"elitist avant-proggers"
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=52840
Printed Date: June 17 2024 at 06:05
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: "elitist avant-proggers"
Posted By: laplace
Subject: "elitist avant-proggers"
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 09:18
|
No anger, just perspective. The forum occasionally receives a comment along these lines: "This (RIO/Avant/Zeuhl band) are just playing noise for noise's sake and their fans endure this so that they can be part of an elite club", describing the harder to grasp music represented in the archives as the Emperor's new clothes. It's funny when such a comment comes from a fan of progressive rock - here's another way of looking at it. NEO/SYMPH/HEAVY/METAL/CROSSOVER prog fans like: o listener-facing music often with modern mainstream production values o music often based in traditional song or on classical blueprints and tending towards traditional rock instrumentation with one exception, ie, violin o in the case of Neo, hooks and sympathetic, showman vocals o very complex music, of course! but almost inevitably preferring songs that begin strong and which arrive at rousing and pleasing "rock out" endings (I don't think any of that is insulting since I stayed with what I know about the genres. Of course, some fans like this also love Gentle Giant and King Crimson, who are far more demanding so I know this is just a cute generalization. Still, work with me.) AVANT/CANTERBURY/ZEUHL prog fans like: o musicians to do whatever they feel like doing, trusting musicians to make good music without necessary catchiness o production ranging from the terrible to the great (at least in my experience on these boards) o to hear more orchestral instruments, as well as accordians (or is this just me?) yes, you can find an exception to each of these rules I've just invented, IE, Slapp Happy are actually very structured and poppy, Harmonium are not exactly a typical rock ensemble, etc. etc. but assuming you can accept the rules with caution, here's a joke for you: EVERYMAN prog fans: o are only interested in tradition, demanding the proven o refuse to listen to self-indulgant musicians ELITIST prog fans: o allow musicians to do anything see anything wrong? ;P from now on, let's think about the rubbish we post. =) ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Replies:
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 09:22
Great post, Lappy ! Sorry if I won't respond immediately in a constructive way (have a bit of a headache today, which prevents me from thinking too deeply), but there is something that strikes me as somewhat odd in your final joke. According to these rules, the likes of Keith Emerson should be the darlings of elitist prog fans ...
|
Posted By: keiser willhelm
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 13:49
|
just to add to your list. . . . i think that avant proggers dont let the melody run things and appreciate exciting sounds not just exciting melodies. from the reviews ive read of say, for example, Can's Tago Mago, a lot of the 'traditional' proggers are bothered with the lack of melodies where as the avant proggers arent bothered and actually like these 'random noises'. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/KeiserWillhelm" rel="nofollow - What im listening to |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 13:51
| haha pwned |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 14:54
|
Interesting. Do you think that a musician has to do something innovative or crazy to be "doing whatever they feel like doing"? And/or are you saying that avant fans are more accepting of this (I don't think they are, on the whole)? Of those first styles you list, I would say that symphonic in particular is far from "traditional" song structure - in the strict sense, this would be verse/chorus/verse.. with modest variations. I don't hear much of that in the true "symphonic" pieces. I won't take issue with your other generalizations, because you've stated that they are just that; but I would like to see you explain more...greater depth, because there are a lot of spaces in between you definitions. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 14:57
|
laplace, you know I support avant-prog as much as you, and I even hate rock music almost as much as you.
But you listen to Merzbow, so I can't really take anything you say seriously. ;-) ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 15:46
Well, no. Wouldn't you agree that avant-proggers generally tend to shy away from some of the aspects you mentioned; modern 'mainstream' production values, hook-filled, AOR-ish vocals, catchy melodies etc. You allow musicians to do anything as long as it fits your idea of how music should sound like. It's the same with more traditional proggers. No big drama here, it's only natural that people have different preferences - especially when talking about a ridiculously wide, all-encompassing genre known as 'progressive rock'. ------------- 
|
laplace wrote:Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 15:47
The only thing I can see wrong is your final sentence, which appears to indicate an intollerance towards those who might disagree with you on this. Are you saying that any adverse commentary about the avant-garde is automatically wrong? Are you saying that it is a fact that AG is better than other more structured forms of music?
