Do you hate certain prog because of popularity?

moshkito wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: It's funny, seems that some people has double standards A few days ago I said: [QUOTE=Ivan_Melgar_M]  It seems that Progheads don't forgive success, bands like Pink Floyd or Kansas, who did outstanding Prog music are criticized by people because they were popular Iván And a guy called Hobocamp made a scandal as if I had insulted him and Junges supported him. Now both are on this thread about the same issue, giving their opinions in a civil way. Iván

 

I'm loving me some publicity.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: It's funny, seems that some people has double standards A few days ago I said: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   It seems that Progheads don't forgive success, bands like Pink Floyd or Kansas, who did outstanding Prog music are criticized by people because they were popular Iván And a guy called Hobocamp made a scandal as if I had insulted him and Junges supported him. Now both are on this thread about the same issue, giving their opinions in a civil way. Iván Kansas are criticized because they're terrible, not because they're popular.

You are Wrong.  See how that subjective thing works?

WatcherOfTheSkies88 wrote: Ever since I've joined the PA boards, I've noticed some posters who will hate certain progressive rock songs/albums just because they happen to be popular among the majority of rock/progressive rock fans. For example, one poster made fun of me because I recently bought some albums that he deemed "cliche". FYI, those albums were Soft Machine's first 5 albums, Caravan's 2nd and 3rd albums, and ELP's first. I haven't heard those albums before, so why would it be bad to listen to them, just because they are popular? Maybe they are popular for a reason (i.e. they have great music on them!)? Just because an album is "cliche", does that mean I should never listen to it? And just cuz I bought those albums right now, doesn't mean I'm not going to get to the more obscure/underrated albums released by those artists later. Anyway, that's besides the point. I just have never understood why some progressive rock fans refuse to like popular/highly rated songs/albums just because they are popular. Whether a song/album is popular, or totally obscure... all that really matters is if the music is good. Am I wrong? I happen to think that "Close to the Edge", "Karn Evil 9", "A Plague of Lighthouse Keepers" and "Starless" are among the best songs I've ever heard... and that Third, ITCOTCK, CTTE, Nursery Chryme and Pawn Hearts are among the best albums I've ever heard. But I also love many more obscure progressive rock songs/albums. Does that make me a bad progressive rock fan? Do you consider yourself a progressive rock fan that only likes/listens to obscure progressive rock and hates any of it that is popular or highly rated? If so, why?

There are tons of elitists here who like to tear bands down. My advice: ignore it and enjoy what you enjoy.


Edited by Anthony H. - January 28 2011 at 09:16

Paravion wrote: So, there is good music - but the goodness of the music is actually impossible to reasonably grasp, but it exists? If it is so, it surely renders 'objective taste in music' nothing more than an abstract idea and also prevents reasonable objective judgements the about goodness of music.  What concerned me yesterday was a hypothetical contradiction scenario that may rise if you accept a subjectivist approach to taste (I like it because I like it) and yet still want to give reasons as to why you like it. This, I think, poses a problem for a subjectivist view because it is common and natural to make sense of and explain your particluar taste in terms that not merely has to do with your personal preferences, your circumstances and your own more or less idiosyncratic beliefs.  Seen from above, you just can't cant do that if you accept that taste is completely subjective. Anyway - the food analogy is a little 'off' in that making a good meal obviously requires skills that reasonably can be subjected to objective judgements - this is not the case with music, where such analogous measurable skills (e.g. how well and fast you play your guitar) play a rather insignificant role in the making of good music.   Is it at all possible to explain and determine the goodness of some particular instance of music? I really don't think so.

It is neither completely subjective nor completely objective. The mistake people make is in dealing in diametrical opposites of subjective and objective. It is just not so simple and it takes a lot of reasoning to clearly state what exactly makes a particular piece of music 'good'.  Further, the word 'good' is misleading.  Cert1fied used to say that prog is a sliding scale, there's no one definite 'it' that can be called prog but that there are levels of progressiveness. On similar lines, I would say quality in music is itself a sliding scale. So, it's not a question of good, but "good enough".  That is to say, what may be good enough for you may not be good enough for someone else. I'll attend shortly to what may make it not good enough for that someone else.  But, two questions to be settled first.  One, is there something objectively good in music? Possibly yes. I would have a hard time understanding someone who thinks the entire body of work of J S Bach is BAD. It either means he has objectively bad taste, or that he has not 'observed' Bach's work carefully enough before passing judgment or that he is simply prejudiced on account of factors which may not have much to do with Bach's music.  But is there something objectively BAD?  I don't think so.  Why? Because what is bad by you (conversely) may still be good enough for someone. Someone mentioned basic rock and roll, that's a good example, it's "good enough" for a lot of people. There's seemingly nowhere for the sliding scale to terminate its downward slide, at deeper and deeper depths there may still be an audience for it.  Why is that, now?

