Is Prog Underrated?

I use the term "cultural practices" in a much more general way, so for example the western way of setting up a university system and academic culture is a cultural practice as well, as are conditions of musical performance, its role in education and the social setup of society etc. Globalisation may make us think that much of this is universal but in fact a lot can be traced to specific cultural origins and has become widespread not so much because of its universal qualities but rather because of economical and power relations and the like.

Speaking of "indigeneous" or "ritualistic" practices, I also think that it is important for understanding music how it originated from such practices in many places (this seems to me more universal than the structural elements you are referring to although for the moment I'm talking about my intuition rather than a solid knowledge of the literature and research). I think this is still reflected in much contemporary "use" of music (surely it plays an important role for rock music), and I think if you want to rule such elements out for "an aesthetic evaluation of composition", this evaluation loses some key aspects of music.

Discussing structure like "introduction - theme/exposition - development - recapitulation - coda" is certainly an important part of "academic scrutiny" of music but the role this plays in trying to make up an "objective" concept of quality is less straightforward. Groundbreaking music (including music that is academically acknowledged as such) sometimes proceeds just by destroying or changing such structures; and surely music that satisfies such a blueprint all too easily is easily dismissed as derivative (unless it has other qualitiues that makes it stand out).

ExittheLemming wrote:   several thousand years of music theory

I doubt that there's several thousand years of music theory that can be put together in any consistent line. OK, the Romans and old Chinese may have had some kind of music theory but this is hardly related at all to how music is assessed by academia today. (I'd be actually open and curious to evidence that proves me wrong here. Oh I actually remember some stuff that the Greeks had... but we don't know how their music sounded if I'm not mistaken.)

and the emergent critical tools which are used to examine compositions as objectively as is practicable. It is not intended to provide demonstrable evidence that any particular music is objectively good or bad. Music criticism is never just an examination paper set by unfeeling and uncaring adjudicators hoping the composer will fail their test. (unless you're Ian Penman) The only art than might be deemed to fail is that where nothing is communicated and neither thought or emotion is stirred within the listener. As long as the reaction engendered in the listener is not deemed sentimentally banal, manipulatively shallow, or pandering to the basest appetites of a target demographic who would clearly be complete strangers to a site like Prog Archives, we have a bona fide elitist smasheroonie on our hands guv'nor.

Fair enough. There's a lot of theory, too, that shows how strongly music perception is a result of cultural practices that are everything else than "objective". I'm certainly not against music criticism or rating (I write the occasional review here myself), and neither am I against aiming for a "scientific" approach, but it is of key importance, in my view, to keep in mind its limitations and the fundamental impossibility to reach what is normally understood as "objectivity" in this endeavour.
 
What is this talk about "not standing up to academic scrutiny" other than to claim "demonstrable evidence that any particular music is objectively good or bad"? 

Edited by Lewian - April 03 2018 at 11:02

Emotion and thinking are related in inseparable ways. Emotion can be complex and thought can be simple. Music aimed at thought or emotion only, disregarding the other, can never succeed.

The discourse on academic scrutiny and "fine art" itself is a cultural item quite devoid of emotion and  as such probably inferior to all kinds of music including baroque, classic, prog, punk, hip hop, you name it.

^ Come on, every other thread on PA is about something being underrated. So..

Put me quite happily in the Prog is for thinking camp and the Prog is fine art camp. That doesn’t actually exclude feeling and emotion blah, blah blah. There’s a great deal of enjoyment in thinking and a good deal of rebelliousness in thinking different. If that makes me out as too suburban, it’s because I am. If it’s too intellectual, well, there’s just no such thing.

Then you should have just asked my opinion on prog.   To be fair, I'm never forward about my own opinions as it's others that I'm interested in. Also, I don't want to get into a debate with Pedro (moshkito) LOL. 

Edited by SteveG - April 02 2018 at 09:02

Yeah, I can agree on extension instead of offshoot, but that's all.

My own opinion is that prog is more or less where it should be in public opinion. Its just an offshoot of rock that was given to flights of pretension and, at times, riddled with virtuoso overplaying. As Iain has noted, it does not stand up to academic scrutiny and cannot be placed in the same category as classical music, no matter how many "suites" a given prog song is professed to have. That aside, I feel that my interest in popular music would probably be greatly diminished or even nonexistent if not for prog rock. There's only so much Elvis and Television I can listen to before boredom sets in.

Edited by SteveG - April 02 2018 at 07:59

^ You just wrote a thesis on something no one gives a toss about !!

You’re awesome !!!

micky wrote: hisss.... he best dare not touch it... or I'll truly lose my sh*t

I’m aware of this. Just wanted to rock yer boat. You know I’ve always found that baboon eating cake artwork fascinating and, well, for ‘classic rock’ it’s a winner. One of the rare high-points of the genre. And I know you don’t exactly agree with Wilson (I do....). Makes no differentiation.........