"elitist avant-proggers"

@ Henry's sig

Henry Plainview wrote: The T wrote:   Being an elitist is not saying "beethoven is better than Spice girls". Being an elitist is saying everybody that thinks otherwise is wrong or many worse things that can be read around here from time to time.   Then I guess I'm an elitist. Oh well. You can't differentiate with smaller differences as easily, if at all (Chopin vs Liszt!), but when somebody thinks Gigli is better than The Godfather in every possible way, then yes, they are wrong--but I only reserve judgement for such extreme cases.   Do people try the same equivelency argument with other media as well? Is Hamlet being better than Twilight merely a matter of opinion?

It becomes very tricky, but you've hit on what I think is an important point.  When we say that The Godfather is better than Gigli, we are measuring on a number of criteria, some being intangible; but there is something there that is obvious to most people.  However, when we get down to two forms of effective, good, (insert adjective) art there is nothing so obvious to quantify how one is better.  We can't describe and artists intentions because the motives are too complex, we can't identify the 'point' or the purpose of the art because, again, it's too complex.  So my idea would be like yours - with Chopin vs. Liszt there is no "winner" or such.  But with Godfather vs. Gigli, we can comfortable say one is better, because along our particular set of criteria, one is visibly stronger in many areas. 

I'm not sure exactly what I'm getting at because it requires a lot of thought to lay this out...perhaps we need bigger categories of we're going to measure art - not a continuum of high and low...but more of a "good" and "bad" or "effective", competent, etc. you see where that is going....

Quite the discussion here.

As someone who derives just as much enjoyment from Present and Thinking Plague as I do from the Flower Kings and Spock's Beard (just to mention a couple of examples......there are hundreds more), and who is also a musician (meaning, I understand each of those examples' music); I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. People like what they like.  I have, in fact, encountered the elitism of Avant Prog lovers.  I've also encountered the elitism of Symphonic Prog lovers.  And Jazz lovers.  And Classical lovers.  And fans of Dream Theater (sorry, couldn't resist throwing that one in there...........I like a lot of their music myself though).  And yet, I couldn't say that all fans of those genres are elitist.  Only that some people feel the need to think of themselves (and their tastes) as better than others.  For the most part, I've met fans of all sorts of music that were great people (far more than the elitist snobs).

I've even been accused of being elitist by the mother of my child (who only ever listened to whatever was new and popular on the radio at any given time and has no technical musical knowledge whatsoever).  When I tried to explain my reasons for not enjoying the latest flavor of the month pop radio songs, she leveled the accusations.  To be fair to her, her brother and I regularly teased her about her musical taste (or lack there of).  She took the view that perhaps the one who had bad taste in music was I, for only liking bands no one had ever heard of (you know, like Yes, Rush, and ELP ............. she really didn't know who those bands were).  In some ways, she had a point.

We who love various sub genres of prog, are really in the minority.  I'd bet there are fewer prog affectionadoes than there are fans of just about any well known genre (I'm sure I'm wrong somehow, but bear with me).  Are we not all elitists in some fasion, feeling that our music is superior to "lesser" forms of music, like Nickleback and Spice Girls?  Does it mean something that the Spice World album alone probably outsold the entire Avante Prog genre of the past 20 years?  Probably just that a whole lot of people have forgotten they ever bought that album while the Avante fans cherish their copies of Legend and 1313.

Do I have a point?  Not really.  Only that we are all, each and every one of us on this site, elitists.  And we should be proud of the fact that we will never have to explain the existence of Spice World in our CD rack to our friends (though we may have to spend a good deal of time explaining who all the other albums are by).  But most importantly of all, none of us, especially those of us that enjoy Avante Prog, will ever have to worry about our CD's being stolen.

Let's not get personal here. there are other ways of pointing out the error in peoples logic without that.

Un-Paused.

CCVP wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: infandous wrote: Do I have a point?  Not really.  That's pretty much what this thread is about. lol'd hard

So you guys DID get my point after all





Edited by infandous - November 06 2008 at 13:52

It seems to me that the point people have been trying to make throughout the thread is that the relationship between the objective quality of art and the subjective appreciation of art is not neccesarily as strong as we might like to believe. I think we would all agree that there are certain measurable aspects of art which we can compare - the music of Yes is more complex than that of Nirvana, I do not believe that any here would argue this. Increased complexity does require greater mental effort to comprehend, and more complex music does require more education, increased attentiveness and a higher amount of intelligence to comprehend and appreciate this. I think this is fair to say - a convoluted math problem invariably requires greater mental agility than 2+2, so why should numbers on a page be any different than notes on a page?

