"elitist avant-proggers"

Logan wrote: Jimmy-Row: It's not relevant, but where are you from and which dictionary do you use?  Artsy is a colloquialism and is the same as arty which means "pretentiously or affectedly artistic" (OED). It's a common word my way.  Artsy, arty, artsy-fartsy, arty-farty... art rock, art-fart rock, artsy fartsy rock.  I must admit that I used the North American form of "arty" -- shame on me. ;) David: Interesting, but I stand by my statement that music made for the masses is "rarely brilliant."

I suspect that music made exclusively for the masses exists in very small percentages; what, groups like Ace of Base, the Bangles, New Kids   ..but most pop music - genuine and quite honest as made by artists who make pop - is simply what it is--  if it turns out to be brilliant, than it is brilliant, as U2, the Police, Paul Simon, Neil Young, Cat Stevens  ..sorry but theses artists aren't making records in the hopes their audience is a taste-challenged and underexposed mass of goobers, it just doesn't add up..  you have many highly educated, well-informed individuals who love those bands and couldn't care less about whether some beard-stroking music critic thinks otherwise

and BTW, lest we forget A Passion Play was #1 on the US charts in 1973 ..yep, numero uno for an album widely considered one of the most pompous displays on record..  in other words, it's more complex an issue than it would appear.

Logan wrote: 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 wouldn't say that's the case. You could make the argument that the avant-prog types aren't as discerning or critical melodically or are less capable at appreciating and enjoying types of music created within a traditional framework. I think the fact that people don't enjoy avant music doesn't mean they're in some way less sophisticated or adventurous in the way that they're listening to music... could just be that they enjoy different aspects of music. I'd say my enjoyment of music has increased as my musical ear's gotten better, but my tastes have still not changed dramatically; I just generally better understand why I like things. 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). Hm. Does the fact that something's not corresponding to constraints make it any more artistic? I'm also more of an art house cinema person than a blockbuster person, but I still prefer the music of Simon And Garfunkel or Dire Straits to Henry Cow's. Part of art, I think, is how it builds upon and works within existing traditions. You could make the argument that constraints or commercial pressure can encourage creativity and force out new ideas that might you might not otherwise have had (compare Dostoevsky... constantly wrote under gambling debts, desperate to pay off bills... does that make The Idiot less artistic or less creative?). I wouldn't say there's any opposition between art and industry... if art is an expression of life, industry is still a part of life. 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). Arguably you could say the exact same about the retro-prog bands, and that you're just not relaxing and listening for the sake of the melodies/ideas involved rather than looking for real progression. 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).  I'd disagree on that. 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? Yes and no. I think people often have valid reasons for liking what they like and not liking what they don't. Often difficult to say it's whether they haven't yet developed to the point where they can appreciate something or whether it's simply that the music in question isn't what they're interested in.

let me tell you something;  my roommate is a highly trained and very accomplished classical pianist/singer..  you know what she likes when she's not busting her butt trying to be the best musician she can be?  Dolly Parton, ABBA, Cher, many other pop artists..  according to you she simply "doesn't have the time or desire" to listen to so-called quality music.. oh and she has bad taste too, yeah, sure she does, that's why she was hired last year by one of the biggest and best Symphony Choruses in the world

People ARE NOT defined by what they like, it's just that simple








Edited by Atavachron - October 25 2008 at 21:52

TGM: Orb wrote: Hm. Does the fact that something's not corresponding to constraints make it any more artistic? I'm also more of an art house cinema person than a blockbuster person, but I still prefer the music of Simon And Garfunkel or Dire Straits to Henry Cow's. Part of art, I think, is how it builds upon and works within existing traditions. You could make the argument that constraints or commercial pressure can encourage creativity and force out new ideas that might you might not otherwise have had (compare Dostoevsky... constantly wrote under gambling debts, desperate to pay off bills... does that make The Idiot less artistic or less creative?). I wouldn't say there's any opposition between art and industry... if art is an expression of life, industry is still a part of life.

That's good stuff Rob.  I was going to say something like that.  What it really comes down to is a philosophy argument - aesthetics - and no one is really right or wrong. 

Rocktopus wrote: Music, art... its like everything else. It helps to have knowledge, experience and have an open mind. If you're not used to looking at pictures or listening to music, you're less experienced and know less than someone who is. Pretending its otherwise, is an insult to skill, craft, knowledge, intellect etc.

Well if it's a language, then let's compare it to writing.  You can't argue that the goal or direction is the same in all cases.  There are different styles or approaches used to convey meaning.  Certainly if you're writing a letter to a loved one, you will not employ the same language as you would for a doctoral dissertation. 

let the truth be told though the Heavens fall

Yes, I'm sure I've screwed up the quotes, but I'm tired.

