Is Prog Underrated?

ExittheLemming wrote: I don't listen to it with the same aesthetic criteria as I would say, Bartok, Stravinsky or Ives etc. (You ever read a Yes or ELP lyric?)

Never gonna defend Jon Andersons new age nonsense or whoever wrote about that apocalyptical armadillo (can't stand ELP anyway) - but I can guide you towards some librettos to operas by Mozart, Richard Strauss, Donizetti, Rossini mm... that will make you long for the philosophical and existential poetry printed on the Tales Topographic Oceans or Tarkus lyric-sheet

ExittheLemming wrote: However, I still don't believe that Prog's 1st Gen masterpieces would stand up to the sort of scrutiny afforded to formal academic music e.g. what might be deemed the previous classical canon of music. That too might be subject to change, but for me we would have to lower the bar for Prog to gain entry.

Perhaps compared to the canonized works from early baroque to early modernism but from there on till 2018 the bar is already considerably lowered. As much as I actively listen, investigate and occasionally enjoy the spectralists, minimalists, serialists, electro-acoustic & aleatoric music + whatever academic trend - I think the distinction between the often insistingly anti-social musical experiments of the 20th century from the correct schools and say the ones that represent the b*****dized versions - whom managed to communicate these ideas to a slightly broader audience... as 60's/70's african-american avant-garde jazz (by now thoroughly included in the "fine arts") and say... bands such as Can, Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream, Soft Machine... (who knows maybe Yes and King Crimson as well, I'm not sure and its not my decision) the b*****ds already seem to be "winning". Not nessecarely compared to the real geniuses Bartok, Shostacovich, Penderceki... still making music for "an eternity" but the rest. 

SteveG wrote:  I thought this was implied by the age old arguments against viewing pop music as fine art.  Very well, prog, at present,  fails to meet the criteria that would define it as fine art and falls into the camp of popular art and entertainment.

Not sure this is true, and you and I and many of us are doing our best to improve that.

IF, all the whole thing is popular music and entertainment, then nothing that we discuss and talk about as "progressive" or "prog" would have survived 45 years and still be discussed, played and talked about.

In general, and not only for music but most arts, the ones that "survive" and are still seen and mentioned and read, are the ones that become a "fine art" as a part of the history of the art itself.

I don't think that anyone can really put together a comprehensive guide as to a demarcation line between "fine art" and "art" and then "popular art", since, SPECIALLY THESE DAYS WITH INTERNET, it can all be seen and heard and read and appreciated, when 75 years ago,  some works never were seen on the other side of the world. Or even BEFORE, where there was no photography to show what someone in Europe did, or what Japan or China had to offer.

It is my contention, that the reason why we think of a lot of this music as "popular" is because of the media attention to it. And I, personally do not see the problem if a King Crimson gets attention and becomes better known and appreciated for their musicianship, which I do not think that any of us will ever question, even if it is "popular". Likewise, some of the greatest actors of the 20th century, dancers, composers, also were affected by "publicity" and became better known and appreciated, yet, no one has shown you or I anything (except a couple of romanticized movies) about Valentino, and other great actors at the turn of the century, but you and I know all about Burton and Olivier!

Somewhere along the way, we have to look at these things more objectively. And the "media" and this total BS about "favorites" and "likes" and "dislikes" needs to take a hike. it is hurting the ability to improve the discussion and the standing of the whole thing. Here we are trying to show how it has survived history ... and then the next two or three posts are trolls. That is incredibly sad, and while they have a right to their comments, in the end, they are hurting the discussion by not giving a darn.

We are in the "age of the media", and we are STILL influenced to the point of being completely controlled and totally brain-washed by top of the pops designs that are run by folks that OWN the media, which means that a lot of the lesser selling things are not getting the respect and attention that they should and a place like PA, is FANTASTIC AND SPECIAL about that ... so helping ensure that we become even more important and valuable in this discussion is, for me, a goal for a lifetime, and I will be glad and happy if we can get a percentage or two of improvement, so that silly toilet paper rags stop printing articles about this and that progressive stuff and really shake it down and bad.

People like Rick Wakeman, Vangelis, Mike Oldfield, Edgar Froese/Tangerine Dream, will forever be remembered and talked about, because of their dedication to the music and the works they were involved in. Many folks make fun of 2 versions of YES out there, and yet, they are both very good and the only thing it shows is that 50 years later, the music is still important, valuable and outstanding.

Now, I'm not sure that you will be appreciated calling all of the folks named above as "popular artists" and nothing else ... you'll probably get treated very badly by a lot of folks around here. And it would not be fair, to their abilities and musicianship, which over the years can be said to ... outstanding. Many composers, hope to be able to do half as much in their lifetimes! But calling Rick Wakeman a hack? Sorry, that is something he is not, and his ability and work is not a joke! It's fine art, even if you think that someone else is a better keyboard player!