| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
boo boo 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
 Posted: April 29 2009 at 19:04 |
Every genre has their elitist fans.
But I do admit that there's something about elitist prog fans that especially bugs me. We certainly have some people who think that because prog is not mainstream and because it is so complex, sophisticated and inaccessible to a lot of people that listening to it makes you some sort of superior breed of music fan.
I find prog fans who discriminate against pop music, punk and alternative rock are just as elitist and annoying as punk fans who hate on prog and classic rock.
|
 |
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: April 29 2009 at 22:56 |
Hmm...being also a metalhead, I think prog circles are certainly a lot less conformist and less driven by peer pressure than metal. Maybe it's because we still don't know what prog really is  , but jokes apart, I haven't seen much ridicule on the net by prog fans of somebody else for listening to pop or any other non prog genre, which is rampant in metal. "Stay Metal" is taken to a literal extreme by some annoying 'purists' and they HAVE to hold forth on how the "worrying" trend of metal folk listening to too much non metal music is "diluting" the scene. This form of elitism is particularly evident in black metal circles. And I can assure you that I have not exaggerated one bit in that sentence, those are all words I have seen used many times in the exact same context. I certainly haven't seen this kind of verbal coercion in prog circles, people just seem to do what they like though some prog fans do love to talk about how the musicians in their favourite bands - obviously prog! - have such outstanding musicians and the rest of the world is so worth pitying - and lamenting about - for not recognizing their talent...something not seen so much in metal, instead there's a "Who gives a f***?" attitude to musical capabilities, it's all about staying brutal! 
Now, the next question is: is there really a problem if I don't listen to or like a lot of pop music, does that somehow make me arrogant? I fail to see why, if it doesn't do much for me, it's hard to force myself to listen to lots and lots of it. I happen to find most pop singers extremely artificial, in the same way that most people who are unfamiliar with prog are going to find the Hammils bad and crappy. I don't fret that the likes of Hammil did not get the recognition of say a popstar because I am quite sure I wouldn't enjoy his singing so much in a pop context. It really does not reflect badly on pop at all and I am sure many talented artists must have been and still are associated with it over the years but simply that it's not possible for me to try hard to like each and every style of music (though I might stumble upon a few artists even then who I like, as with pop). I make sure I don't stick to only one style of music and become obsessed with artists only and only from that style of music but ultimately I am looking to have a good time listening to music and it's not always worth the effort to try a zilion times to find something to like in something I dislike strongly, not unless something excites my curiosity and makes me want to come back even if I didn't entirely like what I heard.
|
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008
Location: Norwich UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7053
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 01:25 |
|
|
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|
Matthew T
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 01 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5291
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 02:03 |
Yeah sure did but it not like he needs them  Stephen Stills auditioned I believe . What would have happened to CSNY if he had got the part 
|
|
Matt
|
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008
Location: Norwich UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7053
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 02:52 |
^
I guess they would have been plain old CN&Y.
Stills was some sort of child actor at one point I think - sorry for quick off-topic but I'm going to check out that Neil Young album you've been playing a lot later today
|
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 05:57 |
 sealchan wrote:
I used to have a serious superiority complex regarding the superiority of MY music (mostly prog) to other more popular pop and rock music. Since that time I have learned much about the subjectivity of my perspective and I now only joke about MY musical tastes being superior. My understanding of the subjectivity of my perspective is, in fact, partially theoretical and comes about through Jungian personality type theory and the popular book Please Understand Me. To some extent I like the kind of music I like because of my personality.
|
To some extent that must be true, but there are a great number of factors other than personality on the kind of music you like.
One commonly overlooked factor is the physical; You are made up of a number of atoms which vibrate constantly. Upon receiving outside vibrations, your atoms react - and this can be a pleasant or unpleasant feeling which you translate as like or dislike for the experience. Music is particularly powerful - and personal in this respect, as no two people could possibly appreciate the same piece of music the exact same way, because of their dissimilar atomic structures and emotional reactions to changes in vibrations.
As you say, taste can never be superior - although informed and reasoned taste can definitely have an edge in deducing quality.
sealchan wrote:
I suppose given that in many cases the musicianship of progressive rock is better than average pop or rock, this is a natural occurrence especially if you are younger. These days there is so little musicianship left in pop music (sampled tape loops and whatnot) that it is like apples and oranges to compare prog to rap or dance.
|
This is not necessarily so - apart from the apples and oranges comparison.
