Prog elitists

^ Tell said friends to get a life.

Your friends are trying to find a niche in something that is entirely personal. They will grow at a different rate and regard than you.

I just started a thread about what passes for prog these days. I think some people are more elitist than others. Some people don't consider Rush or Pink Floyd to be prog. I've heard people say the Moody Blues and Kansas aren't prog either. I suppose everyone has their own definition. I'm against musical elitism(or really any kind for that matter). If they think Pink Floyd is entry level I wonder what they think of punk rock. I bet some of them like it (those hypocrites). It makes no sense. Not sure if every musician is equal but at some point it becomes silly to try to say who's better or who's a virtuoso and who isn't etc. 

I can't say I've ever understood the stigma surrounding complexity, different types of music with different intentions use different materials 

Guys, let's face it... there actually is some kind of an objective 'musical merit hierarchy' and Pink Floyd is nowhere near the top. Now let me explain myself before jumping at me. I get as well as anybody else that music is a subjective thing, but I would argue that it is not entirely subjective. Call me elitist if you want but I sincerely believe it is possible to some extent to classify different musical acts in terms of musical richness. I'm not speaking about "complexity" but about fluid musical development and innovation. Putting aside subjective biases, there is no way on Earth I could put bands like, say King Crimson and Asia on the same level. I think all of you are also able to objectively say that some bands deserve more praise than others. 

Edited by Larkstongue41 - February 15 2017 at 18:53

Larkstongue41 wrote: Guys, let's face it... there actually is some kind of an objective 'musical merit hierarchy' and Pink Floyd is nowhere near the top. Now let me explain myself before jumping at me. I get as well as anybody else that music is a subjective thing, but I would argue that it is not entirely subjective. Call me elitist if you want but I sincerely believe it is possible to some extent to classify different musical acts in terms of musical richness. I'm not speaking about "complexity" but about fluid musical development and innovation. Putting aside subjective biases, there is no way on Earth I could put bands like, say King Crimson and Asia on the same level. I think all of you are also able to objectively say that some bands deserve more praise than others.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: floyd4 wrote: I have friends that call Pink Floyd trash and "entry level music" and say that thrash metal is bad and simple because they can play the guitar riff easily. Obviously none of this makes sense, but if you've said this and still say these things, let me explain a few things. 1. There is no such thing as "entry level" music- Music is not an elite club, every band is on an equal level of being music-makers.  2. Just because a riff is uncomplex, doesn't make a song stupid or simple- Atom Heart Mother had a pretty simple riff, Aqualung has a simple riff, In the Court of the Crimson king has a simple riff. (by riff I mean melody.) If there's something I hate is complexity for the sake of complexity, that's why I can't resist more than 5 minutes of Gentle Giant. Music must be complex only if complexity plays a role in the track and flows naturally, not just to say "Look how difficult to understand is what I play". Gentle Giant is a good example. I actually used to think it was showing off. The band did not see it that way though. They weren't making music to say "Hey, look at us. We can do this and you can't. Na na na." Apparently that wasn't their motivation. I don't know if it was complexity for complexities sake either. For them it served the music. It needs to serve the music. That's the important thing. It's going to be subjective because one person's honest music is someone else's pomposity and pretentious bs.

I'm sure it wasn't their intention to be complex for the sake of it, and it's not like GG haven't written some genuinely good songs, but I agree with Ivan in terms of how they sound to me. It's like scientific prog rock without much emotion. At times they sound awkward and contrived to me.

octopus-4 wrote: I think there was a thread with exactly the same title. Probably in 2010, more or less. I remember to have actually written that I'm more an etilist than an elitist...

Edited by someone_else - February 16 2017 at 03:42

Just play your friend Ummagumma or Wish You Here and ask him to try to explain his point to you again.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Thatfabulousalien wrote: I can't say I've ever understood the stigma surrounding complexity, different types of music with different intentions use different materials  There's no stigma. If I didn't like complexity I would listened disco instead of Prog. But complexity needs a logic, a reason, not just to prove you can do what nobody can or dare.