"elitist avant-proggers"

No anger, just perspective.

The forum occasionally receives a comment along these lines: "This (RIO/Avant/Zeuhl band) are just playing noise for noise's sake and their fans endure this so that they can be part of an elite club", describing the harder to grasp music represented in the archives as the Emperor's new clothes. It's funny when such a comment comes from a fan of progressive rock - here's another way of looking at it.

NEO/SYMPH/HEAVY/METAL/CROSSOVER prog fans like:
o listener-facing music often with modern mainstream production values
o music often based in traditional song or on classical blueprints and tending towards traditional rock instrumentation with one exception, ie, violin
o in the case of Neo, hooks and sympathetic, showman vocals
o very complex music, of course! but almost inevitably preferring songs that begin strong and which arrive at rousing and pleasing "rock out" endings

(I don't think any of that is insulting since I stayed with what I know about the genres. Of course, some fans like this also love Gentle Giant and King Crimson, who are far more demanding so I know this is just a cute generalization. Still, work with me.)

AVANT/CANTERBURY/ZEUHL prog fans like:
o musicians to do whatever they feel like doing, trusting musicians to make good music without necessary catchiness
o production ranging from the terrible to the great (at least in my experience on these boards)
o to hear more orchestral instruments, as well as accordians (or is this just me?)

yes, you can find an exception to each of these rules I've just invented, IE, Slapp Happy are actually very structured and poppy, Harmonium are not exactly a typical rock ensemble, etc. etc. but assuming you can accept the rules with caution, here's a joke for you:

EVERYMAN prog fans:
o are only interested in tradition, demanding the proven
o refuse to listen to self-indulgant musicians

ELITIST prog fans:
o allow musicians to do anything


see anything wrong? ;P from now on, let's think about the rubbish we post. =)

just to add to your list. . . .
i think that avant proggers dont let the melody run things and appreciate exciting sounds not just exciting melodies. from the reviews ive read of say, for example, Can's Tago Mago, a lot of the 'traditional' proggers are bothered with the lack of melodies where as the avant proggers arent bothered and actually like these 'random noises'.

Interesting.  Do you think that a musician has to do something innovative or crazy to be "doing whatever they feel like doing"? And/or are you saying that avant fans are more accepting of this (I don't think they are, on the whole)?

Of those first styles you list, I would say that symphonic in particular is far from "traditional" song structure - in the strict sense, this would be verse/chorus/verse.. with modest variations.  I don't hear much of that in the true "symphonic" pieces.  I won't take issue with your other generalizations, because you've stated that they are just that; but I would like to see you explain more...greater depth, because there are a lot of spaces in between you definitions.

laplace wrote: ELITIST prog fans: o allow musicians to do anything

Well, no. Wouldn't you agree that avant-proggers generally tend to shy away from some of the aspects you mentioned; modern 'mainstream' production values, hook-filled, AOR-ish vocals, catchy melodies etc. You allow musicians to do anything as long as it fits your idea of how music should sound like. It's the same with more traditional proggers. No big drama here, it's only natural that people have different preferences - especially when talking about a ridiculously wide, all-encompassing genre known as 'progressive rock'.

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

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

I agree, but still... I don't think avant-proggers are necessarily more open-minded than traditional proggers (your joke seems to be suggesting something along those lines). It's simple, really - different strokes for different folks.

I'm inclined to think that deriving enjoyment from avant prog requires a more sophisticated, as well as adventurous, "ear" than the more mainstream types of music in the archives.  I am something of an elitist when it comes to the arts, including music.  Clearly some are very ignorant when it comes to "avant music" and the people who honestly enjoy it.  It is a very ignorant person who can not accept that perhaps "the problem" is not with the music itself, but with him/herself, or accept that others have the capacity to enjoy art that they do not.

I've long wanted to correlate musical tastes with tastes in other arts.  For instance, I tend to prefer so-called "art house cinema" to the more commercial movies, and I'm sure that relates to my music tastes.  I think "avant" music is commonly more artistic in much the same that art house cinema is more artistic than commercial cinema.  It need not pander to industrial constraints/ commercial expectations, and is therefore more artistic.  Instead, it is more fertile in that artistic vision can shine more, and be more creative/ individualistic (one can relate it to auteur theory).  Less commercial and industrial can be said to be more artistic because art and industry can be at odds with each-other -- commercialism (even within a Prog, while not being that popular as is these days, context), even if the that what an artists want to do, tends to limit artistic freedom/ creativity.  More artistic music is more liable not to reflect the status quo/ is less, typically, formulaic.  Of course many avant bands end up just re-treading the same ground that others have, and are therefore conformist. Side note: I get so tired of modern Prog-by-numbers bands (those regressive Prog ones who copy others styles).

Anyway, it's said that the recognition of one's ignorance is the first step on the road to wisdom.  Hopefully more who claim that people only listen to avant music to belong, and just hear noise, will come to realise that they just have haven't veen able to decipher/ interpret the music enough to appreciate.  Reminds me of my brother in elemntary scool who gave a wonderful project on his love of western academic music.  The teacher thought it was BS since no kid could enjoy that music (she hated that kind of music and thought that acting like you liked it was pretentious).  My brother's and I were raised on that kind of music.  I don't know how much that led to my tastes now, since others who have a simialr bacckground to mine would rather listen to very different music than me (it helps explain why I like chamber rock so much).

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). 

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?


Edited by Logan - October 25 2008 at 18:43

Logan wrote: Compare, for instance, Spock's Beard and Art Zoyd, which would one consider more intellectual or artsy?

I was tryin' to consider this, but I couldn't define "artsy"...apparently it's not in the dictionary

Edited by jimmy_row - October 25 2008 at 18:43

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."

Music can be good even if it caters to the masses, but rarely brilliant because the masses aren't brilliant (catering to the lowest common denominator).  Music that caters to the masses is good for them, but, generally, not so good for the music "elite."  A more intelligent/ more sophisticated person is likely to desire more sophisticated "art".

Logan wrote: Music can be good even if it caters to the masses, but rarely brilliant because the masses aren't brilliant (catering to the lowest common denominator).  Music that caters to the masses is good for them, but, generally, not so good for the music "elite."  A more intelligent/ more sophisticated person is likely to desire more sophisticated "art".

but 'brilliant' can also be an ingenious blend of standard songwriting and fresh, complex ideas, i.e. Revolver, Graceland, Deja Vu,  etc.   Considered pop music but undeniably great breakthroughs that an avant-garder would never think or want to do