Prog Music Lounge - Virtuosity vs Arrogance

Print Page | Close Window

Virtuosity vs Arrogance

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49016
Printed Date: February 18 2025 at 10:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Virtuosity vs Arrogance

Posted By: fil karada
Subject: Virtuosity vs Arrogance
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 12:54

Sure one of the reasons that makes me like Prog music is the technique and virtuosity of its players, but sometimes dont you get bored? After hearing only Prog music for months dont you feel the necessaty of "exchange" to something more soft music and intelectualy ? Considering all this dont you think that the strongest reason for people to dislike Prog music (apart from the obvious reason that the complexity of Prog music is a barrier to most pop fans) is the arrogance of some bands (of course most of the Prog music bands aren't arrogants IMO but i think most pop fans dont know it) and their pomposity? Think about it

Replies:

Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 13:02

well, prog is not the only music I listen to. I also love jazz, classical music and, for lack of a better word, "folk music" (meaning traditional music from all over the world)

-------------

A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta

Posted By: spookytooth
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 13:10

fil karada wrote:

Sure one of the reasons that makes me like Prog music is the technique and virtuosity of its players, but sometimes dont you get bored?

For some bands I do get bored after a while, but for many prog bands I never get bored of them.

fil karada wrote:

Considering all this dont you think that the strongest reason for people to dislike Prog music (apart from the obvious reason that the complexity of Prog music is a barrier to most pop fans) is the arrogance of some bands (of course most of the Prog music bands aren't arrogants IMO but i think most pop fans dont know it) and their pomposity?

I think some prog bands become to pompous for a while (example: Yes' Tales From Topographic Oceans and some ELP) and many fans can't accept it, but I think most people aren't attracted to prog because:

It's not on the Radio a lot
Most of prog isn't in 4/4
You can't dance to most prog music

That's some reasons for the public's (somewhat) dislike for prog. I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of them right now. I have to admit, there is a limit for prog, and some albums and artists are so pompous and ridiculous that I can't even bear listening to them (some ELP, Tales From Topographic Oceans, most of Rick Wakeman).

-------------

Would you like some Bailey's?

Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 13:27

spookytooth wrote:

fil karada wrote:

Sure one of the reasons that makes me like Prog music is the technique and virtuosity of its players, but sometimes dont you get bored?

For some bands I do get bored after a while, but for many prog bands I never get bored of them.

[QUOTE=fil karada]
You can't dance to most prog music

I disagree. of course you can dance to it. why shouldn't you? you don't need a 4/4 to dance, and changing rhythms and tempos are not a problem at all. on the contrary, they give you possibilities for very expressive dancing. dancing to a 4/4 is rather boring. we were at an Embryo concert, and the people danced like mad to the very complicated rhythms of them (Embryo use rhythms based on the Tala Tarangini, the Indian school of rhythms)

-------------

A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta

Posted By: febus
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 13:35

If prog music is my favorite genre, no way it's the only kind i listen to....coyld be classic jazz, Bach, French singers or traditional Chinese music.......as long as it's good to my ears.

This morning, i just listened to IN CAMERA by Hammill, a best of IGGY POP, ELLA FITZGERALD and now ASTOR PIAZZOLLA, the master of Argentinian tango.

.....next will be PHALLUS DEI from the wonderful AMON DUUL2.

and i think virtuosity and technique can be found in every kind of music, not only prog

Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 13:39

fil karada wrote:

Sure one of the reasons that makes me like Prog music is the technique and virtuosity of its players, but sometimes dont you get bored 1? After hearing only Prog music 2 for months dont you feel the necessaty of "exchange" to something more soft music and intelectualy ? Considering all this dont you think that the strongest reason for people to dislike Prog music 3 (apart from the obvious reason that the complexity of Prog music is a barrier to most pop fans 4) is the arrogance of some bands 5 (of course most of the Prog music bands aren't arrogants IMO but i think most pop fans dont know it) and their pomposity? Think about it

1. Not really, no.

2a. I do also occasionally head for classical, world and more sophisticated AOR/blues rock music, as well as a couple of odds and ends such as Simon And Garfunkel or Dire Straits. Predominantly I do listen to things which'd be considered prog.

2b. Prog is a hugely diverse umbrella of bands (not even a genre). Those bands often have very diverse output, much of which is merely good forms of a more defined genre (take Tull's blues days or, say, Camel's debut, or even ELP's Works II). I think that listening only to 'prog' is probably just about as varied as the rest of my tastes put together.

2c. I do not easily get bored or exhausted from fast or virtuostic playing, and if I do, I can always revert to something like Camel, Focus or Floyd, none of which I really find challenging at all. One of the appeals of progressive music for me is that I can listen lots of it in completely different ways, and so really don't get bored per sé.

2overall. So no.

3. No. I don't hear many 'pop' fans knocking, say, Jimi Hendrix, Santana or Mark Knopfler, all of whom are pretty capable players.

4. Complexity is probably not the biggest issue, or even one of the biggest.

5. Perceived pretentiousness is an issue, but really I think that perception is not the result of musicianship.

Aha

and i think virtuosity and technique can be found in every kind of music, not only prog

We have a winner.

Posted By: fil karada
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 14:50

The thing is that I really found it hard to get into prog ,altough after getting in theres no getting out IMO, and I'm trying to convert some of my friend to prog music and they also find it hard to get in.

One of the things I've noticed it's that most people ,pop fans, give up once they see that a music has 7+ minutes long lol.

I think that (and this is really my opinion since I was once on "the other side") when a non-prog-music fan hears one classic track from prog bands (such as "roundabout", "close to the edge", "supper's ready") they get really bored because they find it repetitive in general ,(im obviously not saying that the constant tempo changes in "supper's ready" or other prog classic are boring, i'm just saying that they find the music repetitive in this way: oh good, another instrumental part, these guys must think they're the best, skip -.-) and they dont notice the details because they're used to commercial music where what is eprfectly audible it's what you got.

But once on the prog side, you find it most rewardable to hear prog. You re-find some prog classics that didnt seem that good at first listen.

My point being: I dont think boring at all the pomposity of bands like ELP, because I only heard pop for some years, but I think people who haven't tried to get into prog dont want to because they think prog bands are arrogant and they find prog repetitive (!) IMOO

Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 14:55

BaldJean wrote:

well, prog is not the only music I listen to. I also love jazz, classical music and, for lack of a better word, "folk music" (meaning traditional music from all over the world)

Same with me! When I listen to too much jazz, I need some rock to settle down with. When I've heard too much electric music, I switch to 18th/19th century stuff. And so on. By the way, I never found (perceived) arrogance to be such a problem in prog. There's more than enough arrogance among mainstream rock bands! What does sometimes annoy me, though, is that some prog has a lot of FRILLS (symphonic prog in particular). But even that could be remedied by listening to simpler prog, such as Anekdoten or Can.

