My Defense of Modern Music

Of course we're going to say that 'our' music (i.e., PROG) is lightyears ahead, much more developped, complex, and simply better than 'theirs' (i.e. radio friendly, commercial, pop snuff). Of course we're going to say that.

But to say that we're better than them, and they have problems or issues or that their ignorant (maybe a little...) or that they are persons of a lesser calibre, they aren't as sophisticated as us - to say that is simply absurd and increadibly pompous. Of course we will always say our music is better than theirs, but to say that WE are better than THEM for that reason is wrong.

Feel free to argue with me, I'd like to see all the angles of this.

Mr. Bungle is post rock?

Wish it could be prosperity
That's waiting around the corner
All I can see is more agony
I don't believe things are better
Want it for you - want it for me
Let's do it and keep our sanity
Always a fight - we both may be right
too stubborn to see

Cause our finest hour is our darkest day
To admit we are human
that there's more to life than we dare to say
In our test of wills did we turn to man ?
Did we look for the answers -
from a higher source than we understand?
Gotta second chance if we come clean now
or it's all over ........ 

king volta wrote: Floydian42 wrote: king volta wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Being a lover of modern prog music I really agree qith what KV wrote.Very nicely put,but I see no need to defend it right now because no one has really attacked it.     Not here it isn't--but everywhere I go, my friends, my peers, my father...you name. They attack modern music, and it just got to me. So I wrote that for my school paper... Yeah, I hear ya', a lot of my freinds are into the whole 80's hair metal thing, which they believe is the greatest, the others are into modern rock (Panic at the Disco, Hinder, etc.) I've given up trying to show them music.But what I find odd is that whenever I show my friends a song, they hate it, but when I'm playing oh say Firth of Fifth on the guitar they'll love it, or they'll ask me to play it again, etc. That confuses me beyond belief. i know i get things like that also. i think it's jsut the quality of much of that music. if we didn't like genesis, in comparison to panic! at the disco, we would say genesis sounds really chessy because of something like the luster of the music or perhaps the lyrics--whereas we, as prog listeners love it. On the other hand most of us see Panic! as being uninteresting and chessy/cheap... The thing is, the individual parts in progressive music in general are always going to be more interesting when played singuarly to these people--because they don't hear the luster of the song in general and how it shifts, and they don't hear the lyrics. They could like the lick from Temple of Syrinx but hate Geddy Lee and not have to worry about it if you were just playing the lick. But if someone were to play the chords from that one Panic! single (something about 'Sins' I can't remember) we probably wouldn't be very interested. Do you get what I'm saying?

I see what your saying, but then that just makes me wonder about modern Prog, why don't they like it as much? I mean, the quality of Porcupine Tree I think is very good. I can understand dislikes on odd bands such as Radiohead, thats so eccentric I hated it at first, but when you have a seriously good band I don't get it.

The Miracle wrote: You rock Ben

    
Danke sehr!

The T wrote:   I like my music melodic, thematic, ever-changing, dazzling me with thematic work rather than by noise and "avant-garde-ness".

I guess this is where our difference lies and why many of us don't agree with some of your reviews - I personally couldn't care less for melody, I love everything from minimalistic electronics to hardcore avant garde/noise(Merzbow, Wolf Eyes, etc...) Perhaps it will grow n you someday...

BTW I suggest you listen to The Mantle a couple more times - I thought it was boring at first too

Floydian42 wrote: king volta wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Being a lover of modern prog music I really agree qith what KV wrote.Very nicely put,but I see no need to defend it right now because no one has really attacked it.     Not here it isn't--but everywhere I go, my friends, my peers, my father...you name. They attack modern music, and it just got to me. So I wrote that for my school paper... Yeah, I hear ya', a lot of my freinds are into the whole 80's hair metal thing, which they believe is the greatest, the others are into modern rock (Panic at the Disco, Hinder, etc.) I've given up trying to show them music.But what I find odd is that whenever I show my friends a song, they hate it, but when I'm playing oh say Firth of Fifth on the guitar they'll love it, or they'll ask me to play it again, etc. That confuses me beyond belief.

i know i get things like that also. i think it's jsut the quality of much of that music. if we didn't like genesis, in comparison to panic! at the disco, we would say genesis sounds really chessy because of something like the luster of the music or perhaps the lyrics--whereas we, as prog listeners love it. On the other hand most of us see Panic! as being uninteresting and chessy/cheap...

