Prog elitists
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=110262
Printed Date: July 20 2025 at 07:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Prog elitists
Posted By: floyd4
Subject: Prog elitists
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 13:27
|
I have friends that call Pink Floyd trash and "entry level music" and say that thrash metal is bad and simple because they can play the guitar riff easily. Obviously none of this makes sense, but if you've said this and still say these things, let me explain a few things. 1. There is no such thing as "entry level" music- Music is not an elite club, every band is on an equal level of being music-makers. 2. Just because a riff is uncomplex, doesn't make a song stupid or simple- Atom Heart Mother had a pretty simple riff, Aqualung has a simple riff, In the Court of the Crimson king has a simple riff. (by riff I mean melody.)
|
Replies:
Posted By: Mascodagama
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 14:09
| ^ Tell said friends to get a life. |
Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 14:12
|
Elitism is bad and it's in every genre. I hate it ------------- Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV. https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325 |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 15:09
|
Your friends are trying to find a niche in something that is entirely personal. They will grow at a different rate and regard than you. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 15:52
|
I shudder at the thought of David Gilmour's exquisite guitar playing being likened to "entry level" music. ------------- https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay |
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 16:18
| I just started a thread about what passes for prog these days. I think some people are more elitist than others. Some people don't consider Rush or Pink Floyd to be prog. I've heard people say the Moody Blues and Kansas aren't prog either. I suppose everyone has their own definition. I'm against musical elitism(or really any kind for that matter). If they think Pink Floyd is entry level I wonder what they think of punk rock. I bet some of them like it (those hypocrites). It makes no sense. Not sure if every musician is equal but at some point it becomes silly to try to say who's better or who's a virtuoso and who isn't etc. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 17:42
If there's something I hate is complexity for the sake of complexity, that's why I can't resist more than 5 minutes of Gentle Giant. Music must be complex only if complexity plays a role in the track and flows naturally, not just to say "Look how difficult to understand is what I play".
------------- 
|
floyd4 wrote:Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 17:54
|
I can't say I've ever understood the stigma surrounding complexity, different types of music with different intentions use different materials ------------- Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV. https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325 |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 18:14
There's no stigma. If I didn't like complexity I would listened disco instead of Prog. But complexity needs a logic, a reason, not just to prove you can do what nobody can or dare. -------------
|
Posted By: Larkstongue41
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 18:51
|
Guys, let's face it... there actually is some kind of an objective 'musical merit hierarchy' and Pink Floyd is nowhere near the top. Now let me explain myself before jumping at me. I get as well as anybody else that music is a subjective thing, but I would argue that it is not entirely subjective. Call me elitist if you want but I sincerely believe it is possible to some extent to classify different musical acts in terms of musical richness. I'm not speaking about "complexity" but about fluid musical development and innovation. Putting aside subjective biases, there is no way on Earth I could put bands like, say King Crimson and Asia on the same level. I think all of you are also able to objectively say that some bands deserve more praise than others. That being said, I'm far from meaning that Pink Floyd is inferior and that it should not be enjoyed as much as other bands. Hell, I listen to some stuff that I consider to be of low musical value but I can still get emotions out of it. I'm certainly among the rare ones on this forum who likes people like Elton John, the Ramones (and punk rock in general), Cage the Elephant
 , Fleetwood Mac and many others.------------- "Larks' tongues. Wrens' livers. Chaffinch brains. Jaguars' earlobes. Wolf nipple chips. Get 'em while they're hot. They're lovely. Dromedary pretzels, only half a denar." |
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 19:01
Gentle Giant is a good example. I actually used to think it was showing off. The band did not see it that way though. They weren't making music to say "Hey, look at us. We can do this and you can't. Na na na." Apparently that wasn't their motivation. I don't know if it was complexity for complexities sake either. For them it served the music. It needs to serve the music. That's the important thing. It's going to be subjective because one person's honest music is someone else's pomposity and pretentious bs.
|
Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 19:22
Oh, I do agree with that, especially the second point. Crimson's prog and Asia's rock, and that's the barebones breakdown. I do rate ELP, Yes, Tull, Crimson, Genesis, (especially) Renaissance, Goblin, Kansas, Todd Rundgren's Utopia and MANY other bands above Floyd. To be frank, if you removed Gilmour from Floyd, they would be a far less interesting band to me, especially since "Comfortably Numb" was originally penned for Dave's first solo. And I like Eloy a helluva lot more than Floyd, anyway. ------------- https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 19:23
One can distinguish between subjective subjectivity and subjective objectivity but subjective objectivity is still subjective. The only way to make it look really objective is to say something like "I think all of us agree that..." and honestly, how strong is that? By the way, I think the distinction is still a useful one and I use it from time to time thinking or saying that "this or that I don't like, but in a review I'd rate it positively because...". Weird but true. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: February 15 2017 at 22:42
I'm sure it wasn't their intention to be complex for the sake of it, and it's not like GG haven't written some genuinely good songs, but I agree with Ivan in terms of how they sound to me. It's like scientific prog rock without much emotion. At times they sound awkward and contrived to me. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 00:57
|
I think there was a thread with exactly the same title. Probably in 2010, more or less. I remember to have actually written that I'm more an etilist than an elitist... ------------- 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: someone_else
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 03:29
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=67101&PID=3648493#3648493" rel="nofollow - Found it , but this thread is locked. Too bad that I cannot think of a proper translation of the word "etilist" which seems to be derived from French
 .------------- 
|
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 03:40
|
And it was 2010 !! I'm surprised by my own memory... ------------- 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: SteveG
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 04:07
|
Just play your friend Ummagumma or Wish You Here and ask him to try to explain his point to you again. ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Modrigue
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 04:13
|
"Impose your chance, hold tight to your happiness and go towards your risk. Looking your way, they’ll follow." René Char (French poet), les Matinaux, 1950
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqf2srRfppHAslEmHBn8QP6d_eoanh0eW" rel="nofollow - My compositions |
Posted By: Jeffro
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 04:55
Sounds like anti-complexity elitism to me
 |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 07:13
|
Where's the mellotron for feck's sake? Ahhh...well then it's not really prawk now is it? ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 08:08
That kid in your avatar is a prog elitist, I can see it developing already........poor kid, the horror!  More crotales please..... -------------   
|
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 08:45
Exactly my thoughts. Thank you.
