Welcome to PA! 

Let me try....the operative term is "it."  Its meaning would change depending upon context. 

Tales from Topographic Oceans?  "I don't get it" could mean "I don't know why they put out a double-album of complex, confusing songs."  

Or, it could mean "I don't understand Jon Anderson's complex philosophy behind all of the lyrics." 

Even still, it could mean "I don't understand how Wakeman was able to hang in there, considering how unhappy he was with the music." 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1045969/Yes-original-Spinal-Tap-says-Rick-Wakeman-Seventies-prog-rock-supergroup.html#ixzz1Ss5rspNu" rel="nofollow - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1045969/Yes-original-Spinal-Tap-says-Rick-Wakeman-Seventies-prog-rock-supergroup.html#ixzz1Ss5rspNu

Therefore, "I don't get it" requires context.  

Art Bears

Art Zoyd

Captain Beefheart

Cardiacs

Current 93

Henry Cow

The Residents

Swans

Throbbing Gristle

Univers Zero

Robert Wyatt

Frank Zappa

Ayreon are my favourite Progressive Metal band, but I  totally understand why some music lovers don't get them, because all of Ayreon's albums sound the same, even to my ears. 

As one gets more familair with kinds of music, it can help with a formerly unfamiliar style to compare an act to others of a similar ilk and to have stepping stones that help one to feel, "grok" and have a better grounding in the music.

It often does just mean that someone doesn't like it, but if I were to use it, it would be more like I feel that I lack the current ability to properly appreciate the music, or in some cases, that I don't see or find what others enjoy about the music. Not only can it take time to acquire tastes, it can take time to acquire the knowledge to be able to understand and interpret music for what it aims to be or is.  I know I can appreciate music that I don't like and I feel I can "get" (comprehend) music that I don't like.

If you're referring to King Crimson (I'm guessing you are, but I'm not sure) then I'd agree with you.. Discipline, Beat and Three have got to go down as the prime candidates for 'I don't get' for me too.. borrowed them from a local library when I was about 19; just didn't get them at all... and now I'm 56, I still don't... hey ho.

There are times, when ... there's nothing to get!

However, there are several details here. One assumption is that anything the artist does has a reason and a meaning. And, sometimes, that is a gross generalization, since there enough intelligent artists out there that will do some thing intentionally "backwards" (for lack of better description) just to make a point, that, of course, we don't get!

Frank Zappa was a great example of that, and would intentionally say something to throw us off ... but the real issue is ... why are you expecting something, and then NOT FINDING it! By saying "I don't get it" are you negating the artists ability to do as he/she sees fit? Do you think that anyone out there playing music really worries about what you think? They would not be musicians, if that was the case ... might as well go wash dishes at the local rat trap!

Sadly, this is more of a statement, about the "fan" ... than it is about the music ... and sometimes, there is nothing to get ... early "krautrock" was a perfect example of something that had nothing to get, and all of a sudden we think that it was some kind of bible! It was wide open improvisation with no interruptions, or fan comments ... what is there to get? That you weren't there, stoned, having fun and getting laid?

Different people resonate with different music, it's so simple, or complicated, as that - as I see it; and if we're talking about that kind, as it can also be question of listening to some music, or similar, enough times. 

Yes, that's of course the first step of it, but that should be: "we've all heard many times when attempting to introduce others to our favourite music...".

Hi,

That's the main reason why I rarely give folks advice on what to listen to ... too many of us are so different and have such divergent tastes as to make a suggestion rather weird in my book ... it would be, likely, impossible to give a good idea, although these days, people have this idea that if they listen to things in the same closet of style and idea, then they should "get it" from them all ... and you know that's not true.

Imagine how music came to be for hundreds of years ... there was no Internet, and music only travelled by scores on a few pieces of paper ... and the rest? Up to your imagination to find something "to get" ... I don't think many folks complained, although music history has some crazy examples ... the court's musicians, not exactly liking Mozart ... (the perfect joke in the movie ... too many notes!) ... Debussy that was booed senseless ... and many modern composers whose work left the audience cold, but would not say anything ... so it didn't look like you were making a bad statement about the music!

