Oh well, all in all I'm just glad there is a forum here of like minded individuals here who appreciate music as an art form, and not as a fashion trend or disposable market product!

 

 

 

 

Most listeners eschew jazz, classical, and even progressive music, because the music can be taxing mentally. There is no primal, dumbfounding beat to bob your head along with as in Rap, with its emphasis on  monosyllabic rhymes at the end of each measure, and a repetitive, jingling sequence looping eternally in the background.

 

Squash banana

Squash banana

Squash banana

Squash banana...

 

Music for the lobotomized.

the `many` outweigh` the `few`

the `mob` will belittle the percieved `minority`

so , dont bother trying to serve up pearls before pop-minded normal geezers.

be selective yes.

on the flip side , its nice to belong to a `cult` genre.

also though.

it must be also admitted , that `we` , deride the pap-normal superficial stuff `they` listen to ., and they are probably aware of this, so treat `our` stuff with `impunity`.

none of us get out of this alive.

its best being on `our` side of the fence.

and as for popularity ., prog is certainly on the rise.

progressive does denote a degree of complexity , and requires effort ., whereas pop stuff is the antithesis of this.

pop followers do not wish to make much effort with their music.

pop followers are probably more `body centric` ., and as such probably will be better `dancers` on the whole than the `prog-wallowers`.

generalising of course.

Many people I know simply say prog "sounds bad" but in reality, those same people have no understanding of music, composition, techniques, and performance.  Its the same people who listen to and praise the generic mainstream super corporate pop/rap stars who diss prog, yet as I get older I realize sadly this is a large percentage of people.

Most people are more receptive to prog than many members of of this forum are willing to admit, they just haven't heard of it because there's no way for them to unless they go looking. You'll have a lot easier time "converting" people to prog than trying to get them to like avant-garde music. And if they don't like it after they've heard of it, who cares? Why do people have to care about the same music you do? Music has no inherent meaning, all arrangements of sound are equally bad or good. 

Epignosis wrote: My dad literally fell asleep halfway through listening to my first album.

This is the first valid complaint in the thread. That hurts, he should at least have been able to pretend to be interested in your work!

You aren't right or wrong in thinking the way you do. But what you do believe betrays a severe lack of comprehension regarding psychology, sociology, blahblahblah, etc. etc. 

 

As the Emperor Joseph II once told Mozart: "Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many

 

Also, I have seen this done before. Do we really want everyone to love prog? Wouldn't that take away our individuality? I know I wouldn't want that.

 

This!

 

In seriousness, prog is long-winded, not easily digestible, and perhaps the most poignant point, everyone has different taste! otherwise everyone would like the same stuff. And though it is fun to be unique in liking prog, I sure would like to find SOMEBODY who lives near me who likes prog...

 

Doesn't matter, really. Whole droves of folk loved prog in the 70s before donning leisure suits and wide collar floral polyester shirts and going off to the disco, which was right before they got mohawks, pierced their lips with safety pins and snarled like Johnny Rotten. I know dozens of people who actually followed each and every musical fad like they would change their underwear, which was usually daily. Stick with what you like. It doesn't matter who follows.

 

I am reminded of the words of the great philosopher, Frank Vincent Zappa, who once said:

 

I still wouldn't want to be part of the mainstream music crowd. That would take a bunch of me from me.

I should listen to more Zappa.

 

Once upon a time, prog was relatively mainstream. It was delightful growing up in the 70s, partly because the drugs were better...ummm....but that's not my point. In Detroit, for instance, we had three album-oriented-rock radio stations playing whole albums and album sides, and I even recall one, WWWW, going quadrophonic and playing the quad version of Aqualung in its entirety (my friend had a Marantz quad stereo, which was very cool back then). They used to play Rush and Deep Purple on AM STATIONS! It was a remarkable time to be just getting into music. Sadly, there isn't really anything to equate to it now. Maybe the air was different back then or something.

Why have radio when you got the internet? You can listen to whatever you want whenever you want.