TGM: Orb wrote: Logan wrote: 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 wouldn't say that's the case. You could make the argument that the avant-prog types aren't as discerning or critical melodically or are less capable at appreciating and enjoying types of music created within a traditional framework. I think the fact that people don't enjoy avant music doesn't mean they're in some way less sophisticated or adventurous in the way that they're listening to music... could just be that they enjoy different aspects of music. Logan wrote: It could well be in some cases, but from my experience of talking with people, I've come to the conclusion that many can't decipher/ understand avant types of music.  There are people who claim that there is nothing melodic within avant works which is absolutely untrue, or that it's just noise with no structure, or has no beauty.  It's one thing to understand and not like music, and another not to "get" the music.  I do believe that avant music takes a more sophisticated and intellectual ear to be able to appreciate -- it can take more cognitive deconstruction/ reconstruction.  I'm attuned to it, so I can enjoy it automatically.  Some discern chaos where I can plainly hear/ follow the structure/ form.  I know that I can appreciate music created within a traditional framework, but my tastes are very eclectic.  I can enjoy many types of music.  I do have my biases against melodic rock/ arena rock, but I don't think think it's because I can't understand the music. I'd say my enjoyment of music has increased as my musical ear's gotten better, but my tastes have still not changed dramatically; I just generally better understand why I like things. Logan wrote: I still like much of what I used to listen to, but I've come to appreciate far more diverse types of music.  My tastes have not been static. I've gone through phases.  I started with "classical" (aka western academic music), went into classic rock (progressive and otherwise) and folk, later got into jazz and electronic music, and now lots of progressive music.  I still enjoy much of the music I enjoyed before.  Some has palled. 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). Hm. Does the fact that something's not corresponding to constraints make it any more artistic? I'm also more of an art house cinema person than a blockbuster person, but I still prefer the music of Simon And Garfunkel or Dire Straits to Henry Cow's. Part of art, I think, is how it builds upon and works within existing traditions. You could make the argument that constraints or commercial pressure can encourage creativity and force out new ideas that might you might not otherwise have had (compare Dostoevsky... constantly wrote under gambling debts, desperate to pay off bills... does that make The Idiot less artistic or less creative?). Logan wrote: I agree with you on this.  I'd say, generally, yes but no absolutes or near absolutes.  It's a great point, and one I should have brought up.  It depends upon the context of what is meant by more artistic.  I'm using it in the sense of the extent to which an artist is able to express their individuality in the conceptualisation (as well as form... -- artistic agency).  Great art is not dependent on freedom from constraint, and in fact, much great art has been created under censorship and constraints (be it industry, patrons, governments and other considerations).  It can take real creativity to create something profound and enlightening under adverse conditions (adapting to other's expectations and constraints and still making something of lasting value that the artist can be proud of).  I love the old films of Zhang Yimou and Chan Kaige, and they had to work under Chinese censorship which they tried to circumvent, but they were very creative when it came to getting across their message.  With Dostoevsky (love him), I don't think that made it less artistic, but when commercial interests (the industry) is involved, it often stifles expression.  If one wanted to be signed to a  record company, there were expectations that limits artistic expression.  If one relates it to cinema's auteur theory (theory of authorship), Hollywood directors working under rigid studio conditions/ contracts/ expectations were still able to put their creative stamp on their films, but in Europe's art cinema, the writer director had more freedom to explore themes that may have been unpopular or was critical of the status quo, society, and industry.  I'm saying it's more likely in avant music for it be free of commercial restraints and elevated artistically because it's not just a product. Incidentally, I love the music of Simon and Garfunkel, and lots of popular music. I wouldn't say there's any opposition between art and industry... if art is an expression of life, industry is still a part of life. Logan wrote: Art can be industrial, and the industry itself can be quite artful, but I disagree with you there as there has often been conflict between the vision of artists and the industry.  Art is more than an expression of life.  It can be a reflection, a distortion, or a mirror image, and more.  Art can either reflect and endorse the status quo (systems and institutes of power, cultural and "artistic" expectations etc.), or it can be critical of it.  Commercial interests, as well as government interests can stifle criticism and creativity.  Look to Rock in Opposition -- they opposed pandering to Industry canon, and there have been many such artistic movements (some a commercial ploy).  Industry is about selling product, artists are about creating art (even if they need to make money from their art to continue making art).  The industry and artists have often collided, and sometimes due to horizontal integration as well as gov't interests, not to mention just putting out something that is popular, they won't accept the work of artists that they have supported in the past (in part, they don't wish certain interests to be offended).  The makers of commercials also have had a big effect on the types of things that are shown on TV. Art and the demands of industry often make uneasy bed-fellows (who is on top and who is getting behind who... ;) But it certainly can be a mutually beneficial and satisfying relationship). 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 been able to decipher/ interpret the music enough to appreciate.  Reminds me of my brother in elementary school 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 similar background to mine would rather listen to very different music than me (it helps explain why I like chamber rock so much). Arguably you could say the exact same about the retro-prog bands, and that you're just not relaxing and listening for the sake of the melodies/ideas involved rather than looking for real progression. Logan wrote: I don't think one would say quite the same thing.  That's different from deciphering music.  And I can find a great deal of avant relaxing, but often followed by excitement.  It doesn't tax my brain, and there are beautiful melodies to be found.  What I find with retro-prog is that it often fails to do justice to the inspirations, let alone bring something new and worthwhile to the table.  It's less credibly artistic (or won't have the same prestige) to copy anothers' style, I'd say. 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).  I'd disagree on that. Logan wrote: Which part?  That I tend to think so?  That  it's more intellectual, or that it comes closer to challenging academic music? 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? Yes and no. I think people often have valid reasons for liking what they like and not liking what they don't. Often difficult to say it's whether they haven't yet developed to the point where they can appreciate something or whether it's simply that the music in question isn't what they're interested in. Logan wrote: People have valid reasons for their likes and dislikes, but I think it more likely that a Progger cannot appreciate Art Zoyd because the music is too alien to them to grasp than, say, with Spock's Beard.  I understand SB's compositional approaches (it doesn't baffle me), but I don't like it.  One can understand music and still dislike it, of course