It's strange to me, that someone has to ask ... that this person's imagination was screwed up by reading so many ideas and comments on something to the point where that person could/would feel confused ... how can that be? when asking about this comment, or another comment?

For me, my assumption is always starting with NOTHING, and let the music COLOR my imagination ... the bad side of this, of course, meaning that what I found and saw, is likely to be totally different than what everyone says. My question is ... do we all have to be lemmings in order to learn something?

I definitely don't get that!

Indeed!  Folks on PA seem to go deep into their own "I don't get it!" stories. 

For me, I don't get Zeuhl nor Magma.  I've tried several times, not a form of music that speaks to me.  

I really enjoyed Discipline when it came out, because it was extremely different and wonderfully new. However, the sheen wore off rather quickly with Beat & Three of a Perfect Pair, both of which have decent moments, but as with all KC, contain stuff which is extremely forgettable. A band capable of the utmost genius, but also capable of the utmost frustration at times.

I think it would be fair to say that your toleration threshold for the 80's sound is generally higher than mine. I enjoy all KC's output up to 1975's USA, but by the time they released Discipline, they were practically a different band, with a sound I've never been able to enjoy. 

I'd like also to point that resonating with music is not a state but a process evolving all the time - which is of course very well-known - but typically also with some limits. Like, I can't imagine that I ever could resonate with typical Pop music. 

get

(gɛt)

v. got, got got•ten, get•ting, v.t. v.i. n. Idioms:

Except for their album " Apple Venus Vol 1"... I don't get XTC.  

Still, it's nothing compared to "have", at least in Denmark, where many today "has" something almost all the time, and which I not only don't get, but which really pisses me off. 

I prefer the hands-off approach. This stuff is readily available for anyone to explore when they are open to doing such a thing. Just let them be. When the time is right, something might click. Or it might not. Some may never get it. Just don't let it worry you if people don't get the music you like. It's their problem, not yours.

^ 

Hi,

I think this is just a measure of the times and the internet. 

In those days, the only person you really talked about any music was your friend, or when you visited a record store and they would be playing something that perked up your ears.

In those days, when we didn't know the material, you didn't worry about "getting" anything, except the album!!!!! But, today, I think that too many folks don't really listen to the material enough to get past the "I don't get it" stage ... it all feels like a Beethoven Symphony, and someone only hears 5 minutes and then says ... I don't get it ... 

Generally, I stop looking at the thread ... lest I say something that is rude, and not meant to be rude. Listening to anything is not exactly about "getting it" ... it's about learning what it does, and how, and then your mind makes a sort of decision about what it might be ... and you would not be saying "I don't get it" unless you read 132 comments on PA (or elsewhere) and when you finally hear it ... it becomes really confusing and none of the comments made any sense compared to what you hear and what it means to you!

I guess the Internet has taken the courage to listen for yourself, a whole album, out of it all ... for a few folks. But if you want to know and learn and hear "progressive" you have to get past the 5 or 6 minute thing that so many bands in the monthlies and yearlies are showing and doing.

There is a lot to unpack here. TFTO is often used as the example of prog where it 'jumped the shark'.In otherwords Yes made a better long piece on the earlier CTTE  album than anything on TFTO. That's a perfectly valid opinion and stance imo ( we are allowed to have an opinion I assume)

I enjoy people displaying passion for music they love rather than being scorned for trying to brainwash others into listening to it. I don't think anyone is going to convince me to listen to something I don't like but I would at least like to know why someone likes something. Even on the reviews page it's hard to know why an album is being enjoyed. The dry approach doesn't work for me personally. Should I be sorry?

In general rock music history has been rewritten by the media and journalists that don't understand what music actually is half the time.  It's desperately sad but I'm not sure what it's got to do with this topic. We are just going back to overrated and underrated not whether something is not being 'got'.

That last sentence is something I've literally not come across at all. Again are we talking about clueless so called music journalists that write for national newspapers or the like? I just ignore them ansd always have. It's always been clear to me that most people that write about music can't be trusted (maybe I should count myself in that as well). You have to trust your own instincts at the end of the day.