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 09:05
He likes his prague to be rough, unfiltered and raucous...preferably with bassoons and silver spoons. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Evolver
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 10:00
You should Czech that while he's still young. ------------- Trust me. I know what I'm doing. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 16:04
How do you know that something doesn't have logic and you just don't get it? I mean seriously. Regarding progressive rock it is not unfair to call Pink Floyd an entry level position. It is highly accessible from a musical standpoint and one of the most popular bands ever. I would argue that most highly complex prog is not complex for complexity's sake but rather structurally engineered for those who absolutely love a challenge in their music and wish to treat it as a puzzle that needs to be solved. Some of the most complex albums i didn't get for several listens finally made sense after an effort. So in effect i would call most music lovers lazy in that they don't want to work to understand something. They seek instant gratification. Of course there is absoutely nothing wrong with anyone liking any type of music. I personally love the simplicity of disco and pop but i also crave the challenge of the most complex music there is to be heard. Call me eclectic but band's like Gentle Giant are absolutely brilliant. -------------  https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Merrimack Mike
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 16:09
|
I think part of the problem is that people mix up technical virtuosity and complexity. Just because a piece of music is difficult to play doesn't mean it's musically complex (Exhibit A: Eddie Van Halen's Erruption). On the other side, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that a piece of music that sounds easy to play lacks complexity. (What is or is not easy to play is another argument altogether.) Some listeners--elitist or not--assume that because Floyd's music develops slowly and contains fewer notes than, say, Yes' music, it must not be complex prog. When I listen to DSOTM from start to finish, I'm always blown away by the way the melodies, harmonies, solos and special effects interlock to form an extended musical (and social and philosophical) statement. All that seems pretty complex to me. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 16:24
Right you are about DSOTM but i think that the point of the argument is that it is claimed to be an entry level prog album. I would say it certainly is because it is accessible and catchy. Of course it is still complex and that is why it is classified as progressive rock and not garage rock. The fact of the matter is that ALL prog music is complex in it's own way but there is no doubt that there is a hierarchial order of complexity that begins somewhere around the easy going space rock of Pink Floyd or Porcupine Tree and goes all the way up to crazy weirdness such as Gentle Giant, Gorguts or Gnidrolog's first album. What drives me crazy about these types of arguments is that there seems to be a competitive nature for some of those who like more complex music to demean those who don't. I see a lot of dissing the neo-prog crowd out there by those who like crazy extreme metal and vice versa. I'm lucky for whatever reason in that i like everything. I love the cheesy ballads of Barry Manilow, the Indian ragas of Ravi Shankar, the gansta rap of 2 Pac and also equally lucky that i love every strain of prog. I simply see no reason for anyone to get all hoity toity about music. If you don't understand the emotional context of neo-prog then you haven't spent the time to learn how to appreciate it. Same goes with crazy complexity of Gentle Giant, VDGG or whoever. All i can say is that some need to get off their high horse and just listen instead of blather on about something they don't understand. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: doompaul
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 16:26
| Fragile egos make frightened choices. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 17:31
There really isn't. What you are doing again is substituting complexity for merit (though you claim otherwise) and also attaching a higher value to pure musical innovation than other aspects (like lyrics or production, where DSOTM was far reaching). But it's the final product that listeners listen to. I have said this before but it's not Floyd's fault if they understood better than their prog peers how to make a great studio album. The great prog rock bands would probably leave Floyd in the dust live but making a point while still saying concise was not their strong suit. How many dark compositions have Yes come up with over an entire career ? Now consider that Floyd cover the gamut of emotions, whether it's the cynicism of Money, the anger of Us and Them or the fear and helplessness of Great Gig in the Sky. If it was so easy, why couldn't nobody else think of it in 1973?
|
Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 17:42
|
Objectivity simply doesn't exist, there are only two types of objectivity if you undersdtand this: Scientific = If you sit on this table it WILL break because you are too heavy for the table to support your weight: The table WILL break and Religious dogma = having sex outside of marriage is a sin to put as simple as possible, it's dogmatic to say that anything is objective in art because art at it's very core does not follow that logic and is not a religious belief. Every wonder why people always have and always will disagree over the merits of a piece of music? ------------- Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV. https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325 |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 17:54
So are you saying that because Pink Floyd had its pulse on what the masses could tolerate in the field of music that it is more sophisticated than music that only musicians could understand? I don't think you understand that those of us who are arguing against a hierarchy of prog do not dislike Pink Floyd. They are one of my favorite bands of all time just like all of you. However it is important to remember that there is music above and beyond the call of duty and just because you struck a chord with the masses (mostly non-musicians) doesn't mean your music is the most complex. Pink Floyd will always rule for what they accomplished but can you honestly say they are the most complex music you can think of? ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 19:05
I am simply saying complexity is not and cannot be the only thing that decides this hierarchy. This is not the case even in classical or jazz music, so why would it be that way in prog? The most acclaimed jazz musicians aren't necessarily the ones who made the most complex jazz. Rather, they tend to be the most influential and well loved ones. Floyd ticks both those boxes. Maybe within prog, they aren't as influential as KC or Yes but overall their influence is undeniable. Heck, if complexity was what decided the hierarchy within prog, then Magma or Gentle Giant would be much more highly regarded than Genesis and that is not the case.
|
Posted By: Larkstongue41
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 19:10
|
^ Be careful. You're mixing popularity with prestige there. ------------- "Larks' tongues. Wrens' livers. Chaffinch brains. Jaguars' earlobes. Wolf nipple chips. Get 'em while they're hot. They're lovely. Dromedary pretzels, only half a denar." |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 19:14
lol, no, I am not. And I don't need to be 'careful' because I have seen this exact same discussion hundreds of times on this forum.
Pray, where is the proof that Gentle Giant commands more prestige than Floyd, except in the heads of a few prog elitists? Mind you, I love Gentle Giant, maybe about the same as Floyd but these discussions are funny. If you call it objective, then it has to be something demonstrable and not just your opinion. A musician's opinion of it may have more worth than a total newb to prog but that's about it and it's still just an opinion since musicians are not immune to bias either. |
Posted By: Larkstongue41
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 19:18
|
I don't mean to pass off as rude, but you must really mindlessly listen to music if you truly believe that Gentle Giant and Floyd stand on the same level composition-wise.
