Neal Morse's voice can also be an incredibly challening experience for me, but that's a different story.

I mean, from how I see it, a very "inaccessible" but VERY good band is Tool. You have complex themes, complex lyrics, complex artwork, very complex music but in the end it all falls into place and what comes out is a masterpiece. I've been listening to progressive for most of my life but it took me a full year to really get into Lateralus, and I mean to get into it DEEP. How can they have such a wide success when they write some of the most complex sh*t I've ever seen/heard, on so many levels, remains a mystery to me.

The topic title says prog, which is progressive rock. I wasn't intending to bitch at you, I was just saying I don't think he meant for us to veer off into a discussion about Keith Rowe and Merzbow.

Otherwise, I find it really hard to get into some of the really mellotron-drenched symphonic stuff.  Just a personal taste.

Thank you. I just looked up the album on Youtube and have had a few listens. I'm now planning on buying it 

The only prog I found challenging though is when it's to heavy (metal). I hate hearing about a cool/ complex avant-garde band, looking them up, and finding that they play overly-distorted takes on atonality. As long as it's audible and great skill was involved in creating it, I will like it.

I'll mention 3 examples of what I find challenging :

1. Universe zero - Heresie. This is a very classic oriented album with very dark atitude. It is quite obvious that it is good, rich, complex and deep but I need to be in a very optimistic mood to dare to put it on.

2. Henry cow - Western culture. Very dysonant. Beautyful to my ears but needs very devoted hearing. What's funny is that "In praise of learning" is very listenable IMO.

3. Pink floyd - Ummagumma. After quite a few listens I still do not understand it so I can't realy say if it's good and chalenging or does not make sense (and I find "Saucer full of secrets" an accesible album so don't ask me what's the difference. I don't know myself).

Don't you just love it when someone jumps in with a condiscendent reply, assuming you're an idiot? I know I do.

So now I need to explain my position. 

If we talk about paintings, I guess there is little to no doubt that Caravaggio's Beheading of St. John the Baptist makes more sense as a painting than, I don't know, Fontana's cut. So, while talking about "meaning" in absolutistic terms doesn't make much sense, you certainly can talk about meaning in relative terms. Fontana's cut has close to no meaning at all when you compare it to a painting by Caravaggio. It's not inaccessible, it's just a terrible, terrible excuse for a painting, if you analyze it AS a painting. Its significance goes well beyond that. 

Now, one can safely say that Fontana's cut is like farting for 50minutes on a cd. If it has a meaning, it's not, or at least not mainly, about music. If we listen to this, for example:

Henry Plainview wrote: Otomo Yoshide [sic] probably has the most challenging discography on here. Consume Red is 5 second sample looped for 45 minutes, and Cathode is high pitched droning sine waves.

BTW, I deeply agree with you on this. It's not about it being inaccessible, it's that you get the feeling it's all very superfluous, as you clearly imply. 

I am with you.

 

Could not agree more. I reckon i'd absolutely love the band if i could stomach the singing

While he certainly has a *ahem* "unique" voice, I think it actually fits the music very well.

That said, I agree that TMV are very difficult to get into. I had Frances the Mute for 3 or 4 years before I started enjoying it.

 

The word "challenging" to me indicates that there is some kind of enjoyable pay-off for taking the effort to appreciate the music.  It may be difficult to hear all of what is going on, or to get an understanding of what the artist is trying to convey.  As far as rock is concerned, I would say Gentle Giant.  Their music is so intricate I have to listen several times to even hear all of what is going on.  Beyond that is the fusion music of Miles Davis, especially Bitches Brew.  There are so many layers to the music that it sounds almost like different pieces every time I listen.  The same is true for his Tribute to Jack Johnson.  Two of Herbie Hancock's albums, Mwandishi and Crossings, have similar depth.  In another way, The Residents are a challenge in that they have created their own musical language that is consistent with itself but not much with anything else (nor is it simply noise).  All of these example fits my criteria - I took up the gauntlet, listened attentively, and came to a deeper appreciation for music because of it.  These artists challenged my conventions of music, and I enjoy them all.

 

Now it is Area or Magma or Mahavishnu Orchestra

I also strongly disagree with everybody that said R.I.O./Avant-garde music is stupid nonsense. If you are not capable of appreciating a bit more sophisticated music, it doesn't mean this music isn't good.

 

For me, one of the most challenging bands is Tangerine Dream. I just can not listen to them.

album from Yes at my mates place. It left me undecided as to which progressive path I should actually persue. Close To The Edge is a typical example of an album that grows on you with time, but is still a challenge.  

Yes.

I mean, this is classical music we're talking about; if this is not accessible, then what is it?

It's like Bach or Mozart. Well, not exactly, but you get my point.

If you find Cage hard to get into, you're just not made for contemporary music. I know that can be hard to get into, harder than classical.

 

I bought the album 'A Sceptic's Universe' and listened to it quite a few times. 

 

I think that it is probably the worst album in my collection and will be going on sale on ebay fairly soon.

 

Impressive technique does not necessarily create impressive music.  Some albums just aren't worth the challenge.

I don't think you're stupid, just misguided. :P Unlike some people who have posted their strong feelings about being enlightened prog fans, I do not think enjoying any form of experimental music has anything to do with intelligence.

