Prog elitists

siLLy puPPy wrote: I'll keep this short. You're right that it's your opinion and i totally respect anyone's opinion. But are you a musician? If you were you would understand the elements into music construction that can clearly be ranked hierarchically by complexity including but not limited to time signature deviations, polyrhythmic assembly, disharmony and dissonance, compositional meandering etc. Did i say that any particular band is better than another because of this? Absolutely not. It's all about subjective tastes but as far as comprehending the complexity of music can be measured

Edited by rogerthat - February 17 2017 at 20:10

Frank Zappa said, "writing about music is like dancing about architecture". That's because it is often difficult to come to an understanding of someone else's musical tastes through the indirect mechanism of describing music in human language. It isn't always true, of course; people can find meaning and mutual understanding in discussions of music.  It's when you introduce the idea an elite form of art (with all the implications of things-other-than-that being inferior) that you force devolution of proceedings into an "us and them" style discourse: Prog vs. Punk , Classical (or Jazz) vs. Everything Else -- you name it, it's been done.

So it's been done to death, but the Gentle Giant and Pink Floyd argument is a "soulful vs. mathematical" debate.  Not that GG is purely the one and PF is purely the other, but in a way they heavily embody those extremes. If you're looking for the one aspect and feel like excluding the other one, you will gravitate to the one pole and away from the other.  Personally I've found joy in listening to the music of both groups.  Maybe not within the same fifteen minutes, but you know ... as mood dictates.

If you find yourself involved in too many fights to be comfortable, a wise man once said, "do the opposite". ... and the opposite of elitism is open-mindedness.  Remember also that progressive music ( the reason we're ostensibly here ) is synonymous with doing new things, and hearing and opening yourself to a variety of influences.  You cannot be purist / elitist about prog, it's a contradiction in terms.


Edited by CapnBearbossa - February 17 2017 at 12:50

rogerthat wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: What this boils down to is how many listens does an album take to understand where it is coming from. Pink Floyd is one of the most popular bands of all time because they were able to mix prog, pop and rock elements together in totally unique ways. That was a great thing. I love PF albums that many hate because they weren't accessible enough. DSOTM was brilliant in that it managed to go to the central point where EVERYONE could get it. That's brilliant to be assured but not the height of complexity. If you are having trouble with that term try comparing high school algebra to advanced calculus. Music is a form of mathematics and unfortunately requires the same discipline of graduating from one form to the next. Like i said previously in some sort of way, you really need to go through a series of upgrades in your programming to understand music that is intended for advanced audiences. Let me make this perfectly clear: WE LOVE PINK FLOYD! WE WORSHIP ROGER WATERS! WE LOVE DAVID GILMOUR! ALL OF THEM! That's not what the discussion is about. Elitism is a valid term. It is reserved for unthinkable heights of advancement and despite the elements of jealousy nevertheless exists for those willing to work their friggin arses off to understand. It's the ultimate payoff in music if you have the gonads to go there It is not at all clear that 'pure' prog is advanced calculus to Floyd's high school algebra.  Where is Gentle Giant's Ninth Symphony-eque magnum opus?  They are also ultimately rock songs.  And I don't mean just in terms of genre, but the scope.  There is nothing that GG's complexity helps them express that Pink Floyd cannot.   On the contrary, I would argue that Pink Floyd are able to express more moods than GG even with their relative lack of complexity.  Music may have a mathematical element but it is not just maths.   If you want to reduce it to that, that's your look out, but don't try to present it as some sort of objective truth that you can impose on me.   FYI I have GG's albums among many other prog rock bands so I am sorry but I do 'get' the music contrary to your condescension and have heard them more times than I can possibly keep count of.  But the way you have attempted to define hierarchy in music itself is extremely narrow in scope and seems to drill down on what interests you (and which you seem to presume should be all  that should interest anyone else).  For example, when classical compositions have vocals, they are technically unimpeachable and performed at a level out of the reach of ordinary singers.  The same certainly cannot be said of GG's vocals.  It's nobody's fault if they chose to be satisfied with the mediocrity of Derek Shulman.   It is possible for a listener to ignore his vocals and focus on the music, which is what I do.  But you cannot argue that it is not a valid complaint for a listener to criticise Shulman's vocals because it's there and it sucks.   So, holistically speaking, GG is not high level art any more than Floyd because it is deeply flawed (whereas Floyd at least circa DSOTM/WYWH were, for lack of a better word, limited) and this goes for most prog/rock (either flawed and/or limited).  I specifically bring up vocals because the common excuse made on behalf prog is that being instrument-oriented music, it doesn't need strong vocals but this begs the question why classical or jazz find use for vocal virtuosos.  And that is just my opinion and you will have to live with it.

What we easily forget in a forum in which the most popular area is polls is that music is not about competition but about communication and exploration. I'm all for being experimental and open minded and this also makes me open to musicians exploring mathematical complexity of composition and what's in it. On the other hand, musicians may try to find out what happens if they make their music ultra-simple or use free structures or focus on sound rather than "compositions" (all of which give some listeners food to feel smug about what "elite" stuff they're listening to, I know what I'm talking about ). What musicians try out may fail but even failure of an experiment should normally advance music as a whole. Then the term "failure" is always relative to the listener, relative to communication between musician and listener, and obviously some music may fail to communicate to me but may succeed to communicate to somebody else.

But there's no competitive element to it, at least not "by nature". Some musicians and listeners may put a competitive element into it saying that GG is more complex and less accessible than PF and therefore somehow music by/for an elite, but ultimately this strikes me as "non-musical" in that it doesn't have to do with the sound produced and how it resonates with any specific listener.

Also I'm all for trying out less well known bands after having found out about a famous one like Pink Floyd, in which case indeed Pink Floyd is something of an entry, but this has nothing to do with being "entry level"; the notion of level is extra-musical, as is the notion of elite.

rogerthat wrote: I clearly said it was my opinion.

rogerthat wrote: Shiny globe wrote: Former GG fans having become PF fans for the quoted reason would prove you right... No and besides there is no right or wrong.

Shiny globe wrote: Former GG fans having become PF fans for the quoted reason would prove you right...

Thatfabulousalien wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: [QUOTE=rogerthat][QUOTE=Larkstongue41] OK, then. What is your explicit definition of "complexity?"

I can't read music. Is this Chopsticks?

rogerthat wrote: Shiny globe wrote: rogerthat wrote: There is nothing that GG's complexity helps them express that Pink Floyd cannot. Please PF fans who have stopped listening to GG for that very reason make yourself known! And what's that supposed to mean?

rogerthat wrote: There is nothing that GG's complexity helps them express that Pink Floyd cannot.