 

Some music does make you dumb, it seems. Here is a study of SAT scores (and the music the students listened to) done by Virgil Griffith, creator of Wiki-Scanner and a Cal-Tech grad. It seems that those students that listened to L'il Wayne scored an average SAT of 889, while those that listened to Pink Floyd scored an average of 1120. The average SAT score overall was 1000-1100. Of course, listening to Beethoven was off the charts at an average of 1371.

 

 

Of course, the study does not take into account societal differences, economic disparities or other variations in educational achievement. But it is funnier than hell.

 

In addition, there is a direct correlation with brain function and classical music known as The Mozart Effect, which shows that listeners have a higher spatial-temporal reasoning ability at task completions over the short term. There is also evidence that shows that training in classical music promotes long term development of the brain, particularly in children who have begun playing prior to age 7...

 

http://www.music-articles.com/sciencecorner/music---intelligence--will-listening-to-music-make-you-smarter----by-duane-shinn.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.music-articles.com/sciencecorner/music---intelligence--will-listening-to-music-make-you-smarter----by-duane-shinn.html

 

What has this got to do with progressive music? Not a damn thing. I just thought it was interesting.

Depends, are you talking about "pop music" as in, music that is popular (on the charts?), or "pop music", the genre? I think pop music the genre is much more interesting than a lot of people think, but pop music the charts mostly in a desolate hell-hole. I think a lot of serious music fans probably listen to pop the genre. 

I think the biggest problem is the "not real music fans" thing. I think a lot of people do shun things because they're different, or even just because they're obscure. I don't think it's because they "can't digest it" musically though. 

 

rogerthat wrote: I think your comment first of all has a disrespectful tone, so I don't see why your co workers should have respected your music.

Henry Plainview wrote:   The problem is when people think there's something wrong with this and the music they listen to. "Serious music fans" like pop music too.

Alitare wrote: My feelings reside with Henry's here. Why do people think prog is superior to pop?

..............welll that's an interesting, very personal opinion.

 

 

I think it doesn't have to do with "prog". I'm by the way not a "prog fan", and the issue for me is not "defending prog". The thing is that anything outside mainstream, or music reflecting the current times , will often be questioned. You don't have to play "prog" , you just have to play something "different". The other day I was listening to baltic folk radio. If I'd played it in a public place, of course it would have gotten some remarks, like "this is absurd" or something. And that can be understandable, it can be very odd, I'm not used to a lot of that stuff myself. It's about the way we deal with foreign sounds we aren't accustomed to.

 

And mainstream music, because it is played everywhere in different places or situations, everyone is accustomed to it. Hearing a new song with mainstream characteristics won't make anyone startled, because they recognize all it's traits, so it's "safe".

 

The unfortunate thing is how little room there is for alternative sounds in open, public places. It's as if it's forbidden, and when you play something, for instance "prog", it's like you break a golden rule. No such music in public places!

Is that good or bad? What is the topic here, is it that pop music sucks!? Read the name of the thread?

But what Henry said wasn't a personal opinion. Music truly has absolutely no intrinsic worth. What he's saying is that only we humans subjectively appreciate music. It doesn't affect stones and twigs in that manner. Thinking one form of music is superior to another is completely a self-delusion, and a work of subjective, circumstantial feelings. He wasn't saying he doesn't like or dislike any music. Of course he has feelings as do we all. He wasn't transferring his chemical reactions into an opinion at that time. You simply cannot scientifically prove one band or genre is superior to any other. Once you're able to quantify and correlate 'goodness', I'll be on board.

Personally, I detest Rush as much as I adore Jethro Tull. I detest Lady Ga Ga as much as I adore Electric Light Orchestra. I'm here because I like to argue with folks.

 

Overall, from good responses in this thread, i've gathered progressive music is very much an acquired taste, doesn't sound 'safe' and familiar, so is inherently "strange" and offputting for many people.  AKA  Music best to be played when the objective is to really focus on what is going on- not as background music or "doing things music" .  I understand people like different forms of music for different reasons, and there is nothing wrong with pop, I love 80's synth pop and new wave just as I love prog so don't think I am bashing here, its just an observation.

 

I totally disagree - then it doesn't matter what you do. If you randomly hit notes on the piano, and the guitarist does the same, and everything is out of tune, and the vocalist doesn't even try to sing with feeling or with any effort. How would that sound? Bad? If music has no intrinsic worth, how can you say it's bad?