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 14:57

fil karada wrote:

Sure one of the reasons that makes me like Prog music is the technique and virtuosity of its players, but sometimes dont you get bored? After hearing only Prog music for months dont you feel the necessaty of "exchange" to something more soft music and intelectualy ? Considering all this dont you think that the strongest reason for people to dislike Prog music (apart from the obvious reason that the complexity of Prog music is a barrier to most pop fans) is the arrogance of some bands (of course most of the Prog music bands aren't arrogants IMO but i think most pop fans dont know it) and their pomposity? Think about it

I think that of all genres, Prog is the one least likely to get bored from. Having said that - of course I don't listen exclusively to prog - come to think of it, I don't think that any of us prog fans here does.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 15:34

fil karada wrote:

One of the things I've noticed it's that most people ,pop fans, give up once they see that a music has 7+ minutes long lol.

But once on the prog side, you find it most rewardable to hear prog. You re-find some prog classics that didnt seem that good at first listen.

1) I see what you mean. I had a huge trouble making a friend of mine get into old school prog (he liked prog metal better), but once he got into it . . . MAN, THE GLORY OF ACTUALLY TALKING TO ANOTHER GUY THAT LIKES PROG AND IS NOT 20-30 YEARS OLDER THAN YOU! (specially where i live).

2) Also know what you mean. My brother and that friend of mine brothers can't stand long songs. Well, too bad for them, i like my albums 3 1/2 hours long and with 9 songs(or less).

3) Well, don't you worry: as sure as there is a God you will never get tired of PROG!

-------------

Posted By: fusionfreak
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 15:38

I also enjoy prog for virtuosity and the fact it gets me so high and far away from reality.It's true that chops

all along a 29 minute track don't always make a good song(Tales from Topographic oceans however

is one of my all time favourites)and could prevent people from listening to them but one has to struggle

for music.I was disappointed by various prog classics before enjoying them(In the court of the Crimson King,A trick of the tail....),moreover some people too much rely on what they see on first page.Some albums can be fun to listen to:Atomic Rooster,Hawkwind,Pink Fairies...Prog is a huge library which

suits almost everybody's tastes.

-------------
I was born in the land of Mahavishnu,not so far from Kobaia.I'm looking for the world

of searchers with the help from

crimson king

Posted By: khammer99
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 16:21

I always make sure I have a mix of music styles in my CD player, to keep the music fresh. Then just to really make things interesting, I'll hit "random" so it will play tracks from all the CDs. Nothing like hearing a blues song followed by a metal song, followed by a prog song, followed by a folk song to make sure you're paying attention.
As for the arrogance, I think it's more of a personality trait then a profession.

-------------
Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has

been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up.

- Terry Pratchett

Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 18:44

I frankly listen to only prog , have done so for years IN SILENCE ! and without any arrogant desire to convert anyone. Reason: there is SO MUCH diversity in Prog , one can go from the very soft Gian Castello or Hostsonaten to the mercurial aura of symphonic masterpieces (endless list), via a little Canterbury or prog-jazz (Zaal, Soft Machine) to the insidious power of Magma or Taal. A little Neo here, a tad RIO there, some TDream electronica when bliss is requested. When I wanna rock, I choose some BOC, Wishbone Ash, Robin Trower etc...When I feel sad or melancholic , since 1972 , Roxy Music always wipes away the pain.....Don't need to go elsewhere.........

-------------
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 19:04

The music I listen to:

65% classified as prog
15% kinda weird pop/rock (Roxy Music, Flaming Lips, etc)
10% regular classic rock or modern rock (Led Zeppelin, RHCP, Incubus, Smashing Pumpkins
10% Misc electronica (Aphex Twin, Massive Attack, etc)

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 19:09

the music i listen to:

90% classified as prog
10% classical metal and rock, jazz, extreme metal and some other stuff

maybe i should be open minded, but i just cant Tongue

-------------

Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 19:13

CCVP wrote:

the music i listen to:

90% classified as prog
10% classical metal and rock, jazz, extreme metal and some other stuff

maybe i should be open minded, but i just cant Tongue

Don't

-------------
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.

Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 19:16

/\

don't what? Question

-------------

Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 19:18

I don't listen to prog enough these days....

It's not that I don't like it, it's just that my music taste has expanded a lot and i've realized the world is full of good music outside of prog. It seems like when I was prog obsessed I judged music by how 'proggy' is was and didn't listen for the sake of the music itself. Now a lot of stuff I couldn't appreciate back then I love and some of the music I liked back then just dosn't hold up.

-------------

Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 19:20

The Wizard wrote:

I don't listen to prog enough these days....

well, thats not exactly my problem. I listen to basically anything that i like. The thing is that most things i like are classified as prog. . .

-------------

Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 19:36

CCVP wrote:

The Wizard wrote:

I don't listen to prog enough these days....

well, thats not exactly my problem. I listen to basically anything that i like. The thing is that most things i like are classified as prog. . .

That's not a problem then. I felt the same way, almost everything I listened to was either prog or prog-related. Somehow that changed. It's seems so weird to me now, how I went from hating anything related to hip-hop but now find myself calling Public Enemy one of my favorites.

I noticed that the more I open my mind up to other music the less I listen to listen to prog.

-------------

Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 19:45

CCVP wrote:

/\

don't what? Question

I was complementing your choices, they are such that you don't need to be be more open-minded

-------------
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.

Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 19:56

The Wizard wrote:

CCVP wrote:

The Wizard wrote:

I don't listen to prog enough these days....

well, thats not exactly my problem. I listen to basically anything that i like. The thing is that most things i like are classified as prog. . .

I noticed that the more I open my mind up to other music the less I listen to listen to prog.

holy crap, almost everything i listen is prog or somehow prog related. . . I just hope i don't follow your steps and feel like i wasted my money on something i don't like anymore.

ps: no offense intended.

-------------

Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 19:59

tszirmay wrote:

CCVP wrote:

/\

don't what? Question

I was complementing your choices, they are such that you don't need to be be more open-minded

i don't know. . . i still have some issues with neo prog, zehul and some other prog styles. But if you say so, who am i to disagree? LOL

-------------

Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 22:42

I like prog because of it's arrogant nature, being music that delibberatly and arrogantly defiece common ground.

and off course prog failes misserably, but at least the attempt is being made.

anyone who thinks prog music is better than Madonna, Prince or Michael Jackson is by definition wrong, but stil I like prog better than anything else, just a matter of taste.

-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 22:44

tuxon wrote:

I like prog because of it's arrogant nature, being music that delibberatly and arrogantly defiece common ground.

and off course prog failes misserably, but at least the attempt is being made.

anyone who thinks prog music is better than Madonna, Prince or Michael Jackson is by definition wrong, but stil I like prog better than anything else, just a matter of taste.

agreed

(well, sorta)

-------------

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 22:51

Why arrogant?

Because they try to break boundaries?

Because of their virtuosism?

Because they don't limit themselves to mainstream?

Or maybe it's called arrogant by people who don't bother to understand it.

I like a lot of music from different genres, but I consider the behaviour of many mainstream artists who feel they are gods much more arrogant than the average Proghead, just look what are the requirements of Michael Jackson, Madonna or any rapper to visit a country and compare them with any Prog musician.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 22:57

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Why arrogant?

Because they try to break boundaries?

Because of their virtuosism?

Because they don't limit themselves to mainstream?

Or maybe it's called arrogant by people who don't bother to understand it.

