Breaking news: PROG-RELATED IS NOT PROG

Despite the doubtful arguments of Mr. Reality, his final purpose is an undeniably truth that seemed to hurt an important group of people here (say Rocktopus ) The arrogance of the average proghead is a very known fact, that has no relation to listen to unpopular music, Iván; even I'd say the opposite: because of the fact that we listen to a non-mainstream genre of music, we use to believe we're better than the ""common"" people who listen to.... say pop, rap, tecno, etc.....

So, I think our mate Reality made a valid attempt to say what I just did (and of course, adding his golden sentence: music is music!!)

sircosick wrote: Despite the doubtful arguments of Mr. Reality, his final purpose is an undeniably truth that seemed to hurt an important group of people here (say Rocktopus ) The arrogance of the average proghead is a very known fact, that has no relation to listen to unpopular music, Iván; even I'd say the opposite: because of the fact that we listen to a non-mainstream genre of music, we use to believe we're better than the ""common"" people who listen to.... say pop, rap, tecno, etc..... So, I think our mate Reality made a valid attempt to say what I just did (and of course, adding his golden sentence: music is music!!)

Well, what you said is quite not true...

known fact?? what are you talking about?

it's not about to believe "we're better than poppers", but see, with objectivity, and throwing aside any personal position, Prog is "better" than most mainstream music, better in the sense of musicality, composition, performance, etc.

Even if I would like don't know...Pop? Rap? I would have to admit that Prog musicaly could be superior to what I like, but I could agree then: "but I prefer Pop, because it's don't know, happy?" or "I tend to find something that Rock or Prog couldn't ever give to me", but that would be totally subjective and part of something we all have, taste, so nothing wrong with that...

What we Prog-heads say is just repeating an objective true obtained from the musical analysis, but for others (basically for those who haven't heard enough Prog), it's a true fact that could hurt sensibilites, but sometimes for people, truth is hard to conceive and accept...

So arrogance??, come on!, you should have understood it already..



Edited by P.H.P. - October 24 2007 at 21:35

reality wrote: Clarification: 1. The quotes I used were paraphrased versions of actual quotes from actual threads put on this site by many longtime members with many posts. I do not know anything further than that.   Yes, there may be a Prog fan who is also an a$$hole, but I also read in a well known magazine a guy posting the 10 best keyboardists in history and saying...and I quote...."We could make a list with 20 Progressive Rock keyboardists, but who could care for that crap"   That guy is being also an a$$hole arrogant,. there is one of those in every genre. 2. I used classical as a generic term as it is used in common english language practice to refer to western art music. Actualy the term "Classical" covers not only the Classical period but the six other periods ranging from the fifth century to the present.   Not exactly, Classical music is a wrong term to talk about cult music, and what you described as Classical didn't started in the 5th Century, but about the 10th or 11th Century, and codidfied only after 1,500 AD. 3. Prog is Pop music (and that may be why I like it) the big prog bands have hooks and catches just like Brittany.   False, Prog is not POP, that's an aberration   This are some accurate definition of POP:   pop mu·sic noun  Definition:   commercial music: modern commercial music, usually tuneful, up-tempo and repetitive, that is aimed at the general public and the youth market in particular http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861737939/pop_music.html  pop music      n : music of general appeal to teenagers; a bland watered-down          version of rock'n'roll with more rhythm and harmony and          an emphasis on romantic love [syn: pop]  http://dict.die.net/pop%20music/  pop music - music of general appeal to teenagers; a bland watered-down version of rock'n'roll with more rhythm and harmony and an emphasis on romantic love  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pop+music Pop music generally uses a simple, memorable melody and emphasizes the rhythm, often with syncopation, and stripped down to a basic riff or loop which repeats throughout much of the song. Pop songs usually have a verse and a chorus, each with different musical material, well as a bridge connecting them in many cases. The lyrics often concern romance and relationships. The vocal style found in much pop music has been heavily influenced by African American musical traditions such as rhythm and blues (R&B), soul music, and gospel. The rhythms and the sound of pop music have been heavily influenced by swing jazz, rock and roll, reggae, funk, disco, and is currently influenced by hip hop in many cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music As you see, there is no relation between POP as a genre and Progressive Rock as a genre. 4. I concede on Brittany though as there is a difference between a purely commercial music (otherwise known as boardroom music) and commercial music with artistic intent (which includes Prog).   You don't need to say that, here there is people who loves many other genres, I include for example among my favorites, such artists and bands as Meatloaf, Jackson Browne, Cat Stevens, The Cranberries, Fleetwood Mac, among many others.   Iván

What!!! I just posted something about not arguing with people who obviously do not know what they are talking about. I guess I should listen to myself.
1. Pop is short for Popular music or commercial music which Prog is defiantly a part of. What you are referring too is a sub-genre of Popular Music also called pop. I am sorry I assumed you knew what I was talking about. Also remember when ELP came out with Pictures at an Exhibition, they were not doing it for people over thirty but for teenagers. My father did not listen to it, he called it annoying kids music as he put a Verdi Opera on. Most people on this site are under 25 (there is a post about that somewhere) so youth is still very involved.

