The Arrogant Proggie

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

^Indeed - that's not at all at odds with what I was saying.

Rocktopus wrote: ¨I hoped no one was, but I certainly not writing about "prog being superiour because its more complex". I'm not writing about prog at all. Reading this and similar discussions, the consensus is that everything is down to personal taste and totally subjective. No one can tell you that Beethoven or Coltrane is superior to Black Eyed Peas or Justin Bieber (that 36 min. ambient remix was quite good, though). Its more accepted to shout: f**k Bach! he's boring! There's this growing hatred towards intellectuals, academics and genuine knowledge (its always been there of course, but not as loud and proud). Ridicule and cripple the smartass as a way to justify filling your braincells and life in general with disposable crap. This "all in the eye of the beholder" nonsense is a scam you've all fallen for (you big twits!). You'll get booed off if you try  to address the escalating stupidity of popular music and culture. Who wants to be the snob spoiling the fun for everyone else?

I had responded to Nathaniel's post and I don't think he had directed his post to you.  Yes, I agree, it seems people have forgotten classical and jazz were supposed to be just music not so long ago.  Why exactly is it supposed to boring, elitist or pretentious to like either kind of music is beyond me (and I have honestly felt at times as if I was required to apologize for it) but it's become very fashionable to adopt that posture.  Behind the veil of subjectivity lies an insidious attempt to justify stupidity and force it down others' throats. 


Edited by rogerthat - September 15 2010 at 01:32

rogerthat wrote: Nathaniel607 wrote: First off, I have to point out - the whole "prog is superior" thing isn't COMPLETELY unfounded. Prog is one of the gernerally more complex forms of music (along with a lot of Jazz). Oh, missed this!  As others have already asked, how exactly does complex make it superior?  I don't see the connection.

¨I hoped no one was, but I certainly not writing about "prog being superiour because its more complex". I'm not writing about prog at all. Reading this and similar discussions, the consensus is that everything is down to personal taste and totally subjective. No one can tell you that Beethoven or Coltrane is superior to Black Eyed Peas or Justin Bieber (that 36 min. ambient remix was quite good, though). Its more accepted to shout: f**k Bach! he's boring!

There's this growing hatred towards intellectuals, academics and genuine knowledge (its always been there of course, but not as loud and proud). Ridicule and cripple the smartass as a way to justify filling your braincells and life in general with disposable crap. This "all in the eye of the beholder" nonsense is a scam you've all fallen for (you big twits!). You'll get booed off if you try  to address the escalating stupidity of popular music and culture. Who wants to be the snob spoiling the fun for everyone else?

Edited by Rocktopus - September 13 2010 at 05:25

rogerthat wrote: Rocktopus wrote:   I don't believe everything is 100% subjective. A trained ear, eye or mind is discredited in this cultural relativist age. It unhealthy and makes our world stupider.     I completely agree with this sentiment, even if it might get me - and perhaps you too - branded an elitist. I would only add a qualifier that whether the ear or mind is trained has not much to do with the age of the person but with the extent to which he understands the subject matter.  Not that you suggested otherwise anyway, just saying.   I think today's kids are too egoistic to want to learn from someone else and would like to pretend at all costs that they 'know'. Since they often don't and would get badly pwned, they resort to the subjectivity cop out.

I must say I disagree with your two points because progressive music is more a way of thinking and viewing the world, it is a whole ideology in itself and, according to that, cannot be compared to a totally made up pop star by a big music corporation and some auto tune who's goal is to sell albums, not trying to bring a message to society.

Nathaniel607 wrote: Also, I don't particullarly thing pop singers are that great... but I've never been able to tell great singers apart from good singers.

Why, Stevie Wonder or Aretha Franklin would be better than a lot of prog singers.  And that's not just two names, in spite of examples like Britney, pop singers are generally trained and have a lot of range, which cannot be said of many prog singers.  Prog singers, honestly, are sometimes amongst the worst out there. 

Nathaniel607 wrote: Finally, I don't think pop is that hard to write... just get the good old chords out. If you have a keyboard in front of you, play the following power chords (meaning, leave out the third) - C, G, A, F. There's your chords. Perhaps in the chorus change it to C, G, F. Play 8th bass notes, just on the root of the chord. Make up some random melody, and play a simple rock beat on drums. You'll probablly end up somewhere in the charts. Obviously, some pop music is more complex - then that's a bit better. Though the very definition of pop stops it getting too complex. I have heard some fairly complex "indie rock" as the kids call it (lol) - but that's a bit of a huge umbrella genre anyways.

Just try singing along to Stevie Wonder songs like Too High or Summer Soft and then tell me the chords are absolutely simple.  Some ABBA songs are easily more complex than any Strawvbs I have heard.  No such thing as too complex for pop as long as it maintains a clear melodic direction and is catchy.  Gentle Giant tick all three boxes often, by the way.    Perhaps, rather than arrogant, progheads are ill informed then, if your post is any indication. 

Nathaniel607 wrote: Edit: Someone was saying you cannot quantify "artistic validity". I think you can to an extent. For example, when a Green Day song is literally just the same chord sequence, with the same bass, the same drums and the same/similar melody, you can say it isn't very artistically valid because it's unoriginal, pointless and uninteresting. But even then, I suppose you could say that taste comes into it...

When a Focus 'composition' jams aimlessly for 20 minutes without achieving much development to speak of, you could say it's rambling, pointless and uninteresting.  If the composition in question is Eruption, then not too highly original either.    

""I can justify being a music snob in general, meaning that I gravitate to complicated music,""

I used to think like this. Then I started listening to other forms of complex music (certainly compared to Genesis) and discovered that I  didn't much like jazz fusion, some symphonic music, or some extreme metal bands, even though they were occasionally far more complex than what I listened to.

Rocktopus wrote:   I don't believe everything is 100% subjective. A trained ear, eye or mind is discredited in this cultural relativist age. It unhealthy and makes our world stupider.

    I completely agree with this sentiment, even if it might get me - and perhaps you too - branded an elitist. I would only add a qualifier that whether the ear or mind is trained has not much to do with the age of the person but with the extent to which he understands the subject matter.  Not that you suggested otherwise anyway, just saying.   I think today's kids are too egoistic to want to learn from someone else and would like to pretend at all costs that they 'know'. Since they often don't and would get badly pwned, they resort to the subjectivity cop out.

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