 

"all arrangements of sound are equally bad or good" - that's what Henry was saying. The way its stated is absurd to me. Saying "Everything is subjective" is another thing - but I wouldn't agree with that either. It's an oversimplification of a subject which is very philosophically challenging.

 

Alitare wrote: Thinking one form of music is superior to another is completely a self-delusion, and a work of subjective, circumstantial feelings.

 

Yeah. Comparing the qualities of entire forms of music is very generalizing. It's easier to say that "I like this song more than that song".

 

 

Alitare wrote: You simply cannot scientifically prove one band or genre is superior to any other. Once you're able to quantify and correlate 'goodness', I'll be on board.

 

I don't know why anyone would even want to do that. That's just dull . Regarding peoples opinions though, nothing is carved in stone. I take that into account. When someone listens to something contemporary, I may suspect that this person won't likely listen to that music a few years from that point. If the whole point is to "stay current", then the music itself is not all that matters

However, I don't see were the original poster says that prog is better than pop. It simply wasn't the topic as far as I know.

What his true feelings for pop, rap are seem to be borne out of what he felt like saying apparently to that guy, but didn't.  And I would absolutely tell somebody who tried to make me listen to a dull, by the numbers pop song that sorry, this sounded boring to me and I am not interested. It does not bother me in the least if they call me elitist or whatever. Music fans are constantly caught in launching into character assassinations simply because someone doesn't like their favourite music (oh, the shock, the horror!) and I can't be bothered, really.  Now, bear in mind that to say that a particular pop song is dull is not the same thing as saying all pop music sucks and people who listen to it are not endowed with the superior intelligence that the Lord Almighty bestowed to prog heads. If somebody gets all butthurt about even saying that I called the song they wanted me to listen to boring, sorry, that can't be helped. It's just my opinion and you asked for it by making me listen to it.  If your feelings about your favourite songs are so precious and fragile, don't subject yourself to further torture by sharing it with many people which will lead to more heartburn. 

 

Again, music has no universal value. If it did, rocks, trees, chimpanzees, and aquatic life forms would be lined up to go see the next Rihanna concert, but they aren't. We humans are the only ones to do what we with art on this floating orb. It is a biased perspective. How can you scientifically prove that the music produced by a toddler wailing on a toy piano is 'bad'? Can you do this with charts, graphs, and infallible data? If we cannot prove inherent goodness or badness, then how can music be universally measurable? If one song is not better than any other song, then the song has no objective worth. When he said 'no universal worth', he wasn't saying music is worthless. He was saying that it can never be bad or good, it only exists. Gee, I thought this concept was easier to comprehend than this. 

I am quite familiar, to say the least, with backpedalling on the net but I don't dislike it any less for it. So, I am going to reproduce a portion of the opening post which, I am sorry, sets the tone of further discussion on the topic.  Is it just an honest question about why a lot of people don't like prog? I don't think so, not if you read the below in conjunction with the words "our beloved music".

I am really sorry we prog heads let you down but we are NOT a brotherhood. We just happen to listen to a lot of diverse music that is lumped in one basket for some reason.

That's pretty simple. Simply banging keys on a supposed musical instrument without making a tune in rhythm is not music, it's just a bunch of sounds (ergo, the question of good or bad does not arise!).  We cannot go so far as to even tamper with the bare basic tenets of music under the pretext of upholding subjectivity.  I am, by the way, distinguishing between what is atonal or dissonant and what is plainly un-musical and that difference exists objectively, it is NOT the figment of my imagination.  I am not a musicologist so how it can be established is music or not is not for me to answer (I don't believe that that necessarily means there is no distinction between music and all sounds per se).  

By the way, chimps also don't drive cars or construct buildings to live in or work at.  Humans are different from other living creatures in many ways, so they do perceive things that those do not.  And that is not a subjective perception. Perceiving music as opposed to the sound of a truck engine is real (and please don't give me an example of how the sound of a vehicle was woven into music because that's not my point at all) and objective. What resides in the realm of our subjective perception is how much we like the music.   

