"elitist avant-proggers"

Logan wrote: It could well be in some cases, but from my experience of talking with people, I've come to the conclusion that many can't decipher/ understand avant types of music.  There are people who claim that there is nothing melodic within avant works which is absolutely untrue, or that it's just noise with no structure, or has no beauty.  It's one thing to understand and not like music, and another not to "get" the music.  I do believe that avant music takes a more sophisticated and intellectual ear to be able to appreciate -- it can take more cognitive deconstruction/ reconstruction.  I'm attuned to it, so I can enjoy it automatically.  Some discern chaos where I can plainly hear/ follow the structure/ form.  I know that I can appreciate music created within a traditional framework, but my tastes are very eclectic.  I can enjoy many types of music.  I do have my biases against melodic rock/ arena rock, but I don't think think it's because I can't understand the music. Slowly Christmas treeing it up I agree about many not being able to decipher it, and I figure they'd probably have more to like if they could. On the flipside, I have a few musical friends who are less fond of dissonant or more avant-garde music than me, though they could certainly understand it musically a hell of a lot better. I suspect a lot of people still wouldn't enjoy it even if they could understand/decipher it.

Hm. Does the fact that something's not corresponding to constraints make it any more artistic? I'm also more of an art house cinema person than a blockbuster person, but I still prefer the music of Simon And Garfunkel or Dire Straits to Henry Cow's. Part of art, I think, is how it builds upon and works within existing traditions. You could make the argument that constraints or commercial pressure can encourage creativity and force out new ideas that might you might not otherwise have had (compare Dostoevsky... constantly wrote under gambling debts, desperate to pay off bills... does that make The Idiot less artistic or less creative?).

Logan wrote: I agree with you on this.  I'd say, generally, yes but no absolutes or near absolutes.  It's a great point, and one I should have brought up.  It depends upon the context of what is meant by more artistic.  I'm using it in the sense of the extent to which an artist is able to express their individuality in the conceptualisation (as well as form... -- artistic agency).  Great art is not dependent on freedom from constraint, and in fact, much great art has been created under censorship and constraints (be it industry, patrons, governments and other considerations).  It can take real creativity to create something profound and enlightening under adverse conditions (adapting to other's expectations and constraints and still making something of lasting value that the artist can be proud of).  I love the old films of Zhang Yimou and Chan Kaige, and they had to work under Chinese censorship which they tried to circumvent, but they were very creative when it came to getting across their message.  With Dostoevsky (love him), I don't think that made it less artistic, but when commercial interests (the industry) is involved, it often stifles expression.  If one wanted to be signed to a  record company, there were expectations that limits artistic expression.  If one relates it to cinema's auteur theory (theory of authorship), Hollywood directors working under rigid studio conditions/ contracts/ expectations were still able to put their creative stamp on their films, but in Europe's art cinema, the writer director had more freedom to explore themes that may have been unpopular or was critical of the status quo, society, and industry.  I'm saying it's more likely in avant music for it be free of commercial restraints and elevated artistically because it's not just a product. Incidentally, I love the music of Simon and Garfunkel, and lots of popular music. With the 'generally' and that definition of artistic, fair enough.

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.

Logan wrote: Art can be industrial, and the industry itself can be quite artful, but I disagree with you there as there has often been conflict between the vision of artists and the industry.  Art is more than an expression of life.  It can be a reflection, a distortion, or a mirror image, and more.  Art can either reflect and endorse the status quo (systems and institutes of power, cultural and "artistic" expectations etc.), or it can be critical of it.  Commercial interests, as well as government interests can stifle criticism and creativity.  Look to Rock in Opposition -- they opposed pandering to Industry canon, and there have been many such artistic movements (some a commercial ploy).  Industry is about selling product, artists are about creating art (even if they need to make money from their art to continue making art).  The industry and artists have often collided, and sometimes due to horizontal integration as well as gov't interests, not to mention just putting out something that is popular, they won't accept the work of artists that they have supported in the past (in part, they don't wish certain interests to be offended).  The makers of commercials also have had a big effect on the types of things that are shown on TV. Art and the demands of industry often make uneasy bed-fellows (who is on top and who is getting behind who... ;) But it certainly can be a mutually beneficial and satisfying relationship). I agree with this.