------------- "Larks' tongues. Wrens' livers. Chaffinch brains. Jaguars' earlobes. Wolf nipple chips. Get 'em while they're hot. They're lovely. Dromedary pretzels, only half a denar." |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 19:33
OK, then. What is your explicit definition of "complexity?" Also site the hundreds of examples discussed on this site. I'm failing to locate them all. What in the world does the term "prestige" have to do with complexity? ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 19:37
 ------------- Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV. https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325 |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 19:40
^ WHAAAAT? Didn't Beyonce just cover that?  ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 19:48
|
What this boils down to is how many listens does an album take to understand where it is coming from. Pink Floyd is one of the most popular bands of all time because they were able to mix prog, pop and rock elements together in totally unique ways. That was a great thing. I love PF albums that many hate because they weren't accessible enough. DSOTM was brilliant in that it managed to go to the central point where EVERYONE could get it. That's brilliant to be assured but not the height of complexity. If you are having trouble with that term try comparing high school algebra to advanced calculus. Music is a form of mathematics and unfortunately requires the same discipline of graduating from one form to the next. Like i said previously in some sort of way, you really need to go through a series of upgrades in your programming to understand music that is intended for advanced audiences. Let me make this perfectly clear: WE LOVE PINK FLOYD! WE WORSHIP ROGER WATERS! WE LOVE DAVID GILMOUR! ALL OF THEM! That's not what the discussion is about. Elitism is a valid term. It is reserved for unthinkable heights of advancement and despite the elements of jealousy nevertheless exists for those willing to work their friggin arses off to understand. It's the ultimate payoff in music if you have the gonads to go there
------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 20:00
|
There's nothing wrong with elitism. The root is 'elite' and it's a very good word. Hierarchies of artistic merit can be decided on the basis of complexity alone, though it's not likely anyone will be truly so single-minded in this fashion. And they can be criticized for being so single-minded. It depends on what one regards as more desirable traits. Innovation is an important trait, and Pink Floyd leaves many bands in the dust with this (but that's also a sort of elitism, and, as I would say, not a bad thing either). So, one can most certainly value complexity more than innovation. For me it would be the other way around, perhaps. There is an array of different sorts of innovation too. I have no problem with people putting relative values on different bands. Calling it snobbery because you disagree is being exceedingly dismissive (but we all have to be dismissive about something - it's just a question of at what point when and where). When you talk to someone and find out what they value, you find they put a premium on this or that that you don't rate as high. You can certainly reject it, but you can also find it interesting in its own way. ------------- A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now) |
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: February 16 2017 at 21:51
I guess that's why I loved their first two albums so much, while what I have heard since then became gradually less enjoyable. Those first two ones were warmer and with beautiful interesting tunes... after Octopus it's just weird noise to me, or at least, not enjoyable. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 06:39
It was an obvious hyperbole. Secondly, prestige was a wrinkle another poster introduced into the topic to artificially devalue popularity, so you may please take that up with him. I have no idea either what is the relevance of prestige.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 06:53
It is not at all clear that 'pure' prog is advanced calculus to Floyd's high school algebra. Where is Gentle Giant's Ninth Symphony-eque magnum opus? They are also ultimately rock songs. And I don't mean just in terms of genre, but the scope. There is nothing that GG's complexity helps them express that Pink Floyd cannot. On the contrary, I would argue that Pink Floyd are able to express more moods than GG even with their relative lack of complexity. Music may have a mathematical element but it is not just maths. If you want to reduce it to that, that's your look out, but don't try to present it as some sort of objective truth that you can impose on me. FYI I have GG's albums among many other prog rock bands so I am sorry but I do 'get' the music contrary to your condescension and have heard them more times than I can possibly keep count of. But the way you have attempted to define hierarchy in music itself is extremely narrow in scope and seems to drill down on what interests you (and which you seem to presume should be all that should interest anyone else). For example, when classical compositions have vocals, they are technically unimpeachable and performed at a level out of the reach of ordinary singers. The same certainly cannot be said of GG's vocals. It's nobody's fault if they chose to be satisfied with the mediocrity of Derek Shulman. It is possible for a listener to ignore his vocals and focus on the music, which is what I do. But you cannot argue that it is not a valid complaint for a listener to criticise Shulman's vocals because it's there and it sucks. So, holistically speaking, GG is not high level art any more than Floyd because it is deeply flawed (whereas Floyd at least circa DSOTM/WYWH were, for lack of a better word, limited) and this goes for most prog/rock (either flawed and/or limited). I specifically bring up vocals because the common excuse made on behalf prog is that being instrument-oriented music, it doesn't need strong vocals but this begs the question why classical or jazz find use for vocal virtuosos. And that is just my opinion and you will have to live with it.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 06:56
No, you are not rude because of your choice of words (which I frankly couldn't care less about as they say more about you than me) but because you don't even bother to read properly. What part of "loving GG about the same as Floyd" do you not get? If you don't understand the difference between describing my 'level' of personal appreciation for a band as against attempting to rate the level of bands, you are better off not throwing around words like 'objective' since you don't even know the difference between objective and subjective. |
Posted By: Shiny globe
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 07:36
Please PF fans who have stopped listening to GG for that very reason make yourself known!
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 07:42
And what's that supposed to mean?
|
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 08:01
The title of the fifth track off GG's debut album, I guess  .-------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 08:02
lol, nice way of putting it.
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 08:04
|
Posted By: Shiny globe
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 08:29
| Former GG fans having become PF fans for the quoted reason would prove you right... |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 08:41
No and besides there is no right or wrong. Maybe the lot of you struggle with this ambiguity but I have no problem with it. I don't HAVE to stop listening to GG and become a PF fan. I am able to enjoy both perfectly fine and maybe that's because I am more concerned with the enjoyment thereof and less with whom to place on what pedestal.
|
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 08:43
I think that "former GG fans" may favour PF over GG nowadays - or vice versa - but it seems unlikely to me that they stop listening to GG at once, as if they switch from supporting one football club to another. I have liked PF for almost 45 years now and GG came years later, but I still listen to both bands, even though PF is often quite simple in terms of composition while GG have experienced far more classical training and are masters of complex melodies full of counterpoint. But I am not impressed more by GG because they are more complex, or by PF because they are less (simplicity may in the end be more impressive than complexity), it's just that both bands resonate with me quite well.
