Thoughts on my taste?

The Dark Elf wrote: In context, I was talking about music over all, yeah? And I wasn't referring to myself, yeah? I was referring to critical consensus, yeah? I even chose Rolling Stone Magazine's 500 Greatest, yeah? Even an inane rag such as RS blindly picked one-third of their top 100 from your supposed "Dead Zone", yeah?

dfle3 wrote: 1 - Mainstream radio doesn't really play a LOT of music from this period. I'm saying that if you looked at the top 40 charts from this period that OFTEN you'd get very LITTLE of stuff that you'd want to hear. Mainstream radio is A measure of the worth of popular music. They play music BEFORE this period and AFTER this period...it's a small number, it seems to me, of songs that get played from The Dead Zone.

dfle3 wrote: It's a catchy pop song. So, being true to the sentiments of this board, you'd have to say that it's not 'real' prog...real prog isn't catchy. Real prog isn't memorable. Real prog isn't the kind of stuff that you actually want to listen to. Sorry. My bad for mentioning that song.

I don't think anybody said prog shouldn't be catchy or memorable, just that it need not be appealing the very first time you hear it. I would say that even some of the better pop music I like did not appeal that strongly the very first time I heard it but I later on came to love it.  Music that challenges norms may not be INSTANTLY appealing but provide enjoyment given some persistence. If anybody said prog need not be at all memorable or appealing because that is what 'real' music is all about, I would heartily join you in slamming that as elitism.  Because unless one is himself a composer or musician, I cannot see what would be interesting from a listener's perspective about music that lacks any quality whatsoever that makes it enjoyable to listen to.


Edited by rogerthat - April 17 2011 at 04:32

dfle3 wrote: TheGazzardian - Never said you called me a troll. If people call me a troll because they think my taste in music sucks, then by that logic you should be called a troll because most of your list was dismissed as rubbish.

Dean wrote: We made a rash assumption based on some comments in your OP that were perceived to be a deliberate attempt to provoke a reaction, that has proven to be an error since it is apparent from your responses you really do believe the things you say.

Touche!

dfle3 wrote: Saperlipopette! wrote: BBtw: Is Dan Brown a better author than Marcel Proust? More people read his books. Question 1: Pretentious much? I'm sure that this forum is full of people who have read Proust's entire works multiple times...5-7 times was the figure mentioned here as de rigueur.

Edited by The Dark Elf - April 17 2011 at 10:30

dfle3 wrote: VanVanVan wrote: Also, I wouldn't really call ITCOTCK "poppy," but that's just me, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. "The court of the crimson king" (I'm talking about the song, not the album) has a simple melody. It has a chorus. So, when I think of pop, that often entails attributes such as being simple, melodic and having a chorus. TCOTCK ticks all these boxes for me. It's a catchy pop song. So, being true to the sentiments of this board, you'd have to say that it's not 'real' prog...real prog isn't catchy. Real prog isn't memorable. Real prog isn't the kind of stuff that you actually want to listen to. Sorry. My bad for mentioning that song.

seventhsojourn wrote: I would always support Velvet Underground and Television as prog, Marquee Moon is a colossal album. I really must check-out Midnight Oil, I've seen them mentioned before so thanks for the reminder. Neutral Milk Hotel also sounds interesting.

Finally! A relevant reply! It took me freakin' ages finding this post after stumbling upon it the other day and wanting to respond. Loads of guff here. Sheesh. I think it's a safe bet that you've never read Proust...or saw fit to name drop him! (in case you get upset, that's a compliment!). If there have been other relevant replies here, I've missed them due to the guff.

Why would you consider Television to be prog? I heard of them in the context of punk music. To me, they don't see punk at all. They've also been described as post-punk...ironic, given that IF they were a punk band, their debut would be one of the FIRST punk albums...so, the irony is in being post-punk at the birth of punk! If I was to guess what genre they were, I'd say art-rock. I came up with my own term..."bohemian rock"...I'd put Patti Smith in that category too. It seems to me that they get labelled "punk" because - I'm guessing - they played with Ramones at CBGBs. By that logic, IF Barbra Streisand had played CBGBs in the time of the Ramones, she'd be labelled "The Godmother of punk"!

But you also mention Velvet Underground...again, they seem more art rock to me. What attributes make them "prog" to you?

