| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Atavachron 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65916
|
 Posted: June 11 2008 at 20:57 |
 WinterLight wrote:
Perhaps part of the problem is that some people equate "prog" with "good". So, if that individual doesn't like a particular band, then by definition it can't be prog.
|
actually I think we can rule this out by applying some technical objectivity.. that is, if an artist demonstrates a certain percentage of progressive - or non-commercial - elements, whatever % you think it should be, they could be eligible to be called 'Prog'. Also, I think Neil Young, Paul Simon and Leo Kotke are 'good' but not prog.
|
 |
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
Posted: June 11 2008 at 21:36 |
Moatilliatta wrote:
Perfection cannot be attained.
I'm not sure that this is a true statement. In particular, it has no literal meaning (again, what is meant by "perfection"?)
Being perfect in the definition of "excellent, as in skill or quality" can definitely be attained. But critics and artists will never agree. And as a musician and composer, I know that there are always new ways to redo work you've created, from "maybe I should have played this fill instead" to coming up with a whole new movement of the song. The fact that one would even consider altering a piece or imagining other ways to make it better implies that the piece isn't perfect. Music kind of revels in its imperfection. Musicians improvise in their songs all the time because they feel something else. This may not be perfect to a listener, or even the player, but it felt right at the time.
In that case call the music "excellent, as in skill or quality" rather than "perfect", which is a loaded term. The fact is, whether people use that non-standard definition (and I don't think they do) is irrelevant: the term itself has connotations that make its use inappropriate in that context. Furthermore, such "excellence" presupposes objective standards: otherwise, the term "excellence" also loses literal meaning.
Furthermore, music is way too subjective for a consensus to be made on the topic.
This is one of those claims that is touted so often that it becomes obviously true by repetition. But it's not true. Music, as with any art, can be evaluated by objective standards (specifically, musicianship and composition). Our reaction to a piece of music is, of course, subjective, and it need not coincide with our subjective evaluation.
Sure, I don't disagree with that. I try to balance objectivity and subjectivity. But there must be both, and it's often very difficult for a large group of people to agree with both aspects.
Well, objectivity and subjectivity are often entangled, but this doesn't imply that both "must" be simultaneously present in a particular reaction. Maybe it's true--I don't know--but it doesn't follow from your argument.
We can phrase things as objectively as we want, but those objective statements are rooted in our subjective tastes.
Explain this. In classical music, for example, there are accepted criteria for how each instrument should be played and sound--it's simply not a matter for debate.
Didn't progressive rock break a bunch of "accepted criteria" for how rock music was supposed to be played? This is also true of all "progressive" groups. Even some modern classical style groups are doing things that would be unheard of in the days of Mozart. Classical music is quite different from rock music in many ways, and to bring that into this particular topic is irrelevant.
I don't think that you're following this argument closely. You asserted that "objective statements are rooted in our subjective tastes"; in response, I offered a counterexample. Neither your claim nor my example are dependent on the style of music in question or even music itself. This is transparent.
Even the terms "simplistic" or "complex" can be subjective.
Perhaps you mean "simple" versus "complicated". There is a distinction, and it's non-trivial.
That's not what I mean. People with different understandings of music can interpret how simple or complicated a piece is differently. If I asked a kid just learning the guitar if "Coil" was complex, he/she would probably say it was. But to a multi-instrumentalist who has been playing music for years might say it isn't. Perspective makes a difference, regardless of whether or not the source is reliable to us.
I was being charitable in my interpretation of your assertion: the terms "simplistic" and "complex" are really not the ones you want to use here. In any case, it is central to any inquiry to first determine "whether or not the source is reliable to us." I don't receive medical or legal advice from a first-year med or law student; similarly, I'm not interested in a musical analysis by a "kid just learning the guitar".
They definitely depend on the perspective they come from. "Coil" can only be called "simplistic" by someone who understands music theory or is acquainted with this kind of music.
If you look for complexity in any structure, then you will find it.
I'm not sure how what you're saying connects to what I said. But I see no complexity in the structure of most songs by The Ramones. Am I not looking hard enough?
You might say that a song by The Ramones is simple, or if you intend to evaluate their approach (rather than composition alone) you might say that it is simplistic. But if you study it long enough you might notice previously unobserved patterns. In fact, that's analogous to what anyone faces in sorting out data: we immediately look for the simplest interpretation, but often there are subtler (and so at a higher level of complexity) relations between the data.
And this is another note on labels. As soon as we start to label things we introduce bias. Even strictly used as adjectives the reviewer or the reader automatically makes connections in their heads, be it postive or negative.
Yes, but "making connections" is not tantamount to "introducing bias".
I think it is. If someone or myself makes a connection to a list of bands and sounds that I don't like and nothing else, I think my bias is going to kick in when I sample the music and I'm going to expect not to like it.
That might be precisely what occurs, but that does not establish equivalence (it doesn't even establish causation).
Why does it matter if it's "progressive" or not? There is more to music than that. I think to listen to music solely or largely because it is housed under the term "progressive" is absurd.
Although I completely agree with the two statements here, I think the question is baseless. This site is dedicated to progressive music (regardless of definitional controversies), and the ratings theoretically reflect that mission (despite the blatant misuse of the rating system by some).
I'll write a review, but it's going to be completely unrelated to how "progressive" it is.
Again, I consider that a misuse of the rating system as defined.
This site as a database for progressive bands. The fact that they are here means that there is a consensus as to their being "progressive" or "prog" or not. Sure, we have a right to say that we don't think a band or album is "progressive," but to neglect the positives about an album because of that one thought isn't right. I don't like bands on here because they are "progressive." I assume that the reader is more concerned with what's beneath the surface of the labels as well, and so I often don't worry about analyzing how progressive it is.
Again, look at how the rating scheme is defined (e.g., five stars is supposed to indicate "Excellent addition to any prog music collection"). Observe that a one-star rating doesn't imply that an album is bad, but only that its a poor representation of prog music.
|
Edited by WinterLight - June 12 2008 at 13:27
|
|
agProgger
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 20 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 54
|
Posted: June 11 2008 at 22:21 |
|
Yikes, I don't know what you did to that post, Winter, but it's really hard to read. Anyhow, 1 star, to me, really does mean that it's bad. It reads "Poor -- collectors or completionists only" or something to that effect. Nowhere does it say "not progressive". Furthermore, if someone comes here and looks at the site, briefly, a 1 star rating to them is going to mean "not a good album". Databases are supposed to be where people go to find information, so that information should hopefully reflect what they're looking for. If we all secretly define the rating system as a measure of progressiveness, then we're deceiving the casual site viewer who came here to find out about an album.
|
|
Friend of the honest; enemy of the arrogant and closed-minded.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21847
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 02:44 |
darqDean wrote:
For every acclaimed album from the 70s someone will find a flaw or imperfection that spoils it in some way for them and the same is true today. The BIG difference is that the reviews for those lauded 70s albums are written years after their initial release - even if they are 'new' to the reviewer, there is a history, a legacy and even a mythology associated with those albums that influences the review - modern Prog does not have that luxury, instead it has the extra burden of having to compare with those gems from past - a task that the bands of the 70s couldn't even manage into the 80s - and it has to measure-up instantly, without the benefit of time to 'educate' our listening - ITCotCK and SEbtP were successful in the 70s, but nowhere near as venerated as they are today. Some albums from today will be held on an equal platform to those golden-era albums at sometime in the future, but it is impossible to predict which albums and when.
Agreed. I guess this is also why it's much more difficult to judge the progressiveness of modern music. In theory it should be simpler because we have the music from the 70s as a point of reference. In practice it's next to impossible, because the closer a modern piece is to the classic bands, the more it seems like a mere copy and we are tempted to scream "plagiarism!". On the other hand the more different the music is from the original prog style, the more people say that it can't be prog. Sounds like a contradictory situation which is almost impossible to solve.
There is a strange notion that Prog Rock must not progress, it has to be better than what went before (as if being 'better' was some intuitive quantitative value that we can all recognise), when all we really want is for it to be different, but not too different - we want our bands to improve but not stray too far from the familiar territory we love them for. Looking back, very few bands have ever got 'better' as they grew older or changed musically. So when bands come along that actually progresses the genre to the next level, or into untried directions, they are viewed with suspicion or maybe even kept out of the genre completely because they threaten the status quo and so people retreat back into their comfort zone.
Yes, people being overly protective of their favorite (classic) bands adds to the problem. Maybe even the notion that some new bands could be "as good" as these classic bands is perceived as a threat to them ... just like fans of the vinyl format feel like they have to defend it against new digital technology.
Perfect Prog exists from every era but (collectively) we will never agree on what that actually is.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21847
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 02:55 |
agProgger wrote:
Yikes, I don't know what you did to that post, Winter, but it's really hard to read. Anyhow, 1 star, to me, really does mean that it's bad. It reads "Poor -- collectors or completionists only" or something to that effect. Nowhere does it say "not progressive". Furthermore, if someone comes here and looks at the site, briefly, a 1 star rating to them is going to mean "not a good album". Databases are supposed to be where people go to find information, so that information should hopefully reflect what they're looking for. If we all secretly define the rating system as a measure of progressiveness, then we're deceiving the casual site viewer who came here to find out about an album.
|
Of course 1 and 2 star ratings say "stay away from this album", no matter what the definitions say or what the reviewer states in his/her review. There's simply no other way to interpret that image with two filled stars and three empty ones. Even 3 stars is not a recommendation ... it signals "average" more than "good". Only 4 and 5 stars are a recommendation, which is why I think that there aren't enough steps ... but that's a different topic which has been discussed in many threads.
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 03:20 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
I just finished reading Certif1ed's review of Opeth - Watershed.
It made me think about modern prog and what all of us "experts" expect of it. |
Fantastic - if I can make people think like this, this is where I get the deepest satisfaction. If fresh ideas come out of it, so much the better - my work is done.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Is it even possible to satisfy all the expectations? |
In the case of "Watershed", just some would have been nice 
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Coming back to Watershed: I think it is a perfect example of this problem. The first track is quite simplistic, the second one features a rather complex riff (by comparison). For Certif1ed this is a big problem ... the first track is too simplistic, the riff from the second track is too complex. |
Aha - a misunderstanding.
I do not, of course, have a problem with complex riffs - I wonder how you got that false impression. I'll have to update my review so it doesn't read like that, as that is not what I was trying to convey.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
What do you think ... does perfect prog exist?
|
No.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Do you believe that it's possible to unite all the different definitions of "Prog" under one banner, or will we all continue to use our personal definitions? An attempt of unification would of course mean compromise ... I'm not saying that we all should agree about the rating of any given prog album, but we should be able to agree on whether it's deserves the label "prog" or not.
|
No band has ever united all the different definitions - you're looking for a definition like the word "table" has definitions.
Music is not like that.
It's more comparable to subatomic physics, where everything is relative to the observer, and things can be opposites of themselves.
It does, as Winterlight's excellent posts point out clearly, have definable rules.
You're disadvantaged straight awway if you don't understand these rules, because music is not just about using them, but breaking them too - with artistic intent.
Progressive music breaks these rules artistically and in an educated way - and anyone who is familiar with any of the rules can hear what is being done when the music is analysed.
This is one of the biggest differences between Progressive music and non-progressive music.
Non-Progressive music does not break rules or musical boundaries - just as Watershed does not, except in ONE notorious place - fair enough, it's got people thinking about it, so as an artistic statement, it works.
Progressive music shows some kind of progression, whether of style, something in the composition, or just something that says to the listener that the music is fresh and new.
No matter which way you look at it, Watershed falls so shy of this (or any definition of Prog I've ever read) that it's surely a joke to call it a masterpiece of Progressive music.
Edited by Certif1ed - June 12 2008 at 03:20
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 03:35 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Progressive music shows some kind of progression, whether of style, something in the composition, or just something that says to the listener that the music is fresh and new.
No matter which way you look at it, Watershed falls so shy of this (or any definition of Prog I've ever read) that it's surely a joke to call it a masterpiece of Progressive music. |
Ah, now I get you. You're saying that the rating guidelines predispose ONE definition of prog: that is, progressive music - that which moves on/past standard music structures. I guess it does - I hadn't thought of the rating guideline quite like that. I'd say, however, that many if not most reviewers and collaborators apply their own definition of 'prog' at that point, and by that they might well mean 'sounds like the prog bands of the 70s'. Using this definition they could well be justified in calling 'Watershed' a masterpiece of progressive music. So I don't think it's a joke at all. I don't agree myself that Watershed's a masterpiece, but it's not illogical that others might. Going by your definition, though, it's not possible.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21847
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 05:14 |
|
^ I'm pretty sure that Certif1ed doesn't think it "sounds like the prog bands of the 70s" either. Which again shows that one of the most amazing qualities of music is that there are a myriad ways to interpret it and draw conclusions.