-------------
|
Posted By: Shiny globe
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 08:46
I disagree. "There is nothing that GG's complexity helps them express that Pink Floyd cannot." is either right or wrong.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 08:50
It is not because it is an opinion. I clearly said it was my opinion. I cannot be arsed to affix imo to each and every sentence, so suit yourself. Further, it is not connected to your proposition at all. Even if suppose GG truly cannot express emotions any better than PF, the way they express it may still appeal more to GG fans. Or less to PF fans. So on and so forth. Even if a chef recommends a dish he claims is the best in the world to me, it is entirely possible I will stick to my comfort zone and not lap it up.
|
Posted By: Shiny globe
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 08:57
No...
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 08:59
"And that is my opinion". I wrote that in the post which you responded to, did I not? If you don't want to read, don't react. There is no obligation to and the sky won't fall on your head if you don't.
|
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 09:10
|
What we easily forget in a forum in which the most popular area is polls is that music is not about competition but about communication and exploration. I'm all for being experimental and open minded and this also makes me open to musicians exploring mathematical complexity of composition and what's in it. On the other hand, musicians may try to find out what happens if they make their music ultra-simple or use free structures or focus on sound rather than "compositions" (all of which give some listeners food to feel smug about what "elite" stuff they're listening to, I know what I'm talking about ). What musicians try out may fail but even failure of an experiment should normally advance music as a whole. Then the term "failure" is always relative to the listener, relative to communication between musician and listener, and obviously some music may fail to communicate to me but may succeed to communicate to somebody else. But there's no competitive element to it, at least not "by nature". Some musicians and listeners may put a competitive element into it saying that GG is more complex and less accessible than PF and therefore somehow music by/for an elite, but ultimately this strikes me as "non-musical" in that it doesn't have to do with the sound produced and how it resonates with any specific listener. Also I'm all for trying out less well known bands after having found out about a famous one like Pink Floyd, in which case indeed Pink Floyd is something of an entry, but this has nothing to do with being "entry level"; the notion of level is extra-musical, as is the notion of elite. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 09:13
Well said and I couldn't agree more.
|
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 09:26
I'll keep this short. You're right that it's your opinion and i totally respect anyone's opinion. But are you a musician? If you were you would understand the elements into music construction that can clearly be ranked hierarchically by complexity including but not limited to time signature deviations, polyrhythmic assembly, disharmony and dissonance, compositional meandering etc. Did i say that any particular band is better than another because of this? Absolutely not. It's all about subjective tastes but as far as comprehending the complexity of music can be measured ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Shiny globe
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 09:27
"There is nothing that GG's complexity helps them express that Pink Floyd cannot." feels similar to me to posting "1+1=x" Definitely not a statement offered as an "opinion" even if 15 lines later you call everything you post an opinion. x=46 |
Posted By: CapnBearbossa
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 12:48
|
Frank Zappa said, "writing about music is like dancing about architecture". That's because it is often difficult to come to an understanding of someone else's musical tastes through the indirect mechanism of describing music in human language. It isn't always true, of course; people can find meaning and mutual understanding in discussions of music. It's when you introduce the idea an elite form of art (with all the implications of things-other-than-that being inferior) that you force devolution of proceedings into an "us and them" style discourse: Prog vs. Punk , Classical (or Jazz) vs. Everything Else -- you name it, it's been done. So it's been done to death, but the Gentle Giant and Pink Floyd argument is a "soulful vs. mathematical" debate. Not that GG is purely the one and PF is purely the other, but in a way they heavily embody those extremes. If you're looking for the one aspect and feel like excluding the other one, you will gravitate to the one pole and away from the other. Personally I've found joy in listening to the music of both groups. Maybe not within the same fifteen minutes, but you know ... as mood dictates. If you find yourself involved in too many fights to be comfortable, a wise man once said, "do the opposite". ... and the opposite of elitism is open-mindedness. Remember also that progressive music ( the reason we're ostensibly here ) is synonymous with doing new things, and hearing and opening yourself to a variety of influences. You cannot be purist / elitist about prog, it's a contradiction in terms. ------------- Will higher mighty force redeem the one who dropped the moral compass, failed to fulfill the dream? -Ian Anderson |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 14:49
P.S. You incorrectly use 'purist' and 'elitist' as synonym. They are not. I treated them as distinct in my post, whatever that does to the detriment of our communication. ------------- A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now) |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 17:52
I am well aware of say GG's use of time sig changes, dissonance among many other things. But where I completely disagree with you is in using these building blocks alone to place one band above the other in a hierarchy. No, to me, the effect that is achieved by these tools is also important. And I don't mean by this that I have to like the effect in order to rank the band higher in the hierarchy. For example, I would have no problem in ranking VDGG (and I am no fan of their music to be clear) above Floyd in the hierarchy because they are well rounded - the musicians are outstanding, the music is evidently much more complex than Floyd and the singer is one of the greatest in prog. VDGG seem to genuinely aspire to a higher aesthetic. It seems from reading what the band themselves had to say that GG too did so but imo they eventually failed to get there and only used a much more roundabout way to get to the same effect as Floyd. At least among the big name prog rock bands, I don't know of any other that can approach VDGG's standard except Lake-KC and that was just two albums at the end of the day. So I wouldn't want to make that the baseline by which Floyd is decided to be 'only' entry level prog. Yes, it is a gateway prog band because it is easier for people not exposed to prog to get into. But that is ultimately the difference between them and most of the well known prog rock bands - one of accessibility and (relative) inaccessibility. Not many prog rock bands have actually used these tools to create music itself of a higher level. "It's only rock and roll".
