Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > General Music Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Prog Snobbery
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedProg Snobbery

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Message
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 24 2012 at 21:08
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


The way in which music affects people is not completely subjective.  When a musician composes and performs a piece, he puts an emotion and a message into the song.  The devices used to accomplish the conveying of these emotions and messages have an impact upon the human brain, and though the responses may differ with the listener, they are going to fall within a certain range because they are triggered by the same stimuli.  Whenever a human encounters a piece of art, he interprets that art according to two "books," so to speak; the "book" of the piece of art, and the "book" of his own mind.  The "book" which the composer writes is the objective part; the "book" which the listener writes is the subjective part.  You can't do away with either.

I'm not "struggling" with anything, by the way; I have thought about this subject quite a bit and have come to this conclusion based upon my own study of music and the analysis I have heard from others.  It has nothing to do with me wanting my music to have some kind of objective value, or being unable to deal with the subjectivity of music.  As you can clearly see, I do acknowledge subjectivity in musical value along with objectivity (though I do tend to emphasize the objective because the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" view is so prevalent in today's society).


Interesting story related to this post: I was discussing the music of Philip Glass (we all know Glass here, yes?) with a girl from Australia. She said that his music reminded her of trains, and that she found it very depressing. She also said that she had an American friend who also found Glass' music trainlike, but that he found it very uplifting.

She speculated that Americans have a romantic cultural attachment to trains that Australians lack, hence the differences in their perception of the music. So what Ambient Hurricanes says is right, the stimulus was objective (trains) but their reaction was subjective (depressing vs. uplifting)


Edited by thellama73 - October 24 2012 at 21:08
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 24 2012 at 21:24
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


The way in which music affects people is not completely subjective.  When a musician composes and performs a piece, he puts an emotion and a message into the song.  The devices used to accomplish the conveying of these emotions and messages have an impact upon the human brain, and though the responses may differ with the listener, they are going to fall within a certain range because they are triggered by the same stimuli.  Whenever a human encounters a piece of art, he interprets that art according to two "books," so to speak; the "book" of the piece of art, and the "book" of his own mind.  The "book" which the composer writes is the objective part; the "book" which the listener writes is the subjective part.  You can't do away with either.

I'm not "struggling" with anything, by the way; I have thought about this subject quite a bit and have come to this conclusion based upon my own study of music and the analysis I have heard from others.  It has nothing to do with me wanting my music to have some kind of objective value, or being unable to deal with the subjectivity of music.  As you can clearly see, I do acknowledge subjectivity in musical value along with objectivity (though I do tend to emphasize the objective because the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" view is so prevalent in today's society).


Interesting story related to this post: I was discussing the music of Philip Glass (we all know Glass here, yes?) with a girl from Australia. She said that his music reminded her of trains, and that she found it very depressing. She also said that she had an American friend who also found Glass' music trainlike, but that he found it very uplifting.

She speculated that Americans have a romantic cultural attachment to trains that Australians lack, hence the differences in their perception of the music. So what Ambient Hurricanes says is right, the stimulus was objective (trains) but their reaction was subjective (depressing vs. uplifting)


I have no idea who Philip Glass is, but that's an interesting and telling story.  Emotional and cultural attachments and connotations are very powerful in determining our reaction to music.  It would be interesting to know what emotion the composer intended to evoke with his piece, and what kinds of things he associated with trains.
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 24 2012 at 21:33

Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:04
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:



How is value determined? It's determined by analysis and opinion. This is the same as for any other good that is not sold in a market. The value of scientific theories is determined by peer review. The value of a free fireworks show is determined by ex-post reviews. Of course there is a lot of subjectivity, but I still think it is not 100% subjective, for reasons that I have explained before.


And unfortunately, in music, as well as social sciences like economics, experts find it very difficult to gain common ground on a given topic, most likely because of aforesaid subjectivity.  That is the reason why exercises to obtain an objective finding are more fruitful in science than in the arts; a proposition can be tested and demonstrated to be true or false in science.  In the arts or the social sciences, it's just one doctrine against another.   Even if an expert posits that the value of a given work of music is such and such, it would not be very difficult to find a polar opposite view to his on the same work.  Actually, people who write reviews are even encouraged to offer 'different perspectives' and a consensus is discouraged more than it is encouraged in the arts.  Which is probably as it should be, but value in such a scenario remains indeterminate. 


Edited by rogerthat - October 25 2012 at 10:14
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:14
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


The way in which music affects people is not completely subjective.  When a musician composes and performs a piece, he puts an emotion and a message into the song.  The devices used to accomplish the conveying of these emotions and messages have an impact upon the human brain, and though the responses may differ with the listener, they are going to fall within a certain range because they are triggered by the same stimuli.  Whenever a human encounters a piece of art, he interprets that art according to two "books," so to speak; the "book" of the piece of art, and the "book" of his own mind.  The "book" which the composer writes is the objective part; the "book" which the listener writes is the subjective part.  You can't do away with either.