It's true that you do not have to be a trained musician to play pop or rock music - this has been true from the beginning of the styles. But it is also not true to say that trained musicians will play better pop or rock music - it just doesn't work that way (similarly to jazz in many respects).
In pop, there are good musicians, and in prog, there are poor musicians - as well as vice versa. There are more people (I hesitate to say musicians!) playing pop than prog, ergo there are proportionately fewer good musicians in pop - and because of the lucrative nature of the business, more and more people are attracted to it who do not have musical skills, but the X factor that sells songs.
Using sampled tape loops is not necessarily an indication of lack of musical abilities. Stockhausen did it and invented a whole new way of composing that directly led to the Beatles' "Tomorrow Never Knows" (IIRC), and "Revolution #9" (definitely). Both the latter use sampled tape loops, as do other Beatles tracks, The Orb, Autechre, and Mellotrons.
sealchan wrote:
One thing I do have to concede to pop music is that pop music does often exceed prog in two categories (can you name others?):
1. Quality of vocals: better singers in pop
2. Catchier melodies in pop, especially if producers and other non-musical professionals get involved
Do you agree/disagree? Any life stories about having rehabilitated from being a prog snob? Any justifications for being more of a prog snob?
|
I disagree - with #1, as this is a generalisation: What makes a better singer? Your personal taste? Ability to stay in tune? Ability to perform complex passages, trills and arpeggios? Great tone?
In prog, there are some excellent singers - and there are probably more excellent pop singers in terms of numbers, but I wonder if it's true proportionately speaking?
What about mediochre pop singers who use all kinds of studio gimmicks to make their voice sound more pleasing on record? There are a great number of those: I had the misfortune to witness Amy Winehouse singing live recently, and she sounded terrible - and this was a televised (and presumably edited) performance. The same goes for Duffy and a large number of very famous "singers".
I'm not saying that they all do this - but I'd suspect that the majority do, as it seems the natural sound of a voice is unacceptable these days. The untrained ear can play tricks in a live situation - it can hear the intent rather than the actuality through familiarity.
It's the live situation in which any band should really be judged - anyone can make a recording with a great producer and it will sound great, if the band and producer are "on fire".
Live, you can hear the recorded backing tracks and tell if people are miming (I HATE it when people do that, Chesney Hawkes!!!) or otherwise faking it.
#2 isn't necessarily a plus point - since when did Prog need catchy melodies?
Point to consider; some of the greatest prog melodies are not immediately catchy, but once you're familiar with them, they can be far more catchy than any pop music - parts of Genesis' "Firth of Fifth" or "Robbery, Assault and Battery", for example - or even Gentle Giant's "On Reflection".
I think pop music has more accessible and immediately catchy melodies and the most popular ones tend to capture a zeitgeist.
The best Prog does more than this - it captures a more timeless musical spirit in the same way that classical music does. That is yet to be proven, of course, as there are many pop songs which are rightly considered as classics - but I think most of the older ones are beginning to sound like old songs rather than timeless ones. The Beatles are a rare exception - but then we consider them Proto-Prog |
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 06:14 |
|
Another point about pop apparently lacking musicianship, is that it shows the OP lacks an understanding of the industry.
A lot of people that are play the instruments behind pop singer divas are virtuoso musicians, believe it or not.
They do it because it's a money gig. And it's a wise thing to do as well, because what does that mean?
When they go and start their own solo project/band and embark on making the music they really like, they have the financial backing behind them already because of their earnings they made from playing with the big stars of pop, they have more connections in the industry and this helps them overcome the obstacles many artists that face when they try to create the music they love such as financial ruin, not being able to get booked for tours/sell many records and get a good sized fan base.
Joe Satriani played for Deep Purple and The Rolling Stones at one time in his career. It wasn't the music he wanted to create as he does as a solo artist, but I'm sure it help pay the bills that bit more and helped with exposure.
Australia jazz fusion guitar legend virtuoso Brett Garsed played with Aussie pop icon John Farnam. It helped get his name off the ground that bit more than had he just played solo projects all the time.
|
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008
Location: Norwich UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7053
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 07:59 |
Petrovsk Mizinski wrote:
Another point about pop apparently lacking musicianship, is that it shows the OP lacks an understanding of the industry.