Hi,

Not just rock journalists, and the media, but in very general terms, the majority of fans, appear to not exactly understand what music is half the time, and instead replace that with their "preferences", and I find this sad ... it's akin to seeing so many reviews and ratings, by one or two folks associated with the music itself, as a way to sound better.

I also have a tendency to dislike the "blurb" style comments, since it will be even harder for someone else to be able to see that in its entirety. Not a comment on Mike, since a lot of his blurbs appear thought out and not bad, but I wonder how you can do something like that for the stuff that is all longer cuts, and where the mood, and imagination is the thing that defines it all ... and all of a sudden, so few words not clarifying that issue could create one of those don't get things.

Guy Guden, myself, Paul, and some other original Space Pirates, have been through this since the start of his show (we were all at the City College together) ... from a DJ putting down Golden Earring, to another making sure he meets and interviews Sandy Denny, when he had no knowledge whatsoever of any of her material and history! That was not "journalism", it was megalomania I suppose.

To me, for 50 years plus, "getting it" has been about listening and paying attention to the stuff you are listening, and this is where things like AD2 fails to get more fans ... they change so fast into something else that trying to figure it out is nearly impossible ... sounds fine, but the all consuming  "riff" has changed, and thus it gets harder for many folks to appreciate and understand ... and it gets worse ... Mona Lisa you got a bird brain ... what? how do you even define that?

I can't blame someone for asking the question ... although my suggestion would be to stop listening to the stuff as if it was the AM radio band of old ... 2 and a half minute versions of Light My Fire ... and asking makes sense in the middle of cardboard and bubblegum music on top of it!

Sadly, it also says that having a bit of history of music going back hundreds of years, would likely solve the riddle of what to get ... but I have my questions about many folks that post here and some of their comments, not that mine are any better, but sometimes, rock music has created a monster that it can not control!

Nice, I like 7 over 12

Could you get into Indonesian Barong? Or Arabic folk? Mayb yes, maybe not. Sometimes it depends on the scales and harmonies you are used to.

Imagine a teenager listening only to radio stuff: 4/4, reggaeton, trap and stuff of this kind. When one of this kind listens to Gentle Giant for the first time (just to say a name), how can you think he'll get it?

When I've been exposed to prog for the first time, I was by coincidence already a bit into rock, country and blues, so my first listen of Emerson Lake and Palmer opened me the dorrs to the prog world. 

When I try to introduce somebody to prog, I usually ask "what are you used to listen to?", then I search for the closer possible thing. 

Even the most obscure kind of prog has elements deriving from what the author was exposed to during the years. You can always find a connection...maybe not always, but if one is used to reggaeton only, why bothering?

Hi,

I imagine that if I was a new listener with your comments in mind, I might consider reading a bit more on PA before asking the question.

I still have the weird idea that the poster did not, and likely does not, listen to a lot of music, when something like this or that will seem like ... "don't get it" because they are so different and specialized ... heck, how many folks have we heard basically say that about MAGMA?

Knowing music and its history would help some ... because the person would know things change and considering something weird, or strange is more of a factor of not listening, than it is an honest question ... so the whole thing, for me, seems like a possible situation trying to get people all excited and arguing, rather than answering anything ... I still don't feel comfortable with someone asking that question, specially as folks have stopped saying something strange, weird and off key for more than 45 years in the case of Space Pirate Radio ... and Guy still plays the most off the wall stuff nobody ever heard.

I get Captain Beefheart, Swans, Universe Zero, Robert Wyatt, and Zappa.

I get the rest of your list, Paul...Get it? Got it? Good! 

Paul, I hate to bang on the Swans drum, but I thought you said you like Swans' The Burning World (one of the first albums I recommended to you by the band as I recall).  This is where I feel like it's good to judge by the album and even the song rather than making blanket statements based on limited exploring, focus and recollection. I don't mind people not liking what I like, by the way, but I want to understand people's thoughts in a more nuanced and complete way.   There are lots of bands that I would say that I generlly dislike while liking some music by the bands (and I explored more I would be likely to like more).  While I know you;re not a fan of Rovck Bottom, I am kind of surprised if none of the later Wyatt material appeal to you (assuming you have explored his discography beyond cursory listenings).