|
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 15:53
|
Don't be disingenuous nitpickers, everyone. My point is that this "avant is for elitists" angle has never made sense. ;P ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 16:08
|
This elitist tag is stupid. Made up and used by frightened, pathetic people. Its like this John Coltrane "review" on rateyourmusic: Music for people who like to pretend they know something you don't. Some people know something you don't. Learn to live with it, or educate yourself. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 16:19
I agree, but still... I don't think avant-proggers are necessarily more open-minded than traditional proggers (your joke seems to be suggesting something along those lines). It's simple, really - different strokes for different folks. -------------
|
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 16:20
Nah, not necessarily frightened or pathetic, just inattentive. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 18:27
|
I'm inclined to think that deriving enjoyment from avant prog requires a more sophisticated, as well as adventurous, "ear" than the more mainstream types of music in the archives. I am something of an elitist when it comes to the arts, including music. Clearly some are very ignorant when it comes to "avant music" and the people who honestly enjoy it. It is a very ignorant person who can not accept that perhaps "the problem" is not with the music itself, but with him/herself, or accept that others have the capacity to enjoy art that they do not. I've long wanted to correlate musical tastes with tastes in other arts. For instance, I tend to prefer so-called "art house cinema" to the more commercial movies, and I'm sure that relates to my music tastes. I think "avant" music is commonly more artistic in much the same that art house cinema is more artistic than commercial cinema. It need not pander to industrial constraints/ commercial expectations, and is therefore more artistic. Instead, it is more fertile in that artistic vision can shine more, and be more creative/ individualistic (one can relate it to auteur theory). Less commercial and industrial can be said to be more artistic because art and industry can be at odds with each-other -- commercialism (even within a Prog, while not being that popular as is these days, context), even if the that what an artists want to do, tends to limit artistic freedom/ creativity. More artistic music is more liable not to reflect the status quo/ is less, typically, formulaic. Of course many avant bands end up just re-treading the same ground that others have, and are therefore conformist. Side note: I get so tired of modern Prog-by-numbers bands (those regressive Prog ones who copy others styles). Anyway, it's said that the recognition of one's ignorance is the first step on the road to wisdom. Hopefully more who claim that people only listen to avant music to belong, and just hear noise, will come to realise that they just have haven't veen able to decipher/ interpret the music enough to appreciate. Reminds me of my brother in elemntary scool who gave a wonderful project on his love of western academic music. The teacher thought it was BS since no kid could enjoy that music (she hated that kind of music and thought that acting like you liked it was pretentious). My brother's and I were raised on that kind of music. I don't know how much that led to my tastes now, since others who have a simialr bacckground to mine would rather listen to very different music than me (it helps explain why I like chamber rock so much). Anyway, I do tend to think of avant rock as a higher, and more intellectual, form of art than other styles here (especially "chamber" rock) as it comes closer to challenging academic music (and of course there is that instrumentation thing). Compare, for instance, Spock's Beard and Art Zoyd, which would one consider more intellectual or artsy? Not to derail this fine blog, but another question springs to mind: Compared to other categories (baring in mind that the music is diverse within avant prog), is it more likely that more people cannot appreciate the music because they cannot musically understand/ decipher/ interpret it? |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 18:38
|
I've recognized in the past - and I may be seeing hints of it here - an idea that there is a true artistic paradigm and it contradicts mainstream values...and thus an artist must eschew mainstream tendencies in order to create true art. 'If it caters to the masses, it couldn't possible be good' This logic is fine and dandy, but when the same fans (and I'm not directing this at anyone, especially not you, laplace and Greg...I admire and value your opinions) point the finger, I sense a double standard. If we, as progressive or avant fans want our interest to be seen as legitimate (as opposed to an ego massage) then we must recognize "mainstream" tastes in the same manner. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 18:43
ärt)
n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b. The study of these activities.
c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. 3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
There is much subjectivity here; it would be very difficult to quantify "art", and thus I couldn't say whether Spock's Beard or Art Zoyd had MORE or LESS of it. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 18:56
|
funny, it was albums like Tarkus that got me interested in listening to albums like 1313 and Present's Certitudes ..still love all three albums |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 18:59
|
Mainstream tastes are legitimate (and nothing wrong with liking mainstream music), but I would say that mainstream music is less artistic and mainstream music tends to be what I would call "low art" (or mediocre art) for mediocre people (I tend to think of Prog as mid-art). Oh, that is elitist. There is an idea of higher art commonly being freer of commercial constraint (of course great art has been commissioned where the artists was told what the theme should be), and where the artist can show more individuality, and be more creative (it's commercial/ industry interests vs. artistic interests). Prog, in part, intended to elevate music to a higher art status, but this was done by drawing on "higher art." Music can be good even if it caters to the masses, but rarely brilliant because the masses aren't brilliant (catering to the lowest common denominator). Music that caters to the masses is good for them, but, generally, not so good for the music "elite." A more intelligent/ more sophisticated person is likely to desire more sophisticated "art". |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 19:06
|
First, I would be glad to see people on this forum stop "melting" Zheul with R.I.O. and R.I.O. with Canterbury. Moreover, I hardly see R.I.O. as a genre since it conglomerates electric chamber music (Art Zoyd or Univers Zero), free improvisation (Fred Frith) or other forms of avant-garde/experimental rock. Second, it would be easier to understand this demonstration if a few exemples could be given, especially about the "terrible" production of some R.I.O. records. I just hope we're not talking about, let's say, the sound a band backed by EMI or Warner in the 80's or the 90's VS the sound of a band backed by Virgin in 1973? Third, it may be hard to find a classical form song (AABA - verse/verse/chorus/verse) in the records Yes or Genesis have recorded in the 70's. How can we have complex music with "traditional song"? Fourth, Punk blamed Progressive rock for being a bunch of self-indulgent musicians,"guitar-w**kers". So, what is to be understood by "self indugent musicians"? I would like laplace to be more precise in his argumentation, if not his purposes. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 19:08
but 'brilliant' can also be an ingenious blend of standard songwriting and fresh, complex ideas, i.e. Revolver, Graceland, Deja Vu, etc. Considered pop music but undeniably great breakthroughs that an avant-garder would never think or want to do |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 19:12
Good for you. And even better that you didn't stop after Tarkus. Isn't that sort of the point? I'm sure you know Logan and Laplace (and myself) likes a lot of different stuff too. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 19:52
|
Jimmy-Row: It's not relevant, but where are you from and which dictionary do you use? Artsy is a colloquialism and is the same as arty which means "pretentiously or affectedly artistic" (OED). It's a common word my way. Artsy, arty, artsy-fartsy, arty-farty... art rock, art-fart rock, artsy fartsy rock. I must admit that I used the North American form of "arty" -- shame on me. ;) David: Interesting, but I stand by my statement that music made for the masses is "rarely brilliant." |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 20:26
I suspect that music made exclusively for the masses exists in very small percentages; what, groups like Ace of Base, the Bangles, New Kids ..but most pop music - genuine and quite honest as made by artists who make pop - is simply what it is-- if it turns out to be brilliant, than it is brilliant, as U2, the Police, Paul Simon, Neil Young, Cat Stevens ..sorry but theses artists aren't making records in the hopes their audience is a taste-challenged and underexposed mass of goobers, it just doesn't add up.. you have many highly educated, well-informed individuals who love those bands and couldn't care less about whether some beard-stroking music critic thinks otherwise and BTW, lest we forget A Passion Play was #1 on the US charts in 1973 ..yep, numero uno for an album widely considered one of the most pompous displays on record.. in other words, it's more complex an issue than it would appear. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 20:33
------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 20:35
|
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 21:02
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 21:50
|
let me tell you something; my roommate is a highly trained and very accomplished classical pianist/singer.. you know what she likes when she's not busting her butt trying to be the best musician she can be? Dolly Parton, ABBA, Cher, many other pop artists.. according to you she simply "doesn't have the time or desire" to listen to so-called quality music.. oh and she has bad taste too, yeah, sure she does, that's why she was hired last year by one of the biggest and best Symphony Choruses in the world People ARE NOT defined by what they like, it's just that simple |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 21:55
|
Music, art... its like everything else. It helps to have knowledge, experience and have an open mind. If you're not used to looking at pictures or listening to music, you're less experienced and know less than someone who is. Pretending its otherwise, is an insult to skill, craft, knowledge, intellect etc.