A lot of people that are play the instruments behind pop singer divas are virtuoso musicians, believe it or not.
|
Best/worst example of this I know is Tom Jones' It's Not Unusual (1967 or so) had a break played by the 17-y-o.......................................Jimmy Page
|
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|
Ultime
Forum Newbie
Joined: August 25 2006
Location: Québec
Status: Offline
Points: 33
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 08:02 |
Petrovsk Mizinski wrote:
Another point about pop apparently lacking musicianship, is that it shows the OP lacks an understanding of the industry.
A lot of people that are play the instruments behind pop singer divas are virtuoso musicians, believe it or not.
They do it because it's a money gig. And it's a wise thing to do as well, because what does that mean?
When they go and start their own solo project/band and embark on making the music they really like, they have the financial backing behind them already because of their earnings they made from playing with the big stars of pop, they have more connections in the industry and this helps them overcome the obstacles many artists that face when they try to create the music they love such as financial ruin, not being able to get booked for tours/sell many records and get a good sized fan base.
Joe Satriani played for Deep Purple and The Rolling Stones at one time in his career. It wasn't the music he wanted to create as he does as a solo artist, but I'm sure it help pay the bills that bit more and helped with exposure.
Australia jazz fusion guitar legend virtuoso Brett Garsed played with Aussie pop icon John Farnam. It helped get his name off the ground that bit more than had he just played solo projects all the time.
|
They are certainly virtuoso musicians - they are there to play the music and they are not allowed to errors - they have to deliver the right way.
One of the difference between proggies and poppies is that poppies do not care about them musicians
|
|
Ultime tentative
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 08:58 |
Ultime wrote:
Petrovsk Mizinski wrote:
Another point about pop apparently lacking musicianship, is that it shows the OP lacks an understanding of the industry.
A lot of people that are play the instruments behind pop singer divas are virtuoso musicians, believe it or not.
They do it because it's a money gig. And it's a wise thing to do as well, because what does that mean?
When they go and start their own solo project/band and embark on making the music they really like, they have the financial backing behind them already because of their earnings they made from playing with the big stars of pop, they have more connections in the industry and this helps them overcome the obstacles many artists that face when they try to create the music they love such as financial ruin, not being able to get booked for tours/sell many records and get a good sized fan base.
Joe Satriani played for Deep Purple and The Rolling Stones at one time in his career. It wasn't the music he wanted to create as he does as a solo artist, but I'm sure it help pay the bills that bit more and helped with exposure.
Australia jazz fusion guitar legend virtuoso Brett Garsed played with Aussie pop icon John Farnam. It helped get his name off the ground that bit more than had he just played solo projects all the time.
|
They are certainly virtuoso musicians - they are there to play the music and they are not allowed to errors - they have to deliver the right way.
One of the difference between proggies and poppies is that poppies do not care about them musicians |
I find this to be both a confusing statement.
If pop producers and artists don't care about session musicians, they wouldn't go out of their way to get the very best in the business. Why do they need to go through the trouble of getting virtuoso musicians that work for a large sum of money when they can just get a couple of hacks to do it on the cheap? It's proof enough that a lot of pop producers and artists really DO care about the sound they're putting out.
What musicians have the most prolific careers in pop music? Paul McCartney? Elton John? Stevie Wonder?
Why no, it's guys like Tony Levin, Steve Gadd, Billy Preston and Steve Lukather of course. Behind about 80% of the old pop songs you hear on the radio are musicians just as talented as the best in prog.
Granted that in this more technically savy day and age there's not as much of a requirement for good session musicians. There's no denying that pop music today is pretty ghastly for the most part, technology does most of the work now, pop music used to have the distinction of having the very best singers, but since Britney standards have been lowered.
But in the older days pop music producers and artists, love them or hate them, put a lot of care and talent into their work. If prog deserves universial respect for the amount of discipline and talent that goes into it, then so does a lot of pop music.
Edited by boo boo - April 30 2009 at 09:02
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 11:28 |
sealchan wrote:
1. Quality of vocals: better singers in pop
2. Catchier melodies in pop, especially if producers and other non-musical professionals get involved
|
Without wanting to sound rude ... if it comes down to this ... you are not listening to music ... you are listening to "hits" ... or only the 5 bands mentioned here (so to speak) ... and you have to understand that is not indicative of reality, or what is out there ... at all!