The thing is, the individual parts in progressive music in general are always going to be more interesting when played singuarly to these people--because they don't hear the luster of the song in general and how it shifts, and they don't hear the lyrics. They could like the lick from Temple of Syrinx but hate Geddy Lee and not have to worry about it if you were just playing the lick.

But if someone were to play the chords from that one Panic! single (something about 'Sins' I can't remember) we probably wouldn't be very interested.

Do you get what I'm saying?
    

king volta wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Being a lover of modern prog music I really agree qith what KV wrote.Very nicely put,but I see no need to defend it right now because no one has really attacked it.     Not here it isn't--but everywhere I go, my friends, my peers, my father...you name. They attack modern music, and it just got to me. So I wrote that for my school paper...

Yeah, I hear ya', a lot of my freinds are into the whole 80's hair metal thing, which they believe is the greatest, the others are into modern rock (Panic at the Disco, Hinder, etc.) I've given up trying to show them music.

But what I find odd is that whenever I show my friends a song, they hate it, but when I'm playing oh say Firth of Fifth on the guitar they'll love it, or they'll ask me to play it again, etc. That confuses me beyond belief.

fuxi wrote: king volta wrote: We have reached the modern age of music, and it is just now beginning. Well no, not exactly. We've been in 'the modern age of music' for at least 400 years. In 1607 Monteverdi wrote his ORFEO (which is close in spirit to certain prog concept albums!) and since then there's been revolution upon revolution. You're right in pointing out that (some) contemporary rock bands seem to have regained the spirit of adventure which characterised the 1970s. But you're in danger of generalising. First of all, the 1970s were not the only 'golden age' of popular music. The 1960s produced just as much good music (even if it wasn't prog) and the 1950s were no laughing matter, either. Secondly, you seem to think you're analysing 'Modern Music' in general. Well, you may call The Mars Volta or Porcupine Tree 'post-rock' as much as you like, but they're still only rock bands to me, i.e. bands operating with a 'rock music mentality' (albeit an experimental one) and aimed at a rock audience (even if it's an audience with a taste for adventure). Don't forget that there are OTHER forces out there, e.g. superb jazz soloists such as Keith Jarrett and Tomasz Stanko, 'World Music' performers such as the Portuguese fado singer Cristina Branco, and symphonic composers such as John Adams and Qigang Chen. If you ignore people like these, you just can't pretend you're discussing 'Modern Music'. P.S. Computers do not have an 'affect' on people. It's 'effects' you're after.

    
thanks man. constructive criticism is what moves us all along...

anyways, i'll go fix the grammar.

as for modern music's origins and whatnot, in my essay I was simply comparing the former powerhouses of the typical "Golden Age" this site focuses on--late sixties through the Seventies, to "modern" music of our current generation. I tried to keep classical music out simply because first of all, in my eyes, I see classical music as a much different by still very diverse form of the art--almsot a different sect.

But thanks for the points.

Very good essay.

I'm fan of the 70's and 70's are my favourite, but I won't say that I don't like music from the 00's, I'm just not too familiar with it; I have many bands to discover. There is so many good music around!

Anyway, if I understood well, you mentioned something about the music of the 70's (regardless of how diverse it is) is got some common factor, a link for all the bands of the era; and that is not the case with the new bands, because they all sound different because of helping technology, am I right?

I understand your point of view, and maybe you're right, but nobody can't say; it's just too early. Perhaps in 10 on 20 years we will be able to trace that common factor, spirit of the 2000's , in all the today's bands no matter how diverse they are.

About a technology issue - it's true that computers are really helping tool for making (and discovering) music. But technology is offering a lot, musicians have to be very cautious. As far as they are able to control themselves of drowning into artificiality, things will be fine for music.

I actually discussed about something similar in one of my previous threads, but it seems that people weren't very interested in it.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31391

this thread is nice, keep up the good work!