I like a lot of music from different genres, but ui consider the behaviour of many mainstream artists who feel they are gods much more arrogant than the average Proghead,m just look what are the requirements of Michael Jackson, Madonna or any rapper to visit a country and compare them with any Prog musician.

Iván

touché Ivan. Clap

-------------

Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 23:31

There's nothing arrogant about prog. Never has been. Maybe perceived pomposity is another topic for another thread.

As to the other stuff here, I listen to all kinds of music, some of which is pure garbage if we're talking in prog terms. It actually makes me appreciate prog all the more. But I've always enjoyed listening to any musician with complete command of his/her instrument, whether its a prog musician or that pedal-steel guy who's on the latest Alan Jackson album.

Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: May 29 2008 at 23:43

I think this guy brought up a great point, yes I get pretty tired of the stale technicallity of most prog rock, sometimes I hear no emotion or atmosphere, which is what I've been craving for the past year or so. Therefore I got into post rock, and eventually I'll get tired of the outpour of emotion, and probably return to stylized prog rock. Tastes move in waves.

-------------

Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: May 30 2008 at 01:14

with the vast array of different styles of prog around it would seem the ones who are not being open minded are those who are not listening to it ! to coin the phrase "most people are idiots" Approve

Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: May 30 2008 at 02:09

i know what the original poster means. Although i do come back every so often (lots of times it's KC), ive moved out of the prog world and into everything great like jazz, funk, Zappa, world music, jam bands, african music, avant-guard classical composers, some good pop (ex. Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel, Peter Gabriel, Stevie Wonder, etc.), some rap (mostly trip hop or jazz rap) and also make my way back to my earlier metal and hard rock days.

i basically listen to music, but i love this site and it has such a vast amount of music.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 30 2008 at 02:35

tszirmay wrote:

I frankly listen to only prog , have done so for years IN SILENCE ! and without any arrogant desire to convert anyone. Reason: there is SO MUCH diversity in Prog , one can go from the very soft Gian Castello or Hostsonaten to the mercurial aura of symphonic masterpieces (endless list), via a little Canterbury or prog-jazz (Zaal, Soft Machine) to the insidious power of Magma or Taal. A little Neo here, a tad RIO there, some TDream electronica when bliss is requested. When I wanna rock, I choose some BOC, Wishbone Ash, Robin Trower etc...When I feel sad or melancholic , since 1972 , Roxy Music always wipes away the pain.....Don't need to go elsewhere.........

Those latter bands you mention - they're not really prog. Wink

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: grahawk
Date Posted: May 30 2008 at 03:08

I listen to prog rock for great songs and great tunes. I also find a lot of prog rock boring so I'm very selective. I'll happy listen to first part(s) of Shine on You Crazy Diamond but have no desire to listen to the second part(s) ever again. I also mainly listen to non prog. I started on prog in the mid/late 70's but widening my musical horizon has always been an aim but I've never let go of most of the music I liked then then, except perhaps Rush and Steve Hillage.

Posted By: fil karada
Date Posted: May 30 2008 at 08:29

The Wizard wrote:

I noticed that the more I open my mind up to other music the less I listen to listen to prog.

Its like you've made the reverse process than most of us lol

Posted By: fil karada
Date Posted: May 30 2008 at 08:36

tuxon wrote:

Anyone who thinks prog music is better than Madonna, Prince or Michael Jackson is by definition wrong, but stil I like prog better than anything else, just a matter of taste.

Usually what I stand for is: music is a matter of taste but there are some bands or artists that in terms of technique/lyrics are closer to being the best band in the world (there is no best band in the world just like 20 bands/artists that are very tied) than others and (and i dont want to say IMO now because it would screw my arguments) I consider those bands/artists the Prog ones.

So basically ,you may find me arrogant (lol), but I think that in the end music is just a matter of taste but there are people that have more the right to call their favorite band the best in the world than others

Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 00:15

I'm rather surprised that someone would actually know, or take the time to figure out the % that different genres take up in one's listening time. I just listen to what I want to hear next. Enjoyment comes from hearing what you want, not by "figuring" what the mix should be.
Supersuckers - La Mano De Cornuda, Flower Kings, Paradox Hotel, Johnny Cash, AC/DC Let there Be Rock, Krokus - The Blitz, Alice Cooper School's Out, Night SUn - Mournin'. Who cares ? Once I'm done with one, I'm going what's next ?

-------------
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.

Posted By: The Acolyte
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 00:42

stonebeard wrote:

The music I listen to:

65% classified as prog
15% kinda weird pop/rock (Roxy Music, Flaming Lips, etc)
10% regular classic rock or modern rock (Led Zeppelin, RHCP, Incubus, Smashing Pumpkins
10% Misc electronica (Aphex Twin, Massive Attack, etc)

I don't see "arrogance" as a good term in prog, terms like that don´t help that much you know...and it´s easy, you don´t have to listen to prog always mate!

The music i listen to:

70% classified as prog

20% alternative rock, new wave, brit pop and the likes (The Cure, The Smiths, Morrissey, James, The Jesus and Mary Chain, etc)

10% others (Spanish Rock, Classical, Folk)

-------------
"…but would I leave you in this moment of your trial?"

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 01:11

debrewguy wrote:

I'm rather surprised that someone would actually know, or take the time to figure out the % that different genres take up in one's listening time.

They don't, last.fm does it for them.

I don't only listen to prog, but no, I don't get tired of it, at least in the sense of listening to "challenging" music. Beyond that, I'm really not sure what the OP is trying to say.

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 05:28

grahawk wrote:

I listen to prog rock for great songs and great tunes. I also find a lot of prog rock boring so I'm very selective. I'll happy listen to first part(s) of Shine on You Crazy Diamond but have no desire to listen to the second part(s) ever again.

It's your loss! Big%20smile

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: chemo
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 11:44

I wouldn't say that long track lengths drive regular people away from prog, when I first heard my first 10 minute + song I was thrilled, didn't take any effort for me whatsoever to get into. If made me feel damn proud for some reason, I just figure most people would like the feeling of having some lengthy songs like I did.

But then again, I might be a little different since I'm currently listening to an album that's just under 2 and a half hours long and consists of four songs.

Posted By: DJPuffyLemon
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 13:48

spookytooth wrote:

You can't dance to most prog music

I disagree, you can dance to ANY music! as proven by my gf. she even danced to acid mothers temple, though it was a bit of a stretch......I think the only thing you can't dance to is Metal Machine Music, unless you do some sort of weird robot dance but that wouldn't be so much dancing to it as just using it as inspiration to dance mechanically, so it doens't count!

Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 13:53

I listen varied music. It's quite obvious that you're not only going to listen one genre, beyond being so wide.

I tend to play sometimes to relax or at least calm(isn't it the same?) Crosby Stills & Nash, The Beatles, The Who(60's), The Animals, some jazz fusion, Dire Straits.
Also listen some pop, new wave to have some fun, like Inxs or Simply Red.
Also Alt Rock to rock, although I mainly prefer 70's rock bands, or play heavy prog, but sometimes I do grab my Pearl Jam collection or Audioslave's.
Also love some blues rock or funk rock like Whitesnake(70's era), Free, Trapeze, etc.

My fave genre together with prog is hard rock. Then would come blues rock, I suppose or rock & roll ala Who or Beatles and then well jazz fusion, pop, alt rock, etc.

Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 14:06

Myself, a teenager or at least almost, I can't see my way dancing with prog, but that's not something I would take a star or something from the prog genre. Although with prog I can Air any instrument I want, and that's hell of fun as dancing, IMO.
If I wanna dance I usually pick some disco(not an entire album) like Le Freak, Get Down Tonight, or pick some new wave or pop like Inxs, or Simply Red, with this music I dance like the Devil(huh?)
Pittily in my country, we have some of the WORST music to dance. It's called cumbia and reaggeton, don't be confused by reggae, it's meanless lyrics, the rythms are all the same, and the voice are horrible. The lyrics are all about sex, can you believe it? All my friends love it!!??
I can't dance that. My friends can, and they don't realise that they can't change rythm cause all the songs are the same!!
I do enjoy DANCING pop music on parties, also electronic music, I don't like it, but it's kinda cool to dance that, at least it has some rythm.
Well, I'm glad we don't have Rap on my country, cause I know in North America they dance with that, no offense, please.

Posted By: Dominic
Date Posted: May 31 2008 at 19:06

fil karada wrote:

After hearing only Prog music for months dont you feel the necessaty of "exchange" to something more soft music and intelectualy ?

Eh, i think prog. is about as Intellectual as you can get in terms of rock music. I don't listen to rock music exclusively so i can't say that i never get "bored of prog", but what bores me way more are pop rock jingles that revolve around vocals. I tend to get bored by music i can break down really easy. (i'm not intending that i dislike such music) Not everyone is naturally inclined to liking dance music or music that revolves chiefly around vocals, therefore i could understand how some people could never get bored of prog.

Posted By: pook
Date Posted: June 02 2008 at 20:26

Astute! We must remember though that arrogance exists in all forms of music, as does virtuosity! Often when someone is good at something they feel the need to shamelessly lord it over other people, regardless of what they do. But there are those who have both great facility on their instrument and can have a conversation with "normal" folks as well. Perhaps we can hear that in the music they create? Hopefully....

Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: June 03 2008 at 11:22

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Why arrogant?

Because they try to break boundaries?

Because of their virtuosism?

Because they don't limit themselves to mainstream?

Or maybe it's called arrogant by people who don't bother to understand it.

Iván

Kind of reminds you of Yes in their heyday, eh. Wink

The reality is that the bigger the commercial success, the bigger the entourage and "care-takers". And human nature being what it is, it often, but not always, leads to self-delusion on a level more easily attainable than the rest of us.

-------------
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.

Posted By: Statutory-Mike
Date Posted: June 04 2008 at 18:17

There are so many different sub genres to prog you could never get bored of it

. I could very well listen to just prog but I do like a variety of music:

-Shred

-Jazz

-Classic Rock

-Most of the different genres of metal

-Blues

-Techno

-Classical

You mix all those together and add even more ideas and genres of music, and you're back to prog!

It's like the ultimate melting pot of music

-------------

Posted By: Demonoid
Date Posted: June 05 2008 at 01:21

1.I don't listen to prog. alone, but it would be like 65% prog, 35% others.
The sheer diversity that exists within prog itself keeps me going. So ya, i rarely get bored of it or infact, never get bored of it.

2.Arrogance?! Please elaborate.

3.I really don't care whether prog. appeals to mainstream or not. If ppl like it, good for them. If they don't, not my problem.
Music doesn't need to appeal to everyone in order to be good. 99% of extreme metal is also underground. Many consider it as sh*t, but i think its really good. Same goes for prog. I think Pink Floyd are the closest you'll get to mainstream.

Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: June 05 2008 at 01:30

DJPuffyLemon wrote:

spookytooth wrote:

You can't dance to most prog music

Dance? 18,000 Yes fans swaying seriously to Roundabout in 1975 . Recent P Tree show had numerous very attractive leggy ladies shaking their booties to Wilson's cranky leads and Harrison's booming beats. I saw these with my own eyes! (Boy did I ever!)

You Can Dance if you want to, anywhere, anytime , no one is judging you as Simon, Paula and Randy are busy with other idols

-------------
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.

Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: June 09 2008 at 03:58

The rich diversity of prog prevents me from becoming bored with it. The creativity that drives its intricate compositions conjures only my amazement and appreciation.

I can't speak intelligently on how others perceive prog, but I will emphasize that excellence hardly implies arrogance. In fact, serious musicians are, by definition, virtuosos. Should we ask those who have worked so hard to attain such skill to conceal their particular excellence with the fig leaf of mediocrity?

Posted By: codibick
Date Posted: June 14 2008 at 18:21

oh well, are we talking about arrogance?
then let's talk about Mr. Malmsteen.

he's and arrogant prick, IMO

Posted By: *frinspar*
Date Posted: June 14 2008 at 23:03

My playlist today has included:

Beardfish
Black Flag
Slayer
Brian Eno
Depeche Mode
Carcass
Nektar
Echolyn
David Byrne
A crop of 1980's new wave hits
The Dead Milkmen
The Cheerful Insanity of Giles, Giles & Fripp
Gentle Giant
Bob James
Loverboy
.... Wink

You get the picture. It's never been all about prog for me. It's just one more fruit in the bowl to pick from.

And arrogance runs rampant across the board in music. If you're talking to a singer or a guitar player from any band in any genre, chances are you're talking to an arrogant jerk LOL

Posted By: agProgger
Date Posted: June 16 2008 at 21:35

Without reading all 3 pages, I present to you my contribution:

The de-emphasis of vocals is the number one reason people dislike prog.

People will tolerate a certain degree of soloing and extended instrumental breaks, but once it becomes as prominent as it is in prog, people start getting turned off pretty quickly. For example, I told someone to go look up the video for Porcelain Heart (from the new Opeth album) for lack of any other good-quality videos from that album to show them, and their first comment to me was "I don't like that there's not very much singing" or something to that extent. That completely throws instrumental songs out the window pretty much, and Porcelain Heart is barely prog-esque.

I've come across this comment countless times with a bunch of people, and it irritates me to death, but I can see where they're coming from. As a fairly skilled drummer (by you guys' standards, not modern rock standards) and someone reasonably knowledgable about other parts of music, I can enjoy as much instrumental music as you can throw at me, but give it to someone who knows less about music, and the only the best you can hope for is that they'll use it for unintrusive background music to listen to while studying/reading/etc. Their minds can't wrap around what it's giving to them, so it just because a chaotic amalgamation of notes.

You also have to deal with the fact that most people coast through life with minimal thinking, which prog doesn't exactly cater to that. At the same time, some Santana stuff is pretty easy to get into, even though he's doing some pretty hard stuff. This is part of a larger problem, though, which prog music is likely not going to remedy any time soon.

-------------
Friend of the honest; enemy of the arrogant and closed-minded.

Posted By: agProgger
Date Posted: June 16 2008 at 21:43

tszirmay wrote:

You Can Dance if you want to, anywhere, anytime , no one is judging you as Simon, Paula and Randy are busy with other idols

I think what you MEANT to say was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcOZ6xFxJqg - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcOZ6xFxJqg - "You can dance if you want to, you can leave your friends behind! 'Cause your friends don't dance, and if they don't dance, well then they're no friends of mine!"