I think to get music often takes time and patience, and to get artists often requires listening to a diversity of their works, and may require listening to related music that acts as stepping stones.  Its like the seven steps to appreciated Frank Zappa.  With Frank Zappa, I love Peaches en Regalia, Imaginary Diseases and various other instrumental music by him, but I am not into the "songs".

This is pure joy to my ears.

  But If you don't like it, that's fine by me. To each his or her own.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=121917&PN=13" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=121917&PN=13

^ Ah, yes, I'm not really understanding why you responded that way.  I'll happily listen to a track recommendation and share my thoughts.  As I said, I have only listened to two of his albums in full and that was considerable years ago.  My interests are not quite the same now as they were then, and I'm happy to give something another go.  Otherwise I'm not really sure the point of having this conversation, to be honest.

EDIT To quote myself from earlier in this thread because I''m a little confused now.

"It [the phrase "I don't get it"] often does just mean that someone doesn't like it, but if I were to use it, it would be more like I feel that I lack the current ability to properly appreciate the music, or in some cases, that I don't see or find what others enjoy about the music. Not only can it take time to acquire tastes, it can take time to acquire the knowledge to be able to understand and interpret music for what it aims to be or is.  I know I can appreciate music that I don't like and I feel I can "get" (comprehend) music that I don't like."

Even if I don't get it now (lack understanding) that does not mean that I am not willing to consider other perspectives and I may get it in the future.  And I may get it and get that certain music is not for me.

^ Humour is so subjective.  I make lot of jokes that people don't find funny, and sometimes people even get offended by them (you have and I never would have guessed in advance, but some people are very uncharitable in interpretation and grumpy by nature). I try to balance the humour with a thoughtful response commonly, but fail too.  We are often our worst critics when it come to outr own comedy.  Someone else might be rolling on the floor laughing.  ;)  I enjoy forum interaction provided we can thoughtfully communicate with each other, successfully communicate our ideas, have some synthesis of ideas, or joke around with each other.  What I mean was that I did not understand the point you were getting at in response to my post.  The humour did not connect.  I tend not to appreciate sarcasm, and I think you tend to veer towards that kind of humour.

I know that I have listened to a variety of Holdsworth tracks and some things I liked. And I have listened to a lot of music you have brought up.  Sorry if I don't remember the specific tracks. Thought you might be able to think of one that would be particularly up my alley now.  If not, that's fine.  And sorry if my memory fails me at some time, it is getting rather worse by the year (had a stroke) so a little gentle reminding now and then would be appreciated.  Sad thing is I had to leave my writing job because it even became difficult to recall certain words.  I don't know what kind of response I could have made that you would have appreciated there.

I actually will put this out there.  Will, I have not been enjoying my interactions with you to the point that it has made me want to leave this site. You seem to often take offence at what I say and are not very forthcoming with what you say.  I have felt like you are bearing a grudge and not "getting" what I am trying to convey while picking up on it in a snarky, offended manner. I have tried to be civil with you and put much effort into trying to explain when you took offence, but I feel it has not been reciprocated and commonly not acknowledged.  I am at the point that I would rather not talk to you here, and if Paul feels that way about me, I will cease communication with him. Life's too short to deal with people we find disagreeable at an online forum if it is not necessary.  I have to sometimes as mod, which i do want to step down from doing.  Sometimes I handle it well, sometimes badly.  I really would like to be on friendly and thoughtfully communicative terms with all at this forum; takes two to tango.

Or better yet, at least if we do interact, hopefully let it be when we have something positive to say to each other.  I wanted to let you know that I have been bothered by your responses and I have felt like you were pouncing on me any chance you got.  and that you been misinterpreting my intent to think of it in a really uncharitable way or getting easily offended by innocuous jokes. If I misinterpreted your intent then I sincerely apologise.  I would expect others to tell me  if they find that I am being mean-spirited to them too and feel like I am singling them out.  I don't mean we should never interact, but hopefully it can be in a more friendly or tolerant way.  I felt I should share that as it has been exacerbating my depression.  If I have been causing you distress, I apologise sincerely.  I felt you were bearing a grudge.  I would rather we all bury any hatchets and move forward. I would love for this to  a warm and supportive community and that does require a certain level of tolerance, thoughtfulness, forgiveness and understanding. Some here are just not very empathetic it seems.