------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 22:04
--------
I know jack-squat about most classical music, but isn't the reason why Beethoven and Mozart were considered so great because they incorporated existing traditions into their approach in a creative and challenging way. There is a lot of "pop" music that does this - the artists that David mentioned for sure. Don't try to tell me that Henry Cow were better than Jefferson Airplane from an artistic perspective. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 22:05
OK I'll let you slide by on that tepid response, but you do see the problem; If not being used to looking at pictures or listening to music means you know less than someone who is, then how does that explain my roommate's highly learned yet pop-loving taste? Guess what, I sometimes watch American Idol. Why? I don't know, it's fun, entertaining, sometimes brutally funny. So therefore what, I'm a low-brow slob with nothing better to do than watch a bad pop culture TV show? Guess again. |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 22:08
In the regard you're speaking of, music is still catering to something...if the music you are calling mainstream is catering to those interests, than the "higher" music is catering to elitist interests. The result is determined by the conscious direction...you almost have to have a goal in mind to create something. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 22:10
 ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 22:12
|
let the truth be told though the Heavens fall |
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 22:22
|
The term "artistic" is such a vague one that you cannot just throw it out and expect the argument to make any sense. All of it depends on what about art you value? Is it more artistic to completely break song stucture or write a beautiful love song? One is more adventorous and one is more emotional and relates to the listener much more. To say one music is more artistic than another doesn't make any sense. And perhaps people don't like stuff like Art Zoyd because it doesn't relate to them? |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 22:52
Yes, I'm sure I've screwed up the quotes, but I'm tired.
I'll edit in the rest from your other post.
|
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 02:26
|
Sheesh, I don't even know what to see amidst this passionate firestorm of a debate. I guess I'll just hide then...
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 04:36
As I said, I'm sure you know we all listen to a lot of different stuff. Its not about not looking at Amercian Idol or not enjoying pop (I do too). You're reading in a lot of insults in my comments that's not really there. I've never suggested you had to stop listening to anything. I disn't stop enjoying 60's pop when I discovered Bela Bartok & Giacinto Scelsi etc... I've seen every single contemporary ballett/dance piece performed in the opera in Oslo for the last four years. I also watch every episode of So You Think You Can Dance (both local version and american). Big, big fan of both the hi-and lowbrow version. I don't have to explain your roommates poploving taste. I would imagine I spend a lot more time actively seeking out new music, and also more time with the actual musiclistening than him/her. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 04:56
Love them both (more than any neo-or progmetal I've ever heard). My ABBA collection is actually complete, and I listen to them regularly. Even got the most of their #7 + rarities 'n' stuff. Only have three albums and a "hits" collection with Dolly, though. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 05:00
|
Parton's a genius |
Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 05:17
After reading some of the comments here, I may be forced to take back my words regarding the "avant is for elitists" argument.  No, seriously though, why is it even relevant if some music is more 'intellectual' than some other? Unless, that is, your reasoning is as follows: "oh, this is so intellectual, therefore it must be good." I'd much rather listen to Art Zoyd than Spock's Beard - not because Art Zoyd are more artistic or intellectual, but simply because their soundscapes are far more pleasing to my ear. -------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 06:46
|
Stereotypes do not generally conform to a stereotype. (and not all clichés are clichéd )
Once you narrow a population of music lovers down to a single genre like "Prog", then you are already entering a world of elitism of one variety or another. So what you are considering with sub-divisions and subgenres within Prog (such as Advant Garde or Neo Prog) is degrees of elitism, and in that, degrees of elitism that are stereotypically characterised by what the listener doesn't like, rather than by what they do.
So to be an elitist in a world of elitism you generally (in a very stereotypical way) have to dislike more than a less elite person... which is not the same as saying that to be elite you have to be more discerning or less catholic in your taste but are perhaps just less tolerant of what the artist is prepared to do to produce his art.
Is this a paradox or a contradiction? I think not, but more a state of mutual inclusiveness.
After all, is not being more broad-minded in a narrow field pretty much the same as being narrow-minded in a broad field? Or to put it the same way again for clarity: being open-minded within a limited set of conditions is the same as being closed-minded within an unlimited set of conditions. Or more specifically allowing musicians to do anything as long it is within the defined parameters of the leftfield and does not stray towards the middle-ground is no different to restricting musicians exclusively to the middle-ground.
Elitism or not, few people feel comfortable when a cherished artist strays from their designated subgenre, be that whether an indulgent artist sells-out or when a mainstream artist gets self-indulgent. Being open-minded is a measure of tolerance towards that deviation from the norm, regardless of where that 'norm' lies; and by restricting the artist, the listener becomes restricted by the same constraints. So once you put the pigeon in the hole not only is it not allowed to leave, you effectively cage yourself. (Unless you take the view that any variance away from what is acceptable is in someway ironic, so is art in it's own right and still within acceptable boundaries)
The correlation between the aural arts and the visual arts is an interesting one and again stereotyped by convention rather than by reality I feel and certainly isn't a measure of intelligence and learning, but of exposure and received wisdom. In other words, whatever aesthetic quality can be found in a piece of art is conditioned by not only the context in which it is found, but also by the preconceptions of the viewer/listener and the interpretations placed upon it by those that 'get it' and those that don't... ------------- What? |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 08:06
I wouldn't say there's any opposition between art and industry... if art is an expression of life, industry is still a part of life.