Curious how you know of Midnight Oil...Gazzardian mentioned them too...wondering if they are Australian as a result. What albums by them have you heard of? "Red sails in the sunset" is a great album, and I think if any album by them was to appeal to prog fans, that would be it (people who like rootsy albums might like "Place without a postcard"...which isn't a fave of mine, but it's not without interest). Their greatest albums are commercial FM staples...whatever one of the most played acts where you live is, Midnight Oil would be the equivalent here...loads of songs played, often, from various albums.

As for my list lacking variety...it's not that kind of list...if I haven't heard an album, it won't be on my list, that simple. It's not a legitimate complaint to say that my list lacks variety. And if an album that someone loves is in my list, that's not necessarily backing up that person's opinion of the album.

The Dark Elf wrote: I don't know what "classic station" you listen to in the Outback

Like most people in this thread you make a lot of really silly assumptions. Theres a way of avoiding doing that. I'm not going to tell you what that is. [sarcasm]Anyway, you sure sound like a sophisticated person...a reader of Proust.[/sarcasm].

Did you notice I didn't buy into the whole "Proust is a greater author than Dan Brown" statement? Do you want to know why? It's because that statement has nothing whatsoever to do with anything whatsoever. I mean, how on Earth did that statement get dragged into this music forum? Like most replies to this thread, it's a complete IRRELEVANCY...something you and the other Proust name dropper have failed to notice.

I'm assuming you must have creamed your jeans when you saw Proust mentioned. You just blithely engaged in this total irrelevancy.

Why was Proust even mentioned?

1 - Ironically, you two have failed to realise that it is your arrogance and pretentiousness which bugs me. Not content to give an opinion in this thread, you FORCE some special status onto your opinions...it's to establish that you are 'superior'...that your opinion carries more weight than anyone else's opinion here...I didn't buy it with Henry and I'm not buying it with yous two. Your DESIRED response from readers is intended to be "Gosh, they've read Proust/name-dropped Proust, they must REALLY have a superior opinion than me!". BS.

2 - Naively, you've failed to notice the OTHER function of that mention...it serves to 'prove' that yes, not only is the OPs (Saperlipopette!) opinion superior to everyone else's, it's also MORE than an opinion...it's a FACT. BS.

Anyway, The Dark Elf, now that you've demonstrated your superiority (i.e. you've name dropped Proust, 'proven' that Proust is superior to Dan Brown and demoted my opinion due to you assuming that I live in the outback {even if true, does that still make you superior?}), what does a 10th dan, Thetan intellectual giant, such as yourself, contribute to this irrelevant debate?

How about:

The Dark Elf wrote: Marcel Proust is certainly a more accomplished writer than Dan Brown, who relies more on sensationalism, dodgy facts and potboiler plots

Do you know what kind of statement that is? Clue: it begins with "O".

ANYWAY, your 10th dan Thetan observation on the merits of Dan Brown is that he, as a writer of FICTION, relies on DODGY FACTS. Hmm. Maybe you could host a seminar for writers of fiction...tell them that you as someone who recognises Proust's greatness, can thus impart the pearl of wisdom that they should have more FACTS in their fiction. Yuh. Brilliant. Just brilliant.

So, thanks for hilarious comment below, which you type with no sense of irony...whatsoever:

The Dark Elf wrote: And that's the difference between you and I: I can discern different points objectively, whereas your entire line of rhetoric is based on some absurd personal point of reference that shifts like a tide when you can no longer support your ephemeral and nearsighted opinions, because they have no real factual basis. I repeat, no factual basis. Typing opinions like you do, without supporting data or even a real knowledge of the subject, has been pointed out in regards to your limited experience with progressive music.

Yes, you TheDarkElf, safely ensconsed in your Tower of Superiority, deal with nothing but facts. Yuh. You're just another dude with an opinion...and a superiority complex...and a HELL of a lot of self-delusion.

And even the 'thrust' of your 'argument' is an irrelevance...I spoke of the situation here in Australia...how on Earth does what you say have anything to do with anything whatsoever? I mean:

The Dark Elf wrote: everywhere I've been in the U.S. and Canada, music from your alleged "Dead Zone" is a mainstay and staple on classic format stations

I take it that by your (what I loosely describe as) 'logic', the fact that prog music IS played in the US, contradicts my assertion that it isn't played in Australia, where I live? And therefore, because of this 'contradiction', you 'win' this argument? Seriously dude, WTF?

