The Arrogant Proggie

I've been accused of musical snobbery in my time too, but I have to say that there is plenty of non-prog music that fulfils the criteria you've listed.

Edited by Certif1ed - June 21 2009 at 06:10

Certif1ed wrote: I've been accused of musical snobbery in my time too, but I have to say that there is plenty of non-prog music that fulfils the criteria you've listed.   I have long held the belief that no two people perceive the same piece of art - music, in this case - the same way. Hence I see a large red canvas with a thin brown stripe on it, or a pile of bricks, and someone else sees a masterpiece.   There's a hierarchy, but not necessarily in terms of emotional content - Andy Latimer (Camel's guitarist) has been known on several occasions to deliver huge amounts of heart-pounding, trance, musical connection and climax with a single note.   The essence ot "Trance" music (as an example of "pop") is also that it does exactly what you describe - with beats typically around 140BPM (or twice the average human heartbeat), there are actually scientifically minded people who have written Trance music that is supposed to connect in the ways you describe!   Whether it actually does that to you or not is a different matter entirely - since no two people perceive the same work of art the same way.   As your Huxley quote eloquently elaborates.   It follows that your failure to see the potential for pop music in terms of emotional culmination is a purely blinkered one - an unwillingness to accept that it could possibly do this. And thus it does not.     "No-one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle". - John Cleese.

I honestly admire you for your ability to reach euforia by simply listening to trance music! What I have figured during my investigation, however, is that trance music (or a fast paced loop in 4/4 with a deep bass hit on every beat) is only a part of the actual experience! I might be wrong, but I've always thought the other elements of the phenomenon (physical exercise or dancing, clubs with visual aids, the community within the clubs...) are just as, if not more, important than the music to reach that euforia! I somehow still believe the music is in "a supporting role", and still don't believe one finds happiness by concentrating on dhum, dhum, dhum, dhum....

I assure you, I'm more than willing to accept that pop music can create euforia. It just never happened before my musical education nor after it... If a trance-man can point me to a track that evoked happiness, anxiety, compassion, awe, love, surprise and hope all in one, I'll definitely give it a spin!

debrewguy wrote: one point - if anyone ever feels the need to proclaim , unprovoked, the superiority of any music over another ... there is only one way to do it - to clearly state that it is a personal opinion, a matter of one's taste in music. To present as based on objective measures is to merit any & all abuse thrown at you.

Ah, but is that not a personal opinion as well? Can you objectively and conclusively prove that the superiority of some music over another cannot be objectively and conclusively proven?









Edited by KingCrimson250 - June 21 2009 at 13:07

I didn't read anything you wrote here, but I have one thing to tell.

I had problems with thinking about prog music that it's the best style. But recently I found that it's very likely to light and dark side of the force. You have to be careful. Listen to your music and don't be too arrogant, huh ?

So beware, listening to prog music is good, but drugs, I mean being proud and arrogant b*****d is bad.

Why wont it die?!!! OMGWTFBBQ!

Deathrabbit wrote: Why wont it die?!!! OMGWTFBBQ!

Edited by Certif1ed - June 22 2009 at 14:23

Certif1ed wrote: Deathrabbit wrote: Why wont it die?!!! OMGWTFBBQ!   Um...I never did learn to speak l337 7\/\/47...   akamaisondufromage wrote: Certif1ed wrote: [ Where are the toilets? To which 'toilets' do you refer?   Apologies, in my arrogance, I assumed that these were well inferred in a lame attempt at bathroom humour. Now I feel flushed. I was simply uncertain of your "we".

Snow Dog wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Certif1ed wrote: [QUOTE=Deathrabbit]Why wont it die?!!! OMGWTFBBQ!   I think he was referring to we as wee....urine.

debrewguy wrote: KingCrimson250 wrote: debrewguy wrote: one point - if anyone ever feels the need to proclaim , unprovoked, the superiority of any music over another ... there is only one way to do it - to clearly state that it is a personal opinion, a matter of one's taste in music. To present as based on objective measures is to merit any & all abuse thrown at you. Ah, but is that not a personal opinion as well? Can you objectively and conclusively prove that the superiority of some music over another cannot be objectively and conclusively proven? actually , yes. (as quoted by a non-Britney Spears fan) - "if someone wants to argue what band or music is best, I throw sales info at them. After all, that is a concrete measure, right ?" Then if they say that isn't a true measure, you ask them for the concrete (i.e. measurable) terms on which they base their "facts". Once they start blubbering and babbling, you ask them what music they LIKE best and why. If you're lucky, you're with a music fan that understands the concept of personal taste. P.S. I have actually used that approach with several "elitists" here. None, not even the most educated ( I would check their profile) ever came up with an objective way to determine superiority. They all lapsed into "I know what I like, and that's that". For which the only answer is - "that's what I've been saying all along" !

I believe that there are objective ways to measure superiority.  I don't believe that all bands are created equal.  What's best for me may not be best for you is a given.  I don't readily equate commercial success with artistic success but people can use different criteria for determining the superiority of one bands, peice of music, or performance over another.  Commercial success is one way to measure superiority.  Band A had superior sales figures to band B.  Does it of itself make the music better.  No.  How about technical precision?  You've just been to a concert and boths bands were playing similarly difficult pieces,  Band A kept messing up and band B played immaculately.  Band B's was the superior performance.  Composition is another matter.  It seems obvious to me that certain composers and musicians are objectively more talented/ more professional than others (more genius).  It doesn't mean one will enjoy them more, though, nor that they will have more commercial success.

It can be problematic too when contrasting different styles.  Perhaps the music of Fred Durst and Beethoven are equally good in terms of what each does, which is different, but I don't believe that Fred Durst will ever be elevated to the musical stature of Beethoven.  Was Mozart's musical skill superior to Neal Morse's, or are they both musically equal -- each with his own strength and musical idiom?  Perhaps in another time and place, Neal Morse would have eclipsed Mozart making similar music.  Should William Hung get the same acclaim as Pavarotti?


Edited by Logan - June 22 2009 at 15:01

Logan wrote: It can be problematic too when contrasting different styles.  Perhaps the music of Fred Durst and Beethoven are equally good in terms of what each does, which is different, but I don't believe that Fred Durst will ever be elevated to the musical stature of Beethoven.  Was Mozart's musical skill superior to Neal Morse's, or are they both musically equal -- each with his own strength and musical idiom?  Perhaps in another time and place, Neal Morse would have eclipsed Mozart making similar music.  Should William Hung get the same acclaim as Pavarotti?