Do you hate certain prog because of popularity?

I guess I'm still new to prog, so a lot of the albums I like are the popular ones.  Same with bands.  Dream Theater, Spock's Beard, King Crimson, Kansas, Marillion, Symphony X, Rush...these aren't exactly obscure.  It doesn't help that I like bands with lots of hooks and catchy melodies (see Spock's Beard) and the sacred cows (Genesis, Pink Floyd, and Yes) can at times be really difficult for me to get into.

Vibrationbaby wrote: The more unpopular it is the better. Once bands start selling millions of albums and everybody is listening to it it loses it's mystique.  Just like murder, " make it legal and it loses it's mystique" ( quoting Monty Python ). If Cluster started to get too popular I would have to stop listening to them.  I think they just broke up so maybe they wil fade out into oblivion forever so I can like them even more.

Disagree, can you imagine how great it would be to get into any cafe and hear good prog sounding, go to a shop and hear good prog, turn on the radio and hear good prog... we would not be called nerds anymore

I don't like things because it's unopopular, I only like music wich is, by the way, unpopular but if it was, it wouldn't matter.

I do hate the "it'spopularsoitsucks" attitude of the prog community, at this point it's surpassed even the pretentiousness of indie culture. If I had a penny for every time someone on this forum calls a song bad because it's "pop" I could buy the entire continent of South America and turn it into an amusement park.

Edited by boo boo - February 04 2011 at 00:26

I can't really get along with any music community based around a specific genre as they tend to express bias against other genres I also respect, it's one reason I stay very distant from the other users of this forum. I'm not as hardcore into prog as other members as I have my days where I'm in the mood to listen to nothing but pop music. 

I don't really mind Lady Gaga, I have the creeping suspicion that what she's doing is just a very brilliant, stealthy practical joke. Especially when you consider her educational background, because she's not a total moron like say... Katy Perry.

Edited by boo boo - February 04 2011 at 02:46

Baby Snakes wrote: The statement about bubblegum pop might have been an over-exaggeration, I will certainly admit I was wrong to imply that the entire genre is that shallow, but that is why for a second example I switched to a song v song aspect, and they are very opposite just to aggrandize the point I was trying to make.  I don't think one could argue that in the context I have laid out for 'Lollipop' as compared to 'Wish You Were Here' that what I have said is anything but objectively true.  This is because the context that I laid out for that example was from the point of view of the artist and which is intended to evoke more negative emotions (if you want a more accurate statement on that part, since negative emotions, could be viewed as a vague term, which one makes you feel more sad).  The point I was trying to make is to state that one can at least find some objectivity in musical arguments, and to what extent is certainly something I wouldn't mind looking into farther.  Even if what I said turned out not to be objectively true, it was much more likely that it was from my execution than the fact that it's flat out wrong. Now as for 'Limp' compared to 'Paradise City', although that is a harder one to find any sort of objectivity in, I would certainly agree with you there.  I don't think all pop songs are shallow and fecklessly executed, or even that they are anymore than the overall rock genre.  The argument that if pop is bad then rock must be good, in the context that I have laid out, was not what my implication was, nor do I believe that is true.  That was probably my fault from the bubblegum pop thing. As far as trying to put certain bands over another just being part of some shallow way to put our musical tastes over another, not an implication on you rogerthat but to some other people on this thread, that is not the point.  The point is that I, at least, disagree with music being completely subjective.  This is not an aggrandization of my ego.  This is to say that if I were to accept that, I would have to accept that there is no point what so ever any in sort of musical growth, which I cannot agree with.  Sure, there a giant mix of skills that involve making a good song.  Sure some shred bands aren't as eloquent as bands like Floyd and some non prog bands aren't as clever as King Crimson, but to say that makes it all meaningless to define, to me, sounds silly.  All things that one can get better at are skills.  You wouldn't get a third grader to do your taxes would you?  Only if he's a math prodigy who is well organized. If art is THAT subjective then why are we having a philosophical conversation, which I know for me is my favorite method of improving my philosophical outlook on the world, at all? Also, I am loving this conversation.

1) I agree that two songs can on many occasions be compared without much problems and views developed on which is better than the other.

2) But generalizing on a genre is typically a risky prospect.  And deciphering the intentions of artists, even more so.  FWIW, I think after a genre settles down and finds its sound, most artists milk it and ride its popularity to the hilt with precious little original insight to speak of.  So, in that sense, I have never agreed with the singling out of pop's intentions and find bands adopting a "I play rock, therefore I am" stance just as lacking in honest intent.  To suggest that I should like an artist purely on account of the genre he plays is ridiculous, but this is what most artists in popular/non-academic forms of music are all about and it's the small minority of original artists I am left to relish. 

3)I have already said before that music is not completely subjective.  It is just that there is no organized framework to analyze it, at least outside of classical at any rate.  It is preferable the way it is, letting each one have their own perspectives to bounce off each other in discussions. If we all knew beforehand what the point of music was, that would be so boring.  Also, because, unlike fiction, music is so strongly sensual, you can indeed like some music without realizing exactly why. But it is possible to later reason out what exactly you liked about, provided you want to find out. If for nobody else, for the artist at least there should be some sense of satisfaction in having achieved something significant and how can one then attach significance to something without meaning?   And without that satisfaction at the end of the road, no artist would be prepared to make great sacrifices to pursue his art.  So, there definitely is some meaning, some purpose behind all of it but it happens to be mystical, elusive and hard to put a finger on.

Rabid wrote:   Like what you like.......who gives a flying f**k about what other people think?

AllP0werToSlaves wrote: . Anything with melody is almost instantly ridiculed as being lame, and well written songs are looked at as failures of the genre.

My favourite one is Metallica are gay because some of their songs have acoustic intros.