Edit: I am a great believer in sincerely talking things out, and when I said "I am at the point that I would rather not talk to you here" I didn't mean never.  I just mean that that is  a feeling I'm getting now because it feels like you're more likely to complain about something I say or react snarkily than offer anything appreciative, helpful or constructive.   Effective internet communication can be really tough, it takes effort and patience, and of course we should be careful to assume what is in the mind of others and realise that is so easy to misconstrue intent.  Most of my interactions with you I have enjoyed and I have considered you to be a friend at this site (I still do).  I also consider Paul and many others to be online friends and hope the feelings are mutual.

I enjoy interacting with both of you regardless of our musical differences. 

I'll have another poll coming up tomorrow, so lots more interaction to look forward to.  

I just don't get it....

I think it has to do with identity to a large extent.

Not just Prog fans in my experience.  While generally I think it's quite silly to get offended or hurt by people not enjoying the same things you do, I understand the passion of not wanting to see something you like dissed or too easily dismissed. Ultimately each individual experiences music differently, brings in their own experiences and associations, and it can be and often is a very deeply personal thing.  What one loves becomes part of your identity and so when people hear others speaking negatively of that which they identify with, it's like the fan is being invalidated, like they are being judged badly because someone else lacks the same appreciation they do. And maybe they grew up with other kids telling them things like "That music sucks! And you suck because you like that sucky music even more than you would suck even if you liked not-sucky music, but you do like sucky music because you suck! P.S You suck."

I think that most sophisticated musicologists would be very reluctant to call Prog the best music form in the world indeed. ;)

It can depend on what one means by better; better being dependent on context.  Different musicians, composers, bands and artists are often better at doing different things, and different genres have different characteristics from which those who are successful in it have different aims.  One can create frameworks and discuss better according to certain set criteria, and there are some common standards one can draw on. 

I would describe some musicians and bands as better than others within some common parameters, and there is a subjective quality to it, but it's easier when comparing apples to apples. For me better would be more able to accomplish a task and achieve a goal commonly (more proficient and efficient commonly).  It comes down to intent. But of course a genre does not have intent, it has characteristics. Or one might call progressive music an approach more than a genre, or Prog as a movement.  Prog is such a wide umbrella term and can contain such huge variety that I'm not sure how useful it even is.  If progressive rock is about rock without limits, and progressing what rock can be in a sense, then some Prog bands seems more limited in scope and generic than others.  Some bands/artists are more innovative than others and that's common criterion for better amongst many, but not for all.  Some value experimentation more than others etc. and one can might that some forms of Prog and bands are more experimental than others and thus better.  What is better to you or for you being subjective. 

Honestly, a lot of Prog seems pretty poor by my standards and tastes, and not just when comparing it to other Prog groups. Bu that's my subjective call.  One man's treasure is another man's trash.

I'm not a big one for appeals to authority generally (I would say, sooner trust the statement of a proctologist on my rectal health than that of, say, a progtologist, butt that's not the point).  I would listen but I would not just accept a statement, instead I would want to understand the argument that supports it, the criteria for greatness, how Prog is defined as Prog itself is such a nebulous label.  For modern music, I would put the jazz of The Necks over, say, Porcupine Tree, but that has to do with my biases.  And some might call The Necks Prog.  It's at least Prog Related to me.  There's much great for me art pop these days. I do think there is lot of dreck amongst popular and no so popular modern music.  I think there's very fine music in a host of genres and those genres often intersect.  To use a terrible tautology thingy,  awesome Prog is great, great jazz is terrific, great hip-hop sure is fine,  great folk is great, great Crunk does not compute.

Some who claim the superiority of Prog compare it to the lowest hanging fruit, so to speak, instead of comparing what they call the greatest to what more sophisticated audiences might consider to be among the greatest.

