow the mainstream". That can sometimes come out as " I am not as shallow as you are"
People say King Crimson is great, but i'm not afraid to say I can't understand it, I read similar posts about Gentle Giant and VDGG, the most complex bands, on the other hand, most people like Genesis and Yes which being 100% Prog and more complex than mainstream, are incredibly melodic and easy to get into them.
Hardly anybody cares for how complex is the band they like, simply we like the bands because it's our taste
Db - Ivan, I know that you have seen some threads or posts here that are very guilty of that attitude - Group X is better/more prog/artistically superior because of complexity/virtuosity/obscurity. But you will find that with fans of any music genre. An easy one to use as a comparison is punk rock - "this band is truer to punk roots, 'cause they're not on a major label/still use the word f**k/write songs about President Bush etc..."
But most of us here, including you, simply like what we like because we like it. We may sometimes try to theorize, but to no avail.
Get real people it is an elitist term and people do get a payoff from using it, that is why it matters to people so much.
So Prog is an elitist term...Then how do you want us to call it..The weird music we like?
Prog is just a term to describe a genre as Rock, Jazz or POP, as simple as that, some people like Pop, others like Prog.
Db Says Ivan nailed that one.
People get off by saying their music is complex or progressive compared to others "regular" music. Why do you think people are so obsessed with the word progressive.
Progressive is just a name of a genre, it doesn't describe the approach of the band, this is a silly misconception.
Db - Ivan, you get it again. I wonder if reality has met more than one prog fan. It is true that much "prog" is more complex. But I wonder if he would get as upset if a country music fan would say they prefer their music 'cause its' more "common people" music ? Genres can be stereotyped, but they are nothing more that generalities.
It is the very fact that it is unpopular that gets them going. How many times do I have to hear Rolling Stone is stupid because they do not "get" the music. There is nothing to get! Its prog rock not rocket science. And compared to some jazz and classical prog is simple and not very demanding, nothing to brag about. But I like it anyway.
I don't care how demanding or challenging Prog is, I like it because it's my fuc*ing God given right to have a taste.
If you are so tired of this elitism and snobbism...What in the hell are you doing here?
If it's so simple and less demanding, maybe you will feel more comfortable in a Jazz or Classic Forum (BTW: Classic is only a period of time between 1750 and 1820 - 1830, so you should use another term).
Leave us stupid arrogant egomaniacs with a simpler taste than your's enjoying our second class music.
Iván
EDIT: Rolling Stones are not stupid, they are good businesmen, they want to sell a magazine, so they go for the most popular music, I don't know if they like Prog or not, they simply ignore it because placing a Britney photo will sell but placing a photo of Greg Lake or Dave Gilmour requiring a B cup bra, w3on't sell a number.
I ignore if they get the music or not (and give a damn), the only truth is that they ignore it because it's not popular enough to sell magazines and because they sold their souls and their critics to the musical industry.
|
|
Db breathes deep & goes - Ivan, do you wonder if this person is trolling ? Or if they met up with an insecure egomaniac prog fan ? He ends up by saying that he likes prog. Is it that he doesn't like the way certain prog fans act ? Does he really believe that prog is the only musical genre that counts such people amongst its' fans ? Does he have shares in Rolling Stone ? PA is hardly the only place where that great counter-culture relic () is regularly denigrated. Heck, even the magazine head's involvement in the rock n roll hall of fame is a subject of derision in most of the rock "culture" .
Oh, and lastly, most of us here don't really care if an act is popular or not. We mostly accept that our faves will never outsell Britney. We are also surely aware that many of the musical groups we love will not be around for eternity. History has shown us that through the ages. Name 25 well known composers who were around during Mozart's time. If you can, then tell me this - how many do you figure that the general population knows. But so what. It's enough for me to enjoy Night Sun's "Mournin". I don't get anything extra if they happen to still be finding adherents in the 23rd century.
But anyways, I come back to my original theory - reality just met up with an overbearing idiot and needed to slam the stereotype because it made him or her feel inadequate for whatever reason(s).
P.S. But it is fun to play with their heads though ...
