Breaking news: PROG-RELATED IS NOT PROG

I love your comment, but I still agree with me (I could go on about why but it seems that this is neither the time or place).

I still think though Prog is an elitist term to use nowadays by a lot of people (especially when talking about the new stuff, who try to be "progressive" - laugh - to follow the mold).

People hate Prog and there are many valid reasons why, that do not involve them "not getting it" or "to intelligent for them" or their being "ignorant". And for those above who said they are proud to be arrogant, get a life there is nothing to be arrogant about!

The point is that people are shutting off the opportunity for other people to enjoy the music by their self righteous egos.

Prog is very accessible to a lot of people (well some of it to be honest is just a total waste of time) but its the fans who drive people out.

Yes it started with the Rick Wakemans and the Emersons of the Prog scene who said they were better than everybody else and how their music was so much more complex. And when they started selling themselves as geniuses in the high art circles when they had no ability to do so (look at some of the stuff on ELP works it is embarrassing).

Come on Wakeman and Emerson are nobody special outside the rock world and they paid the price for saying they were special with the fans and in the media leaving in droves. The fans should not carry on this hurtful ego fueled false notion of superiority (and if you do not think it is common on this site you are blind).

Here is the equation: Less ego = more fans, More fans = better music, Better music = happier Prog Archives!

Stop shooting us in the foot with the ego! The only thing not accessible to the public about Prog is the scene (or the people) and not particularly the music.

The music you listen to makes no difference about who you are or how intelligent you are (and for those who will argue that I am not talking about them, well you are right I am not talking about you) a lot of dumb people listen to Prog a lot of brilliant people listen to punk etc.

We should be doing everything to make unfiltered Prog popular again and being a little humble would be a nice start.

Edited by reality - October 29 2007 at 10:36

reality wrote: Here is the equation: Less ego = more fans, More fans = better music, Better music = happier Prog Archives!

Once again I agree with me. Ego is great if you can back it up, the problem was that Prog in most senses could not.

Once again look at ELP's Works or Pictures at an Exhibition. Ego here is at fault, they are not works of high art (to a lot of people I know they are works of vulgarity) but ELP claimed they were of that caliber. Flash and shallow high and mighty self indulgence replaced the communicative value of rock.

They said they were better than other musicians and would not even share the stage with them. Nobody likes someone who says they are better than everyone else, especially if they are not.

There are millions of people out there with huge self congratulating egos and it is very rare that anyone of them can back it up. When you have to tell everyone you are so great chances are you are not.

Madonna I am sorry backs up everything she does by (brilliantly) reinventing herself to keep relevant. The quality of the music she does is always top notch (no matter if you like it or not) and she is wise never to go beyond her limits of ability. You do not see her conducting a symphony or singing Opera. The only time her ego went past her ability is when she tried to act and she crashed and burned for that. She was called pretentious and a lot of other labels that are also hurled at Proggers. Now compare Madonna with Lindsey Lohan's cd or Paris Hilton's music and you will see ego vs a person who stays within their talent level. are you getting my point?

Most people in reality who are successful have very little true Ego. Yes they acknowledge their qualities but to put up false fronts to show people that you think you are better than they are is very unproductive.

The problem is if you think your the greatest you see no need of improvement, but if you acknowledge your limitations the sky is unlimited.


Also were do you think punk came from? it was a reaction to the pretentiousness (Ego trying to make up for lack of substance) of prog and the heathen lustfulness of Disco.

Popularity shifted (critics started lambasting Prog and the kids started turning elsewhere) and Prog ended its run for many years. Prog shifted its attitude from the collective 60's culture to the later 70's Its all about me culture. Former Proggers left for other types of music (Genesis, Yes Etc.) and musicians (who might of played Prog) started doing other things.

If ELP (or Yes, Rick Wakeman solo stuff etc) could back it up I would say go for it, but they could not do it.

Writing a song to stroke your own ego without caring what others think is going to loose you a lot of fans. It is also very narrow minded and intellectually limiting. Music is about communication and when the only thing you have to say is look how I spent my Saturday nights at home practicing my one handed piano (a literal reference - do not be dirty) it is not going to impress many people. It makes you irrelevant and keeps you away from the source of good music - life.


Ivan said More fans = Better music: What? This is the most ridiculous statement I heard, the number of fans has no relation with the quality of music...

That is stupid to say that popularity has nothing to do with quality of music. The more popular the more exposure to people who might play and become the next good Prog band.

Most of the people on this site claim the early to mid 70's as where most of their favorite bands came from. Why? because in that period Prog was popular and bands from England to Germany to Italy were all jumping on the vibe.

Quality of music does depend on the number of people exposed to it, and the number of people who do not see it as negative and worthless.

If one million people were influenced by King Crimson instead of one thousand the likelihood of a great musician starting the next great prog band is much greater.

If a young kid with amazing potential for guitar playing was not exposed to Prog, he would not likely start a Prog band.

A good number of talented musicians with great musical knowledge and compositional ability are in Pop bands. Why? because that is what they grew up listening too. What if they grew up listening to Prog? Well they would be Tool or Dream Theater.

It is all about the talent pool, the larger it is the better the music.

Look at any other form of commercial music the bigger the popularity of that style the better the artist that came out of it.