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 17:53
And since when is 'express' a tangible concept that can be described objectively? Again, pl understand the full import of the sentence. If you want to continue this semiotic nonsense, I am out.
|
Posted By: CapnBearbossa
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 19:07
I really intended to argue that exclusionist tactics are counterproductive and self-defeating in the area of music appreciation. Is is elitist to make that point? It doesn't seem so, to me. I think of Progressive Rock's approach as having less to do with adhering to a fixed standard and more to do with moving toward universality. It's a philosophy that sees music as a wider framework of rules in which to work than most genre forms of music operate. Prog is a non-genre form, if you like. One in which, for example, celtic folk and blues influences can be combined together -- without blurring either one beyond recognizability -- to make something new, unique and stylistically cohesive, like Jethro Tull's Stand Up album. If I could maybe point to an analog, in the area of languages. The Academie Francaise is a group of purist scholars who want to preserve the French language by excluding influences from outside. The reality is the wider world, in which dialects like Cajun and Louisiana Creole French exist and are free to borrow (within a looser set of rules) from other cultural and linguistic sources. My original post was in the spirit of, hey, let's learn to appreciate both the pristine and proper French (like those pure forms of Blues you mentioned) as well as the patois - that is, the strains of blues you can sometimes hear in prog alongside other influences. ------------- Will higher mighty force redeem the one who dropped the moral compass, failed to fulfill the dream? -Ian Anderson |
Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 19:16
 ------------- Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV. https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325 |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 20:23
|
I am well aware of say GG's use of time sig changes, dissonance among many other things. But where I completely disagree with you is in using these building blocks alone to place one band above the other in a hierarchy. No, to me, the effect that is achieved by these tools is also important. And I don't mean by this that I have to like the effect in order to rank the band higher in the hierarchy. For example, I would have no problem in ranking VDGG (and I am no fan of their music to be clear) above Floyd in the hierarchy because they are well rounded - the musicians are outstanding, the music is evidently much more complex than Floyd and the singer is one of the greatest in prog. VDGG seem to genuinely aspire to a higher aesthetic. It seems from reading what the band themselves had to say that GG too did so but imo they eventually failed to get there and only used a much more roundabout way to get to the same effect as Floyd. At least among the big name prog rock bands, I don't know of any other that can approach VDGG's standard except Lake-KC and that was just two albums at the end of the day. So I wouldn't want to make that the baseline by which Floyd is decided to be 'only' entry level prog. Yes, it is a gateway prog band because it is easier for people not exposed to prog to get into. But that is ultimately the difference between them and most of the well known prog rock bands - one of accessibility and (relative) inaccessibility. Not many prog rock bands have actually used these tools to create music itself of a higher level. "It's only rock and roll". [/QUOTE]The effect IMHO is irrelevant. I'm not talking about personal responses to music but rather detectable hierarchical complexities. My only point is that not everyone understands complexities because they haven't conditioned themselves to understand them. There is often a cry of "emotional" disregard for music and emotions like intellect can evolve and be taken to higher levels. I'm simply tired of hearing the argument that because someone doesn't understand where certain music is coming from, then it must be "elitist." Music IS a form of mathematics so to claim it's not is to have a philosophical deficiency of understanding. What i have discovered over the years is that developing your intellect has a proportional relationship to devloping your emotional response if you strive to keep such things in balance. What i once deemed as "noise" or "incomprehensible" has been revealed to be ingenious. This happened because i realized there were greater powers in the universe and that they had latched onto things out of my reality. Denial only prevents evolution into these experiences. Just my 2cents worth. I have to admit that i'm obsessed with understanding things that seem incomprehensible but the effort has paid off ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 20:36
Fair enough but you would be well served to stop presuming so much. I know enough about music to recognise a Bach bourree or a Coltrane/Miles reference when I hear it. And that's a good enough 'level' (which seems to be your favourite word) to judge most prog rock music.
Have you considered that perhaps a lot of prog rock isn't so unimpeachable that it would be impossible to like some non prog music more than prog even if you did understand what prog rock tries to accomplish? Give me one good reason why I am supposed to rate an Innervisions over Acquiring the Taste?
I said it is not just maths. There is a difference between that and "claiming it is not a form of mathematics". On that note, I find that, like your comrade in prog elitism, you are too impatient to actually read and comprehend what I have said and draw false inferences, a habit that I find both disrespectful and irritating as f**k, esp when the person doing so claims to possess a higher level of appreciation (which sadly doesn't allow him to read properly, apparently!). So I am out. I am unfollowing this thread forthwith. You may respond if you are particularly obsessed with the pleasure of having the last word. Otherwise, don't bother, I am not going to read it. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 20:59
|
^ You can't ask a question in part 2 and then condemn someone for responding in part 3. Illogical. Au contraire mon fraire. I'm the most patient person in the world and taking your words at face value. Maybe you having articulated your words to the level which is universally translated as the words you mean? I have already addressed the issues at hand and you seem oblivious. Music and all of sound comprehension is indeed mathematical. Our emotional response is a different level of intelligence and the discrepencies are a clear indicator of how in harmony with certain aspects of the universe we resonate. That includes not only living in the here and now but being able to channel emotional responses from a certain point in time that may not resonate throughout in contemporary history. You may not read this but others will. I don't think you're diggin' where i'm coming from so -- never mind ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 21:36
Exactly what people need to get their heads around, music by very definition is mathematical. The technicalities of of soundwaves, inter-note relationships, manipulations of melodic fragments (inversions for example), aren't a contradiction of emotion. Emotion is the way we interpret the sounds we hear, even the most complex music ever written will have an emotional impact; just as the most slow-paced minimalist piece will also have an emotional impact  ------------- Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV. https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325 |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: February 17 2017 at 23:10
Yes, yes it is. Quite. You distinguish yourself from elitism, so you're hypothetically going to try to convince someone who considers Prog Rock elitist that you're not elitist because you (may hypothetically) like Pink Floyd in addition to Gentle Giant? Sorry, that won't fly with anyone who holds that view of Prog. I'm really taking issue with the use of the word 'elitist'. Many have made the point that there are many ways to measure musical merit. That is true. I embrace that. What many in this thread have missed is that there are many ways to measure elitism. If you think you are taking a position that is not elitist, I assure you that there is another perspective out there in the void which says that you are. I have heard/seen this word used over and over as an insult to be hurled. I say either accept and use the word proudly without negative connotation or ditch it because it applies to everyone in one fashion or another. One doesn't have to apologize for what they value because what they value makes them supposedly "elitist". Simply educate them about the qualities you elevate, or educate yourself about the qualities they may differently elevate. If someone values mathematics of music over all other aspects, it seems to me they can do that quite freely even if you don't. There is something called Math Rock after all.
