Why old prog - for me - is better than new prog

 

I would have to say that digital recording on a whole has progressed in this area but unfortunately not quite enough.

this isn't even an argument, it's an explanation why he identifies with the older prog.  not us.

I get the explanation - i feel the same - and it has nothing o do with 'the cultural times' in a broad sense...

it has to do with where you were at personally, your state of development, vulnerability, when an impression made a deeper mark on you than before or since.

i drove down a snowy country road for an hour today and played Strawbs Hero And Heroine and found myself back in my basement as a kid .. earphones on to escape the reality of my world at the time ..

I could smell the album cover .. even the plastic that lined the sleeve inside the way A&M used to do.

you can argue all the technical music theory you like - but TO ME - that is one of the most perfect albums i've ever heard, along with old Genesis, 10CC, Pink Floyd, etc.

Nothing since has affected me that way since because i'm not that same person ... but those albums are locked in and as much as I enjoy the opinions of the obviously much better informed folk on this site, no one is going to be able to prove to me that i don't like what i like.

Nostalgia isn't something to be so flippant about - it's powerful and moving - you need to look a little more carefully to understand why instead of just blowing it off.

again - just my personal opinion.

 

The OP is not positing an argument that we can agree or disagree with - he is merely stating why he has a certain preference.  Being an older chap myself, I can reminisce about many of my classic favorite artists and bands.  Association is a real thing which accumulates over time.  And when we are younger, teens through the twenties, we tend to make strong associations.  These diminish with time and increased experience.  That first piece of music that grabbed you, that really MOVED you in one way or another, will always have an extra charge and nothing can ever change that.  Sigh, the first isn't always the best but will always stick with you.  Whether we agree with the OP is a matter of complete subjectivity.  Such things are not objective.  He is not analyzing the musical worth of "old prog."

 

Time is a real thing and popular forms of music such as rock age very quickly, so I think the term "old' is pertinent.  This only means that something recorded in 1972 is older than something recorded in 2012.  Many people in the mainstream consider this music to be outdated.  I disagree.  It remains pertinent to those who appreciate it.  The best music expresses its own times while transcending them.  This is why people can respond to something like Tarkus or Foxtrot in a positive manner right now, as people do.  Not everyone of course.  I will argue that Prog is better than what was at the top of the charts in early 70s.  There were some good tunes but there was a lot of dreck as well.  Most of us have tried to forget certain songs, except for the fact they emerge every now and then and feel polluted by their presence.  I was given a box set several years ago called Have a Nice Day which was filled with such tunes.  Check it out if you are so inclined but be warned, there is a reason most of these songs have not seen the light of day in decades.  Beethoven is old.  He died almost 200 years ago.  This does not mean he is no longer pertinent because he most certainly is not.  His music is of that transcendent quality.

 

I have a no-guilt policy about what I listen to and enjoy.  It all depends on the mood I am in.  I am not all prog all the time and am very eclectic in my tastes.  So far today I have listened to a symphony, Bob Seger and some Bill Frissel.  You may not like any of those and may even argue why they are terrible.  I have a good friend who saw Bob Seger at the height of his popularity in the 70s and he hated the concert.  He sneers every time I mention the name.  The same with the Doobie Brothers.  But mention Jimi Hendrix to him and he is off in a plane of ecstasy that is usually reserved for spiritual realization and heavy duty pharmaceuticals.  I enjoy all of these artists, and can also argue than some of them are musically more sophisticated than others.  But to the ear, for the sake of listening enjoyment, that does not matter.  Appreciation and enjoyment are two different things.  There are many artists I appreciate, such as Frank Zappa, but I rarely enjoy their work.  To use a phrase I haven't stated in quite a while: it is your own ears that are doing the listening and no matter how much one may argue, it is what they enjoy and/or appreciate that counts.

Yes indeedy, thank you Jim

This is not a competition folks. There are no gold medals. We like what we like - some are into Peruvian avant and dolphin rhythms while others dig the lotion and margarine stuff. There is room for us all (except for Mariah Carey fans. I simply will not tolerate the kind on PA). 

Yes, I do think this is one of the main problems, especially for older generation fans who are used to the way music used to be recorded earlier.  There is no clear cut line in the sand as far as how much the engineer may use technology to clean up the recording, but if the final output doesn't feel 'live' and it's rock music, then there's a problem.  That kind of precise, robotic recording is ok for electronic music but in rock, it just makes the music sound very sterile.  

Believe me Micky. You want me clean and sober. 

On the other hand current music can be full of hints to the past, references, and winks. Doesn't it feel great when the young ones time-link to the oldies, or dead ones, knowing that, in their own maybe even far future, other youger people will "connect" to them ?