The problem occurs, of course, when we begin to equate "intelligent music" with "intelligent people."

Intelligent people can enjoy simple music. Consider a fast-food joint - take, for example, McDonald's. McDonald's does not produce high quality burgers. I think most people would agree on this. I do not think that anyone would eat a McDonald's burger and exclaim that it is a burger of utmost quality and that the guy who flipped it should go on tour, bringing this delicacy to five-star restaurants around the globe. The ingredients used are of poor quality (who knows where that "beef" comes from?), it has virtually no nutritional value, and almost no time or effort is put into its creation. It is, all things considered, an objectively bad burger. Yet billions of people around the globe enjoy McDonald's burgers. Many even concede that it is a poor burger, yet have no qualms with eating it regardless. Why?

Catchy melodies are catchy melodies. An enjoyable beat is an enjoyable beat. Lyrics that relate are lyrics that relate. These are often signs of less complex music - a catchy melody is usually short and simplistic, enjoyable dance beats are almost inevitably in 4/4, and lyrics that are easy to relate to are usually so because they are shallow and address a topic in a sweeping, general fashion that does not actually say much, allowing the listener to super-impose meaning. However, the fact that the music is not particularly intelligent does not prevent intelligent people from enjoying it. A lot of pop music is meant to be fun. Pop artists aren't generally looking to make some sweeping, artistic vision that sets a bold new direction for mankind - they often just want to give people a good time, or even just have a good time themselves. Prog, classical, a lot of jazz - it's great music to sit and listen to, digest, analyze, dissect - but not everyone wants to sit and listen all the time. In other words, would you ever sing TAAB at a karaoke party?

This works both ways as well. I personally dislike much of the works of Mozart. He was a genious composer. His music is exceptionally sophisticated and intelligent and has extraordinary depth to it. However, a lot of it just sounds "poncey" to my ears. I'm not even sure what I mean by that, to be honest, but that word seems to describe it to me. I can deeply appreciate Mozart's music - I just don't enjoy listening to it.

So I can enjoy MC Hammer's "Can't Touch This" while belting it from a mic on-stage. Does that make me less intelligent? No. So Mozart's music seems a bit too "poncey" for me. Does that make me less intelligent? No. Is Mozart's music more intelligent than MC Hammer's? Indubitably. Weird.

Except perhaps not so strange. As per my original point, I think we just need to accept that objective quality /= subjective enjoyment. It is perfectly understandable that the classically accomplished roomate prefers ABBA. This does not make her less intelligent. Were she to argue that ABBA wrote music that was objectively superiour to Bach, then yes, perhaps her thought processes could be called into question. However, the simple enjoyment of music means nothing.

KingCrimson250 wrote: The problem occurs, of course, when we begin to equate "intelligent music" with "intelligent people."

There's been a lot of accusations that this is the way "we" (or I) really think. But as far as I can tell, the only place you can read statements similar to that one here, are in all the posts accusing others of judging other people like that. Maybe they are all projecting their own dark, secret elitist thoughts onto others.

Good post. Well thought through/written.

KingCrimson250 wrote: Anyway, I wasn't wittingly accusing anybody, and I apologize if it came across that way.

No apology needed. I didn't think that you were accusing anyone. But others sure have, so I just felt like doing some clarifying myself.

Thanks everyone.

Anyway, to tie this all back to the original topic, I guess it all goes to say that listening to avant-garde, RIO, zeuhl, etc, doesn't actually make the listener better than those who don't listen to this music. I am also under the impression that there are many fans of this sub-genre who do not suggest this. Evidently there are some who do, but I think to associate elitism with avant-prog is an unfair generalization.

That being said, there is some merit to saying that avant-prog is more complex than many other sub-genres of prog and requires more knowledge to fully understand. I think this is objectively measurable. But again, this does not fully determine the intellect of those who enjoy it. Perhaps if one is simply unable to grasp the music (if it is over their head, so to speak), then yes, this may speak to a lower degree of musical cerebral faculties (or whatever) on their part. However, it is entirely possible for someone to be able to fully understand the music and still dislike it - or for someone to enjoy it even if they have no idea what's going on. So I can certainly understand the angle behind avant-prog elitism, but I completely disagree with it. What I've heard of Zeuhl, RIO, etc, I've thoroughly enjoyed, but let us pretend for a moment that this were not true - suppose I hated it. That would not make my taste in music inferiour. Like Mozart, I appreciate the objective qualities - I just don't like the music.

I'm sorry, I seem to have lost my train of thought. But I think I got the point across, more or less. If not, feel free to ask for clarification on any issue. Or argue. Whichever you'd prefer, really.