But music or any other art form is nothing without the reaction.  And how large the range of the reaction is depends on the work.  The more complex and the more abstract it gets, the more divergent the reactions.  And it's not even necessary that it has to be complex to trigger widely divergent reactions.   I find Jeff Buckley's Grace album frequently intense and melancholic but I have heard it described as polite and mannered.    

Without an audience, art remains merely an outlet of self expression for the artist.  He can attempt to second guess their feelings or simply go with the flow and remain true to his ideas.  But in either event, he relies heavily on an element of chance when he presents the work to the audience.  

Anyhow, long story short, my point is very simple: subjective + objective = subjective.  It cannot be objective because there's too much subjectivity involved and therefore an attempt to objectively determine the value of music is bound to be futile.  

Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:17
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:



But music or any other art form is nothing without the reaction. 



If a Dream Theater album plays in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still suck?

(yes)
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:18
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:



But music or any other art form is nothing without the reaction. 



If a Dream Theater album plays in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still suck?

(yes)


It obviously cannot play in the forest without somebody to operate a stereo system, so that's a poor example. Wink
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:31
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:



But music or any other art form is nothing without the reaction. 



If a Dream Theater album plays in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still suck?

(yes)


It obviously cannot play in the forest without somebody to operate a stereo system, so that's a poor example. Wink


Have you never heard of remote controls?
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:33
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:



But music or any other art form is nothing without the reaction. 



If a Dream Theater album plays in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still suck?

(yes)


It obviously cannot play in the forest without somebody to operate a stereo system, so that's a poor example. Wink


Have you never heard of remote controls?


Remote controls to operate a system.  None that can move the thing to the forest.  In any case, the lions will get infuriated by the sound of JLB's voice and destroy the system before an 'audience' gets to hear it.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:35
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:



But music or any other art form is nothing without the reaction. 



If a Dream Theater album plays in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still suck?

(yes)


It obviously cannot play in the forest without somebody to operate a stereo system, so that's a poor example. Wink


Have you never heard of remote controls?


Remote controls to operate a system.  None that can move the thing to the forest.  In any case, the lions will get infuriated by the sound of JLB's voice and destroy the system before an 'audience' gets to hear it.


But you can move the equipment there and then leave before turning on the record remotely, thereby ensuring that you are not around to hear it.

Also, where do you live that has forests full of lions? I thought lions lived in the savannah.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:37
^^^ That is what I answered...if you left the record to play and ran away, the lions won't stand for it.  Since you asked, Asiatic lions live in scrub forests.  
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:42
Ah, I see. That's the trouble. Obviously I was referring to a deciduous needleleaf forest, not a scrub forest.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:44
I realized that in a while.  We don't have forests with towering redwoods, except maybe in the foothills of the Himalayas (not redwoods again, but tall trees).  Try grizzlies instead if that works, or jaguars.  I am telling you, they are all going to hate his voice.
Back to Top
menawati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 26 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 293
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:54
I like the way this has ended up being about how much different animals would hate Dream Theater. LOL
They flutter behind you your possible pasts,
Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:55
I guess Geoff is right.  We just have to wind up every topic on our favourite punching bag, don't we? LOL
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:55
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I realized that in a while.  We don't have forests with towering redwoods, except maybe in the foothills of the Himalayas (not redwoods again, but tall trees).  Try grizzlies instead if that works, or jaguars.  I am telling you, they are all going to hate his voice.


I think you are right about bears, and I concede the point.
Back to Top
Jim Garten View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin & Razor Guru

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 11:20
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

If a Dream Theater album plays in the forest, and no one is around to hear it...


...somehow a 6th sense would tell you someone, somewhere is singing bad lyrics waaaaaaaay out of tune

+++hides+++

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
Back to Top
A Person View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 11:29
I'm not sure if anyone in their right mind would go through that much trouble to not hear Dream Theater, although I would definitely admire their effort if they did.
Back to Top
AlexDOM View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 02 2011
Location: Indianapolis
Status: Offline
Points: 775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 14:50
Yes for me it's hard not to be a snob since Prog is the greatest genre...
Back to Top
wilmon91 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2012 at 16:07

Snobbism I think is something superficial, someone dedicated to demonstrate the belonging to a higher social class.

I think music snobbism is the same thing, a superficial interest in music were the person is mostly
occupied in appearing smart, knowledgeable and interesting

But maybe that's not exactly the general understanding of that term. I guess a pop/rock oriented music snob refers to someone who listens to music,  different genres, and is picky and judgemental and classifies everything quality-wise . That's enough to be called a music snob.

But there has to be a superficial aspect or else the word "snob" loses its meaning. You can't be a music snob if you don't gain some recognition and respect from somewhere, belonging to some circle,  so I think a real pop/rock related music snob would be for example a hipster. The superficial aspect is fashion. And in that sense I don't think there are many prog music "snobs", because you don't gain any credit for listening to prog. But there may be elitists.



Edited by wilmon91 - October 25 2012 at 16:09
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.164 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.