Is Prog Underrated?

ExittheLemming wrote: micky wrote: SteveG wrote: Is prog just the b*****d stepchild of rock or does it have a real musical pedigree in the outside world? I vote redheaded stepchild of rock...  the last thing most people want with music is to have to think.  Rock at its heart is playful.. about fun, youth, energy and passion. You know.. the kind of music you put on to get psyched up to go hit the bars, be it to get trashed and dance on pool tables,  get a bar fight and toss the spoiled frat boy who spiilled your beer out the front window, or simply bust a bar stool over his head, set yourself on the prowl for some action and get on the prowl for pussy... or if you are like Mick in his 20's... all 3 in the same evening.   Prog is often too serious and intellectual for its own good... books are made for the head.. rock is for the soul.  Prog occupies the meeting point and for some, perhaps many, that is a bit too much.  So no..  I wouldn't consider it underrated.. it is a niche form of music that really only appeals to certain type of listeners. You can have fun, be youthful, energetic, soulful and passionate whilst still thinking. *emoti and huh? snip*

micky wrote: SteveG wrote: Is prog just the b*****d stepchild of rock or does it have a real musical pedigree in the outside world? I vote redheaded stepchild of rock...  the last thing most people want with music is to have to think.  Rock at its heart is playful.. about fun, youth, energy and passion. You know.. the kind of music you put on to get psyched up to go hit the bars, be it to get trashed and dance on pool tables,  get a bar fight and toss the spoiled frat boy who spiilled your beer out the front window, or simply bust a bar stool over his head, set yourself on the prowl for some action and get on the prowl for pussy... or if you are like Mick in his 20's... all 3 in the same evening.   Prog is often too serious and intellectual for its own good... books are made for the head.. rock is for the soul.  Prog occupies the meeting point and for some, perhaps many, that is a bit too much.  So no..  I wouldn't consider it underrated.. it is a niche form of music that really only appeals to certain type of listeners.

You can have fun, be youthful, energetic, soulful and passionate whilst still thinking. You must be an advertising executive's wet dream...Oblivious, the fragrance for south of the (red)neck. There is nothing more pitiful than a nostalgia for something that never happened in the first place. I don't know anyone whose opinions I respect who takes Prog seriously or think it remotely intellectual. They would however, kick your disingenuous ass in a bar brawl (no contest)


Edited by ExittheLemming - March 31 2018 at 07:52

The demarcation between fine arts and popular arts and entertainment is effectively a European 18th Century one (the distinction does not seem nearly as prevalent in oriental cultures or the americas for that matter) The former were deemed purely aesthetic in intent and design (e.g. literature, music, painting, sculpture, poetry etc) while the latter were practically applied 'crafts' (pottery, decorative arts, weaving, embroidery etc) I would guess that comprehensive education, democratization, globalization and mass media have effectively rendered the historical educated v uneducated division that existed in the 18th Century as meaningless. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, on these forums, it all comes down to how your taste is perceived at the end of the day.
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.


Edited by ExittheLemming - March 31 2018 at 05:55

Its with prog and popular music as in all other neighboring creative fields. Its not possible to come up with a 100% rule that you can use to measure and categorize different kinds of expression with. Experience and knowledge helps a lot though. Sometimes its difficult and sometimes easy to define but "everyone" knows Stalker, Wild Strawberries are both movies and art but Police Academy 6 and Sister Act 2 isn't... Considering whole genres as "not fine art" by default is what doesn't makes sense to me. 

SteveG wrote: ^ I thought this was implied by the age old arguments agianst 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.

SteveG wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: SteveG wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: Yeah I'm closer to Moshkito's thoughts on this. As a professional artist myself a statement like this simply makes no sense all... Its a way of thinking about-and categorizing the arts that has been proven wrong countless times throughout the centuries. A lot of older autodidact/folk/outsider art is now counted as fine art. Self taught artists such as Paul Cezanne, William Blake, Max Ernst, Balthus, Frida Kahlo (or composers like Bohuslav Martinů, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Giacinto Scelsi...) often had a harder time careeerwise but eventually such things doesn't matter - as it shouldn't. Within the arts, because so much useless crap is produced and presented even at most important museums and fairs "everyone" puts far too much weight on the "where" rather than "what". But thankfully history doesn't care as much about such technicalities. Some prog will be canonized and a lot of academic arts - now respected and considered important will be dismissed and forgotten.  Makes no sense? Is that so? Well my friend, as you have just elaborated, at present prog is not viewed as "autodidact/folk/outsider art" and I can't see how it ever will. You are free to view prog as a fine art but I'm afraid that would be in error. Please explain your requirements for a medium to be considered "fine art"...? I'm no being difficult but I believe it's up to you to argue why prog is a fine art, not why I feel it's not.

Edited by Frenetic Zetetic - March 31 2018 at 04:57

SteveG wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: Yeah I'm closer to Moshkito's thoughts on this. As a professional artist myself a statement like this simply makes no sense all... Its a way of thinking about-and categorizing the arts that has been proven wrong countless times throughout the centuries. A lot of older autodidact/folk/outsider art is now counted as fine art. Self taught artists such as Paul Cezanne, William Blake, Max Ernst, Balthus, Frida Kahlo (or composers like Bohuslav Martinů, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Giacinto Scelsi...) often had a harder time careeerwise but eventually such things doesn't matter - as it shouldn't. Within the arts, because so much useless crap is produced and presented even at most important museums and fairs "everyone" puts far too much weight on the "where" rather than "what". But thankfully history doesn't care as much about such technicalities. Some prog will be canonized and a lot of academic arts - now respected and considered important will be dismissed and forgotten.  Makes no sense? Is that so? Well my friend, as you have just elaborated, at present prog is not viewed as "autodidact/folk/outsider art" and I can't see how it ever will. You are free to view prog as a fine art but I'm afraid that would be in error.

Edited by Frenetic Zetetic - March 31 2018 at 04:47

SteveG wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: [QUOTE=SteveG] I'm more inclined to agree with what Moshkito said above, as well. I didn't "get" what you meant by calling "my avatar a fake"; now I understand your point about Genesis borrowing costumes from Greek theater, and thus not being as original (despite appearing so at that point in history)!. Great stuff! I don't recall ever commenting on your avatar or even noticing it. You must have me confused with the other SteveG who goes by the name micky.

Saperlipopette! wrote: Yeah I'm closer to Moshkito's thoughts on this. As a professional artist myself a statement like this simply makes no sense all... Its a way of thinking about-and categorizing the arts that has been proven wrong countless times throughout the centuries. A lot of older autodidact/folk/outsider art is now counted as fine art. Self taught artists such as Paul Cezanne, William Blake, Max Ernst, Balthus, Frida Kahlo (or composers like Bohuslav Martinů, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Giacinto Scelsi...) often had a harder time careeerwise but eventually such things doesn't matter - as it shouldn't. Within the arts, because so much useless crap is produced and presented even at most important museums and fairs "everyone" puts far too much weight on the "where" rather than "what". But thankfully history doesn't care as much about such technicalities. Some prog will be canonized and a lot of academic arts - now respected and considered important will be dismissed and forgotten.

Makes no sense? Is that so? Well my friend, as you have just elaborated, at present prog is not viewed as "autodidact/folk/outsider art" and I can't see how it ever will. You are free to view prog as a fine art but I'm afraid that would be in error.

Edited by SteveG - March 31 2018 at 04:20

SteveG wrote: Ah, yep. I would have to agree. I consider prog to be a performing art. Its just not a fine art.

Edited by Frenetic Zetetic - March 31 2018 at 02:02