Is Prog Underrated?

SteveG wrote: Ah, yep. I would have to agree. I consider prog to be a performing art. Its just not a fine art.

Its a way of thinking about-and categorizing the arts that has been proven wrong countless times throughout the centuries. A lot of older autodidact/folk/outsider art is now counted as fine art. Self taught artists such as Paul Cezanne, William Blake, Max Ernst, Balthus, Frida Kahlo (or composers like Bohuslav Martinů, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Giacinto Scelsi...) often had a harder time careeerwise but eventually such things doesn't matter - as it shouldn't. Within the arts, because so much useless crap is produced and presented even at most important museums and fairs "everyone" puts far too much weight on the "where" rather than "what". But thankfully history doesn't care as much about such technicalities. Some prog will be canonized and a lot of academic arts - now respected and considered important will be dismissed and forgotten. 

Hi,

Prog/Progressive for me, is not underrated, or overrated. It is MUSIC, and regardless it will resonate as long as it attracts people to it, be it live or Memorex ... sorry couldn't help it!

If you look at music history, the periods of material that CHANGED the norms, were the ones that ended up being remembered and are a part of the history of the art form.

Some think that rock music, is too much pop song defined and simplified, and as such its history within the realms of "music" will be limited, when so much more can be done with more instruments or compositionally. I will not agree with Ian Anderson, who said that everything has been done in rock music that can be done, and its over, but the changes within it, to electric and then to something else, and now to the DAW, kinda tells you that the music is not solid enough to be carried as a musical element that will change the history of the art form. Jazz, for example stands to benefit more by adding the odd things and time changes to classical music, which are ... still ... not quite being reflected as "classical composers", most of which  have disappeared due to the possible chance of 10 minutes of fame and a million dollars.

I have always thought that many of the well known pieces by various folks that are considered historic and tops in the Progressive/Prog world, should be considered serious composed material, and that makes a band a "composer", which I think is the future definition for the history of music. Up until now the single person got the credit, and now it's 2 or 3 or 4 or more folks together that become known as the composer, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that.

The only thing that makes this "underrated", or even "overrated", is the fact that this is being done amidst a very large group of "fans", and not quite folks that are well knowledgeable about music itself, or its history (myself included ... mine is peripheral, I would say!), in order to be saying/asking some of the things they are. But the things that hurt the understanding and appreciation of the music itself, for me, is the bunch of posts about which is "better", and which "guitar" is more important. Weird when no one that we know ever asked which violin made ... something ... better than the rest of the music! Or which conductor made it more important!

Those kinds of questions, can only ask senseless questions that do not always mean a whole lot, or have any direct relation to the music and the presentation of it at all. Go read about any major artist, and that is their biggest complaint.

All in all, the "rating" (over or under) is really meaningless ... and I really think that we should respect the music for what it is ... one of the most valuable of all human expressions, and how it can help us at so many times in our life, compared to any other art. It might not be our favorite, but it still stands up ... and as such, a rating is meaningless to our own experience.