 Fantômas wrote:
As I said, there's no "non-relative" ways to define who's better. You
can't say that your perception of "elegance, depth, harmony, mastery"
worths more than mine, or if that is definitive to tell who's better
(If I like raw music, the quality of being raw is a point that matter
in definition of quality). In the same way, you can define for yourself
who is a young wanna be's. But that definition can, maybe, not be
the same of mine. I think that what you said justify why prog fans are
such snobs. They think their music is better for being elegant and
beautiful. But, if to you a PFM's song is beautiful, for me is just
tacky. Got it? For me, Peter Gabriel is nothing more than a "wish I
could sing, but I can't, so let me try to ruin the songs with bad
lyrics and awful vocals", but to you he may be the greatest of all...
There's nothing wrong in it. Just a question of different points of
view.
|
An experienced listener can hear "depth, elegance, harmony..."
instinctively but there are also statistical and analytical ways to
measure a large part of aesthetic value - this is a part that can be
proved; other part is irrational, non-musical, difficult to prove...
but very much connected with the first part.
The developement of several parameters can be analysed in a musical
piece - timbre, melody, harmony, dynamics, form... The more subtle this
developement the more quality the music.
To achieve this subtleness a musician
must have some
talent (genetical preference)
and various (not only technical!)
skills
(acquired with self-dependent effort). If this is not present than
someone is just a wanna-be musician making less quality music no matter
how interesting the concept, lyrics, energy, sincerity, hairstyle,
clothes... What you like more (is better for you personaly) is a just
personal taste and doesn't say a lot about what is better (quality) in
general. Some people just like less quality music or care more about
non-musical things. Nothing wrong with this...
Conserning "raw": I think you
didn't understand what I meant. With "raw" I meant dilettant,
amateurish, sloppy... NOT a raw atmosphere, feel... I persume you meant
the later.
BTW I'm not a snob. I like all music of high quality (not only prog). I
can also enjoy some less quality music but don't waste too much time on
it...
Oh, I was almost forgetting: To say that progressive is music and punk
no is not a question of taste. It's stupid. You really can do better
than this, boys.
|
Agree!
A music to be good depends
of a serial things, not only of technique (IMO).
|
Agree again! Considering this and above written facts Genesis is musically better quality than Sex Pistols.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Why are prog fans such music snobs?
Topic Options
