The Arrogant Proggie

I don't buy this equation that says dance music = lack of intelligence. Skillful dancing requires intelligence.
Before you dismiss those who like to dance ask yourself how skilled are you at this art. I've never encountered anyone who would easily dismiss dancing who was any good at it.
As a musician who often works with dance bands, I think nothing elevates your music more than a room full of people moving to what you are playing. In a situation like this the room becomes charged with positive energy, its intelligence in a more abstract form.

By dancing I'm not referring to a couple of drunken lamoids stiffly shuffling their feet at a club trying to pick up somebody.

Edited by Easy Money - July 01 2010 at 07:28

But it is often just the marketing of such artists that attaches more importance to the dance videos than the music.  I repeat, Michael Jackson's albums upto Bad are more musically interesting than lots of boring, generic glam rock/metal stuff which in several cases was not accompanied by dance videos.   It's upto the listener whether he's prepared to listen to the music itself or chooses to baulk at the package.

Of course, Europe were not better than MJ. Also Big Generator is probably not better than Thriller.  In my case I don't need the whole package. 

thats the thing about prog its one of the only genres that you can be self inbulgent to make music and its acepted

Henry Plainview wrote: Astrapto wrote: That means that music designed purely for money is effective when it's popular, but not intended to be art. So the Sistine Chapel isn't art? It was a commission, after all. octopus-4 wrote: 8) Rappers who speak on progressive bases: I heard horrible things done to Comfortably Numb, and to Mother Russia. I'm angry when I think that those rappers probably haven't ever heard anything about Renaissance and don't know what's the music they are talking on. If they don't know anything about music, how did they sample it in the first place?

So the Sistine Chapel isn't art? It was a commission, after all.

ferush wrote: Prog = Music + Innovation - Noise; As simple like this. Prog pop doesn't exist; high music is prog no matter the style.

I like progressive rock, and Jazz-Rock/Fusion. That's why I listen to progressive rock and Jazz-Rock/Fusion, and am a member of the Progressive Archives site. I don't consider myself arrogant for stating my preference.

octopus-4 wrote: Not all the 80s are for the waste, of course as not all the 70s are good. Nick Kershaw was one of the most interesting mainstream artists, Joy Division were absolutely not bad. My criticism is mainly about the 80s.

Something of a unnerving precedent, Nick Kershaw and Joy Division in the one sentence.
Kudos for your balls sir

Foxtrot wrote: 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 can justify being a music snob in general, meaning that I gravitate to complicated music, by pointing out that I can listen to 35 year-old songs by Genesis and others for the ten thousandth time, and still enjoy them, which often cannot be said of more 'simple' music.    On the other hand, a wise girl pointed out to me that folks like Stevie Wonder and Carole King were able to put about as much feeling and complexity into their songs, while staying below the 3 minute mark, so perhaps there is a limit to the level of arrogance I should be allowed.

I don't remember hearing much 'complexity' in Carole King's Tapestry (can't comment on her other albums, I haven't heard), Stevie Wonder I certainly agree with, also, uh, the Beatles.  It's not so much about complexity though.  The thing is, it's just very hard to stand out from the crowd if you are working within the three minute pop format.  You must be some sort of genius to produce something fresh and interesting within the same length of time so many others are working with and still appeal to a large audience.   It is easier, however, to make your mark in an epic format because it affords the space to an artist to express his own individuality. 

I think the early prog rock bands understood this well and I highly doubt they would have been able to write pop songs like Stevie Wonder.  However, they could make more interesting music than so much other pop that's not so distinguished and that's really what makes at least me gravitate to prog...because I am very impatient with format-based cliched rock/pop music.   I don't think it has much to do with complexity though we tend to chalk it down to it (it's fair enough as a generalization though because Genesis's prog albums would be more complex than a lot of pop, we can discount the minority that manages to be complex within the pop format).   

A disclaimer though:  a)  You can find some prog rock bands that don't seem to have much understanding of form and thereby end up cobbling together unrelated parts of music which don't in totality amount to much.  It's harder for me to listen to a poorly put together prog epic than a generic pop song because the latter is over before you start getting irritated by it.

b)Not all pop that sells big is necessarily fresh and original because not everyone is very fussy about what music they listen to and don't mind if it is 'something nice'. 


Edited by rogerthat - September 12 2010 at 01:11