Because of the tricky process of attaching value or worth to music. It is essentially just an arrangement of sounds and therefore not as tangible as food.  So, it is possible to attach SOME value to any piece of music theoretically speaking.  This may sound like a ready made argument for why music is COMPLETELY subjective but I am not satisfied.   No, there are often clearcut reasons why one piece of music is better than the other, especially when they are not closely matched.  The problem is simply that music appreciation is ill understood and ill executed.   It depends heavily on the conditioning of the listener over the years, which leads him to lean towards one thing or other, sometimes unreasonably so.  The problem is the listener doesn't know what is it that he should know , music is just so vast and it's easy to be completely blindsided to so much of it.  So, he ends up forming a judgment when he is ill equipped to. Also, he may not be in the right mood or right environment to enjoy it, but how would he know this when he hasn't heard it before!  With more exposure to music, a listener becomes better aware of "how good" it can get and then starts to get more selective but what if the listener never takes that step and only takes in whatever music he is easily exposed to, as in radio, VH1?  This then pushes him the other way and what he does not immediately understand, he condemns.  More exposure by the way is not an entirely hunky dory scenario. Frequently, and as seen on this forum too, it pushes people to value depth and complexity at all odds above everything else and in turn to make snap judgments on what sounds simple and rudimentary on the surface but what may in substance be quite brilliant.  People effortlessly forget to pay attention to everything and to not get too hung up on some specific aspects of music that may not be as important as they take it to be.

One point remains to be addressed, why is it that listeners constantly make subjective calls if they are not in the best position to judge it?  The answer is that music can be enjoyed and liked without being fully understood, therein lies its beauty.  It is not necessary to grasp everything that is intended in a piece of music and sometimes not grasping even a lot of it may still not be an impediment.  It is perhaps also evident from the above para that it is a lot more difficult on the other hand to come to terms substantially with a piece of music and make a careful judgment on it.  So, people simply go by their instinctive reaction and say a piece of music is BAD when they simply didn't like it for whatever reason.  The two are NOT the same things at all but because people don't have the patience to actually decide the matter properly (and I wouldn't blame them for not doing so), they say something very subjective.  On a tangent, this is where describing what you liked about the music and why you liked it is useful.  If everybody says it's all subjective and I like what I like, it's very difficult to understand whose tastes yours would correspond with more and whose opinions you should rely on more. When somebody describes the, well, relatively less intangible aspects of music, it  becomes easier to understand where he's coming from and your own experience of the album proves not to be so divergent from his as it might turn out to be if he simply said, "I don't know, I just like it, trust me, you will too!"

One line summary of all of the above :  music can be objectively evaluated to some extent, but not entirely, but people prefer to make subjective calls because it is easier, though much more misleading. 

Paravion wrote: the goodness of the music is actually impossible to reasonably grasp, but it exists? If it is so, it surely renders 'objective taste in music' nothing more than an abstract idea and also prevents reasonable objective judgements the about goodness of music.

If you judge any prog based on it's popularity rather than it's own merits or faults, you aren't exactly thinking for yourself, are you?

Edited by Slartibartfast - January 28 2011 at 18:26

I love music! I'll listen to anything and enjoy it if it's too my tastes. For instance, today I have heard, "Leg End" - Henry Cow, "Fourth" - Soft Machine", and Chicago's second record ... and enjoyed all of them. Why shouldn't I?

Never really understood this Marillion thing or its popularity.

Anthony H. wrote: WatcherOfTheSkies88 wrote: Ever since I've joined the PA boards, I've noticed some posters who will hate certain progressive rock songs/albums just because they happen to be popular among the majority of rock/progressive rock fans. For example, one poster made fun of me because I recently bought some albums that he deemed "cliche". FYI, those albums were Soft Machine's first 5 albums, Caravan's 2nd and 3rd albums, and ELP's first. I haven't heard those albums before, so why would it be bad to listen to them, just because they are popular? Maybe they are popular for a reason (i.e. they have great music on them!)? Just because an album is "cliche", does that mean I should never listen to it? And just cuz I bought those albums right now, doesn't mean I'm not going to get to the more obscure/underrated albums released by those artists later. Anyway, that's besides the point. I just have never understood why some progressive rock fans refuse to like popular/highly rated songs/albums just because they are popular. Whether a song/album is popular, or totally obscure... all that really matters is if the music is good. Am I wrong? I happen to think that "Close to the Edge", "Karn Evil 9", "A Plague of Lighthouse Keepers" and "Starless" are among the best songs I've ever heard... and that Third, ITCOTCK, CTTE, Nursery Chryme and Pawn Hearts are among the best albums I've ever heard. But I also love many more obscure progressive rock songs/albums. Does that make me a bad progressive rock fan? Do you consider yourself a progressive rock fan that only likes/listens to obscure progressive rock and hates any of it that is popular or highly rated? If so, why? There are tons of elitists here who like to tear bands down. My advice: ignore it and enjoy what you enjoy.