My question wasn't whether or not the toy piano banging was music, but whether or not it was universally 'bad'. I don't care if it's music or not. It's sound. Some could appreciate these sounds. Ever heard of Aleatoric music? It's music crafted by chance. My question was, how could you intrinsically prove the wailing's inferiority.

But that distorts the very question at hand. If it is not even music, the question of whether it is inferior or not does not have to be answered. If a kid were able to flawlessly play totally crappy stuff, I could not call it objectively bad music (though I will continue to say it is crappy In My Opinion ) but a kid not making music at all and simply hitting keys on the piano is not music. And I did not say sound per se cannot be appreciated. I loved the chance of hearing a lion's roar when, as a child, I would go to the zoo. Majestic and fearsome, but not music.  All sounds I appreciate are not music. Music necessarily has to be in melody and rhythm.  We have stretched the boundaries of melody really far by now but it's still melody, it still fits into a pattern (even if it may appear to be random on a superficial reading), that is non negotiable. If the toddler by sheer accident hit a melodic sequence, I would identify that alone as music, no problem.  But that's the starting point of any discussion - it must be music in the first place. 

Again, aleatoric music allows for purely randomized and 'patternless' 'music'. It is a human definition at any rate. Do we humans invent the universe?

Would still have to listen to it to comment on it, because I don't know much about this concept. That is, I am not questioning its being music, rather, there must be a good reason why it is called music. Because, no, nobody calls it music when my father wants to be a child again and raises a proper racket with that flute, making absolutely no sense whatsoever and not intending to either. 

Is Henry Plainview you father? 

Not everyone has been socialized into liking music that demands more than just casual listening to fully appreciate. Not everybody like the same things even after socialization and learning and modeling. Of course simple enjoyable music is more attractive than 10+ minute songs that talk about purple clouds for the normal person who conceives music just as a hobby or more so just as a side entertainment. Not everybody holds music in that big sacred pantheon that prog lovers and even more so classical music fans like I do. For some people it's just sounds, for others is more than that. Some people want to be told something else by the notes, some prefer to dance to it, some prefer to drive to it. Whatever. 

The important thing is to recognize that all options are valid. Yes, I won't say I think Kanye West is equal to JSBach, but given the circumstances, I might even find some enjoyment in some songs of the former. The latter, of course, always fill my entire soul. 

We are not THAT unidimensional, or so I hope at least...  

 

People commonly have an opinion already in the first 30 seconds of a song, and in such cases , I'm not offended by their supposed opinion, because they can't have a real opinion of something they haven't heard. It's a close-mindedness which doesn't bother me, but everyone can't have a real interest for music. But if someone says to me with contempt that "this sucks" , I'm just very unimpressed by that person. But it hasn't happened, probably because I haven't played music among people. I play it at home, but I'm not a fan of earphones, I want music to be played out in free space, that's what it's supposed to be, not confined and directed inwards to your brain.

 

rogerthat wrote:   If your feelings about your favourite songs are so precious and fragile, don't subject yourself to further torture by sharing it with many people which will lead to more heartburn.

 

I could probably convince a few people that some artist is worth listening to, but then they will be interested just because they have faith in my opinions, and I really like people to feel for themselves. I might say that "I have discovered this great artist". But if the reply is "Great!" rather than "What artist?", then I won't push more information on them if they aren't interested. maybe it's cynical, but I discover so many artists with so many different qualities that the only kind of people I could share it with are those that are doing the same thing - people hunting for new musical discoveries with an open mind.

 

wilmon9 wrote: 1I could probably convince a few people that some artist is worth listening to, but then they will be interested just because they have faith in my opinions, and I really like people to feel for themselves. I might say that "I have discovered this great artist". But if the reply is "Great!" rather than "What artist?", then I won't push more information on them if they aren't interested. maybe it's cynical, but I discover so many artists with so many different qualities that the only kind of people I could share it with are those that are doing the same thing - people hunting for new musical discoveries with an open mind.