I'd disagree on that.
I honestly don't know enough about challenging academic music to say on that point. The more intellectual/higher art thing... well, it's a matter of perspective... some would say that academic/Western Classical music isn't the only artistic path, and musicians making breakthroughs in jazz, pop, rock or even rap shouldn't be compared with it, but rather with the state of those genres at the time of the breakthrough. Personally, I've generally looked at art in music as how a band creates and conveys ideas, innovates and uses its form. I think you could make a general point about RIO or Zeuhl bands needing to be in some way groundbreaking or challenging, and consequently the minimum level of art they can provide is higher than the minimum level of art those following more conventional forms can. But I'd be surprised if there isn't a perfectly good argument on both sides for Magma being more/less intellectual than Yes, since Yes drew more from the pop/rock side than Magma.
 The question is whether there's a right way to understand the music, I guess. There are some who'd call Vital Signs the weak point of Moving Pictures and The Camera Eye the highlight. For me it's the other way 'round. Both of us can probably explain why we like one piece. You could either say that we're looking for different things in the music, and that's perfectly understandable, or that we're not looking at the other piece the right way, and, if we did, we'd enjoy it.
I'm mostly in agreement with the individual points here. I guess where we differ is the personal definition of artistic, which isn't objective anyway. I agree that having a more understanding ear would help more people appreciate these avant bands. I'd consider Close To The Edge a more artistic (according to my concept, expression, form, innovation criteria) piece than MDK, even if I'd agree that the 'symphonic' genre is generally more limited and less experimental than the Zeuhl genre. Interesting discussion The quotes are going to be awful. Apologies in advance. |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 08:14
Wouldn't say it really matters. I tend to enjoy things I can engage with in more ways more, so I tend to prefer what I'd call more artistic or intellectual things. Doesn't mean I'll automatically enjoy an album I consider more intellectual more, though. |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 08:18
But can you see your roommate listening to Modern Talking or the 6876823th version of 'Every Breath You Take'...? There's pop and then there's pop... |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 08:22
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 09:03
That in itself sounds elitist. Are you really saying "don't post hear unless you agree with me"?
No need for that, keep it friendly please (others note too).
|
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 10:21
|
Ye gods, Easy Livin, the idea is that you take in the gist of an argument before you respond to it - picking out an individual sentence and taking exception to it is something else called outrage, and almost never used to make a sensible point. You know it, I know it. Why not respond to a post as its whole and disagree in a cogent way? ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 12:29
My only problem with this is that it was adressed to me. And imo, I haven't written anything here to provoke Atavachrons anger. Of course its possible to have terrible taste and still get hired by one of the biggest and best Symphony Choruses in the world, but I did not write that anywhere (until now). And I certainly didn't define people by what they like, and I'm not going to now either. So Atavachron; If you re-read what I actually wrote yesterday, not what you thought I wrote; Do you still feel you're reactions were fair? ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 15:03
My apologies, I was not clear enough. I was posting in an admin capacity. Your original post accused others of posting "rubbish". Please keep your posts civil and resepctful to others.
Take a telling (send a PM if you want further clarification, do not desicrate your own thread). Back to topic.
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 15:44
|
Rob: I had started responding to your points (I'd written a lot in fact), and you've brought up great ones, but my 1.5 year old boy got at the computer when I was called away, and I lost my post. So, instead of quoting I'll just respond in a more general way, and touch on some other posts (so not all directed at your points). This will be rambling, I'm afraid, but rambling is what I do best (or worst, depending on perspective). Academic music is considered by many a high form of art, one that requires more intellect and skill to compose and perform than other styles. It does not necessarily need more intellect to understand. For instance, as a young child I loved Beethoven, and still do. I know several classical pianists who also adore jazz, and of course "classical" (to use the general time not just for the period) composers have been inspired by jazz, as well as folk music. There is worth in all styles of music, I feel. Magma was inspired by Stockhausen and Coltrane, but I would not put it at the same level of artistry as those composers. And there are those that created music as intellectual exercises (or as mathematical constructs) as much as creating it for enjoyment sake. I enjoy Schoenberg''s music because I can follow the patterns/ form, but understanding music does not necessarily mean that you will like it. I also love Chinese opera, and eastern music that works with different scales. One often needs to develop a certain familiarity with the music to understand/ feel it -- music is a language that has signs and signifiers that require some deciphering/ ability to interpret, but understanding music is not enough to like it. I do think of music as stimulating the intellect, and the more complex and dense the more it can satisfy that part of the brain, but music seems to transcend that. Simplicity and simple symmetry can be so beautiful. I'm a harmony person at heart, but sometimes the harmonics are done in such a way that one has to piece together the music (even if none is not ware that one is doing it). Personal opinion, but I tend to think of jazz and classical as higher forms of art than rock music, but it doesn't mean that I don't like rock music. It's not a question of one being bad and one being good. People's brains respond to music in different ways, and there are a myriad of reasons why. I like lots of different music for different reasons, and different music can stimulate me intellectually in different way. And commercialism is definitely an art unto itself, but it's the art of commerce. Hits, commonly, are manufactured (music by numbers), but the process does take talent and skill. I once wanted to make ads, and that is in the aid of business, but a successful advertisement also takes talent and skill (most are, at least on the surface, not that creative). There is no one right way to understand music, and no one right way to establish worth. I chose one approach to artistic values to aid my thought-stream, but there are many other approaches I could have easily taken, and even within that loose quasi-analytical framework, there are a myriad of variables/ tacks (it's problematic when one chooses certain assumptions to follow because assumptions are of varying validity, but that's one way to explore notions). |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 16:02
|
Following the reasoning and the logic in this thread - at least in the early stages - a band like The Beatles should be so low on the art scale that it really belongs in the sewer, to be enjoyed by neanderthal-like human beings able to appreciate only the most simplistic and basic forms of music...