Atavachron wrote: But real authority, those who know music intimately and have made it a calling & profession since their youth, should most definitely be paid attention to and seriously considered.   Their 'argument' is not so much an argument as it is a statement of clear-headed reason, background and musical reality.   They are as much an authority on music as a doctor's authority on one's body & health.   To dismiss it makes no more sense than ignoring that qualified physician or dentist when they tell you that a high-carbohydrate diet will cause weight gain or a high-sugar one will induce cavities.   They aren't just expressing an opinion but telling you the truth of how the body works, and you can either ignore that information to your detriment or take the advice and improve your health.    Prog is not a nebulous label but rather a clearly-defined and established approach to making music, and therefore we can see & hear it for what it is: rock music in a progressed approach.

I wouldn't just dismiss a claim, but for me to really believe it, especially if it went against what I as merely an appreciator thought, I would want to understand the reasoning.  From doctors I have wanted second opinions and have got bad advice before. As I don't know the all around , or extent, of music expertise of Randy Jackson or Eddy Van Halen, I may understandably be less likely to put trust in them as authorities than you.  As for the Prog term, from all the discussions on what is Prog here, and so-called Prog musicians saying their music is not Prog, I'd think it's nebulous due to lack of overall consensus (at least at this forum it seems so, maybe Randy could nail the definition).  If you ask Paul, if you ask David D, if you ask Ivan, or Hrychu, Cristi,  Silly Puppy, Dean, Peter, Tony R, ManwithHat, Yam Yam, Steve Wyzard, Gordy, cstack, I doubt we will all get the same answer. I don't know that Eddie Van Halen and Randy Jackson, or Roger Waters, James LaBrie, Robert Fripp, Robert Wyatt, Ian Anderson, Frank Zappa, Peter Hammill, Peter Gabriel, Geddy Lee, Fish, Bjork (controversial addition, I love her music) etc. would have defined it quite the same either. 

I have more than one working definition.  It can be more of a codified style/genre, more of an approach to making music.... I tend to favour the approach assessment.  As some say, not all Prog (as a genre) music is truly progressive and not all progressive (adjective) music is Prog.  Debates often happen about what is an isn't Prog here.  Some take a narrower approach than others.  It can be a very big umbrella term or focus more narrowly on music (often people think Symphonic Prog like Yes, Genesis, Focus etc. particularly).

I do seem to be able to recognise prog in various forms, and often it comes to nuances when it seems right for the site or not.  For me Prog extends beyond boundaries we have seen some gatekeepers try to set for PA.  To me it is quite limitless.  I care more about progressive, experimental and art music than Prog as some codified genre with defined parameters.

Hi,

Only one problem ... they created the music and their inspiration is/was somewhere else, and not "prog" as you know it.

This is tough stuff. And it gets harder when RF says KC is not prog or progressive ... they are, based on their regiment of rehearsal, the best classical troup in rock music second to none ... and because of that they are "not" prog, or progressive? I have no idea, what to call it, except great music, regardless of any titles.

Atavachron wrote: I can tell prog rock the moment I hear it--- "Hey", I'll say, "that's prog", and be delighted & curious about who the artist is.   That artist may or may not consider themselves prog, and with all due respect to the rock musicians who insist they 'are not prog', well, I beg to differ.   They're prog whether they like it or not.

And by that same token, Randy Jackson and Eddie Van Halen might not recognise the same music you know to be Prog as Prog.  It doesn't inherently change what the music is, but perceptions are relevant to what we're discussing.  I won't just accept what they say nor what other musicians say as authorities, nor causally dismiss it.  That said, it's not really important to me how they use the Prog term, or that I use it the same way, as long as I understand what they mean. And for me to give much credence to their beliefs such as thinking progressive rock is the best form in the world I still would want to understand what they mean by progressive rock and what the argument is. 

(function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'8ac211c8bf6f16a2',t:'MTcyMjQ3NTg5NS4wMDAwMDA='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.nonce='';a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">

A lot of people, including supposed art experts point to Picasso as some kind of master of art, but personally I don't get it.

Hi,

All in all, and his changes and different things he did, I would suggest that the whole thing was about the FREEDOM that the arts did in Europe in the earlier part of the 20th Century. During and after the 70's it became too commercial, and the originality that you saw was no longer as evident.