All that is only possible when listeners show patience, which they commonly don't. And I mean listeners here in general, not prog, not pop, they are all the same as far as I am concerned, including myself.  We are too busy with the hustle and bustle of the modern way of life to always be able to properly appreciate another perspective. But for the curious, the internet and its myriad social networks and communities is a boon. You can always discover great music nobody told you about just by reading stuff patiently on the net and following up on the suggestions. That is how I began to listen to prog rock. I did not have to wait for somebody to make the effort to initiate me into it. I found the term used in some context, read about it on wikipedia and I was away.  If people are not curious enough to get into new or "not-heard-before" music in this sort of fashion, they are probably not too keen on expanding their musical horizon anyway and not worth troubling.

 

wilmon9 wrote: All people deserves a fair chance of discovering alternative kinds of music. I don't think it should be hidden away.

See above. People who are interested will find out for themselves and the rest can go to hell.  It's no great loss if they don't find out about something they might like because it's just music at the end of the day. Nasty, perhaps, but saves a lot of trouble.

 

So that would happen if a piece of music had an objective high quality? Rocks have no mind. Can animals comprehend and understand music? If they can in some way, how would we know their approach to it? Just because a fish might like Rihanna doesn't mean it would cancel all their daily duties and go and buy a concert ticket .Animals are closer to nature than humans and rely mostly on survival instinct, they are really dedicated to it.

 

Alitare wrote: How can you scientifically prove that the music produced by a toddler wailing on a toy piano is 'bad'? Can you do this with charts, graphs, and infallible data? If we cannot prove inherent goodness or badness, then how can music be universally measurable?

 

Science has it's limits. You can only use human reasoning, you can't prove such things. And the exact measure of the quality of a music piece is impossible to determine, it can only be estimated. You can also judge music from different perspectives - if a song is made to serve a specific purpose, you can estimate how well it served that purpose, but judged by itself, by its own quality unrelated to everything else, it has to be judged with all kinds of perspectives at the same time.

 

I'm just thinking out loud...If you judge a tea-bag by itself for instance, what is it without water? You need water and the tea-bag to make a complete drink. Individual music pieces, are they, or do they need to be complete? If you hear a crazy extremely loud punk rock song , it's probably made as a contrast or reaction to society or something else. So its a counter reaction. So the song might be dependent on the larger context to be "complete".  I think music , though it can have divine qualities, it always reflects the human aspirations, feelings and stuff. So a perfect piece of music doesnt have to contain all kinds of moods, rhythms, tempos to be "great" and "complete". It reflects human aspects with different perspectives. Just some random thoughts to try to point to the extreme complexity of the question.

If animals only rely on survival instinct, then are you implying they don't think or dream? Animals think, learn, and grow. They have instincts similarly to ours, and they perceive sound. But to them, who knows what the difference between David Bowie and Slayer means? You aren't a rabbit, you can't tell.  My question, which has yet to be answered, is how can you intrinsically prove that one song is universally 'better' than another?

 

You can't, as I said, you can only use reason.

But which reason is the best reason?

However, even within these forums you can read the adamant posture that some fans take regarding music. It is as if they gave birth to the genre all by themselves. It is one thing to love your genre of music and another to just bash anything that doesn't cut it in your eyes. Plus, many of these people will criticise something or someone with the same fervour a Lioness defends her cubs. I think it's insane but I'm sure I'm in just part of a small minority. 

Many "proggers" love to boast about how much better their taste in music is. Many think their opinion is the only one that counts which comes across as very off-putting.

I consider myself a big fan of progressive rock. I grew up with it as it grew up itself. I have worked for many progressive acts as well as putting out two CDs of progressive music myself. I have performances by people like Bill Bruford and John Goodsall on my albums and worked with sound engineers over at Abbey Road Studios and Metropolis. I don't consider myself the ultimate expert but I like to think that I know a thing or two about the subject. 

What I'm not, is somebody that lets his feelings for the genre close his eyes to other posibilities. There are many good fans here but there are also many haters with not much in mind other than to take the opposite point of view regardless. Perhaps there is some of that in the reasons as to why progressive rock is not more popular.

Alot of people here can prolly relate to this (i know i do). Except those few people who have the same musical interest i talk to as much as i can about it. It is something i enjoy doing, wether people around us like hearing about my favorite part in a 20min song or not.

