"elitist avant-proggers"

laplace wrote: AVANT/CANTERBURY/ZEUHL prog fans like:

I hate them elitists who think that Liszt was, objectively, a better pianist and composer than my 1.5 year old son.  Better for them, maybe.  It's all subjective, besides, my son is a prodigy, really original composer (most of his music is beyond my comprehension), and I bet he'll win plenty of music competitions when he's older -- not that it matters since all music is equal. ;) But seriously, he's really good for one that young on keyboards and drums, and as father, I enjoy his "music" in moderation.  He has great rhythm.

Sorry, just a silly post.

^ I don't speak for the "many", but I think there is an underlying insinuation that X band is better than Y band, therefor A's taste is better than B's taste...A is superior to B.  Be careful not to extend matters of subjective taste (even if trying to inject some objectivity - which IMO is a good thing) onto the person your discussing with.

Henry Plainview wrote: Do you guys really think that Beethoven=Spice Girls and Coltrane=Nickelback? It's easy for people to say "subjective subjective subjective you are being elitist!", but do you really believe that? Because while I try to avoid being mean to poor stonebeard for listening mostly to neo and classic rock, I cannot accept that Beethoven's 9th symphony is eqaul to a Spice Girls album.

Many things factor into evaluating artists, I think.

Craft, technique, skill required, historical importance, influence, purpose, uniqueness....

If someone were to know well tons of artists from tons of genres and be able to objectively lay out the rating given to each of the criteria, then we could have a convincing argument for why an artist should be liked more than another artist. Someone could lay out why the 9ths is better than Spice World, and most people would accept the argument as convincing and agree that the 9th is more artistically valid than Spice World. Appreciating music is different from liking it, however they are intertwined concepts. Someone could easily like Spice World more than the 9th fully acknowledging that the 9th is probably more artistically valid.

However, some things you can't explain. I know a few Neo bands that given what's come before and after, I shouldn't really care much about. But I do. You can't predict everything and account for everything.

The point is, the line between subjectivity and objectivity here is blurred. There is no set in stone criteria for a better artist, and any criteria we come up with will be slightly tainted with subjectivity. Even if that weren't true, though, the best we can do is have the criteria and then leave it up to people to decide to what degree the artist fulfills the criteria, which is subjective given that no two people have the same musical knowledge/experience and that few if any people have enough musical knowledge/experience to make a completely objective analysis.

I've come to an "understanding" in recent months about my music tastes which I think can be perscribed to the wider prog-listening audiance. We arent open minded indaviduals capable of digesting more complex and artistic music than the pop loving masses, no, we are people that are highly demanding of what we listen to, which should under no circumstances be confused with open-mindedness.

The conflixt here is that people are demanding in many different ways, for instance I am very much a fan of the more technical and/or "artsy" music that you find on this site, yet I also have great appreciation of bands that can follow the more traditional styles of prog; be they Symphonic, Neo, Crossover, Prog Metal (not to be confused with Experimental/Post and Tech/Extreme), with great alecraty. However, I am rather intolerant of heavily electronic music which doesnt appeal to me at all. What I've seen in this thread, and throughout my 3 years on PA backs this up. People are demanding in their own way, for whatever reason, probably being both Nature and Nurture, and this can lead to some pretty extreme views on some things, which in turn can lead to conflict.

For the record, the example that Laplace used in the OP, of  "this being noise for elitist snobs" (to paraphrase) is an incredibly snobby and closed minded view to take, it suggest an intollerance for not just music that falls outside of the listeners demands but for the views of people that dont share that view as well. IMO, of course. And before someone trys to use my example of Electronic music from above against me, I'm perfectly happy in accepting that, though I may get nothing from it, others will get a great deal of pleasure and stimulation from it.    


Edited by sleeper - October 27 2008 at 10:21

lol Godwin's law already. 

Nah, the elitist thinking - no matter who's bringing it forth, is the one claiming that this and that style is superior to others because of so and so facets of that particular music - or that this and that style is inferior to other types of music because of so and so facets of these kinds of music.

The Nazi way of musical appreciation (or non-appreciation) ;-)

I only take responsibility for things I've actually said/written. But fine, i agree, There's no point for us in continuing.

Atavachron wrote: Rocktopus wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Atavachron wrote: 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  Of course its possible to have terrible taste and still get hired by one of the biggest and best Symphony Choruses in the world, but I did not write that anywhere (until now).? it's that sort of veiled, pompous comment that put me off..  and you're still doing it.

Well, its true, isn't it? I can't see what's pompous about it.

Most of you're examples didn't have much relation to what I wrote, and you put words and opinions in my mouth. That's much worse than being pompous. To me it looked like you had lost you're temper and not thinking/reading clearly. That's why I asked.

Still, music aimed at the masses is described as a lower art form - and the masses are described as less sophisticated.

As described in another answer, as I regard it sophistication isn't needed to enjoy any type of music. Knowledge and sophistication are useful and often needed tools to understand music however; especially complex music; but understanding does not equal liking it :-)

As others have experienced as well, there are many people around with extensive education in the art of music, I know a few myself. And the only common denominator I see as regards people with massive education and understanding of music is a tendency to appreciate jazz above other musical genres.

Does that mean that jazz is the ultimate form of music? After all, we're talking about people who have studied music for many years, have played and does play music for hours on end daily - and who has music as a way of living. With knowledge, education and skill these are surely more sophisticated than most people arguing in here, aren't they?