Do you know of any good Synth pop bands today - not really. But if you look at 1984 when it was popular you would see that is where the most talented groups were.

Why would that be? because if a kid has a choice between playing Synth pop or Emo, he is going to play Emo.

If a kid has a choice between Prog and Emo (unless Emo becomes Prog like many other unrelated genres) the kid is going to choose Emo. What if that kid would have been the next Fripp or Gilmour?

Why do you think this site expands the genre so much to such a ridicules size? It has to incorporate bands with popular bases to survive. Now fans of Post Rock are now proggers, fans of Blind Guardian are now Proggers.

Some sites even now claim all power metal as Prog and Neoclassical shredding as prog. All of these were/are innovations that had nothing to do with Prog but are used to show progress of the genre.

Why do people do that? Because exclusivity kills innovation and they want both so they have to leach on to something were innovation is taking place.

The old dinosaur of original Prog has lost its popularity and is lacking in innovation. The new thinkers are not applying their trade to the old concept. Yes you have a few metal bands that incorporate some stuff but they are not of the same mind and the actual good ones are few in number compared to what they should be.

But... Hypothetical, what if there was a major resurgence of the original Prog ideas. It started spreading around the world, on TV, Radio, all over the internet and magazines. Record sales soar and kids started buying instruments instead of Nintendo Wei's. Music lessons became popular as kids wanted to be just like their Prog heroes. Pretty soon everybody sitting in clubs, bars, back-rooms trying to manipulate rock composition in a brand new way. A battle of the Prog bands is held and were formally three bands would show up, now three thousand show up with each a unique style and innovative way of playing. New instruments are invented and old ones are incorporated in a new way. The spirit of experimentation is in the air and the whole collective mind of the world is working on brining new heights to rock music and... Wait that can never happen because Ivan says:

More fans = Better music: What? This is the most ridiculous statement I heard, the number of fans has no relation with the quality of music...

Because to him unpopularity and exclusivity makes good music. The least number of people enthused makes it better. The smaller the talent pool from which to draw from makes for better talent. Too bad it was a good dream.


With popularity also brings money which allows bands to be able to venture beyond the local scene.

How many great potential Prog bands never make it off the local scene because they could not afford to make it.

Unpopular music does not pay the bills, so most bands cannot function without a second job. If they go full time musician it is relegated to their mothers basement.

Prog is a form of commercial music which relies on popularity to spread exposer. It is normally not taught in schools or tied to any other cultural function that people would get involved with it, so it has to be spread through sales of records.

Also compare eras, when it is very popular the number of bands who are considered essential go up and lack of popularity bands drop. Compare 1970 (popular) to 1985(relatively unpopular) and tell me how many Prog bands from 1985 have albums that are considered masterpieces compared to 1970.

A quote from a Prog website:
Yes, there is a certain arrogance found in many fans of progressive music. I am not going to deny this. It's basically the, "the music I listen to is so much more intellectual, mature, sophisticated, and special than everything else" attitude. Music snobbery, if you will. Well, this sentiment exists for good reason...all those things are true about progressive music! It's just definitively better. So out of this comes the "progressive ego." As fans of progressive music, it's as if we belong to some exclusive, prestigious club. We alone know the secrets. We realize such truths as that truly great music can only be experienced while listening with headphones and studying the album's beautiful cover-art...

This turns people off. we need more people!

[QUOTE=reality]Once again I agree with me. Ego is great if you can back it up, the problem was that Prog in most senses could not.

Now tell, me how do fans contribute, Do they write the music or do they give the musician a single idea, we only buy the albums if we like them, but our participation has nothing to do with the music quality.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 06 2007 at 12:00

About the discussion above... It has taken many (pleasant or unpleasant) dimentions. But about Pop and non-pop....

There's still a link to the chart there Frump. I'm checking with M@x re the removal of the list.

Easy Livin wrote: There's still a link to the chart there Frump. I'm checking with M@x re the removal of the list.

Ah excellent, I was hoping it was some kind of bug and not an intentional change to the site.

Certif1ed wrote: Thandrus wrote: About the discussion above... It has taken many (pleasant or unpleasant) dimentions. But about Pop and non-pop....   In my language. Pop (not a genre) = music made exclusively to make money.   For example, Chris De Burgh in mid 70's isn't pop. (I would rank his music back then as corresponding to Prog-related here, but it may sound as blasphemy) Chris De Burgh in late 80' early 90's is pop (great pop, though). Genesis in 80's is POP, Camel In 80's isn't.    I disagree that Pop is music made exclusively to make money in any language - there will certainly be an element that is after the money, but equally, some are after the girls, the fame, the desire to write pop music whatever - I don't think it's entirely fair to shove it all into a materialistic pot;   ABBA made fantastic pop music - but you can tell by listening that there is real craftsmanship at work; on more than one occasion there is even Prog Rock and classical leanings in their music.   Pop music is just short for popular, whatever anyone says.   However, it can also be used to describe a more generic or safe approach to writing music - a deliberate attempt to have a broad appeal, rather than hard-headedly sticking to some exclusive ego-centric niche market.   Once, Mozart's music was very popular... and he almost always wrote for commercial gain - he was always trying to get money out of people.   Therefore "Pop", in your language, can't necessarily be a bad thing - can it?