------------- Websites I work with: http://www.progressor.net http://www.houseofprog.com My profile on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/ |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 16:13
| ^ I question your logic and reasoning. Why must that follow? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 16:19
Fair? You better believe it. |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 16:22
|
"mainstream music tends to be what I would call "low art" (or mediocre art) for mediocre people" as you stated yourself ;-) The Beatles were as mainstream as they come for most of their career, with a clear and defined intent to create music that would be liked by (and bought by) as many people as possible. Towards the end of their career they did experiment more true enough, but what they are best known for and most appreciated for is their mainstream material (at least outside of this forum). ------------- Websites I work with: http://www.progressor.net http://www.houseofprog.com My profile on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/ |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 16:24
Ok. Why don't you think you overreacted? ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 16:28
Who here has conluded and made judgements in such way? I'm beginning to think some of you aren't really reading posts, but just reply to what you think its about. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 16:37
it's that sort of veiled, pompous comment that put me off.. and you're still doing it. |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 16:48
The music is art postings in the early stages of the thread gave quite a few notions in that department actually. Mainstream-oriented music as defined low art and experimental / boundary-crossing music as high art appreciated by connoisseurs only - as this kind of music required sophistication, education, training and skill to recognize. My point here was to disagree with this notion ;-) As I see it it probably takes just as much skill to make a composition successfully directed at a broad mainstream market (i.e. not directed at teens only) than it takes to make technically challenging works with arhythmic structures and segments with polarizing disharmonies exploring dissonant musical landscapes whether the main style is jazz, metal, classical or rock. But the ability to recognize this music as good music is basically down to personal taste when it comes to liking it - understanding it may take some education however. But understanding it does not equal liking it, enjoying it or even appreciating it. ------------- Websites I work with: http://www.progressor.net http://www.houseofprog.com My profile on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/ |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 16:56
Here was my whole quote, but that was referring to other points and was elaborated on:
I believe you misunderstood the context/ intent. Even if it was very mainstream, aiming their music at average people, it doesn't mean that the music is without artistic worth, or that only primitive people could enjoy it. It does not follow from the perspectives I posted. Even if, as I said, "music for the masses is rarely brilliant" because the masses are not brilliant, it doesn't mean that brilliant people can not enjoy it, let alone that only the only the most primitive of people could enjoy it.. |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 17:14
Only a short response, I'm afraid, but I'm completely in agreement here |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 17:30
|
Still, music aimed at the masses is described as a lower art form - and the masses are described as less sophisticated. As described in another answer, as I regard it sophistication isn't needed to enjoy any type of music. Knowledge and sophistication are useful and often needed tools to understand music however; especially complex music; but understanding does not equal liking it :-) As others have experienced as well, there are many people around with extensive education in the art of music, I know a few myself. And the only common denominator I see as regards people with massive education and understanding of music is a tendency to appreciate jazz above other musical genres. Does that mean that jazz is the ultimate form of music? After all, we're talking about people who have studied music for many years, have played and does play music for hours on end daily - and who has music as a way of living. With knowledge, education and skill these are surely more sophisticated than most people arguing in here, aren't they? ------------- Websites I work with: http://www.progressor.net http://www.houseofprog.com My profile on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/ |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 17:34
|
If people want to be elitists then that's their prerogative. I don't lose any sleep over it. There are some wacky people out there with wacky opinions and it's best to avoid getting bent-out-of-shape over them... Peace, man! 
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 17:43
Well, its true, isn't it? I can't see what's pompous about it. Most of you're examples didn't have much relation to what I wrote, and you put words and opinions in my mouth. That's much worse than being pompous. To me it looked like you had lost you're temper and not thinking/reading clearly. That's why I asked. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 17:47
|
I'm not going to continue with this circular argument ..when you say stuff like that you must take responsibility for it, the good and bad, that's just reality. I misinterpreted you? Sure I did. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 18:09
|
I only take responsibility for things I've actually said/written. But fine, i agree, There's no point for us in continuing. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 18:39
|
Avant proggers are elitist only insofar as they approach responding to my statement: "I can appreciate Neo Prog, Avant-prog, Prog Metal, Psychedelic, Caterbury, etc. etc. Now, is it better that I like a lot of genres, or is is sad that I waste my time with drivel when I could be focusing my taste on Avant-prog, and--anything but Neo and Prog-Metal." Some have either stated straight-up the latter option, or at least insinuated it. That's elitist in my mind. Or at least one way of measuring it. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 18:48
|
Nah, the elitist thinking - no matter who's bringing it forth, is the one claiming that this and that style is superior to others because of so and so facets of that particular music - or that this and that style is inferior to other types of music because of so and so facets of these kinds of music. The Nazi way of musical appreciation (or non-appreciation) ;-) ------------- Websites I work with: http://www.progressor.net http://www.houseofprog.com My profile on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/ |
Posted By: Moatilliatta
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 19:11
|
Guys, let's stop arguing with each other. Really, we're all part of an elite group that's supposed to look down upon Nickelback fans. ------------- www.last.fm/user/ThisCenotaph  
|
Posted By: keiser willhelm
Date Posted: October 26 2008 at 19:54
lol Godwin's law already. 
