Faux Prog Fans

there is heated debate about whether a band is metal, especially once we get into the 90s.   And again, metal too can be defined clearly.  Because metal, or prog for that matter, are non academic genres, there has never been much attempt to define it.   

 

boo boo wrote: Ok, calling Radiohead black metal would be wrong. But when it comes to calling them prog I'd say there is no right or wrong answer to that question. Obviously not everyone has the same exact idea of what qualifies as prog.

It should not be necessary for the answer to depend on such a specific and/or personalized notion of prog, genre classification is supposed to be a lot more straightforward than that.

First of all, this discussion (and many other like-wise discussions on this forum) is rater diffuse and unfocused. In order to speak of at true or a false prog listener (or fan..) one needs to define prog. That's a subject matter that's been debated since antiquity (or at least since this site came up way back in 2004 (I've been a regular reader ever since, and even participated way back then under a different name)). A first approach would require discovery of what nescessary and sufficient conditions under which prog can be said to be prog. I dont believe there are any.. 

One who knows but a little about prog has to eventually realize the paradox associated with the genre: proto-typical ('defining') prog was produced in the late sixties to mid seventies and music that now bears the label 'neo-prog' does so largely because the music sounds alike. Following this logic, then, prog is a phenomenon of the past. Prog, thus, has no direct connection to the meaning of the adjective 'progressive'. Note, that I am not saying that "the paradox of prog" is blocking the possiblility of (truely) progressive music. But, again, in my conceptualization of things - there is a distinct difference between 'prog' and 'progressive music' - where the latter is much more closely linked to the meaning of the adjective 'progressive', the former very little - if at all.       

'textbook' wrote: 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.

Anything? - really?. Are you aware of how much music there has been produced since mankind began playing music? I am not, but I'm almost certain, that it's impossible for a single individual to listen to all of it during a lifetime. My point is, that it's okay to say to one-self 'I don't like that sort of thing' but if 'sort of thing' refers to a particular genre, I'd adwise the person in question to reconsider and challenge his preconceptions. I have a lot of sorts of things that I don't like and music I wouldn't force myself to listen to  - but it has very rarely something to do with genre. Reasons for likes and dislikes are rather uniteresting - but for my part it's a complex combination of mostly idiosyncratic (made up own reasons only I would understand), also intrincic (the music itself) and extrinsic (the context/persons around the music/the fans etc.) reasons. Surely nothing of the sort 'I don't like country -> I don't like Johnny Cash'

Genres don't matter! Awareness of what you like is essential - and awareness of what you like also makes you aware of what you don't like. What you like and don't like is of course subject to change. Awareness of likes and dislikes combined with an awareness that changes in taste means that you progress and evolve - makes a good music-listener. Whether you mostly listen to prog,punk,jazz,classic,pop,rap etc, etc doesn't matter.