I specially like "catchier melodies" ... pop music is almost single handedly defined by "melody" and that is part of its catch ... I suppose that we could say that not enough of us has much melody in our hearts to the point where we have to fill it up with the nearest fix ... ooohhhh one over there .... take five! And worse ... we allow some glorified pompous fools and advertisers to tell us that it is good ... and you know what? we believe them! Ohh ... Pink Floyd never had melodies up until DSotM ...
Quality of vocals ... maybe in America ... but then, you don't see many girls and boys taking on rock and experimental music in America like you do in Europe ... so you are missing vocals and then some ...
Can't believe I even answered this thread!
|
|
Ultime
Forum Newbie
Joined: August 25 2006
Location: Québec
Status: Offline
Points: 33
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 13:09 |
boo boo wrote:
Ultime wrote:
Petrovsk Mizinski wrote:
Another point about pop apparently lacking musicianship, is that it shows the OP lacks an understanding of the industry.
A lot of people that are play the instruments behind pop singer divas are virtuoso musicians, believe it or not.
They do it because it's a money gig. And it's a wise thing to do as well, because what does that mean?
When they go and start their own solo project/band and embark on making the music they really like, they have the financial backing behind them already because of their earnings they made from playing with the big stars of pop, they have more connections in the industry and this helps them overcome the obstacles many artists that face when they try to create the music they love such as financial ruin, not being able to get booked for tours/sell many records and get a good sized fan base.
Joe Satriani played for Deep Purple and The Rolling Stones at one time in his career. It wasn't the music he wanted to create as he does as a solo artist, but I'm sure it help pay the bills that bit more and helped with exposure.
Australia jazz fusion guitar legend virtuoso Brett Garsed played with Aussie pop icon John Farnam. It helped get his name off the ground that bit more than had he just played solo projects all the time.
|
They are certainly virtuoso musicians - they are there to play the music and they are not allowed to errors - they have to deliver the right way.
One of the difference between proggies and poppies is that poppies do not care about them musicians |
I find this to be both a confusing statement.
If pop producers and artists don't care about session musicians, they wouldn't go out of their way to get the very best in the business. Why do they need to go through the trouble of getting virtuoso musicians that work for a large sum of money when they can just get a couple of hacks to do it on the cheap? It's proof enough that a lot of pop producers and artists really DO care about the sound they're putting out.
What musicians have the most prolific careers in pop music? Paul McCartney? Elton John? Stevie Wonder?
Why no, it's guys like Tony Levin, Steve Gadd, Billy Preston and Steve Lukather of course. Behind about 80% of the old pop songs you hear on the radio are musicians just as talented as the best in prog.
Granted that in this more technically savy day and age there's not as much of a requirement for good session musicians. There's no denying that pop music today is pretty ghastly for the most part, technology does most of the work now, pop music used to have the distinction of having the very best singers, but since Britney standards have been lowered.
But in the older days pop music producers and artists, love them or hate them, put a lot of care and talent into their work. If prog deserves universial respect for the amount of discipline and talent that goes into it, then so does a lot of pop music. |
I was not talking about producers but listeners....
|
|
Ultime tentative
|
|
Ultime
Forum Newbie
Joined: August 25 2006
Location: Québec
Status: Offline
Points: 33
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 13:10 |
boo boo wrote:
Ultime wrote:
Petrovsk Mizinski wrote:
Another point about pop apparently lacking musicianship, is that it shows the OP lacks an understanding of the industry.
A lot of people that are play the instruments behind pop singer divas are virtuoso musicians, believe it or not.
They do it because it's a money gig. And it's a wise thing to do as well, because what does that mean?
When they go and start their own solo project/band and embark on making the music they really like, they have the financial backing behind them already because of their earnings they made from playing with the big stars of pop, they have more connections in the industry and this helps them overcome the obstacles many artists that face when they try to create the music they love such as financial ruin, not being able to get booked for tours/sell many records and get a good sized fan base.
Joe Satriani played for Deep Purple and The Rolling Stones at one time in his career. It wasn't the music he wanted to create as he does as a solo artist, but I'm sure it help pay the bills that bit more and helped with exposure.
Australia jazz fusion guitar legend virtuoso Brett Garsed played with Aussie pop icon John Farnam. It helped get his name off the ground that bit more than had he just played solo projects all the time.
|
They are certainly virtuoso musicians - they are there to play the music and they are not allowed to errors - they have to deliver the right way.
One of the difference between proggies and poppies is that poppies do not care about them musicians |
I find this to be both a confusing statement.