The "mastery" he had, was more about his ability to just paint, non-stop and endup with thousands of works that were distributed throughout the whole family when he passed away. But he should also get some credit for his politics ... remember that he did not allow his Guernica painting to go to Spain until AFTER the dictatorship was gone ... and that was/is a massive statement for the arts in Spain which exploded then, and didn't stop/die for  at least 30 years with their film industry doing fantabulous things.

I'm not sure what "mastery" meant, but more than once, he stood in front of the camera and just painted and was done in 30 minutes or less ... and it was neat, and far out. There aren't many artists that are/were that comfortable with themselves as to not even have to show off and still come up with something out of the blue, which he always did.

(function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'8ac98b16f8ebfa7e',t:'MTcyMjU1NDI2NC4wMDAwMDA='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.nonce='';a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">

It wasn't my doctor analogy, it was Logan's, I just used that as it was Greg's example.   And no, when it comes to artists that are demonstrably significant it is not a "matter of taste"-- whether one likes the Beatles or not, they were gifted, highly important, and sold a lot of records.   In the same way, most painters who are considered truly great or genuinely important are so because they've proven over years to be successful and are considered great by both fans and professionals.

This idea that it's just all opinion is, at the end of the day, an easy and simplistic notion.   I'd even say it's childish and shows a lack of seasoned exposure & understanding of the bigger picture.



-------------
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy

(function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'8ac9bff0ab4cf96b',t:'MTcyMjU1NjQyOS4wMDAwMDA='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.nonce='';a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">

I mentioned doctors as an aside when I was talking about appeals to authority as an example of something where I might appeal to expertise.  I'd sooner trust a neurologist's take on the state of my brain than, say, a urogolist who has only studied other parts of the anatomy, or a purrologist whose focus is cats, or a furologist named Bob Drake (sorry if this bearly makes sense).

(function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'8ac9f2907f9a7af8',t:'MTcyMjU1ODUwMi4wMDAwMDA='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.nonce='';a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">

HI,

(cont'd) ... regardless of how we see it as one thing or another.

As you're probably aware by now, I always like to listen to an artist's complete discography in its entirety from beginning to end in order to get a full picture of an artist's musical history, but I just can't get past the Swans' (dreadful to my ears) first three albums. I know you may not agree with that approach, but that's Just the Way It Is. I'm just a dedicated dyed-in-the-wool completionist. I take just the same approach with my movie-watching too, where I'll watch an actor's entire filmography (where available) in chronological order from beginning to end. 

Hi,

For the longest time, that was my way of listening to things, with one slight difference. When it comes to "progressive" I had already heard many of the early things by many of the bands ... thus, I was already onto the chronological order of things. Now, here comes joke time ... are you going to listen to 8 full Symphonies before you get to Beethoven's 9th? ... I DOUBT IT! You'll get bored because not all of the Symphonies are "dynamic like the 5th (start mostly) and the 9th, as is well known.

But there were some things onto the 90's and beyond that I did not bother with listening. I do not dislike DT, but never saw the point of listening to their earlier stuff, and in fact, I didn't enjoy it much. But other than that, Porcupine Tree started for me with the SIGNIFY album and I went forward several albums before I got the earlier stuff.

It is a good rule for folks learning about the music itself, but (in general) not exactly a good idea ... one can listen to Genesis from the beginning, and will get to the end, and go ... wtf? And the same for other bands.

Some bands I can listen to but are not my favorites. Rush is one of them ... as roomates in the mid/late 70's had their albums, but while nice, I was already full blast into the Europeans, and I did not think that Rush was as great as Banco, PFM. Le Orme, Ange, AD2, Can and so on ... and all of those I was there on the first album.

Listening habits today are tough ... I don't know that suggesting 10 albums (from the start, let's say) is a good idea ... folks mostly listen to 4-5 minute jingles (as I call them) and often times, many of the favored albums, are all song related in the same time frame (or thereabouts) and format ... but in our case, things change, and sometimes harshly ... which is not good for someone just learning about a band or "progressive".

BTW Paul ... can you imagine Klaus Schulze from the start? Or Tangerine Dream?

Where's that insanity pill, Paul?

I don't need to imagine it, having already listened to the entire discography of Tangerine Dream and Klaus Schulze from beginning to end on my Tangerine Dream blog. 