2. Excuse me but what we term Classical comes straight out of the ecclesiastic tradition formulating around the fifth century C.E. Understandable notation by modern standards came by the eleventh century, but that does not mean the western classical tradition was created then. The medieval period (476 – 1400) is first by what is called the seven periods of Classical music, followed by the Renaissance (1400-1600), next is the common practice period including Baroque (1600-1750), Classical ( 1750-1820) and Romantic (1820-1900) and then the modern and contemporary period which includes 20th century classical (1900 – 2000) and contemporary classical (1975 – current). Thus we have a line of continuity from the Fifth century to the present. This is consistent with the "generic" broad term of Classical as is used in most music survey courses at most if not all universities (The education level most music fans have). Also note I said it is a comparison to western art music (not referring to non western classical music as most people do not associate that with the generic term) which is undisputedly rooted in the early Medieval period. This is all consistent with the modern understanding of the development of the classical tradition. So it is a very apt term especially in the terms I used it.

More specific usage (though not as common to the average music fan) is either from Bach to Beethoven or the period of 1750 - 1820 is also known as Classical, Neither of which I was referring too.

Oh please...... Gentlemen, did I agree totally with Reality in some moment? All I did was made clear his statement which was a little misunderstood and bashed IMO, but saying also that that's a valid point to see this issue. I can disagree on this one as probably as I could agree..... since the statement in question is not mine

Now, Debreguy made a good point: ALL extreme fanboy of a genre become a bit arrogant when it comes to defending his beloved style. But we all gotta reckon that prog is not any genre of music (prog lovers know what I'm referring).... As PHP said, based on facts, prog is more complex and elaborated and whatever...... but not better, since there's not a universal taste..... there's no "truth" when it comes to tastes.

All I reccomend is to take more seriously to the innocence and simplicity of that statement by Reality... Personally, I don't like generalizing, btw...... but let's not get angry because of that omnipresent arrogance thing xD

If we all accept, reckon and tolerate that there's no facts (boundaries) to our tastes diversity, there's no point to discuss here

OW says the news. 

Sorry about interrupting your nice discussion, but a question comes to mind... How is all that relevant to the original title (and purpose) of the thread? There have already been lots of arguments about whether prog is pop, but my intent was NOT to have another discussion on that particular topic. I don't know, perhaps there wasn't anything left to be said...

Certif1ed wrote:       It's largely true.   Rock music is a form of Popular music - but many people use the terms in different ways and find it very hard to get that perspective.   Take it to the next level, and what most people call Pop music is actually derived from Folk Music - but that's quite an involved argument. To put it into a nutshell, strictly speaking, much classical music is popular music too - and also derived from folk music.   Commercial music is something else - it doesn't have to be popular.   In my (personal) view of the music world, there are 3 forms of music; Folk, Art and Commercial (which includes Ecclesiatic). The 3 blur into each other at various points, but nevertheless, are the 3 main roots.   Hi Cert, don't want to disagree with you, but IMHO you're speaking in a different level, yes it's true what you say about Folk, Art and Commercial, but things and terms have evolved.   Commercial has also split in various genres, popular is just an adjective that qualifies how well is some music received by the general audience.   But POP has turned into a sub-genre of Commercial music, like Rock for example.   Now POP is widely described as an individual genre with it's own characteristics and even structure.   POP and Prog are commercial music but they are different and separete sub-genres of it. Actually, it goes back further than that, to the Ancient Greeks.   We agree in that Certified, the roots go further, but when is the point in which Classical music (I know the term is wrong, but even the proffesional critics use Classical to describe all the Art music from Medieval to the date, in Spanish we use thye generic term Musica Selacta in opposition to Classical Music) is formally recognized?   From what I read and learn it's between the IX and XI Centuries.   Iván