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/KeiserWillhelm" rel="nofollow - What im listening to |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: October 27 2008 at 09:10
------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: October 27 2008 at 10:21
|
I've come to an "understanding" in recent months about my music tastes which I think can be perscribed to the wider prog-listening audiance. We arent open minded indaviduals capable of digesting more complex and artistic music than the pop loving masses, no, we are people that are highly demanding of what we listen to, which should under no circumstances be confused with open-mindedness. The conflixt here is that people are demanding in many different ways, for instance I am very much a fan of the more technical and/or "artsy" music that you find on this site, yet I also have great appreciation of bands that can follow the more traditional styles of prog; be they Symphonic, Neo, Crossover, Prog Metal (not to be confused with Experimental/Post and Tech/Extreme), with great alecraty. However, I am rather intolerant of heavily electronic music which doesnt appeal to me at all. What I've seen in this thread, and throughout my 3 years on PA backs this up. People are demanding in their own way, for whatever reason, probably being both Nature and Nurture, and this can lead to some pretty extreme views on some things, which in turn can lead to conflict. For the record, the example that Laplace used in the OP, of "this being noise for elitist snobs" (to paraphrase) is an incredibly snobby and closed minded view to take, it suggest an intollerance for not just music that falls outside of the listeners demands but for the views of people that dont share that view as well. IMO, of course. And before someone trys to use my example of Electronic music from above against me, I'm perfectly happy in accepting that, though I may get nothing from it, others will get a great deal of pleasure and stimulation from it. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005  |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: October 27 2008 at 12:24
|
Do you guys really think that Beethoven=Spice Girls and Coltrane=Nickelback? It's easy for people to say "subjective subjective subjective you are being elitist!", but do you really believe that? Because while I try to avoid being mean to poor stonebeard for listening mostly to neo and classic rock, I cannot accept that Beethoven's 9th symphony is eqaul to a Spice Girls album. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: October 27 2008 at 13:09
Many things factor into evaluating artists, I think. Craft, technique, skill required, historical importance, influence, purpose, uniqueness.... If someone were to know well tons of artists from tons of genres and be able to objectively lay out the rating given to each of the criteria, then we could have a convincing argument for why an artist should be liked more than another artist. Someone could lay out why the 9ths is better than Spice World, and most people would accept the argument as convincing and agree that the 9th is more artistically valid than Spice World. Appreciating music is different from liking it, however they are intertwined concepts. Someone could easily like Spice World more than the 9th fully acknowledging that the 9th is probably more artistically valid. However, some things you can't explain. I know a few Neo bands that given what's come before and after, I shouldn't really care much about. But I do. You can't predict everything and account for everything. The point is, the line between subjectivity and objectivity here is blurred. There is no set in stone criteria for a better artist, and any criteria we come up with will be slightly tainted with subjectivity. Even if that weren't true, though, the best we can do is have the criteria and then leave it up to people to decide to what degree the artist fulfills the criteria, which is subjective given that no two people have the same musical knowledge/experience and that few if any people have enough musical knowledge/experience to make a completely objective analysis. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 27 2008 at 16:33
I certainly don't. But I usually get angry reactions for my honest opinion. I suspect that's why many pretend to believe it. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: October 27 2008 at 18:44
|
^ I don't speak for the "many", but I think there is an underlying insinuation that X band is better than Y band, therefor A's taste is better than B's taste...A is superior to B. Be careful not to extend matters of subjective taste (even if trying to inject some objectivity - which IMO is a good thing) onto the person your discussing with. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 27 2008 at 19:40
|
Try to forget about that underlying feeling you all seem to get, and
let's honest instead. I don't believe anyone really believes that Spice
World truly equals Beethoven Ninth artistically. Neither do I think I'm
smarter than a mathprofessor who only listens to Kid Rock. But I would
think my taste and knowledge in music is more sophisticated,
interesting, more informed and well... better than his or hers. (I'm only talking about music)
------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 27 2008 at 19:58
|
I hate them elitists who think that Liszt was, objectively, a better pianist and composer than my 1.5 year old son. Better for them, maybe. It's all subjective, besides, my son is a prodigy, really original composer (most of his music is beyond my comprehension), and I bet he'll win plenty of music competitions when he's older -- not that it matters since all music is equal. ;) But seriously, he's really good for one that young on keyboards and drums, and as father, I enjoy his "music" in moderation. He has great rhythm. Sorry, just a silly post. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 02:07
At first, that's right. I also don't believe Beethoven=Spice Girls. I do believe anything Bach composed while he was sleeping was better than 99% of pop music, including progressive rock.
The difference is, the first word in both sentences. I. I. I. It's MY taste. It doesn't have to be everybody's.
Being an elitist is not saying "beethoven is better than Spice girls". Being an elitist is saying everybody that thinks otherwise is wrong or many worse things that can be read around here from time to time.
------------- 
|
Posted By: progrules
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 04:13
I think you make a clear statement in the blog and I agree with most of it even though I'm an every man progger so to speak. The only thing I don't really agree with is the selection of the extraordinary genres yoy make here. Avant/Zeuhl is exactly right but Canterbury is not in the same league I believe. It would have been better to mention eclectic or Krautrock. But that's just my personal feel about it.
In general this blog is similar to the big "Neo is there a real problem ?" discussion we had recently in the Forum. Only that discussion was especially hooked on Neo whilst this one mentions all the accessible subgenres. It's always interesting these points of view. I'm not going to contribute this time in the actual discussion since that would be a repetition of what I already have said in the other thread. ------------- A day without prog is a wasted day |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 04:33
I believe that everyone who thinks Spice Girls music is superior to Beethoven are wrong. Sometimes, like with this example, its just so incredibly obvious. I don't have the time to pretend otherwise. I simply believe knowledge and experience allows me to state this. (Very often its not this obvious. So if someone asks which genre is the best, I would admittedly be closer to answer out of personal preferance) I believe my academic education and being a professional artist/painter makes my opinion on the quality of a painting more valid than someone working in a complete different field's opinion. Although the arts is different than most other trades, I see no reason why suddenly someone with no knowledge's opinion all of a sudden is equal to an expert (not saying I'm a music expert). That's really quite a discrediting insult. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 11:16
Then I guess I'm an elitist. Oh well. You can't differentiate with smaller differences as easily, if at all (Chopin vs Liszt!), but when somebody thinks Gigli is better than The Godfather in every possible way, then yes, they are wrong--but I only reserve judgement for such extreme cases.
