Faux Prog Fans

octopus-4 wrote: About punks, the Rock Dynosaur David Gilmour last year has published the Gdansk DVD. What has Johnny Rotten (Lydon) done in the last 10 years?

The best I can relate to this is in a history of Jazz, where in the late 1940s/early 1950's you had those who totally dismissed bebop and felt only true jazz was swing and new orleans/dixieland. e.g.. Only Louis Armstrong and Benny Goodman sounding groups were worth listening too.

Textbook wrote: Let's not name any names but I notice a distinct division on the site between people who are actual fans of progressive music (those who seek new, original sounds without regard for what elements are used to create them) and "faux" progressive fans who seek the intellectual cache of prog but actually run a mile from anything unfamiliar. Yes and Genesis are good bands and I like both of them but it must be said that for whatever reason a change/time resistant cult seems to have formed chiefly around them, the members of which only enjoy new prog if it sounds like Yes or Genesis. This to me is absolutely the opposite of prog as it is stagnant. I accuse those who would not listen to or try music that is receiving acclaim because they "don't like that sort of thing" to be a lilly-livered rascal. I really like Johnny Cash but never would've tried him if I'd stuck to my "I don't like country music" thing. A true prog fan will try ANYTHING. ANYTHING AT ALL. They don't have to like it, but they'll get it and hear it all the way through before deciding.   True?

I am coming into this discussion very late - I've been out of town.  It has been interesting reading through them, especially to see how the discussion has evolved (or devolved).  Here's my view, for whatever it may be worth:

richardh wrote: boo boo wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: I dislike the idea that musical opinions are motivated by ideology more than taste.   Sometimes they are. I get annoyed by how punks often praise or criticize a band for their ideals and politics and not even the actual music.   Is there such a thing as a faux prog fan? There are fake punks. But why fake being a proggy? It's not exactly a hip thing to be. Punk was fake anyway .It wasn't about the music and all about the politics apparently.So a fake punk fan probably enjoys the music itself.

Edited by boo boo - August 13 2010 at 15:48

boo boo wrote: richardh wrote: boo boo wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: I dislike the idea that musical opinions are motivated by ideology more than taste.   Sometimes they are. I get annoyed by how punks often praise or criticize a band for their ideals and politics and not even the actual music.   Is there such a thing as a faux prog fan? There are fake punks. But why fake being a proggy? It's not exactly a hip thing to be. Punk was fake anyway .It wasn't about the music and all about the politics apparently.So a fake punk fan probably enjoys the music itself.   There's a lot of quality punk rock. But I do feel like a lot of punk fans put more emphasize on the idealism, social status and politics of a band than on their music. When a lot of them praise or criticize an artist that's what they go on about.   "Rush sucks, they're f*cking Ayn Rand fans and they're upper class."   They might be Ayn Rand fans, but they sure don't pay much attention to her work. It's like a guy reading 1984 and hating it because it doesn't got no spaceships and blaster rifles. Yeah but what about their actual music? It sucks a big fat monkey wiener   "The Clash were great, their themes of conformity and class struggles totally strike a chord with me."   Well, at least there are no priests of the temple of Syrinx, lordy! Yeah but what about their actual music? Hey, they actually got melodies!   Oh yeah, and if you ever point out the huge hypocrisy of punk bands like The Clash by pointing out their privilaged art school background, some of their fans might flip the f*ck out. Keep that in mind. I suck eggs.

See, this is why you don't let me into these conversations unsupervised. Feelings get hurt, Rush gets bashed, and it's not a pretty scene.


Edited by Alitare - August 14 2010 at 01:19

boo boo wrote: Public announcement! You are already my least favorite member of this forum.

At least I'm a self-referential troll. Walter, he like, takes himself seriously, or something. Me, I'm jus' in it for the gags. There are bajillions of bands I dislike more than Rush, Rush just happens to be the most popular band I dislike tons.

I'd tell you not to take me seriously, but I want you to, because that's funnier to me at the end of the day.

boo boo wrote: ^ This guy hasn't been banned because?   Yeah and for someone who is compelled to go into a Rush bashing tirade just because someone briefly mentioned them, completely ignoring his original point in doing so, and even though he likes Rush enough to give 3 of their albums 4 star ratings then yeah I'd say you're a f*cking troll. Admitting it doesn't really excuse your presence on what I thought was supposed to be a forum with standards.

Those reviews were ignorant lies! Well, except for Moving Pictures. Side one of that sucker's really cool. I need to rewrite my reviews. I wrote those when I allowed myself to be influenced by outside opinion. This forum DOES have standards, they're just lower than yours. Wanna know why? Because they'd let Rush in! Bwahaha!

Okay, so, prog and progressive are words and most of the stuff in here is opinions, and then words go whiddley and sometimes someone says something that makes me feel good on the inside, and then it gets attacked by others and, ... !@#!@..

Sometimes words go whooo, and I watch, but my eyes whip 'roun', go lolly lolly. Definitely salmons. But music is such and so, and sometimes I hate new stuff (like Nickelback), but sometimes old stuff (like Rush) I hate, too. And newly some, bananas,,,,,. Stuff is me liking it when it's make my heart go bzzzzzzzzzzzzz. (like maudlin of the Well). When olden ballzak sings Mike Oldfield's Ommagawd, I like that, too.,,,. Two....to....teu....tew...

It's all a lie, it's true. I think, I guess, I know, I think I know, f*ck off. Why can't I remember?

boo boo wrote: If you don't get banned I probably will because I can't tolerate people like you at all.

Oh, relax, Boo Boo, there's pickanick baskets afoot. It's not like I'm serious, or anything.

What is it about me that you cannot stand?

boo boo wrote: That you make Rush bashing into a stupid redundant gimmick, purposely, that you're a pretty poor troll, purposely, and that your attempt at humor is nauseating, purposely. The better question is, is there anything I like about you? So far, no.   I know I'm breaking the rules here, so save your response for a PM. Though I prefer you don't even do that because you're not worth talking to any furthur.

Ya know, if someone bans you over me, It would be pretty sad. I'm not worth getting banned over. It'd be funny, though.

SMSM wrote: The best I can relate to this is in a history of Jazz, where in the late 1940s/early 1950's you had those who totally dismissed bebop and felt only true jazz was swing and new orleans/dixieland. e.g.. Only Louis Armstrong and Benny Goodman sounding groups were worth listening too.   In the 1960's, the opposite occured where some only considered bebop and successive forms of jazz to be true jazz, and looked down on swing and and dixieland.   If any such types belonged to any of the influential media or something like that, they may have caused others to not bother to listen to the music they did not like and deprived such "non jazz" to be appreciated.   As it would have been best to take what some of these "faux Jazz" fans stated as an opinion and not the truth, and actually listen to music, similar advice should be applied to those others consider to be "faux prog fans"

Edited by boo boo - August 14 2010 at 21:16