-------------
Friend of the honest; enemy of the arrogant and closed-minded.

Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: June 16 2008 at 21:53

agProgger wrote:

Without reading all 3 pages, I present to you my contribution:

The de-emphasis of vocals is the number one reason people dislike prog.

People will tolerate a certain degree of soloing and extended instrumental breaks, but once it becomes as prominent as it is in prog, people start getting turned off pretty quickly. For example, I told someone to go look up the video for Porcelain Heart (from the new Opeth album) for lack of any other good-quality videos from that album to show them, and their first comment to me was "I don't like that there's not very much singing" or something to that extent. That completely throws instrumental songs out the window pretty much, and Porcelain Heart is barely prog-esque.

Interesting idea. For some time I've thought that pop music is essentially vocally driven music, whereas the more "highbrow" genres rely less upon vocals.

I've come across this comment countless times with a bunch of people, and it irritates me to death, but I can see where they're coming from. As a fairly skilled drummer (by you guys' standards, not modern rock standards) and someone reasonably knowledgable about other parts of music, I can enjoy as much instrumental music as you can throw at me, but give it to someone who knows less about music, and the only the best you can hope for is that they'll use it for unintrusive background music to listen to while studying/reading/etc. Their minds can't wrap around what it's giving to them, so it just because a chaotic amalgamation of notes.

I can't agree with this sort of elitism, however. Junk music, like junk thought and junk culture in general, are symptoms of our era, not indicative of individual mental ability. Look at, say, the period around the US revolutionary war. Many people who lacked formal education still maintained an enthusiasm for what moderns would consider "high" art: classical music, literature, painting, etc. The decline in culture we presently observe may be analyzed in terms of alienation and commodification (this has been duplicated many times elsewhere, so I won't repeat it here).

You also have to deal with the fact that most people coast through life with minimal thinking, which prog doesn't exactly cater to that.

Again, see my comment above.

At the same time, some Santana stuff is pretty easy to get into, even though he's doing some pretty hard stuff. This is part of a larger problem, though, which prog music is likely not going to remedy any time soon.

If we prog fans are honest about it, prog music is just slightly more sophisticated pop music. There's no room for elitism here. If you truly want (and I pity the person who does) to spurn the vulgar tastes of the canaille, then acquire the taste for classical music.

Posted By: agProgger
Date Posted: June 16 2008 at 22:27

WinterLight wrote:

agProgger wrote:

Without reading all 3 pages, I present to you my contribution:

The de-emphasis of vocals is the number one reason people dislike prog.

People will tolerate a certain degree of soloing and extended instrumental breaks, but once it becomes as prominent as it is in prog, people start getting turned off pretty quickly. For example, I told someone to go look up the video for Porcelain Heart (from the new Opeth album) for lack of any other good-quality videos from that album to show them, and their first comment to me was "I don't like that there's not very much singing" or something to that extent. That completely throws instrumental songs out the window pretty much, and Porcelain Heart is barely prog-esque.

Interesting idea. For some time I've thought that pop music is essentially vocally driven music, whereas the more "highbrow" genres rely less upon vocals.

I can nearly guarantee you this is the reason.

I've come across this comment countless times with a bunch of people, and it irritates me to death, but I can see where they're coming from. As a fairly skilled drummer (by you guys' standards, not modern rock standards) and someone reasonably knowledgable about other parts of music, I can enjoy as much instrumental music as you can throw at me, but give it to someone who knows less about music, and the only the best you can hope for is that they'll use it for unintrusive background music to listen to while studying/reading/etc. Their minds can't wrap around what it's giving to them, so it just because a chaotic amalgamation of notes.

I can't agree with this sort of elitism, however. Junk music, like junk thought and junk culture in general, are symptoms of our era, not indicative of individual mental ability. Look at, say, the period around the US revolutionary war. Many people who lacked formal education still maintained an enthusiasm for what moderns would consider "high" art: classical music, literature, painting, etc. The decline in culture we presently observe may be analyzed in terms of alienation and commodification (this has been duplicated many times elsewhere, so I won't repeat it here).

It's not about mental capability, but rather there are no patterns that they recognize. To those who are accustomed to such things (for whatever reason -- it often happens to be through a musical background) can get into prog more easily.

You also have to deal with the fact that most people coast through life with minimal thinking, which prog doesn't exactly cater to that.

Again, see my comment above.

I will respond to this differently: this isn't simply a symptom of the musical world. People don't think, and it's not that they're not capable -- they just don't. It breaks my heart every time I see a guy who should be performing well in a given field, but he doesn't because he's stuck in some subculture that spurns thinking in that manner. The religious often spurn science (less true these days), hip-hop/rap cultures spurn schooling and just about everything else, country cultures spurn things like technology, and so on. It's not to say that there aren't vast numbers of exceptions, though.

At the same time, some Santana stuff is pretty easy to get into, even though he's doing some pretty hard stuff. This is part of a larger problem, though, which prog music is likely not going to remedy any time soon.

If we prog fans are honest about it, prog music is just slightly more sophisticated pop music. There's no room for elitism here. If you truly want (and I pity the person who does) to spurn the vulgar tastes of the canaille, then acquire the taste for classical music.

I like non-prog music. I'm not trying to be elitist here; I'm just making candid observations.

-------------
Friend of the honest; enemy of the arrogant and closed-minded.

Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: June 16 2008 at 23:13

agProgger wrote:

The de-emphasis of vocals is the number one reason people dislike prog.

People will tolerate a certain degree of soloing and extended instrumental breaks, but once it becomes as prominent as it is in prog, people start getting turned off pretty quickly. For example, I told someone to go look up the video for Porcelain Heart (from the new Opeth album) for lack of any other good-quality videos from that album to show them, and their first comment to me was "I don't like that there's not very much singing" or something to that extent. That completely throws instrumental songs out the window pretty much, and Porcelain Heart is barely prog-esque.

Interesting idea. For some time I've thought that pop music is essentially vocally driven music, whereas the more "highbrow" genres rely less upon vocals.

I can nearly guarantee you this is the reason.

It's plausible at the very least.

I've come across this comment countless times with a bunch of people, and it irritates me to death, but I can see where they're coming from. As a fairly skilled drummer (by you guys' standards, not modern rock standards) and someone reasonably knowledgable about other parts of music, I can enjoy as much instrumental music as you can throw at me, but give it to someone who knows less about music, and the only the best you can hope for is that they'll use it for unintrusive background music to listen to while studying/reading/etc. Their minds can't wrap around what it's giving to them, so it just because a chaotic amalgamation of notes.

I can't agree with this sort of elitism, however. Junk music, like junk thought and junk culture in general, are symptoms of our era, not indicative of individual mental ability. Look at, say, the period around the US revolutionary war. Many people who lacked formal education still maintained an enthusiasm for what moderns would consider "high" art: classical music, literature, painting, etc. The decline in culture we presently observe may be analyzed in terms of alienation and commodification (this has been duplicated many times elsewhere, so I won't repeat it here).

It's not about mental capability, but rather there are no patterns that they recognize. To those who are accustomed to such things (for whatever reason -- it often happens to be through a musical background) can get into prog more easily.