Back to "Kind of blue"...

The 'logic' of this forum is that Miles Davis DID make albums that qualify as "prog", yeah? Yet it's said that "Kind of blue" is NOT one of them, yeah? So, the list at this site of the top 100 prog albums of all time isn't that, yeah? It's in effect, the most popular prog albums at this site plus (at least) one jazz album.

So, let's be clear, Miles Davis 'legitimate' prog albums aren't popular enough to make your list of top 100 prog albums. But some poster here who may or may not know what they are talking about has a really good excuse why this is so...I mockingly suggested it was because if yous deleted the album from your list it would kill the internet.

So why have "Kind of blue" in your list? Reflected glory? To make up the numbers?

On the other hand, if jazz is considered prog, then why aren't there a whole lot more jazz albums in your list? It smacks of tokenism having "Kind of blue" in your list. And it's also absurd that a genre that PRECEEDED prog would be viewed here as a kind of prog. If jazz is progressive, then why not take  a broom to any detritus in your list and replace them with quality jazz albums? You don't actually have a list of the top 100 prog albums, do you? To which a mod here said:

Dean wrote: If you don't like that there are other prog sites you can go and play with.

Sorry, very 'naive' of me to actually want to see a list of actual prog albums. I'll ignore your blah about that guy who was being offensive to me actually being humourous...yuh...sounds plausible...I'd have to read Proust to see your point of view, I suppose. Just as I would to concede that I wasn't called a troll...Henry called me a troll...check it out for yourself...but it's easier to just make up facts to suit your prejudice. Others agreed with them...but you blithely say that:

Dean wrote: No one called you a troll because of your taste in music. Just as no one called you a troll because they disagreed with you.

Henry called me a troll because they think my taste in music sucks. Not that I care. Hard to imagine anyone being able to miss that. But yet, somehow you did. And the others agreeing with them. As for the last part, well, actually, because people disagree with me, they have to invent 'facts' to support their opinions...like the whole Proust BS. This is the reason why so many on your board are bugging me...their arrogance and pretentiousness...and doesn't help that you ignore or miss their comments.

Okay, to your actual relevant comments re this thread:

Dean wrote: ELO started as a side project from The Move and their first three or four albums were regarded as Prog Rock (you can check this on Wikipedia) but by the time they had achieved mega-stardom in the USA with Eldorado the Prog tag had all but disapeared, so later albums such as New World Record, Out Of The Blue, Discovery, (Xanadu), etc are not regarded as Prog Rock by anyone, including Wikipedia.

You seem to regard ELOs first three or  four albums as prog...Wiki makes it 3. So, you do SEEM to have doubt in your mind as to what constitues prog, yeah? Their fourth is listed as "art rock". "A new world record" is listed as "art rock"...it has loads of radio songs. Not real art rock? If that's right, what % of it is 'real' art rock? If their 4th album is an art rock  record and a commercial smash hit album is also art rock, then why would you consider them different genres? Why is one arguably prog and the other one not even art rock...according to your OPINION?

If I was the kind of arrogant and pretentious person trolling on these forums, I might question your knowledge of the genres in question and suggest you educate yourself...or read Proust...multiple times. And what's your OPINION on Television and Velvet Underground as prog acts, as someone here has suggested? How many times would I have to read Proust to get a handle on that?

ANYWAY, you later ask about my scores for the albums in my list...I don't pretend that scoring albums is an exact science...I write reviews at another site and I score them out of 100. Your site gives stars...whole star increments...so, if I thought an album was a 7/10, I'd have to decide whether to give it 3/5 here or 4/5. This is your way of suggesting I am silly for using my scores? Different sites have different scoring systems. I like to use base 100 to cut that out...but I will use the smallest fractions at times instead of big numbers...4/5 for 8/10 or 80/100. Is that okay with you?

Anyway, I appreciate the few people here who didn't bring a whole lot of assumptions and arrogance and pretentiousness to their replies. Thankyou. Sorry if  I missed out on your post for all the guff here.

dfle3 wrote: So, yeah, you find humour in what I say, yet what I say has SUPPORT on WIkipedia....

^Very good answer, Stephen. 

dfle3, you miss killer songs in prog. Here’s one, and you can’t even argue against it (for some reason or other I couldn’t hyperlink it):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdIHa8e2cOM