Do people try the same equivelency argument with other media as well? Is Hamlet being better than Twilight merely a matter of opinion? ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 11:17
|
@ Henry's sig
|
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 11:20
I largely agree with you, only that in music we have very knowledgeable people responsible for nuggets like Mendelssohn's opinion of Beethoven's ninth, Tchaikovsky's opinion of Brahms, Bartok's opinion of jazz, Cage's and Carter's opinions of improvisation... we may assume that some of this rubbish was simply jealousy, but what if it was honest? Music is quite a big place, it's impossible to know all of its nooks and crannies... Then there's Adorno, didn't he despise everything that wasn't classical? Anyhow, I'd certainly take the view of an amateur yet attentive listener over any of those guys' ramblings... |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 11:27
I'm not sure exactly what I'm getting at because it requires a lot of thought to lay this out...perhaps we need bigger categories of we're going to measure art - not a continuum of high and low...but more of a "good" and "bad" or "effective", competent, etc. you see where that is going.... ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 12:40
| I am not really familiar with pop music so I can't say what would be the best example of great pop but surely Spice Girls is not the best pop has to offer, very successful yes, but it doesn't follow that they are necessarily very good, a point that is reiterated over and over in here. What I am saying is that you would find it difficult to make an obvious choice if you compared COMPARABLE artists - comparable taken to mean artists of arguably equal quality, which is admittedly an intangible attribute - , whereas in this case (Beethoven v/s Spice Girls) the comparison is skewed. With a more equitable comparison, the choice would boil down to personal preference more than anything else. Which then means that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to generalize that one genre is better than the other. Yes, some genres constrain the atists' creativity and others offer them more scope to elaborate their ideas but musical genius would shine through whatever be the genre. What can be decided however is which genre is more advanced than the other because that depends on the musical knowledge and experience required from a listener to understand the music. It is fair to generalize then that jazz rock is a more advanced genre (or sub genre is more appropriate?) than pop, though it doesn't necessarily follow that jazz rock is ALWAYS BETTER than pop. |
Posted By: infandous
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 15:13
|
Quite the discussion here. As someone who derives just as much enjoyment from Present and Thinking Plague as I do from the Flower Kings and Spock's Beard (just to mention a couple of examples......there are hundreds more), and who is also a musician (meaning, I understand each of those examples' music); I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. People like what they like. I have, in fact, encountered the elitism of Avant Prog lovers. I've also encountered the elitism of Symphonic Prog lovers. And Jazz lovers. And Classical lovers. And fans of Dream Theater (sorry, couldn't resist throwing that one in there...........I like a lot of their music myself though). And yet, I couldn't say that all fans of those genres are elitist. Only that some people feel the need to think of themselves (and their tastes) as better than others. For the most part, I've met fans of all sorts of music that were great people (far more than the elitist snobs). I've even been accused of being elitist by the mother of my child (who only ever listened to whatever was new and popular on the radio at any given time and has no technical musical knowledge whatsoever). When I tried to explain my reasons for not enjoying the latest flavor of the month pop radio songs, she leveled the accusations. To be fair to her, her brother and I regularly teased her about her musical taste (or lack there of). She took the view that perhaps the one who had bad taste in music was I, for only liking bands no one had ever heard of (you know, like Yes, Rush, and ELP  ............. she really didn't know who those bands were). In some ways, she had a point.We who love various sub genres of prog, are really in the minority. I'd bet there are fewer prog affectionadoes than there are fans of just about any well known genre (I'm sure I'm wrong somehow, but bear with me). Are we not all elitists in some fasion, feeling that our music is superior to "lesser" forms of music, like Nickleback and Spice Girls? Does it mean something that the Spice World album alone probably outsold the entire Avante Prog genre of the past 20 years? Probably just that a whole lot of people have forgotten they ever bought that album while the Avante fans cherish their copies of Legend and 1313. Do I have a point? Not really. Only that we are all, each and every one of us on this site, elitists. And we should be proud of the fact that we will never have to explain the existence of Spice World in our CD rack to our friends (though we may have to spend a good deal of time explaining who all the other albums are by). But most importantly of all, none of us, especially those of us that enjoy Avante Prog, will ever have to worry about our CD's being stolen. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 15:37
That's pretty much what this thread is about. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 19:52
|
Let's not get personal here. there are other ways of pointing out the error in peoples logic without that. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 20:39
|
Okay - I'm pressing Pause on this thread for a while. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 05 2008 at 16:56
|
Un-Paused.
