Do you hate certain prog because of popularity?

The real issue is that the term "nerd" usually applies to something that the majority finds nerdy relative to it's own contrived, collectivism. People who explore reality for what it is and find enjoyment in their own pursuits become anomalies; and I wouldn't have it any other way!

boo boo wrote: Rabid wrote:   Like what you like.......who gives a flying f**k about what other people think?     We're posting on this forum so we all do to an extent.

One of the most uncool things you could ever do is like or dislike something based on it's popularity or unpopularity. 

Popularity will always be a subject in music, and even more in underground genres such as prog rock, metal, etc. There will always be those elitists who will put all their efforts in keeping things as they were in 1972 (or 1986 in the case of metal), and that's good in the sense that it's great to have a "model" of how things are supposed to be done. I don't know if I fit in this group of people, although I reeeeally like "old music", and like 70% or even more of my music is performed by people who are like 40 years old or even older. But, at the same time, I think it's awesome to have the Porcupines, the Tools, The Voltas... those bands who are more widely known and praised, with a huge influence of that music we all like. In fact, I started to learn about prog rock bands through printed media... I "discovered" The Mars Volta in 2004, when they came to perform here and a local and well known newspaper called them "the new Zeppelin"... The same goes to Opeth, when a local (and quite mainstream) rock magazine interviewed them because of the release of Ghost Reveries.

Most of you knew about prog because of your parents who were young at that time, and as I've read, some people here were around those years as well... In my case, my dad introduced me to the music of Yes, ELP, the Tull, etc., but I must say that I'm pretty sure there's an important number of people who knew about prog rock because of the most popular acts.

rogerthat wrote:   While I concur that it is difficult to argue over the merits of one piece of music over the other, it is also much easier to establish a point in a face to face discussion than online.  The anonymity of the internet forces a leveling of the views of an 'experienced' listener who is able to articulate his impressions about music very well with that of a kid listening to his first rock song or something like that.  However much this sentence may sound condescending, in a face to face discussion, this would simply not be the case and the kid would find it very difficult to keep up the bluff for long. This is not to say that the experienced listener is always going to right or that he is not prone to bias at all but he is likely to be right more often than the kid.  I should know; I recently had to put my li'l cousin sis in her place because she was getting annoying in a music discussion, presuming to know everything I do without much 'validation', didn't take very long though I didn't enjoy it.   The internet artificially forces a status quo between such polar opposites, which is preposterous but nothing can be done about it and thus the push towards an illusion of complete subjectivity.  I think complete subjectivity would only exist if two people, having paid equal attention to a piece of music and understood it equally well, would still disagree on each and every possible aspect about it.  This doesn't happen, needless to say, so there are things on which people do agree, even those who have widely divergent views. The problems usually are more to do with articulation of views (which is difficult and so I am sympathetic to this problem) and reluctance to admit to bias or ignorance about a subject.   About "I like what I like", my chief objection to it is that it renders music discussions desultory and dull, which can otherwise be enriching and informative.  As long as people don't get emotions into it, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing and moving on, but to swing to simply making lists of what one likes would not serve much purpose because even as a recommendation, you have no clue then to what extent it might work for you. On the other hand, if someone describes some aspects of the music and especially if he can do so reliably, it gives you a good idea of what might be in store based on which you can make up your mind.  I have learnt so much about music just through discussions with people who I don't know at all otherwise, so it would be a shame if people clam up and descend to list-mania.

Edited by Paravion - February 07 2011 at 15:21

Allow me to take a different stance on the whole objective/subjective thing and defend the idea that tastes in music (and in general) are completely subjective.

Edited by sweatervest - February 07 2011 at 18:18

sweatervest wrote:    The other thing I wanted to address is the claim that complete subjectivity in music tastes would render reviews and discussions as empty or pointless, when I think it is quite the opposite: seeing any objectivity reduces what should be a rich conversation of each other's own emotional experiences brought out by music to some mistaken "debate" over whose opinion is more rooted in reality.  A good discussion of music, I think, is the participants attempting to communicate the feelings they feel when listening to the music, and describe as much as possible what objective things about the music seem to produce those feelings.  For example, "I love this sequence of chords, the way they keep fitting into different keys in an unexpected way keeps me on the edge of my seat".  I think it would be absurd to look for any objectivity in that, but that is the whole point.  Yes, it is the actual chord structure that makes me feel this way, but if someone responded, "I think those chords are tedious and boring" how could I object?