I'll edit in the rest from your other post.

TGM: Orb wrote: Logan wrote: 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." Does the fact that something's being appreciated for different reasons make it less artistic? I think some artists are better at expressing their individuality and creativity through these standard format songs than through extended suites or improvisations etc. Logan wrote: No, that doesn't make it less artistic.  And yes, some are better with standard song structures, but I mean that mainstream music tends to have more constraints and therefore more restrictions on artistic license (as there is more expectation when it comes to genre conventions and less chance for experimentation and innovation). 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". It could be said that this music is trying to inspire the masses or broaden their horizons. I'm sure there are plenty of 'mediocre' people who like prog, as well as 'brilliant' people who like chart pop. Equally, there's probably a fair bit of overlap. Also, I suppose you could say that different types of music are aiming for different things, and expanding the art form doesn't need to be one of them.  Logan wrote: It could be, but generally not.  More commonly it's commercialism at play rather than some form of altruism, at least when it comes to the industry's concerns (and quite a few bands are manufactured -- an think of the marketing machine).    Certainly there are many mediocre people who like Prog and brilliant people who like pop (it may be that most music academics/ professional high calibre musicians -- say in academic music -- prefer pop to prog.  Prog has a negative reputation for its "pretensions").  I like much pop a lot myself, but I'm certainly not one of the musical elite.  I love much folk music, and ethnic world music which is made for "the masses" of those countries.  It can be charming, and simplicity can be very beautiful to me.  Mind you, chart pop is so manufactured commonly, that not many would call it very artistic (but some of it is great by real music auteurs -- I wouldn't dismiss it all, though I am wary of the pop machine).  Gratuitous pun alert: Stoner rock is a higher art than much of that.

Edited by Logan - October 26 2008 at 01:07

Atavachron wrote: Rocktopus wrote: Music, art... its like everything else. It helps to have knowledge, experience and have an open mind. If you're not used to looking at pictures or listening to music, you're less experienced and know less than someone who is. Pretending its otherwise, is an insult to skill, craft, knowledge, intellect etc.  OK I'll let you slide by on that tepid response, but you do see the problem;  If not being used to looking at pictures or listening to music means you know less than someone who is, then how does that explain my roommate's highly learned yet pop-loving taste?  Guess what, I sometimes watch American Idol.  Why?  I don't know, it's fun, entertaining, sometimes brutally funny.   So therefore what, I'm a low-brow slob with nothing better to do than watch a bad pop culture TV show? Guess again.

As I said, I'm sure you know we all listen to a lot of different stuff. Its not about not looking at Amercian Idol or not enjoying pop (I do too). You're reading in a lot of insults in my comments that's not really there. I've never suggested you had to stop listening to anything. I disn't stop enjoying 60's pop when I discovered Bela Bartok & Giacinto Scelsi etc...

I've seen every single contemporary ballett/dance piece performed in the opera in Oslo for the last four years. I also watch every episode of So You Think You Can Dance (both local version and american). Big, big fan of both the hi-and lowbrow version.

I don't have to explain your roommates poploving taste. I would imagine I spend a lot more time actively seeking out new music, and also more time with the actual musiclistening than him/her.

Parton's a genius

Stereotypes do not generally conform to a stereotype. (and not all clichés are clichéd )