Please keep this discussion On Topic and not personal. ------------- What? |
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: November 05 2008 at 17:31
lol'd hard -------------   
|
Posted By: infandous
Date Posted: November 06 2008 at 13:51
So you guys DID get my point after all |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 06 2008 at 15:38
|
Ok... time to behave like rational people here.... (including me of course... )
-------------
|
Posted By: KingCrimson250
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 03:21
|
It seems to me that the point people have been trying to make throughout the thread is that the relationship between the objective quality of art and the subjective appreciation of art is not neccesarily as strong as we might like to believe. I think we would all agree that there are certain measurable aspects of art which we can compare - the music of Yes is more complex than that of Nirvana, I do not believe that any here would argue this. Increased complexity does require greater mental effort to comprehend, and more complex music does require more education, increased attentiveness and a higher amount of intelligence to comprehend and appreciate this. I think this is fair to say - a convoluted math problem invariably requires greater mental agility than 2+2, so why should numbers on a page be any different than notes on a page? The problem occurs, of course, when we begin to equate "intelligent music" with "intelligent people." Intelligent people can enjoy simple music. Consider a fast-food joint - take, for example, McDonald's. McDonald's does not produce high quality burgers. I think most people would agree on this. I do not think that anyone would eat a McDonald's burger and exclaim that it is a burger of utmost quality and that the guy who flipped it should go on tour, bringing this delicacy to five-star restaurants around the globe. The ingredients used are of poor quality (who knows where that "beef" comes from?), it has virtually no nutritional value, and almost no time or effort is put into its creation. It is, all things considered, an objectively bad burger. Yet billions of people around the globe enjoy McDonald's burgers. Many even concede that it is a poor burger, yet have no qualms with eating it regardless. Why? Catchy melodies are catchy melodies. An enjoyable beat is an enjoyable beat. Lyrics that relate are lyrics that relate. These are often signs of less complex music - a catchy melody is usually short and simplistic, enjoyable dance beats are almost inevitably in 4/4, and lyrics that are easy to relate to are usually so because they are shallow and address a topic in a sweeping, general fashion that does not actually say much, allowing the listener to super-impose meaning. However, the fact that the music is not particularly intelligent does not prevent intelligent people from enjoying it. A lot of pop music is meant to be fun. Pop artists aren't generally looking to make some sweeping, artistic vision that sets a bold new direction for mankind - they often just want to give people a good time, or even just have a good time themselves. Prog, classical, a lot of jazz - it's great music to sit and listen to, digest, analyze, dissect - but not everyone wants to sit and listen all the time. In other words, would you ever sing TAAB at a karaoke party? This works both ways as well. I personally dislike much of the works of Mozart. He was a genious composer. His music is exceptionally sophisticated and intelligent and has extraordinary depth to it. However, a lot of it just sounds "poncey" to my ears. I'm not even sure what I mean by that, to be honest, but that word seems to describe it to me. I can deeply appreciate Mozart's music - I just don't enjoy listening to it. So I can enjoy MC Hammer's "Can't Touch This" while belting it from a mic on-stage. Does that make me less intelligent? No. So Mozart's music seems a bit too "poncey" for me. Does that make me less intelligent? No. Is Mozart's music more intelligent than MC Hammer's? Indubitably. Weird. Except perhaps not so strange. As per my original point, I think we just need to accept that objective quality /= subjective enjoyment. It is perfectly understandable that the classically accomplished roomate prefers ABBA. This does not make her less intelligent. Were she to argue that ABBA wrote music that was objectively superiour to Bach, then yes, perhaps her thought processes could be called into question. However, the simple enjoyment of music means nothing. |
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 04:14
Not friggen bad for someone with 15 posts! Well put
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 04:22
There's been a lot of accusations that this is the way "we" (or I) really think. But as far as I can tell, the only place you can read statements similar to that one here, are in all the posts accusing others of judging other people like that. Maybe they are all projecting their own dark, secret elitist thoughts onto others. Good post. Well thought through/written. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: KingCrimson250
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 04:39
|
To clarify, it wasn't my intention to judge anyone with that point, nor was it directed at anyone in particular. It was the general "we," merely warning against the trap of concluding: "The music I listen to is more intelligent, therefore I must be more intelligent as well!" Clearly some people somewhere have done it, otherwise the stereotype of prog snobs (or classical snobs, for that matter) would not have developed. Anyway, I wasn't wittingly accusing anybody, and I apologize if it came across that way. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 05:01
No apology needed. I didn't think that you were accusing anyone. But others sure have, so I just felt like doing some clarifying myself. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: November 10 2008 at 13:08
| It's a superb post, KC250. Welcome to the board. |
Posted By: KingCrimson250
Date Posted: November 17 2008 at 20:41
|
Thanks everyone. Anyway, to tie this all back to the original topic, I guess it all goes to say that listening to avant-garde, RIO, zeuhl, etc, doesn't actually make the listener better than those who don't listen to this music. I am also under the impression that there are many fans of this sub-genre who do not suggest this. Evidently there are some who do, but I think to associate elitism with avant-prog is an unfair generalization. That being said, there is some merit to saying that avant-prog is more complex than many other sub-genres of prog and requires more knowledge to fully understand. I think this is objectively measurable. But again, this does not fully determine the intellect of those who enjoy it. Perhaps if one is simply unable to grasp the music (if it is over their head, so to speak), then yes, this may speak to a lower degree of musical cerebral faculties (or whatever) on their part. However, it is entirely possible for someone to be able to fully understand the music and still dislike it - or for someone to enjoy it even if they have no idea what's going on. So I can certainly understand the angle behind avant-prog elitism, but I completely disagree with it. What I've heard of Zeuhl, RIO, etc, I've thoroughly enjoyed, but let us pretend for a moment that this were not true - suppose I hated it. That would not make my taste in music inferiour. Like Mozart, I appreciate the objective qualities - I just don't like the music. I'm sorry, I seem to have lost my train of thought. But I think I got the point across, more or less. If not, feel free to ask for clarification on any issue. Or argue. Whichever you'd prefer, really. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 18 2008 at 00:27
|
I agree with most of yor post, except with onme sentence:
I simply don't think so, knowledge has nothing to do with what music you LIKE, you might have full studies, play Bach as the angels, but still hate the music with all your guts.
On the other hand I told this before, I have a cousin with low intelligence (bellow borderline), he can't work, but comunicates well, he can't make a simple addition, somebody suggested that because he loved good music he could be what we call a "brilliant idiot" so his mother bought him a guitar and hired teachers, he tried for years and I had to buy his guitar because it was iimpossible for him, so he is a common borderline with nothing special.
He hasn't the slightest musical education or knowledge, but he loves Henry Cow as much as early Genesis or Karda Estra and he understands it, I guess by instinct.
His two sisters with complete musical education in the Conservatory listen only what's on the radio.
So intelligence or knowledge has nothing to do with musical taste.
Iván ------------- 
|