But that music can be discussed in those terms in the first place itself demonstrates that it is not completely subjective.  It comes back to dealing always in polar opposites of completely subjective and completely objective, that in itself is a flawed position.   At least my interpretation of complete subjectivity is that anyone can assign any meaning to anything and I don't see how a sensible discussion can be then had because we need to first agree on what we are discussing before we discuss, regardless of whether our views on the subject converge or diverge.  What if somebody called a funk song a thrash metal song tomorrow?  Under the pretext of complete subjectivity, he cannot be corrected because he is entitled to his subjective perception but you see then that it becomes very difficult to find a reference with regard to which to discuss music.  And I am not talking about funk-metal, just to clarify, just funk, plain vanilla.  If people cannot tell the difference between James Brown and Slayer, all hell will break loose but I don't believe that would happen anytime soon, fortunately. 

sweatervest wrote: I think those discussions about how to define objectively good tastes are off the mark as all they do is mask "This is what I like" or maybe "This is what lots of or certain people have liked" as "This is what makes something factually good".  For example, a ranking based on structural complexity would make prog rock objectively "better" than rock, but this is nothing short of misleading because it is a non-sequitur to jump from a factual description of what is in the music (i.e. song structure) to quality.  I personally think complex song structures are a "good" thing and relentlessly seek out music with structural complexity, and am sometimes greeted by my friends with a request to "tone it down".  I know, because I asked them (assuming they aren't lying), that they actually prefer simple song structure.  What could possibly establish either one of us as "wrong"?  I in fact sometimes agree with that.  One of my favorite bands is Lotus, and they do simple jamming on usually a couple of chords, so it is very simple song structure.  It also has the dynamics of a roller coaster, and that is why I love them (again, someone could certainly hear Lotus and find it dynamically shallow).

I agree that complexity alone does not make a composition great but then to presume such is in itself a flawed position because complexity is only one aspect of compositional skill, there are so many others.  Before the merits of composers can be debated, at least the parameters on which to rate them need to be agreed upon and discerned at least within the group to be satisfactory.  That is hardly ever done, which is what usually derails such discussions. I remember I and a friend once did a ranking of singers based on some parameters and the exercise which took much more time than rating the singers was to get a fix on the parameters and their respective weights.  And of course, we did not pretend that those were the only possible parameters available or that the weights were scientifically proven to be accurate. But we did try to ensure that within those chosen parameters, the ratings were 'consistent'.  It is possible that a third person browsing through the list may not find the ratings consistent and proceed to state his objections. Is that then not useful at all, to gain his perspective which may have had insights both of us overlooked?  Sorry, but I disagree and find it, to the contrary, quite useful and educative.

To be very honest, my own take is that to believe in complete subjectivity is to believe that you know as much as the next person does about music and your position is as valid as his, even if every evidence in the opposite direction exists.  I think that follows logically from the position that one's views cannot be better than another...ergo, each one's position is as valid as the other. Hypothetically, that is, you stand next to the composer and tell him to his face that his assessment of his own composition is only as valid as yours and no more, yours being diametrically opposite as his and having been formed after listening to it once which also happens to be a landmark composition of his (and so, certainly not one he could have, if at all, forgotten).   And I understand that subjectivists are persuaded that this is actually workable. In theory, yes, but in practice, no, I would certainly have to think twice, thrice about what the man himself has to say because surely HE has a point. People who don't mind being corrected would be comfortable with accepting the notion of some objectivity residing hand-in-hand with some subjectivity.

Edited by rogerthat - February 07 2011 at 21:24

 

silcir wrote: I do not hate anything because its popular. And comon guys prog rock as a genre is not popular. Thick as a brick is the most highly rated prog rock album here, and within prog listeners it's certainly well known, but if you see the big picture no one even knows Jethro Tull nowadays. How come Thick as a brick is popular? it isnt. It was in the 70's as were some of the others more known prog bands, but thats a long time from now.

Jethro Tull are very well known, you are only able to pretend otherwise if you want to feel superior to other music fans or if you are solely talking to Justin Bieber fans. Aqualung is triple platinum and still gets frequent airplay on classic rock stations, two of their greatest hits albums went platinum, and they additionally have 14 gold albums. As far as I'm considered, one gold album is well known, with JT you might as well be trying to claim that Pink Floyd is obscure.  

I'm listening to Tracy Chapman right now and one of the secretaries can't believe I'm listening to something that she actually recognizes.

Question popularity because prog certainly hates you..........doo wop......wake me up when the thread is resolved