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66759
|
Posted: October 24 2007 at 15:19 |
Ghost Rider wrote:
I wonder why it's so hard to understand... PR albums have been taken off the Top 50 on the home page. The category, together with Proto-Prog, is clearly indicated using a different colour than the other subgenres, in order to distinguish it. Ivan's excellent definition states clearly that those bands and artists are NOT prog, but influenced by it to some degree. Then, why do we always have to see people overreact every time a band is suggested for addition in PROG-RELATED, as if someone had said they were as prog as, say, Genesis, Yes or King Crimson?
I am not a native speaker of English, yet I understand the concept of something being related to something else. Why do other people seem to ignore this basic concept? Is this because the definition is unclear (and I had even suggested changing it to "Influenced by Prog" to make it clearer), or because they understand it perfectly well, and only want to make trouble for the site, especially for the Admins?
|
As much as I understand exactly what is being said and being meant here, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment and say that this thread reminded me of an old saying or joke (not sure the proper term).
A girlfriend says to her boyfriend "I'm sort of pregnant".  How can you be "sort of pregnant"? You either are or you're not.
I believe that many who oppose bands being added to prog related might have this same line of thought. A band either is or they aren't prog, they can't be "sort of prog".
|
|
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: October 24 2007 at 10:17 |
Great post Ivan, I'm going to offer a different opinion on only one point: yes, listening mostly to prog and non-mainstream music does improve my selfesteem. Not like anyone around would care or would appreciate if knowing, but it makes me feel better about myself. And I think I do that not becoming a snob, or at least I hope (that's damn difficult)
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 24 2007 at 02:36 |
reality wrote:
Have you ever read some of the posts on this website. Egomania! "I am smarter than you because I listen to prog" "my music is better than your music because you do not understand mine" "We proggers listen to our music deeper than others listen to their music" There have even been posts that talk about people who wear Prog as a badge of honer!
Are you reading the same posts I am?
For God's sake, Prog is unpopular, so nobody will boost his/her ego listening unpopular music.
People say King Crimson is great, but i'm not afraid to say I can't understand it, I read similar posts about Gentle Giant and VDGG, the most complex bands, on the other hand, most people like Genesis and Yes which being 100% Prog and more complex than mainstream, are incredibly melodic and easy to get into them.
Hardly anybody cares for how complex is the band they like, simply we like the bands because it's our taste
Get real people it is an elitist term and people do get a payoff from using it, that is why it matters to people so much.
So Prog is an elitist term...Then how do you want us to call it..The weird music we like?
Prog is just a term to describe a genre as Rock, Jazz or POP, as simple as that, some people like Pop, others like Prog.
People get off by saying their music is complex or progressive compared to others "regular" music. Why do you think people are so obsessed with the word progressive.
Progressive is just a name of a genre, it doesn't describe the approach of the band, this is a silly misconception.
It is the very fact that it is unpopular that gets them going. How many times do I have to hear Rolling Stone is stupid because they do not "get" the music. There is nothing to get! Its prog rock not rocket science. And compared to some jazz and classical prog is simple and not very demanding, nothing to brag about. But I like it anyway.
I don't care how demanding or challenging Prog is, I like it because it's my fuc*ing God given right to have a taste.
If you are so tired of this elitism and snobbism...What in the hell are you doing here?
If it's so simple and less demanding, maybe you will feel more comfortable in a Jazz or Classic Forum (BTW: Classic is only a period of time between 1750 and 1820 - 1830, so you should use another term).
Leave us stupid arrogant egomaniacs with a simpler taste than your's enjoying our second class music.
Iván
EDIT: Rolling Stones are not stupid, they are good businesmen, they want to sell a magazine, so they go for the most popular music, I don't know if they like Prog or not, they simply ignore it because placing a Britney photo will sell but placing a photo of Greg Lake or Dave Gilmour requiring a B cup bra, w3on't sell a number.
I ignore if they get the music or not (and give a damn), the only truth is that they ignore it because it's not popular enough to sell magazines and because they sold their souls and their critics to the musical industry.
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 24 2007 at 02:44
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Breaking news: PROG-RELATED IS NOT PROG
