Do you hate certain prog because of popularity?

Paravion wrote: Others might claim that music can be said to be objectively good, that there are such things as good music and bad music - independent of what you happen to think and like.

AllP0werToSlaves wrote: Tapfret wrote: The more popular prog, at least the classics, owed more to distribution than quality. The most popular bands (Pink Floyd, Yes, Genesis, ELP, Jethro Tull) all had major record label contracts. Before the internet, you pretty much got what the local record store had or maybe mail order something you were lucky enough to know about. With what I have discovered of the classic era due to the internet, many of those popular bands would not have made it to my collection. Worth ridiculing someone over? Of course not. But I likewise will not listen to any assertion that popularity has any basis on quality. I agree 100%.

All prog bands were a hard sell because they couldn't get played on the radio unless they got lucky with a 'hit' like Tull perhaps.Therefore to achieve popularity did mean something.Of course we all have our own tastes and will take what we want but the principle of 'inverted snobbery' dictates that less popular bands must be 'better' because the more popular bands must have pandered to a commercial approach in some way to achieve popularity and that somehow makes their music inferior.The less popular bands were not infected by this and so their music is 'purer' and superior.

I don't like prog (or music) in general if its overtly/overly poppy. Most of the "popular" prog bands tend to be more pleasing to the ears...but thats just how it goes.  At the end of the day its the music that matters.

If you use a value to determine whether something is good or bad, then it can be done. Or at least it acquires some objectivity. If we measure music by thematic and structural complexity, pop is low, prog-rock is medium-low to medium, classical music is high at the top. If we measure music by other means (which still lack a proper standard scale anyway, as the previous example I just mentioned,  but at least the answer is easier to see) then the results might be different. For example, popularity would come up with pop on top. 

Edited by The T - January 27 2011 at 14:34

People might call the popular prog "cliche" because it essentially defined most of the music on this sight. ELP's st album was spectacular, and many bands were influenced by that. People might not like it now because it seems like there isn't that much "spark," but back then it was revolutionary (or maybe not, but still)

Anyway - what are the reasons for liking (or hating) the music you like (or hate)?

Edited by Paravion - January 27 2011 at 13:06

I agree with what some have posted or at least hinted at here: "popular" can mean different things. I would make a distinction between highly rated, well know bands among most Progressive Rock listeners (generally represented by large number of ratings, esp. high ratings on this site), and progressive rock that is or has historically been played for a wider audience, particularly on the airwaves, such as classic rock stations. As for myself, I currently focus on exploring bands/albums in the former category, simply because there are thousands of bands/albums, and I want to discover why majorities of listeners have rated them highly--it is an indication of quality as much as "popularity". So far, I have not been very disappointed. And I confess, I enjoy a bit of recreational snobbery when I play some of the more obscure music in the presence of folks who don't normally listen to the stuff. I've already had several comments about me and my obsession with "weird-ass" music.

More people in the general population have heard the music the second type of "popularity", and often think of it as "pop" or "classic". I do like most of it (widely know hits from Pink Floyd, Rush, or Yes). I tend not to listen to these particular songs as much because they're a bit worn out for me, as I used to listen to a lot of classic rock stations where they were frequently played. And when I do listen to them, I typically prefer to listen to them in the context of the entire albums. 

Hawkwise wrote: thehallway wrote: It's their way of basically saying "look at me, I am going against the norm, I am superior to you because I prefer Ummagumma to Wish You Were Here, for example"   But i doI prefer  Ummagumma to Wish you were here  ,

Yes but if you preferred Wish you were Here to Ummagumma, would you mention it so often?

I don’t like King Crimson and I don’t like Porcupine Tree!

 I just don’t like them! Find their music unappealing, often irritating, sometimes plain boring, it has a vibe which I don't like .... That are my reasons. Not their popularity. If my dislike would be  for the sake of popularity I would not like Genesis, Yes, Van der Graaf Generator, all bands which I love!

Just not liking something because it is popular is as irrational as not liking something just for the fact that it was relaesed after 1989!

Edited by King Manuel - January 27 2011 at 12:23

Well done for noticing OP.

It does happen here whether people deny it or not.

It's their way of basically saying "look at me, I am going against the norm, I am superior to you because I prefer Ummagumma to Wish You Were Here, for example"

Also, certain members are keen on making irrelevant posts: such as, in a poll between song A and song B, they might mention how their favourite is song C, by a band only they and other superior people have heard of........