I think it's just a matter of familiarity. Most of my favorite albums I didn't enjoy at first; it wasn't until I devoted some attention to them that I found their appeal. Serious music, in general, requires active participation whereas light music only requires ears.

You also have to deal with the fact that most people coast through life with minimal thinking, which prog doesn't exactly cater to that.

Again, see my comment above.

I will respond to this differently: this isn't simply a symptom of the musical world. People don't think, and it's not that they're not capable -- they just don't. It breaks my heart every time I see a guy who should be performing well in a given field, but he doesn't because he's stuck in some subculture that spurns thinking in that manner. The religious often spurn science (less true these days), hip-hop/rap cultures spurn schooling and just about everything else, country cultures spurn things like technology, and so on. It's not to say that there aren't vast numbers of exceptions, though.

I agree with what you say here (more or less).

At the same time, some Santana stuff is pretty easy to get into, even though he's doing some pretty hard stuff. This is part of a larger problem, though, which prog music is likely not going to remedy any time soon.

If we prog fans are honest about it, prog music is just slightly more sophisticated pop music. There's no room for elitism here. If you truly want (and I pity the person who does) to spurn the vulgar tastes of the canaille, then acquire the taste for classical music.

I like non-prog music. I'm not trying to be elitist here; I'm just making candid observations.

I shouldn't have said "you". My response was directed to those who follow that not-so-hidden tendency around here.

Posted By: agProgger
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 21:02

agProgger wrote:

I've come across this comment countless times with a bunch of people, and it irritates me to death, but I can see where they're coming from. As a fairly skilled drummer (by you guys' standards, not modern rock standards) and someone reasonably knowledgable about other parts of music, I can enjoy as much instrumental music as you can throw at me, but give it to someone who knows less about music, and the only the best you can hope for is that they'll use it for unintrusive background music to listen to while studying/reading/etc. Their minds can't wrap around what it's giving to them, so it just because a chaotic amalgamation of notes.

I can't agree with this sort of elitism, however. Junk music, like junk thought and junk culture in general, are symptoms of our era, not indicative of individual mental ability. Look at, say, the period around the US revolutionary war. Many people who lacked formal education still maintained an enthusiasm for what moderns would consider "high" art: classical music, literature, painting, etc. The decline in culture we presently observe may be analyzed in terms of alienation and commodification (this has been duplicated many times elsewhere, so I won't repeat it here).

It's not about mental capability, but rather there are no patterns that they recognize. To those who are accustomed to such things (for whatever reason -- it often happens to be through a musical background) can get into prog more easily.

I think it's just a matter of familiarity. Most of my favorite albums I didn't enjoy at first; it wasn't until I devoted some attention to them that I found their appeal. Serious music, in general, requires active participation whereas light music only requires ears.

That's basically what I was saying. They're not familiar with anything on first listen, so they move on, whereas we look for patterns and such. On the other hand, you have bands like Tool who are pretty immediately accessible, yet they are also extremely intricate. This stems from a couple things:

1. The intricate things don't usually take the lead. Tool guitar parts, aside from odd time signatures, are usually pretty simple. Also, they have a unique and compelling vocalist.

2. The intricate things are also in places that people can recognize more easily, because they usually don't overpower everything else. Drums, for example, are probably the most accessible instrument to listen to if there is a band full of really good musicians, because most people aren't paying attention to the individual notes anyway. People pay close attention to the lead guitar, and if they're shredding away, they can't relate to that.

3. A lot of the people who listen to Tool are too stoned to want to dance LOL

-------------
Friend of the honest; enemy of the arrogant and closed-minded.

Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: June 17 2008 at 21:53

agProgger wrote:

That's basically what I was saying. They're not familiar with anything on first listen, so they move on, whereas we look for patterns and such. On the other hand, you have bands like Tool who are pretty immediately accessible, yet they are also extremely intricate. This stems from a couple things:

I think Pink Floyd would be another example: whereas their music is quite simple, their arrangements are unrivaled. Although it's fairly easy to listen to Pink Floyd, within it there's substantial richness for the discerning listener.

Drums, for example, are probably the most accessible instrument to listen to if there is a band full of really good musicians, because most people aren't paying attention to the individual notes anyway.

Quite often, yes, but not necessarily so. Take something by, say, Billy Cobham, or on the other side of the spectrum, Necrophagist. Not exactly disco beats there.

People pay close attention to the lead guitar, and if they're shredding away, they can't relate to that.

Incidentally, I can't relate to those sort of people.

Posted By: MonkeyphoneAlex
Date Posted: June 22 2008 at 11:15

Structurally Pink Floyd may be simple, but harmonically they are pretty complex.

-------------
"Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is THE BEST."
-FZ

Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: June 22 2008 at 12:13

MonkeyphoneAlex wrote:

Structurally Pink Floyd may be simple, but harmonically they are pretty complex.

Actually, this statement is self-contradictory: rich harmonic structure implies structural complexity in general. In any case, Pink Floyd are also harmonically simple. For example, Gilmour's solos are famously modal. Moreover, many of their songs are built on simple open-chord progressions.

Notice that I don't mean any of this as a criticism of the band--I enjoy much of their of music (well, at least from '71 through '79). But facts are facts: the music is fairly simple, but arranged beautifully.

Posted By: areazione
Date Posted: July 12 2008 at 17:07

As Bruford said about odd-time rhythms, no matter how complex your music is, what truly matters is how pleasant it becomes to your audience's ears.
If that is correct, and I presume so to grand extent, I would say (begging pardon to these gentlemen's fans) that Petrucci or Malmsteen are more or less what can be defined as a snob and arrogant, musically speaking. Fripp or Zappa are examples of a bit more modest, if that is humanly possible, virtuosity. Vai and Corea are examples of musicians highly gifted but tending towards useless pomposity. Yes are perhaps a decent compromise, and not surprise they are listened by non-prog fanatics.

-------------
Umbra profunda sumus, ne nos vexetis, inepti; non vos, sed doctos tam grave quaerit opus

Posted By: OzzProg
Date Posted: July 13 2008 at 12:24

I listen to everything; Mainly Prog, Jazz, Classic Rock, Blues, and some Classical.

However, having said that, I find that if you are getting bored of prog, just spend some time listening to, or discovering a new "sub-Genre" of prog rock. If you are getting bored from the more mainstream "Symphonic Rock", consider taking a dip into Krautrock, or Jazz Fusion. That should stir things up a bit

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/Ozzprog" rel="nofollow - Soundcloud

Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: July 13 2008 at 13:23

areazione wrote:

As Bruford said about odd-time rhythms, no matter how complex your music is, what truly matters is how pleasant it becomes to your audience's ears.
If that is correct, and I presume so to grand extent, I would say (begging pardon to these gentlemen's fans) that Petrucci or Malmsteen are more or less what can be defined as a snob and arrogant, musically speaking. Fripp or Zappa are examples of a bit more modest, if that is humanly possible, virtuosity. Vai and Corea are examples of musicians highly gifted but tending towards useless pomposity. Yes are perhaps a decent compromise, and not surprise they are listened by non-prog fanatics.