[/quote]

me wrote: Arguably you could say the exact same about the retro-prog bands, and that you're just not relaxing and listening for the sake of the melodies/ideas involved rather than looking for real progression.

Logan wrote: I don't think one would say quite the same thing.  That's different from deciphering music.  And I can find a great deal of avant relaxing, but often followed by excitement.  It doesn't tax my brain, and there are beautiful melodies to be found.  What I find with retro-prog is that it often fails to do justice to the inspirations, let alone bring something new and worthwhile to the table.  It's less credibly artistic (or won't have the same prestige) to copy anothers' style, I'd say. Good points; the issue, I guess, is that the artistic intent of these bands isn't the same as that of the RIO movement etc. One is perhaps trying to put their own stamp on and to continue an existing style, the other to innovate and find new ways of expression. They're not directly comparable goals, and I think Marillion succeed at the first, while Area or Henry Cow succeed at the other.

Logan wrote: 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).

I'd disagree on that.

Logan wrote: Which part?  That I tend to think so?  That  it's more intellectual, or that it comes closer to challenging academic music?

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.

logan wrote: 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? Yes and no. I think people often have valid reasons for liking what they like and not liking what they don't. Often difficult to say it's whether they haven't yet developed to the point where they can appreciate something or whether it's simply that the music in question isn't what they're interested in.

Logan wrote: People have valid reasons for their likes and dislikes, but I think it more likely that a Progger cannot appreciate Art Zoyd because the music is too alien to them to grasp than, say, with Spock's Beard.  I understand SB's compositional approaches (it doesn't baffle me), but I don't like it.  One can understand music and still dislike it, of course

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.

Logan wrote: 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." Does the fact that something's being appreciated for different reasons make it less artistic? I think some artists are better at expressing their individuality and creativity through these standard format songs than through extended suites or improvisations etc.

Logan wrote: No, that doesn't make it less artistic.  And yes, some are better with standard song structures, but I mean that mainstream music tends to have more constraints and therefore more restrictions on artistic license (as there is more expectation when it comes to genre conventions and less chance for experimentation and innovation). Fair enough, when we're keeping it general.

TGM wrote: It could be said that this music is trying to inspire the masses or broaden their horizons. I'm sure there are plenty of 'mediocre' people who like prog, as well as 'brilliant' people who like chart pop. Equally, there's probably a fair bit of overlap. Also, I suppose you could say that different types of music are aiming for different things, and expanding the art form doesn't need to be one of them.

Logan wrote: It could be, but generally not.  More commonly it's commercialism at play rather than some form of altruism, at least when it comes to the industry's concerns (and quite a few bands are manufactured -- an think of the marketing machine).    Certainly there are many mediocre people who like Prog and brilliant people who like pop (it may be that most music academics/ professional high calibre musicians -- say in academic music -- prefer pop to prog.  Prog has a negative reputation for its "pretensions").  I like much pop a lot myself, but I'm certainly not one of the musical elite.  I love much folk music, and ethnic world music which is made for "the masses" of those countries.  It can be charming, and simplicity can be very beautiful to me.  Mind you, chart pop is so manufactured commonly, that not many would call it very artistic (but some of it is great by real music auteurs -- I wouldn't dismiss it all, though I am wary of the pop machine).  Gratuitous pun alert: Stoner rock is a higher art than much of that. I guess you could make the argument that commercialism's in itself an art... too convoluted for me to follow through, but there's definitely some talent/skill involved in creating a memorable/catchy piece and marketing it so that a song works as a hit. Otherwise, I basically agree with you.

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.

Atavachron wrote: 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

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...  

laplace wrote: Don't be disingenuous nitpickers, everyone. My point is that this "avant is for elitists" angle has never made sense. ;P

TGM: Orb wrote: Atavachron wrote: 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

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?

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).


Edited by Logan - October 26 2008 at 15:46

^ I question your logic and reasoning.  Why must that follow?

"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).

Windhawk wrote: 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...

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.

Rocktopus wrote: Windhawk wrote: 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... 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.

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.

Logan wrote: 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).

Only a short response, I'm afraid, but I'm completely in agreement here