). Steve Hackett, of whom I am obviously a big fan, I think, would actually describe Prog as primarily being about breaking down genre boundaries, as you described. I do have a high regard for what he's done in this regard, however he is also well known for bringing novel sounds out of a guitar, and this explains not simply whether I appreciate Steve Hackett, but more meaningfully, the primary reason why, a reason that may be different from another Hackett fan.
P.S. Sorry for the shifting pronouns. I wrote this on an iPhone! ------------- A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now) |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 06:12
Well said  ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Kepler62
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 06:58
|
I dunno. I like Ketchup on French toast. I like King Crimson. I eat and listen to what I like. I don't understand the point of this thread. To each his own if you want to confine yourself to music that is only written in 11/9 then do it. If you want to do crystal meth and light yourself on fire then do it. I honestly don't worry about what anyone else does. I happen to like Star Trek (TOS ) but hate all the others. So what. Do your own thing man.
|
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 07:03
|
^ Ketchup on French toast? What's wrong with you? ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: CapnBearbossa
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 09:02
You make many good points sir. I shall take them in and remember to be more secure in my elitism, in the future. (Good call, by the way . I have been elitist all my life, though I love to deny it in print. Otherwise I would not be such a fan of progressive rock, in all probability.) Also, let the record show that I, too, am a fan of Steve Hackett. ------------- Will higher mighty force redeem the one who dropped the moral compass, failed to fulfill the dream? -Ian Anderson |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 09:04
I'd disagree, and I think that this would be a very interesting topic for discussion. Obviously it doesn't only depend on what music "really" is but also what constitutes mathematics for you. Talking about sound waves, for example, waves are everywhere, if one would say that "all waves are mathematics", pretty much everything would be mathematics, and then there wouldn't be much in saying that "music is mathematics"; certainly one couldn't build an argument regarding hierarchies, complexity etc. on it. The issue then rather would be to what extent all nature and culture is mathematics, and this doesn't have much to do with music in particular. I'd rather say that sound waves are mathematics to the extent to which there is conscious mathematical construction of sound wave structure, and conscious perception of it. This does exist, certainly electronic music pioneers constructed sounds in a mathematical way, but usually mathematics is sidestepped when producing and perceiving sounds, and to the extent to which it is, there isn't much to be gained from posterior mathematical analysis. Surely conscious mathematical construction and appreciation of structure happens on the level of composition, some aspects of music can understood in this way, but this isn't ubiquituous either. Much of free jazz and also some of avantgarde electronic and sound based music is not composed in a way that could reasonably called mathematical, and neither is it heard in this way. Chances are that posterior mathematical analysis can find something in most music (rhythm for starters), but on the other hand I also believe that there's a huge amount of stuff in most music that was neither constructed nor perceived in a mathematical manner (unless one takes the boring view that all nature and culture is mathematical of course), nor does mathematics contribute a lot to the understanding of why/how it "works" (or it doesn't). I'd state that, although I'm somewhat interested in structure and mathematics in music and I don't see a contradiction to emotionality there either, the majority of what I am passionate about in music is not mathematical, in the sense that it was neither constructed using mathematical principles, nor do I apply such principles when listening, nor do I see much scope for a mathematical explanation of it (one could argue that mathematics works subconsciously but as long as this cannot be backed up by convincing mathematical analysis, I don't see much merit in this statement). And surely it's not mathematics "by definition"! Music is for the ears, mathematics isn't. |
Posted By: Tillerman88
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 12:40
Hey guys, still just as a Prog newbie, as such so far from bringing something of interest here, I just can't help but pointing to the strong intellectual appeal these minimalist pieces might have brought to whom composed them........ but I wonder what they might mean to me as a listener..........gonna be glad as well if they translate to me as joy, folly, or longing, sadness, anguish, anxiety, pain....... gonna find it out asap!
|
Posted By: Shiny globe
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 16:08
In that regard, "There's no feel I get from GGs more complex music that I don't get when listening to PF" would not read like you're pretending to be able to determine a band's potential on any listener.
To me you're being "out" since the beginning of our exchange anyway.
|
Posted By: Shiny globe
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 16:11
Ah here's how they've made it sound
|
Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 16:26
|
I prefer Elite progists. ------------- -- Frank Swarbrick Belief is not Truth. |
Posted By: Thatfabulousalien
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 16:44
Cool, someone recognized Ferneyhough!  Not my favorite composer but he's damn awesome! My point in posting that anyway was that intricate polyphony is more complex then simply playing something in a fast tempo. A lot of prog (not all) is not as complex as we make it out, but it is a virtuoso subgenre in general ------------- Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV. https://www.soundcloud.com/user-322914325 |
Posted By: floyd4
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 18:17
|
I asked one of my friends why he doesn't like Pink Floyd and he said they were "too experimental" Seriously? Isn't the point of prog to be experimental?< id="_npfido" ="applicationpfido" height="0">
|
Posted By: floyd4
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 18:26
| Also I find it weird that people judge Pink Floyd by albums after Echoes. The complexity of them was at a high point with Atom Heart Mother Suite.< id="_npfido" ="applicationpfido" height="0"> |
Posted By: Tillerman88
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 19:09
Been trying but no way...... just can't find any math on sound/music comprehension  Nevertheless , I reckon that many musicians don't even know the intrinsic use of basic math rules when they are playing music (and also composing, for sure.) And as a matter of fact , many mathematicians are fond of music (if not most of them, I wonder), but this doesn't mean that most musicians are fond of mathematics.... In other words, there are many musicians who are good in music but not in math. Music is a lot more than notes conforming to mathematical patterns and formulas, indeed music is exhilarating because of the intricacies of the patterns that occurs. But.... whether or not these patterns resemble math has no relevance to many musicians... More often than not, musicians are inclined to practice music because of the wonders and awe that they feel for music even if they are not aware of the math that is in music.