If pop producers and artists don't care about session musicians, they wouldn't go out of their way to get the very best in the business. Why do they need to go through the trouble of getting virtuoso musicians that work for a large sum of money when they can just get a couple of hacks to do it on the cheap? It's proof enough that a lot of pop producers and artists really DO care about the sound they're putting out.
What musicians have the most prolific careers in pop music? Paul McCartney? Elton John? Stevie Wonder?
Why no, it's guys like Tony Levin, Steve Gadd, Billy Preston and Steve Lukather of course. Behind about 80% of the old pop songs you hear on the radio are musicians just as talented as the best in prog.
Granted that in this more technically savy day and age there's not as much of a requirement for good session musicians. There's no denying that pop music today is pretty ghastly for the most part, technology does most of the work now, pop music used to have the distinction of having the very best singers, but since Britney standards have been lowered.
But in the older days pop music producers and artists, love them or hate them, put a lot of care and talent into their work. If prog deserves universial respect for the amount of discipline and talent that goes into it, then so does a lot of pop music. |
I was not talking about producers but listeners
|
|
Ultime tentative
|
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008
Location: Norwich UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7053
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 15:01 |
moshkito wrote:
[
Ohh ... Pink Floyd never had melodies up until DSotM ...Can't believe I even answered this thread!
|
Yes they did and you know they did 
Edited by el dingo - April 30 2009 at 15:02
|
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|
Hercules
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 14 2007
Location: Near York UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7024
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 15:33 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
sealchan wrote:
1. Quality of vocals: better singers in pop |
It's similar for VdGG albums ... Peter Hammill is a fantastic singer an musician IMO (I'm a huge fan), but if you play some of their masterpieces to someone who only knows pop/mainstream rock/metal my guess is that they would intuitively say "the vocals suck".
|
Sorry, but as a die hard prog fan, I'll say that as well!
|
|
A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life.
|
|
ummagumma08
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 06 2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 280
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 15:44 |
< ="-" ="text/; =utf-8"> < name="GENERATOR" ="Office.org 3.0 Win32">< ="text/">
People who are naturally
arrogant tend to like prog? I really don't believe prog can teach or
encourage a person's arrogance. I developed an interest in prog - and
was fascinated by prog, because I was born (or brought up to be)
arrogant. When I became even more arrogant, I started to (sort of) dislike
prog. Now I only listen to good music – pop, punk, rock, prog,
schlager, country, jazz , zeuhl – whatever. Such categorizations
tell nothing about artistic quality. Arrogance has nothing - or
little - to do with prog. Arrogant people tend choose a
'oppositional' taste in music, it could be prog, could be indie (well
mostly!), punk, it could be almost anything that isn't mainstream.
Prog is just a random manifestation of arrogance - a manifestation governed by many
things.
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 16:18 |
Gentle Giant. There, I just won the thread.
|
|
JJT9/8
Forum Newbie
Joined: April 18 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 19
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 16:40 |
|
I've never felt arrogant or superior about my prog listening tendencies as I appreciate most other genres as well.
Also, as a musician myself,I am well aware that with enough practice just about anyone can run scales and arpegios to high hell, make it last long enough with quick stops and starts, and lo and behold, call it prog.
I truly believe that it is much more difficult to create pleasent sounding melodies and hooks,than putting dissonant random shredding together. However simple it may sound to the ear, it just might take more talent to create pop. Just try it. Make me a melody worthy of A.M. radio. Bet you can't!
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 21:20 |
|
This thread should be renamed the arrogant poppie. I see mostly posts on how pop is better because it's more aesthetically pleasing. You know what big boobs are too, but Iook for more than that in my dates too.
|
|
JJT9/8
Forum Newbie
Joined: April 18 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 19
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 22:27 |
|
I don't think anybody is saying pop is better. What I'm reading is that music is subjective and doesn't have to be prog to be enjoyable or good. There are good and bad features in both genres.
I would never presume to tell others what they should or should not listen to. If all you want to listen to is un-aesthetically pleasing music, cool!.. I like some of that too, but in small doses.(how much of Satriani or Dream Theatre can one take before thinking, OK, enough already, I get your point.)
(By the way, someone tells you that 2 girls that you know nothing about want to go out with you.One has boobs and the other doesn't. Who are you going to choose?..I think I know the answer...
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Arrogant Proggie