There's an obvious fallacy here: it is clear that (intended) audiences of Petrucci or Malmsteen find their music "pleasant." In any case, I disagree with Bruford: an artist need not (in fact, should not) make concessions to an imagined audience, for this is nothing but a compromise of the artform.

By the way, there is yet another error in your post: the ubiquitous conflation of time-signature with rhythm.

Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 13 2008 at 17:11

WinterLight wrote:

I'm with Bruford all the way. Communication is central to art, in my view. Any communication should take the characteristics of the audience into account - and will, whether consciously or subconsciously on the part of the person communicating. My communication research suggests that even those striving to subvert established methods do so with an audience in mind. All art is compromise, which is one of the reasons it is so darn interesting, even if it doesn't speak to us personally.

Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: July 13 2008 at 19:06

russellk wrote:

I'm with Bruford all the way. Communication is central to art, in my view.

But according to areazione, Bruford holds that "what truly matters is how pleasant it becomes to your audience's ears." My disagreement with this view has nothing to do with the centrality of "communication" in art, but rather an artist kowtowing the hypothetical demands of its listeners. It's a lazy man's art, I believe: people think that the art should come to them, that no effort, i.e., active engagement, is required. Serious art demands close attention (see Greek drama or classical music, for two obvious examples); I would think that this would be transparent to those who this forum.

Any communication should take the characteristics of the audience into account - and will, whether consciously or subconsciously on the part of the person communicating.

Well, now you're speaking in the normative sense, if not dogmatically. Of course, if one wants her communication to be effective, then she'll "take the characteristics of the audience into account." But notice that she also chooses her audience, and not conversely. Moreover, your final qualification may be true (or false), but you haven't argued why it is, rather you asserted by fiat.

My communication research suggests that even those striving to subvert established methods do so with an audience in mind.

Do you really need research to establish a truism? Cui bono?

All art is compromise, which is one of the reasons it is so darn interesting, even if it doesn't speak to us personally.

Again, this might be true or false; but you don't argue for it, you just declare it.

Posted By: areazione
Date Posted: July 13 2008 at 19:39

WinterLight wrote:

Intro (necessary to let you understand what I briefly consider art)

Wilde was lying to himself: art is the highest expression of unconscious obligation (we feel obliged and compelled to express our feelings) commissioned to someone else to return us joy. This joy transforms itself into self-appreciation, which he postulated being the only purpose to create our own art.
That is psychologically understandable: no human being desires to express himself merely for the ecstatic and egocentric purpose to delight himself.
There is certainly such a component, but it is not a necessary condition. Only sufficient. The necessary condition is clearly "necessity to show what I can do, otherwise there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to produce art. In that case, in fact, I would only think onto myself in a repetitive act, and this would be the end of the story".
We are social beings. We would hope to be lonely beings, but for various reason we must be surrounded by others, in order to see our individuality. Regarding Art, it is a medium to interact with an observer, being yourself or someone else. If art were pursued only for being statically laid onto a pedestal and left there as time goes by, without external intervention (i.e. observation), none could interact with it, thus, nobody could judge it (because judgment is a true and pure form of intervention).

1. Malmsteen or Petrucci's audience is self-contained and self-consistent. An audience has to be more general than the one which follows you as religious worshippers (music fan can be regarded as such sometimes. That's why we call ourselves "fans", i.e. fanatics) . It is so obvious that artists, creating a specific music, canonized in a very peculiar way, will be liked by their direct group of people. More difficult if, though not a fanatic of yours, someone can become interested in your art, no matter how far it is from your common tastes and ideas. I guess, but I could be wrong, this is Bruford's message. If that is not, well, at least this is mine. However I see you point, and honestly I might admit that I could agree to some extent to your statement above. What doesn't make me embrace your point 100% is the side effect of it: if I blindly trusted my natural audience's appreciation, then I would fall into a never.-ending spiral, whose way out would be highly unlikely to take place, because I would fear to leave a virtual place I forged where I feel secure, instead of going beyond the certainty.

2. now that I read back what I wrote there, I have to say that was exactly what I would have wanted to say. Most of the times I fail with English, because it is not my mother tongue.
Thanks for your precise correction.

Hope this sounds clear to you.

-------------
Umbra profunda sumus, ne nos vexetis, inepti; non vos, sed doctos tam grave quaerit opus

Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: July 13 2008 at 19:58

areazione wrote:

Most of the times I fail with English, because it is not my mother tongue.
Thanks for your precise correction.

To be honest, I couldn't tell that you weren't a native speaker of English. In any case, my objections weren't grammatically based.

This joy transforms itself into self-appreciation, which he postulated being the only purpose to create our own art. That is psychologically understandable: no human being desires to express himself merely for the ecstatic and egocentric purpose to delight himself.

That's like saying people don't masturbate because sexual intercourse is inherently social. The act of artistic creation is in itself satisfying, and requires no direct social approval for such satisfaction to occur.

There is certainly such a component, but it is not a necessary condition. Only sufficient. The necessary condition is clearly "necessity to show what I can do, otherwise there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to produce art.

Not so clear to me.

In that case, in fact, I would only think onto myself in a repetitive act, and this would be th end of the story".
We are social beings. We would hope to be lonely beings, but for various reason we must be surrounded by others, in order to see our individuality. Regarding Art, it is a medium to interact with an observer, being yourself or someone else. If art were pursued only for being statically laid onto a pedestal and left there as time goes by, without external intervention (i.e. observation), none could interact with it, thus, nobody could judge it (because judgment is a true and pure form of intervention).

This is opinion, not fact.

Malmsteen or Petrucci's audience is self-contained and self-consistent. An audience has to be more general than the one which follows you as religious worshippers (music fan can be regarded as such sometimes. That's why we call ourselves "fans", i.e. fanatics) . It is so obvious that artists, creating a specific music, canonized in a very peculiar way, will be liked by their direct group of people. More difficult if, though not a fanatic of yours, someone can become interested in your art, no matter how far it is from your common tastes and ideas.

But even if their audiences are "self-contained" (which I don't believe they are), then according to your above claims, then artist satisfies the necessary and sufficient conditions you imposed above.

...if I blindly trusted my natural audience's appreciation, then I would fall into a never.-ending spiral, whose way out would be highly unlikely to take place, because I would fear to leave a virtual place I forged where I feel secure, instead of going beyond the certainty.

I think that the audience, natural or otherwise, is irrelevant. When an artist ceases to please himself, he ceases to be an artist: he is no longer communicating his message, but is merely a messenger of another's communication

Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 13 2008 at 22:34

WinterLight wrote:

You're right: I merely advance propositions in the above email; I don't provide evidence. But that's not quite the same as saying I'm not making an argument. My 'all art is compromise' conclusion is declared on the basis of what came before: the notion that artists do consider their audiences does, I think, imply compromise. All this depends on the theory of communication one wishes to employ, of course, which, while relevant, will probably pull this thread away from its purpose.

As for 'choosing' an audience, it should be noted that this isn't quite the same as taking the characteristics of an audience into account. My first novel reached quite a different (and wider) audience than either I or the publisher expected, which meant I felt I had at least to consider the wishes of a younger audience when writing the second and third books in the series. Only when I'd closed off that series could I then begin a new story with a darker subtext. I didn't choose my audience - they chose me. And, without being expressly driven to shape my work to their desires, I did feel an obligation to consider them.