Certif1ed wrote: reality wrote: What!!! I just posted something about not arguing with people who obviously do not know what they are talking about. I guess I should listen to myself.   There are some very intelligent people on this forum - I think that comment is unfair. Anyone can mis-intepret a post on a forum - especially one that is as strongly international as this.   reality wrote: 1. Pop is short for Popular music or commercial music which Prog is defiantly a part of. What you are referring too is a sub-genre of Popular Music also called pop. I am sorry I assumed you knew what I was talking about. Also remember when ELP came out with Pictures at an Exhibition, they were not doing it for people over thirty but for teenagers. My father did not listen to it, he called it annoying kids music as he put a Verdi Opera on. Most people on this site are under 25 (there is a post about that somewhere) so youth is still very involved.   It's largely true.   Rock music is a form of Popular music - but many people use the terms in different ways and find it very hard to get that perspective.   Take it to the next level, and what most people call Pop music is actually derived from Folk Music - but that's quite an involved argument. To put it into a nutshell, strictly speaking, much classical music is popular music too - and also derived from folk music.   Commercial music is something else - it doesn't have to be popular.   In my (personal) view of the music world, there are 3 forms of music; Folk, Art and Commercial (which includes Ecclesiatic). The 3 blur into each other at various points, but nevertheless, are the 3 main roots. reality wrote: 2. Excuse me but what we term Classical comes straight out of the ecclesiastic tradition formulating around the fifth century C.E.   Actually, it goes back further than that, to the Ancient Greeks.   reality wrote: Understandable notation by modern standards came by the eleventh century, but that does not mean the western classical tradition was created then. The medieval period (476 – 1400) is first by what is called the seven periods of Classical music,   Hmm - never heard it called that before, although I see what you mean.   reality wrote: followed by the Renaissance (1400-1600), next is the common practice period including Baroque (1600-1750), Classical ( 1750-1820) and Romantic (1820-1900) and then the modern and contemporary period which includes 20th century classical (1900 – 2000) and contemporary classical (1975 – current). Thus we have a line of continuity from the Fifth century to the present. This is consistent with the "generic" broad term of Classical as is used in most music survey courses at most if not all universities (The education level most music fans have). Also note I said it is a comparison to western art music (not referring to non western classical music as most people do not associate that with the generic term) which is undisputedly rooted in the early Medieval period. This is all consistent with the modern understanding of the development of the classical tradition. So it is a very apt term especially in the terms I used it.   Careful with your use of the term "classical tradition" - it doesn't strictly apply except to the Classical music period which you identify above.   "Classical tradition" is misleading unless you apply it to Classical style in the stricter sense - if you use it in the broader sense, then it loses relevance and meaning.   It's confusing, having the term "Classical" mean different things, but when they're used widely in general Academia, it's hard to refute the "incorrect" usage.   Also, in American teaching, it's common to describe the music as "Classic" rather than Classical - a bugbear of mine along with the horrible usage of the word "tone" to mean "note"... don't get me started   reality wrote: More specific usage (though not as common to the average music fan) is either from Bach to Beethoven or the period of 1750 - 1820 is also known as Classical, Neither of which I was referring too.   ...albeit C.P.E. Bach was writing in that style a decade or so previously, and is widely attributed as the godfather of Classical music (in the sense of the style, not the general sense) - and also the godfather of Sturm und Drang:   The Classical style/tradition is of clean lines and symmetry/artistic asymmetry with functional decoration, which contrasts with the ostentation of Baroque or the cleaner,more natural lines of Rococco, often confused/lumped in with Style Galant and the dramatic Sturm und Drang.   The period described as "Baroque" is technically incorrect in several ways, as many styles existed (including the ones I mentioned), were regional, and also cross over into the commonly held Classical period. Baroque is a convenient way of pinning the music down - but it's hard for me to consider J.S. Bach's music as Baroque in a strict sense.   I know that the way you outlined it is the way it's taught - but all of those are guidelines to assist students at a relatively low level in their understanding of how the various styles developed.   ...just wanted to flesh that one out a bit - shows that "Classical music" (broad sense) is just as, or even more confusing and full of sub-genres as "Popular music" (broad sense).   Does that make sense?

Sorry, I type between business meetings so I might not flush out fully what I mean but you are correct. If you saw my original post this is blown way out of proportion and obviously what I said got misconstrued. Whenever there is a debate the terms should be more clearly defined. What I was talking about has little relevance to the quotes that Ivan brought out. On the internet you can find a thousand different quotes that all disagree with each other and may in actuality not be talking about the same thing.

I meant the western tradition that evolved out of the fall of the Roman empire in the late 5th century which (mostly church music with its various regional variations) became the foundation of western art music. This emerging tradition is gathered and codified by Pope Gregory I in the late sixth century.

By the 9th century we see a major expansion (for which Ivan talks about) because of the addition of "trope" techniques to preexisting liturgical texts. What troping meant was that a composer could add melodies and text between musical phrases. The text portions help scholars to determine the accurate place and time of a piece of music. This is were the "roughly" comes in as it is a logical advancement point but not accurate. Also another advancement documented in the 9th century was polyphony which is found for the first time in the book "Musica enchiriadis" from about the same period. The book indicates that polyphony had been around sometime prior to its publication as a major evolution had taken place. So that may be were they get the 9th century.

The 11th century idea comes from the work of "Micrologus" written by an Italian monk and music theorist by the name of Guido of Arezzo. This work further developed polyphony and musical indipendance. And I have to go but it progressed from there. The point is if Wikipedia can say roughly from the 9th century I can easily also say roughly from the late 5th as its foundation.

And also "POP", "Popular" and "Commercial" have three different meanings for reference in future discussions.

heyitsthatguy wrote: breaking news at this hour, THE NEWS IS ACTUALLY BREAKING!!!!!