 

If we talk about paintings, I guess there is little to no doubt that Caravaggio's Beheading of St. John the Baptist makes more sense as a painting than, I don't know, Fontana's cut. So, while talking about "meaning" in absolutistic terms doesn't make much sense, you certainly can talk about meaning in relative terms. Fontana's cut has close to no meaning at all when you compare it to a painting by Caravaggio. It's not inaccessible, it's just a terrible, terrible excuse for a painting, if you analyze it AS a painting. Its significance goes well beyond that.  Now, one can safely say that Fontana's cut is like farting for 50minutes on a cd. If it has a meaning, it's not, or at least not mainly, about music.

 

Why not? Unlike many pretentious music fans, I'm not much of a visual art guy, so I'm not qualified or interested in arguing about paintings, but why can you safely say that Fontana has as much merit as farting? I will surely agree that Caravaggio better at painting, but how do you know what other people get out of Cut? Something doesn't have to be representative to have meaning. I enjoy some of the work of Millares because of the raw emotion expressed, but I don't get anything out of Picasso's cubism or Piet Mondrian or Brancusi. It's difficult to talk about modern art without getting pretentious and handwaving about subjectivity, because a lot of modern art is quite pretentious, but I'm not willing to call Picasso a fraud just because I'm not a fan.

If we listen to this, for example: Henry Plainview wrote: Otomo Yoshide [sic] probably has the most challenging discography on here. Consume Red is 5 second sample looped for 45 minutes, and Cathode is high pitched droning sine waves.  can't we say that this is the Fontana's cut of music? What can we say about it if we only look at it as a piece of music? Couldn't we safely say it has no meaning in comparison to Pink Floyd's Confortably numb?  And what does the topic ask? What's the most inaccessible PROG. Is this prog? What the hell, is this even music?

Hahaha, oh god, you [sic]ed me on a typo. Since you bothered to look up the spelling of Yoshihide, I don't know if you listened to anything from those two works, but let me be more clear, since I shouldn't have been acting like anybody else is familiar with those albums. Consume Red is not just the sample, they play a bunch of things over top of it and around it, and it's undoubtedly prog because it morphs into a kind of noise rock thing. Cathode is not prog rock because it doesn't rock, and there's more people doing things than just Sachiko M playing sine waves but how could you question its status as music? Aren't sine waves music? Comfortably Numb is an odd choice for your Caravaggio to my modern abstraction, but I would definitely not say that Pink Floyd has more inherent meaning than Cathode. I know lots of people on the internet who love Sachiko M and Otomo and hate pretty much all rock music. Since we're talking about Caravaggio, http://www.erstwhilerecords.com/catalog/021.html - I think you might find the existence of this record interesting. You can listen to part of it under the tracks section. I enjoy the music, but like most experimental music, the liner notes are quite pretentious.

This is more of an experiment than music. It's ART but I am not sure it has much sense if you confine it  into the boundaries of "music". Imho, this goes beyond, just like Fontana's cut. Avant-garde some times is just like visual art. You can't fully appreciate it if you don't expand your point of view.

Well I appreciate your awknowledgement that it's art. ;-) I agree that it's expanding your point of view of what is and is not music, and I certainly understand why people don't like it (as I said, I'm not much of a fan either), but I would disagree that its primary meaning is extra-musical. For that to be the case, it would have be something pretentious like a piece titled "The American Dream" and the actual track is silent or is just the sound of shopping carts on linoleum. I would even be willing to accept playing a version of God Bless America with every note wrong as being primarily extra-musical. Cathode stands on its own, regardless of your reference points or enjoyment.

In conclusion, am I saying Consume Red is musically bad? Yes. Am I saying it doesn't make any sense naming YoshiHIde when talking about inaccessible progressive rock? Yes. Do I consider Yoshihide an artist? Yes. Do I need to justify myself to fanboys who name obscure acts when it's not apt and feel like they are so good because they understand weird music and you don't? Apparently yes.

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

It's challenging because it's almost 1 hour long and you must keep concentrated on the music. It uses as well lot of synthetic "acoustic" sounds and you have to get used to this "approximate" of real sounds. The tambourine all along the tune can be either hypnotic or disturbing.

 

You have to be in good conditions good shape and good mood to listen to it. In that case, it can be one of the most impressive experience music can bring to you (it was my case once).

Otherwise, you may feel a bit lost and bored

 

Big contrast from the hip-hop site I go to where people use m*****f***** as a form of friendly address. The day I forget which one I'm writing on will be a day of much hilarity. And bannings.

Thinking to a single album "Invisible Connections" by Vangelis is very challenging, but if you pay attention to the sountrack of "the forbidden planet", you'll see where it is from.

A bit pretentious and condescending, don't you think, Rocktopus?  Even though I don't disagree, I don't think you should sink to Hercules' level by criticizing his music taste.  I must give a thumbs up to Henry's response though.

I don't listen to the same music all the day. If I'm looking for relax I don't play Metal. If I'm working I can't give too much attention to what I'm listening to. If I want to experiment a particular situation I can choose a challenging one. 

There are things that, challenging or not, I don't like at all. I love Mike Oldfield, but I don't like Amarok, not because it's probably challenging, only because I don't like it. 

I love psychedelia but I don't understand the Acid Mothers Temple. Why should they destroy my tweeters?

It's only question of taste, and taste is question of moments. (and cultural background sometimes)  

Criticize his attitude to the music he doesn't get, but not on his taste.

Of course I dislike Hercules close-minded views towards avant-garde music.  It just seemed to me that Rocktopus was calling the bands that Hercules liked terrible, and even though his description of them may be accurate, it seemed a little condescending.