My research into cartographic communication was done because the models currently in vogue did not consider the users of maps at all. So, while a truism in the broader communication field, the notion of cartographers being influenced by audiences was a novel one and flew in the face of those who argued that maps were scientific, objective, value-free documents.

This means I'm still comfortable with the notion that Bruford's comments are on the mark. I take your point that its unrealistic for an audience to expect to perceive all the meanings imbued in a particular piece of art without effort, but I do think there's an equal degree of laziness on the part of artists who don't make provision for their audiences. There's a skill, after all, in good communication - one which, as this overlong response shows, I'm still grappling with! LOL

Posted By: areazione
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 10:52

WinterLight wrote:

areazione wrote:

Most of the times I fail with English, because it is not my mother tongue.
Thanks for your precise correction.

To be honest, I couldn't tell that you weren't a native speaker of English. In any case, my objections weren't grammatically based.

Good

This joy transforms itself into self-appreciation, which he postulated being the only purpose to create our own art. That is psychologically understandable: no human being desires to express himself merely for the ecstatic and egocentric purpose to delight himself.

That's like saying people don't masturbate because sexual intercourse is inherently social. The act of artistic creation is in itself satisfying, and requires no direct social approval for such satisfaction to occur.

Of course it is satisfying by its own mean. And as I said, there is a component of it in artistic creation. But it is a finite fraction of the whole story. Human beings have got both social and self consciousness. My point is that any individual action is subjected to a social need. We can argue on its relative weight, percentage.

Question: would person, born lonely on a desert island with no cognition of society and community of people, create art?

There is certainly such a component, but it is not a necessary condition. Only sufficient. The necessary condition is clearly "necessity to show what I can do, otherwise there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to produce art.

Not so clear to me.

Distinction between "necessary" and "sufficient" condition or else?

In that case, in fact, I would only think onto myself in a repetitive act, and this would be th end of the story".
We are social beings. We would hope to be lonely beings, but for various reason we must be surrounded by others, in order to see our individuality. Regarding Art, it is a medium to interact with an observer, being yourself or someone else. If art were pursued only for being statically laid onto a pedestal and left there as time goes by, without external intervention (i.e. observation), none could interact with it, thus, nobody could judge it (because judgment is a true and pure form of intervention).

This is opinion, not fact.

Even yourself can be considered an observer (and in fact it is. Quantum mechanics is based upon this statement), and this is the reason why I cannot understand why you consider my point just an opinion and not a fact.

Malmsteen or Petrucci's audience is self-contained and self-consistent. An audience has to be more general than the one which follows you as religious worshippers (music fan can be regarded as such sometimes. That's why we call ourselves "fans", i.e. fanatics) . It is so obvious that artists, creating a specific music, canonized in a very peculiar way, will be liked by their direct group of people. More difficult if, though not a fanatic of yours, someone can become interested in your art, no matter how far it is from your common tastes and ideas.

But even if their audiences are "self-contained" (which I don't believe they are), then according to your above claims, then artist satisfies the necessary and sufficient conditions you imposed above.

It doesn't satisfy the necessary condition, because in producing only for one restricted group, that group becomes a unit, a single listener, which is not so improbable to become a transposition of yourself.

...if I blindly trusted my natural audience's appreciation, then I would fall into a never.-ending spiral, whose way out would be highly unlikely to take place, because I would fear to leave a virtual place I forged where I feel secure, instead of going beyond the certainty.

I think that the audience, natural or otherwise, is irrelevant. When an artist ceases to please himself, he ceases to be an artist: he is no longer communicating his message, but is merely a messenger of another's communication

Could be true, but I do believe that this attitude will never happen, due to an impossible abstraction of your existence with respect to the rest of the social space you occupy.

-------------
Umbra profunda sumus, ne nos vexetis, inepti; non vos, sed doctos tam grave quaerit opus

Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 11:42

areazione wrote:

Question: would person, born lonely on a desert island with no cognition of society and community of people, create art?

I think so: there's reason to believe that humans, as a consequence of their intelligence, are inherently creative. It simply needs to come out, even if no one is present to appreciate it. This is analogous to a house cat initiating play even if no other cats or humans are around.

There is certainly such a component, but it is not a necessary condition. Only sufficient. The necessary condition is clearly "necessity to show what I can do, otherwise there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to produce art.

Not so clear to me.

Distinction between "necessary" and "sufficient" condition or else?

No. I don't see why it is "clear" that artistic production implies a "necessity to show what I can do, otherwise there wouldn't be any need whatsoever to produce art."

In that case, in fact, I would only think onto myself in a repetitive act, and this would be th end of the story".
We are social beings. We would hope to be lonely beings, but for various reason we must be surrounded by others, in order to see our individuality. Regarding Art, it is a medium to interact with an observer, being yourself or someone else. If art were pursued only for being statically laid onto a pedestal and left there as time goes by, without external intervention (i.e. observation), none could interact with it, thus, nobody could judge it (because judgment is a true and pure form of intervention).

This is opinion, not fact.

Even yourself can be considered an observer (and in fact it is. Quantum mechanics is based upon this statement), and this is the reason why I cannot understand why you consider my point just an opinion and not a fact.

I think that you mean "special relativity" rather than "quantum mechanics." In any case, the reasoning is fallacious: you can't arbitrarily use a model of a certain phenomenon in order to explain another distinct phenomenon.

Malmsteen or Petrucci's audience is self-contained and self-consistent. An audience has to be more general than the one which follows you as religious worshippers (music fan can be regarded as such sometimes. That's why we call ourselves "fans", i.e. fanatics) . It is so obvious that artists, creating a specific music, canonized in a very peculiar way, will be liked by their direct group of people. More difficult if, though not a fanatic of yours, someone can become interested in your art, no matter how far it is from your common tastes and ideas.

But even if their audiences are "self-contained" (which I don't believe they are), then according to your above claims, then artist satisfies the necessary and sufficient conditions you imposed above.

It doesn't satisfy the necessary condition, because in producing only for one restricted group, that group becomes a unit, a single listener, which is not so improbable to become a transposition of yourself.

I don't think that this actually happens (maybe in pop music, but even there I'm not so sure). Look, for example, the controversy over the new album by Opeth: although many longtime fans don't like the album, many others do (including Akerfeldt).

...if I blindly trusted my natural audience's appreciation, then I would fall into a never.-ending spiral, whose way out would be highly unlikely to take place, because I would fear to leave a virtual place I forged where I feel secure, instead of going beyond the certainty.

I think that the audience, natural or otherwise, is irrelevant. When an artist ceases to please himself, he ceases to be an artist: he is no longer communicating his message, but is merely a messenger of another's communication

Could be true, but I do believe that this attitude will never happen, due to an impossible abstraction of your existence with respect to the rest of the social space you occupy.

Not sure what you mean here.

Posted By: areazione
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 19:25

I do not really want to annoy you all guys with this pseudo-philosophical debate started by me.

So you tell me if I can go on or better stopping here.

-------------
Umbra profunda sumus, ne nos vexetis, inepti; non vos, sed doctos tam grave quaerit opus