It's not an approach that would work for me commonly, for one thing I haven't the patience, am not a completest, and would rather have time to discover more diversity of names, and for another, when I connect with an album I usually like to play it many times.  I would rather listen to lot of albums I love and that approach would mean that I might stop before I get to the stuff I would have liked and I might have to force myself through a lot of bad for my ears music.  There are some acts where that chronological approach could work really well for me and I would happily return to them to listen in chronological order.

I was something of a watching all of a director's films guy if the first film I saw, no matter where it come in the oeuvre, I loved and felt quite unique. To use a big name, I could see  a certain joy in going back to watch all of Kubrick's films in order, but then I would want to throw some Lindsay Anderson into the mix when it was time for A Clockwork Orange with Malcolm McDowell.

I can see listening to a whole discography in order, or reading a novelist's books in order (I have done that before), being interesting from an evolutionary perspective.  I like that listening to all by an artist can give you a fuller picture of the music.  I like that you can perhaps see a maturing phase and changes in style and interest with the artists.  It could be a really great journey and give more insight.  My issue would be that if you only listening to the start, that's fine for judging the start, but not the artist overall, and one should not assume that one will dislike everything based on that.  When I say I dislike an artist I often will say based on which material, but my approach makes it easier to change my mind if someone recommends other music by the artist.  That flexibility works for me.

Listen to music in the way that you get the most out of it.  What I think matters to me, but I would not say that it should matter to you.  There are many paths to Nirvana, follow your pilgrimage, follow your bliss.

I do get it, you have to do it your way.

I looked up :v, I guessed it was sarcastic or ironic. For any who may not know (which quite likely is no one at the forum), j/k equals just kidding.  I usually use ;) for j/k.  Like with other categories, there's avant prog I like and dislike and everyone to their own tastes.

I have seen such statements from people and is quite annoying; very arrogant.  I wish more people would talk about the qualities they appreciate in music without telling another how they should appreciate music.  What music sounds good and evokes the right emotions is in the ear of the behearer. I have had people on the more melodic rock side tell me that what I like is bad and just noise and no one should like it  just to try to annoy me in some cases).  I loathe such attitudes.  There are those who do seem to forget that music appreciation is subjective and no two people appreciate music in precisely the same way.  We all bring in our own psyches, experiences, associations.... I will appreciate certain music at one time and not appreciate it at another depending on mood and other factors. And some music I had to find the right stepping stones to appreciate, and with other music I lost interest over time. I do think one can appreciate the qualities of music without necessarily liking the music, but that's another thing. While I do think there is good and bad music (at least following certain principles) I wish less people talked about music as if it is good or bad and would be less apt to confuse personal preference with objective goodness.  I care about if music is good for me more than if it good writ large. Some music resonates with me particularly well at certain times and might not have resonated before being exposed to music that led me there and primed me.  Enjoy the journey, everyone's is different.  I don't want to be told what I "should" like and how I "should" appreciate it.

WE ARE NOT WORTHY!!  

And the grand total as of the last update in December '23 (Oh, what a night!), was 191 albums by Tangerine Dream and 63 albums by Klaus Schulze, although Tangerine Dream have probably released half a dozen more albums since then.  

I may not be a lifelong art expert (whatever that means), but that does not make my opinion irrelevant, at least not to me. If only lifelong experts on anything were allowed an opinion on any given thing, then that would certainly narrow the field on who is allowed an opinion on what. 

You might be aware of Marla Olmstead a young child who was hailed by so called art experts as a prodigy with her works selling for large amounts only to have it revealed that her father was actually creating the works and passing them off as being by her, after which the prices for her work plummeted.

I just wanted to repost this because I agree with these sentiments wholeheartedly and thought they deserve to be emphasised.

I just wanted to make a comment on the expertise of doctors. 

If a doctor makes a diagnosis and the patient disagrees with that diagnosis the patient is free to seek a second OPINION.

This has happened to me, where one doctor said one thing and, on seeking a second opinion another doctor gave a different and correct diagnosis. If the first doctor had have given me a correct diagnosis it would have saved me a lot of pain and other unpleasant circumstances as a result of the misdiagnosis.