|
Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 21:17
Because those are the Floyd albums that every knows. ------------- when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 21:24
It doesn't matter if a musician understands what s/he is doing. The mathetmatical part is inherit in our nature and doesn't have to be formally studied to achieve ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 21:27
This article explains where i'm coming from although i don't disagree with your analysis http://www.vancouversun.com/Entertainment/interesting+connection+between+math+music/1473881/story.html" rel="nofollow - The interesting connection between math and music From the rich complexity of the Bach fugues to the catchy songs of the Beatles, music and mathematics overlap in all kinds of interesting ways. Beyond the basic uses of mathematics in music theory and notation (such as chords, time signatures, or dotted half-notes representing a count of three), music has also been the source of research in many areas of mathematics such as abstract algebra, set theory and number theory. Would you believe that research has shown that certain pieces of music end up being more popular and mainstream due to their ‘mathematical’ structure? For example, Pachelbel’s Canon in D — sure to be a top choice for brides again this summer — is said to reach the masses because of its repetitive structure, a trend very apparent in music today. No doubt the amazing popularity of hip-hop music, with its rhythmic beats and looping breaks, is partially due to our innate mathematical need for rhythm and patterns. Jason Brown, professor of mathematics at Dalhousie University, used a mathematical tool called a “Fourier Transform” to analyse and solve the decades-old mystery of which instruments and notes actually make up that wild opening chord of the Beatles’ song A Hard Day’s Night. Hint: it’s more than George Harrison’s 12-string guitar. Brown is now using his sound-wave analysis of Beatles music as inspiration for new songs. (Check out his piece A Million Whys online to see how it’s working.) In the field of cognitive research, the mind-body connections between music and mathematics have fuelled continuing debate surrounding the so-called “Mozart Effect,” which was first popularized in the early 1990s. In some studies, test subjects performed better on spatial-temporal tasks — such as visualizing a boat in one’s mind and then building it with Lego pieces — immediately following exposure to a Mozart sonata. This might be explained by the fact that the same parts of the brain are active when listening to Mozart as when engaged in spatial-temporal reasoning. Dr. Frances Rauscher of the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh has been heavily involved in research on music and cognitive performance. She gives far more credit to the active playing of instruments than simply passive listening. In her 2006 article published in the Educational Psychologist, she explains that “young children provided with instrumental instruction score significantly higher on tasks measuring spatial-temporal cognition, hand-eye coordination and arithmetic.” Part of this is due to the amount of overlap between music skills and math skills. For example, Rauscher says the part-whole concept that is necessary for understanding fractions, decimals and per cents is highly relevant in understanding rhythm. “A literate musician is required to continually mentally subdivide beat to arrive at the correct interpretation of rhythmic notation,” she writes. “The context has changed, but the structure of the problem is essentially the same as any part-whole problem posed mathematically.” The visual and spatial skills that a child exercises every time he practises an instrument and plays music strengthen his mental-physical connection. The link between the physical practice of music and strong mathematical abilities are demonstrated in studies that show that kids who play a musical instrument can perform more complex arithmetical operations than those who do not play an instrument. The slow work of practice, the attention to detail and the discipline it takes to learn an instrument are also excellent preparation for the practice involved in building strong math skills. The math-music connection shines in the field of education as well. Research shows that children who learn their academics through music and dance retain the information better than children who learn the same concepts by verbal instruction. You may have noticed this yourself if your children are in a school participating in the Learning Through The Arts program established by the Royal Conservatory of Music. In LTTA, teachers and professional artists collaborate on lessons using art, dance, story and song to explore math, science and other subject areas. So the next time you find yourself wanting to get up and dance to the music, remember that those pleasurable patterns of rhythm, beat, harmony and melody are actually embodied mathematical expressions. Next week: When you think about careers that use math, do you get stumped right after “accountant”? In next week’s column, Dr. Gupta will highlight ten careers which require top-notch quantitative skills. I guarantee you’ll be surprised! Arvind Gupta is a father of three, a mathematician and scientific director of MITACS, a national research network focused on connecting university-based math researchers with companies and other organizations to solve real-world challenges. For more information on MITACS, visit www.mitacs.ca. Arvind Gupta answers your math questions Lee Woods This excellent series on math is long overdue! I have noticed with alarm my teenage daughter and her friends seem to be squeaking by in their math classes. They seem to believe that math is for boys only and they "dumb" down constantly. They all want to be famous like Beyoncé and don't seem to understand the importance of math and science. In our cult of celebrity worship, this attitude is encouraged in school and society. I want my daughter and all young women to pursue the careers of their choice but not all these girls are going to be rich movie stars and rock stars. These are the same women that have trouble counting out change in their part-time retail jobs even when the cash register shows them the exact amount. How can parents get their kids able to function at the standard level required in the real world while working towards their dream jobs? I am very worried about my daughter's future and worry she will be left behind. How can I get my daughter interested in math before it is too late? Hi Lee, I'm glad you see the need to promote math, science, technology, and engineering with young women. And as you are aware, keeping your teenage daughter's interest and confidence in math is crucial. We all know what a big difference a little intrinsic motivation can make. As a start, make it personal and find out what careers interest your daughter. Take a look at the math websites we posted with the March 31 “Math and Gender” article like GirlsareIT, Girlsgotech, and girlstart on the Vancouver Sun website and show your daughter some new possibilities while surfing together. You will find career descriptions, bios of professional women, and tips for parents on how to encourage their daughters to pursue math, science, technology, and engineering. Locally, Science World has a program called Opening the Door. This is a networking event for students in Grades 10-12 who are interested careers in science, technology, engineering or mathematics. The program provides students with the opportunity to meet professional scientists, engineers, technologists and technicians who work in a variety of fields. The key is to connect kids with real people who have careers which use math and science. Science World also has a program called Scientists & Innovators in the Schools, which brings engineers technologists and technicians into B.C. schools to speak to children in Grades K to 12 about their research. Perhaps talk to your daughter's math teacher about inviting a local scientist or business person who uses math in their job into the classroom. Another site that I came across that looks fabulous is the Expanding Your Horizons conference network in the United States. They provide support to professional women in sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics, who want to plan and deliver a conference to encourage young women like your daughter to keep up their math and science studies for future opportunities. Suggest that your daughter search “Expanding Your Horizons” in YouTube to see how exciting the possibilities are. Also very timely — next week's Math Matters article will reveal 10 fabulous careers that use math. And they are not the usual ones which you would think of! On a daily basis, do all that you can to encourage and help her be successful in math at school. Check with her teacher to see what support you can help provide at home. You