|
|
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 05:45 |
|
I agree, I'm sure he doesn't!
|
|
Yorkie X
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 04 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1049
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 08:06 |
I got an email from Timothy G. Boney he's from the band Contrarian he asked me in the email to send him a few lines to let him know what I thought of the new CD "Minor Complexities" I wanted to say it was great that is was perfect just because it was pretty good and I admire his role on that CD but I couldnt tell him that I felt that I wanted to encourage him and the band in a more positive way than to lie to them so I told him the truth (bet I never get an email from that guy again just like when Garry Wehrkamp from Shadow Gallery emailed me and I basicaly told him I didnt like Room V that was a fast end of that online friendship ) point is perfection is a nice ideal something to aim for. We as prog fans should just enjoy the ride doesnt matter if its not the be all and end all it still counts in the Journey that we know as progressive rock .... wonder if Garry will read this 
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21847
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 08:16 |
^ I understand what you're getting at. When a musician contacts an independent reviewer and asks his opinion about his/her new album, it always puts the reviewer in an awkward position ... even more so when they send a promo copy. Every reviewer will try to say something nice about the album in order not to disappoint the musician and/or seem unpolite or even rude. On the other hand, you have to try to remain objective and not to betray your own guidelines. IMO Musicians should be aware of this dilemma and not expect anything when they submit their music for reviewing purposes ... and they should be able to look at their own music objectively. But coming back to the topic at hand: You shouldn't confuse the kind of perfection that I described in the first post with the general quality of the music. I was referring to music which satifies all the reasonable criteria for prog - something we could all agree on to be prog. This has nothing to do with the quality of the music. In fact, I think that even if such a "perfect" piece of prog music existed it would be somewhat boring to listen to. If I look at my personal list of favorite albums I see many albums which are considered to be highly controversial as far as the prog status is concerned ... 
|
|
|
|
Darklord55
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 08 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 357
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 09:12 |
|
"Music it the wine that fills the cup of silence". Robert Fripp
|
|
SilverAnubis
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 27 2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 47
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 10:50 |
|
"Transatlantic" is the best modern prog ever! ;)
End of discussion xD
|
|
A B Negative
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 02 2006
Location: Methil Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 1594
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 11:41 |
My brother gave me a CD yesterday that came free with a rock magazine. It had tracks from 9 or 10 modern prog bands; 2 were pretty good (but not perfect), 3 or 4 were totally unlistenable, the rest were OK until the singing started.
|
|
"The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time."
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:29 |
Moatilliatta wrote:
Perfection cannot be attained. |
Incorrect. Kayo Dot's Choirs of the Eye is perfect. (as are 14 other albums, for that matter)
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21847
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:31 |
^ only 15 perfect albums?
|
|
|
|
laplace
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 06 2005
Location: popupControl();
Status: Offline
Points: 7606
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:33 |
|
IMO IMO IMO IMO o:)
I don't feel worthy to define perfect. all I know is when I find something agreeable and I can't pretend to consider myself objective in any field.
(patheticism?)
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:33 |
Nope. I will always f**k up any agreement on a good album out of spite from now on. 
|
|
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:44 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ only 15 perfect albums?
|
I'm selective. 1. Kayo Dot - Choirs of the Eye 2. Can - Tago Mago 3. Radiohead - Kid A 4. Talking Heads - Remain in Light 5. Talk Talk - Laughing Stock 6. Can - Ege Bamyasi 7) Sonic Youth - Daydream Nation 8) Wolf Parade - Apologies to the Queen Mary 9) Magma - Mekanik Destructiw Kommandoh 10) Radiohead - OK Computer 11) Sigur Ros - Agaetis Byrjun 12) This Heat - Deceit 13) Glenn Branca - The Ascension 14) Joy Division - Closer 15) Boards of Canada - Music Has the Right to Children perfect defined as: without -weak moments -flaws -possibility for improvement in the given structure with -lots and lots of awesome -more awesome -win-ness
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: June 12 2008 at 15:45 |
So if Laplace and I both pretended to like a Marillion album you would hate it? 
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Perfect (Modern) Prog ... does it exist?
