Prog elitists

Soooo....I can say Justin Biever and Britney Spears are prog artists, because they are the evolution of pop music and they are better than "technical w@nkers" like Yes and ELP. If we lack parameters, progarchives makes no sense. Let's just add The Sex Pistols and Madonna in order to screw "elitists".

I do consider Pink Floyd and Porcupine Tree to be below average bands. It's not because I'm an elitist, it's because I love prog rock and I don't consider them progressive, and, in turn, they are not my cup of tea. I don't like simplistic radio-friendly pop songs. PERIOD.
I repeat, it's not elitism, but internal logic.
If someone comes here and says he loves Pink Floyd, Porcupine Tree, Tool and Radiohead above all...I consider them to be rock fans and I almost expect them to hate Yes and ELP. It's not that I see them as inferior (no elitism whatsoever), it's just that those guys might not like prog.
We have Maiden, Sabbath and Metallica in the database...so, am I an elitist if I tell you I consider them inferior as prog bands? Really?

If I go to a hard rock forum and they have Jethro Tull in there because of Crest of a Knave, for instance...I expect Thick as a Brick to lose polls against almost every AC/DC album. It's as simple as that. Should I call them elitists for saying Thick as a Brick is an inferior hard rock album? should I diss those who think Jethro Tull is not even a rock band? hell no!

BTW, prog is a static genre with set parameters. Those, like Steven wilson, who claim prog rock is "whatever new thing that moves music forward" are wrong. If those guys were right, then punk rock is prog, electronic music is prog, boy bands are prog, etc... sorry to burst your bubble, but this is yet another music genre, not the be-all and end-all, not an all-encompassing wonder.

I am!!

Please, elitism is typically found in those with inferior in critical skills. 

Edited by axeman - February 28 2017 at 16:00

Merrimack Mike wrote: Although I am not a musician (poet, actually), I have given the concept of complexity in music a lot of thought.  I guess I draw a line of distinction between sonically rich music that rewards close listening and complex music.  Ok, PF's music is not as complex GG's, but they are both sonically rich.  I frequently discover new resonances in PF's music.  For example, I've been listening and re-listening to the beginning of DSOTM and the final vocal crescendo.  I can't identify what's happening in music theory terms, but I do hear an opening problem and a resolution (even if the resolution is a form of blissful craziness ). I think all music that qualifies as prog reward close listening, whether or not the listener and performers are classically trained musicians. That's my 1 cent (I had a coupon, so I saved the other cent.)

Wow, you waited three years to make your first two forum posts! That has to be some sort of record!
Welcome and hope to hear more from you!

HackettFan wrote: I also think Dean's comments about math with respect to pitch and harmony, as he himself pointed out, deserve a reference here. I can't remember what thread it was. Maybe he remembers.

They were in Pascal's Composing Microtonal Thread. There's lots of interesting information there about pitches, intervals and the mathematics of music theory.

Lewian wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: ^ "Math is a way to describe them. This doesn't mean they *are* math (unless you think that everything is math); and hardly anything of the list of connections given before actually serves as an argument that they are. Just like not everything that can be described by language is just language." YES! I do think EVERYTHING is math. That is the point and the fact that some of us like one type of music over the other is a result of how mathematical our brains are. The fact Beyonce is popular is because most of the general population is deficient in math skills whereas i've never met a prog lover who was highly intelligent. These studies have been conducted many times in many countries and the article i shared is only one of many. Unless you are a scientist or a mathmatician it may be somewhat counterintuitive as to why these things are true but i personally am convinced that they are. Mathematics is simply the language of the universe and everything including music uses that language for construction.  I am actually a mathematician by training but managed to resist that kind of "universalist mathematism"...  Anyway, would you make the same statement about painting and literature (which I think is implied by what you just wrote), or do you see a special connection between mathematics and music? (Actually I do see some kind of special connection in that conscious use of mathematics and formal structure is much stronger in music than in painting or literature, but I wouldn't say that music in its essence is more mathematical.)

Lewian wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: <span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;">^</span> <span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;"> "Math is a way to describe them. This doesn't mean they *are* math (unless you think that everything is math); and hardly anything of the list of connections given before actually serves as an argument that they are. </span><span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;">Just like not everything that can be described by language is just language."</span> <span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;"> </span> <span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;">YES! I do think EVERYTHING is math. That is the point and the fact that some of us like one type of music over the other is a result of how mathematical our brains are. The fact Beyonce is popular is because most of the general population is deficient in math skills whereas i've never met a prog lover who was highly intelligent. These studies have been conducted many times in many countries and the article i shared is only one of many. Unless you are a scientist or a mathmatician it may be somewhat counterintuitive as to why these things are true but i personally am convinced that they are. Mathematics is simply the language of the universe and everything including music uses that language for construction. </span> I am actually a mathematician by training but managed to resist that kind of "universalist mathematism"...  Anyway, would you make the same statement about painting and literature (which I think is implied by what you just wrote), or do you see a special connection between mathematics and music? (Actually I do see some kind of special connection in that conscious use of mathematics and formal structure is much stronger in music than in painting or literature, but I wouldn't say that music in its essence is more mathematical.)

This is a very interesting point. I do not take that universalist position that everything is math. I argue against it in language as a matter of fact. But I do think there is a basic substrate specifically in music that reduces to math. The research that SillyPuppy refers to showing a link between music appreciation and certain rhythmic patterns seems fairly persuasive (speaking only as someone who has heard about similar stuff in general science news reporting). It doesn't seem enough to simply reject math as a source unless there is something non-mathematically based that one can replace it with (e.g. something in regard to attention or salience that could produce same or similar results). I also think Dean's comments about math with respect to pitch and harmony, as he himself pointed out, deserve a reference here. I can't remember what thread it was. Maybe he remembers.

Whatever. You guys read too much into this prog thing. I'm done. See Ya.

Guldbamsen wrote: 7+9 = Prog 11+5 = Ska Punk 10+6 = Klezmer 16 = is the basic outcome of all music - the way you reach that number determines whether you prefer Kiss over Diamanda Galas. Some stories have been told of certain people that reach 17. Such marvellous personas have gone and left what we mortals know as music and now only listen to the earth's magnetic field, shifts in oak bark and the Peruvian fighting frog's triumphant morse hymn.