could also take a look back at our original Math Matters article about why we all need math. Don't despair and keep looking for that hook — that career or situation that will show her the connection between math and her future. Math tips for parents Are those struggles getting your child to practise her instrument every day worth your trouble? The simple answer: Yes! Not only is your child developing her ability to make beautiful music, but she is also strengthening her mind for mathematical thinking. Keith Devlin in his book, The Math Gene, points out that musicians and mathematicians alike both use abstract notation to describe on paper the patterns that exist in their mind. A trained musician reading musical symbols moves straight to “hearing” in his mind the sounds that the symbols represent. Similarly, a trained mathematician reading mathematical symbols moves directly to think about the patterns that the symbols represent. It’s not surprising then that medical imaging shows the brains of professional musicians when listening to music are similar to the images of brain activity of professional mathematicians solving a mathematical problem. Although the imaging of amateur musicians and mathematicians has not always shown the use of similar circuits in the brain, the potential for mathematical and musical neural pathways to complement each other exists if your child keeps practising that guitar! Whether your child practises and composes music daily, or just enjoys dancing around the house to music, providing the right music for the right purpose can help your child learn in general but potentially excel at mathematics. Play music in the background during a lesson or homework session. Music can activate us emotionally, mentally and physically to help us remember the learning experience and information. Music can also create a highly focused learning state in which large amounts of content information can be processed and learned. Baroque music, such as that composed by Bach or Handel that is 50 to 80 beats per minute creates an atmosphere of focus that leads students into deep concentration in the alpha brain wave state. Learning vocabulary, memorizing facts or reading to this music is highly effective. On the other hand, energizing Mozart music assists in holding attention during sleepy times of day and helps students stay alert while reading or working on projects. When helping your child with memorizing facts or figures, be they mathematical or not, try putting the information to rhythm or rhyme. These catchy, musical elements will provide a hook to help her recall those important details in stressful situations. These songs, chants, poems, and raps will improve the memory of content facts and details. Dr. Arvind Gupta ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Kepler62
Date Posted: February 18 2017 at 23:07
| Wow! You guys have a lot of time. I can tell that you don't listen to Hank Williams. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 02:27
And where the fu*k were you guys when I was getting my arse kicked for having the temerity to suggest that harmony was mathematical?  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 02:55
|
^What sort of boob would argue against any form of resonance having an associate mathematical principal to explain it? Hell, such math is used in the determination of measurements of materials for instrument building. That's why smart people are the ones who do it for crying out loud. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Kepler62
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 03:00
|
" Every single aspect of music can be represented by numbers. From the organisation of of movements in a whole symphony, down through the patterns of pitch and rhythm that make up the melodies and harmonies, the dynamics that shape the performance, all the way down to the timbres of the notes themselves, their harmonics, and the way they change over time, in short, all the elements of a noise that distinquish between the sound of one person piping on a pccolo and another one thumping on a drum - all of these things can be expressed n patterns and hierarchies of numbers." From Douglas Adams' scifi/fantasy novel Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency I loved the books but the four part series sucked. I studied mathematics in University and remembered this passage from the first Dirk Gently book. Just thought it was well put.
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 03:07
|
7+9 = Prog 11+5 = Ska Punk 10+6 = Klezmer 16 = is the basic outcome of all music - the way you reach that number determines whether you prefer Kiss over Diamanda Galas. Some stories have been told of certain people that reach 17. Such marvellous personas have gone and left what we mortals know as music and now only listen to the earth's magnetic field, shifts in oak bark and the Peruvian fighting frog's triumphant morse hymn. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 05:22
And there was me thinking the answer was 42 ------------- 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: Shiny globe
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 07:17
I'd become/remain full of conceit if that were true, but the infos came from using https://www.tineye.com" rel="nofollow - TinEye links after having saved the image on my PC... I wonder what it takes to see how all parts written into details and carefully played make a difference compared to same sections improvised freely...Or what maximum number of lines played together allows to tell which player is fully into it ot not. Maybe it's the more fun when they play poorly (I beg for forgiveness for posting this)!!!! I dig the enthousiasm and sense of paradoxal freedom of making oneself a complete slave to a project like the one of growing enormous scores.
|
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 08:23
I love Hank Williams music although i usually prefer covers by Tuvan throat singing nuns who worship Metallica on Thurdays and Kraftwerk on second Wednesdays of odd numbered months ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 08:26
I must be on to something! I've really gotten into Bolivian guard dogs' howling with faint traces of salsa while accompanied by the ambience of hundreds of strips of packing tape attatched to a clothes hanger whizzing and whining in the wind of Gulf storms on the Mississippi coast ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 08:39
You should really learn how to unleash the power of the chicken. Buckethead learned how to do it and you can do. First you have to learn how to yodel this song and then you're in the club ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 08:44
|
siLLy puPPy: That's all interesting and fair enough. However, there is a point about what comes first. Mathematics as a tool for modelling and analysis of real world phenomena is extremely versatile, and its qualities extend beyond just analysing the phenomena, it can also stimulate creativity. But this doesn't mean that what can be analysed with some benefit by mathematics *is* mathematics originally. I'm fine with this statement:
Some other statements in the article seem to rather have been bent in the direction the author wants to promote:
No, I wouldn't. Obviously he writes this because there is a study pointing in this direction, but I smell a confusion between correlation and causality here; it's not clear to me how the causality claim in the "due to" could be justified by observation, and as a statistician having collaborated in the analysis of such studies (admittedly not on this specific topic), I have seen a good amount of overstatements of this kind that could not be justified.
I'm not aware that math and science has played any role in making Beyonce successful, as much as I respect her as a musician.
Math is a way to describe them. This doesn't mean they *are* math (unless you think that everything is math); and hardly anything of the list of connections given before actually serves as an argument that they are. Just like not everything that can be described by language is just language. |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: February 19 2017 at 09:11
|
^ YES! I do think EVERYTHING is math. That is the point and the fact that some of us like one type of music over the other is a result of how mathematical our brains are. The fact Beyonce is popular is because most of the general population is deficient in math skills whereas i've never met a prog lover who was highly intelligent. These studies have been conducted many times in many countries and the article i shared is only one of many. Unless you are a scientist or a mathmatician it may be somewhat counterintuitive as to why these things are true but i personally am convinced that they are. Mathematics is simply the language of the universe and everything including music uses that language for construction. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |