Why are prog fans such music snobs?

i'm  arrogant and snob when it is time to discuss music.

Reed Lover wrote: Low End Grin anyone?

I prefer Das Rheingold, myself

Fantômas wrote: As I said, there's no "non-relative" ways to define who's better. You can't say that your perception of "elegance, depth, harmony, mastery" worths more than mine, or if that is definitive to tell who's better (If I like raw music, the quality of being raw is a point that matter in definition of quality). In the same way, you can define for yourself who is a young wanna be's. But that definition can, maybe, not be  the same of mine. I think that what you said justify why prog fans are such snobs. They think their music is better for being elegant and beautiful. But, if to you a PFM's song is beautiful, for me is just tacky. Got it? For me, Peter Gabriel is nothing more than a "wish I could sing, but I can't, so let me try to ruin the songs with bad lyrics and awful vocals", but to you he may be the greatest of all... There's nothing wrong in it. Just a question of different points of view.

An experienced listener can hear "depth, elegance, harmony..." instinctively but there are also statistical and analytical ways to measure a large part of aesthetic value - this is a part that can be proved; other part is irrational, non-musical, difficult to prove... but very much connected with the first part.
The developement of several parameters can be analysed in a musical piece - timbre, melody, harmony, dynamics, form... The more subtle this developement the more quality the music.
To achieve this subtleness a musician must have some talent (genetical preference) and various (not only technical!) skills (acquired with self-dependent effort). If this is not present than someone is just a wanna-be musician making less quality music no matter how interesting the concept, lyrics, energy, sincerity, hairstyle, clothes... What you like more (is better for you personaly) is a just personal taste and doesn't say a lot about what is better (quality) in general. Some people just like less quality music or care more about non-musical things. Nothing wrong with this...

Conserning "raw": I think you didn't understand what I meant. With "raw" I meant dilettant, amateurish, sloppy... NOT a raw atmosphere, feel... I persume you meant the later.

BTW I'm not a snob. I like all music of high quality (not only prog). I can also enjoy some less quality music but don't waste too much time on it...

Oh, I was almost forgetting: To say that progressive is music and punk no is not a question of taste. It's stupid. You really can do better than this, boys.

Agree!

A music to be good depends of a serial things, not only of technique (IMO).

Agree again! Considering this and above written facts Genesis is musically better quality than Sex Pistols.

Well, when most bands start sounding more like ELP, then I'll be less of a snob.. well maybe, then again I hated Triumvirat... so... hmmmm

When most bands start playing their instruments as well as ELP.. then....

^ exactly!

my favorite is the anti-snob type of snob, usually characterized by overuse of the word "pretentious" as a put-down.

1. Snobs are fast to name something 'a crap' only because they do not like it. And you can definitely find this word and even !!!worse ones!!! in the reviews on albums which do not deserve it at all.

2. Snobs are slow to try something different.

James Lee wrote: Anyone who didn't understand the humor behind this thread: let's discuss it over a meal at Swift's Irish Baby Restaurant.

As usual a very modest proposal.......

well I cant help being an effete snob.

I'm just off to listen to some wonderful opuses....Low End Grin anyone?

sigod wrote: Oh Lord, I am a tremendous snob. Grant me the humility to recognise my error, And mend my errant ways. Give me the vision to see that Music from all quarters holds your divine light, And is a gift from your heart to mine. Lord help me lessen my grip on this Young teenybopper's throat and grant me The wisdom not to throw his worthless, Eminem buying arse from this speeding car... Amen.

Oh Lord, please be an interventionalist God
and help Sigod in his prayers to make them come through,
or help him see the light that you aren't an interventionalist God
and make him choose to lessen his grip on my throat on his own account

Ameeeeeeeeeeeeeelp

terramystic wrote: Fantômas wrote: Well, prog fans usually thinks their tastes is better than anyone's. This is simply pathetic. There's nothing in the music that tells me that Genesis is better than Sex Pistols, you wanna know why? Because there are no parameters to point who is the best (there are to point who's more technical, but not who's the best). In fact, just one exists: Musical preferences. And this is totally subjective, by all means, you can't say that progressive is musically superior. It's an arrogant thinking. If the progressive were superior, the fans wouldn't think this way. There are some relatively objective aesthetic merrits e.g. elegance, depth, harmony, mastery... There are just different subjective ways to achieve these. Musical art (or any other art) is also a craft in a way and a certain amount of skill, talent and experience is necessary (compositional, performing...). Some young wanna-b's without any experience, talent or knowledge can't be be taken sriously as art. Sometimes one can clearly distinguish a raw (unworked) work (Sex Pistols) from a well treated (Genesis).

As I said, there's no "non-relative" ways to define who's better. You can't say that your perception of "elegance, depth, harmony, mastery" worths more than mine, or if that is definitive to tell who's better (If I like raw music, the quality of being raw is a point that matter in definition of quality). In the same way, you can define for yourself who is a young wanna be's. But that definition can, maybe, not be  the same of mine. I think that what you said justify why prog fans are such snobs. They think their music is better for being elegant and beautiful. But, if to you a PFM's song is beautiful, for me is just tacky. Got it? For me, Peter Gabriel is nothing more than a "wish I could sing, but I can't, so let me try to ruin the songs with bad lyrics and awful vocals", but to you he may be the greatest of all... There's nothing wrong in it. Just a question of different points of view.

terramystic wrote: Fantômas wrote: Oh, I was almost forgetting: To say that progressive is music and punk no is not a question of taste. It's stupid. You really can do better than this, boys. I agree! Punk is music but there is more emphasis on the message than on  the music. This also tells me that Genesis is musically better because they put more effort in music. Good music requiers some effort, practise, talent...

Good, that tells me nothing. Technically, of course, Genesis is miles ahead of Sex Pistols. That's not the thing. A music to be good depends of a serial things, not only of technique (IMO). Sex Pistols is better than Genesis musically because they're not boring, they're not pretentious, and they're a highly energetic and sincere band. IMO.