For that matter, we don't know if rabbits apply Newton's Laws of Gravity or Einstein's Theory of Relativity either.  That is simply irrelevant. Biologists have only studied animal behaviour but they do not really know what goes on in their minds so it is not necessary that animals should recognize the existence of music for it to be something universally proven. It is only universally accepted within mankind and that is enough. For the record, people have got chimps to play instruments, so it may even be possible, but I think it is irrelevant in any case.  

In my experience, even the most musically disinclined person can tell sound from music easily, regardless of whether he likes music or listens to it as a pastime, and that is enough evidence that music exists as different from sound.  We do not have to get into the outer fringes of avant garde and how musically illiterate people confused avant garde with sound because the whole purpose of such music is to push its boundaries and thereby closer to noise and sound and to that extent, it could even be said to have achieved its purpose. But anybody can tell a simple pop song as music and a revving up automobile engine as sound, so music exists.  What value we ascribe to music and whether we should ascribe any value to music at all are more subjective and debatable considerations, but music as a phenomenon in sound exists.

But you had earlier asked the question that how can a toddler wailing on a toy piano be called objectively bad music? My point is it would not even be music if he was just banging keys randomly, so the question of whether it is good or bad music does not arise.  Within the realm of whatever IS music, we cannot prove what is inherently bad or good music, I agree. You will, on the other hand, get most people to agree that the same toddler playing some 'musical' crap with horrible tones is terrible music. That is not proof but it is highly persuasive and most music discourse goes around on persuasion, not proof.

That's where all this came from.

Of course, I am not disagreeing with that essentially. I am saying that wilmon probably confused persuasion with fact.  Yes, you can get 9 or even 10 out of 10 people to say a particular piece of music sucks balls, but it's still not an objective fact because no objective basis of good or bad exists. A larger question: just how many objective bases of determining good or bad exist, for that matter?  Good or bad is qualitative and not quantitative and objectively proving something that is qualitative gets perceptive rather than purely factual.  When we say this is a good car and that one is not, it is again a subjective observation.  Only, there are fewer subjective bases of deciding what is a good car and better defined parameters at that than music, so people can compile charts of mileage or describe the legroom and interiors and guide you more reliably to make that decision. 

People have short attention spans for anything outside of what is most important in their lives....  and for most, actually sitting and listening and contemplating music falls well outside this boundary.

I understand how they feel as I have many friends, musicians included, that constantly talk about the latest video game they're playing.  I put up a brick wall where that's concerned...

Mostly, I think people want something memorable and nicely packaged.  It's a multimedia world and has been for sometime.  In competing with jobs, TV, video games, kids, and other responsibilities.... it's easy to understand how discovering new, interesting (though potentially inspiring) music can fall by the wayside.

Oh, I agreed earlier too that people do tell good from bad and people do agree a lot on these things, I am only saying it is still not something factual. But, yes, it's an opinion made on same basis, it's not completely random, I completely agree with that.  I should have added that when somebody disagrees with my saying that a kid playing crappy stuff on a piano sounds bad, I expect him to explain why and not just shrug, "It's my opinion", that's not enough.  Opinions are not formed out of thin air, agreed. To extend this further, one would be well within his rights to call "kid playing piano" bad, the fact that somebody else doesn't agree doesn't invalidate it unless that somebody else can say why.  If this were not the case, we would not be able to have any opinions about music and that would only hold good if we don't like or dislike music, that is,are numb to its effect on our senses.

 

wilmon91 wrote: Reasoning is a way to make logic out of your perceptions and feelings. Which is the best reasoning is a matter of opinion, but its the one that is based on the perception that is closest to the truth , and the one who explains in the most clear and unadulterated way. Humans have the ability to tell things that is in harmony from things in that is disharmony, and strive towards perfecting things. That's why we have arts. But the complexity of reality can make it harder to see where and what harmony is. But I mean that there are abstract values of goodness (ideals), and when something is created by a human, it can be more or less closer to these values. If you believe that all human creativity has a common ground , then it is these abstract things that gives rise to it. So I mean that good and bad music definitely exists, and the quality is based on all the aspects that constitute the music, but no one can know the exact measure of it, and it's impossible to make general rules regarding quality because of there always being exceptions.

Not addressed to me, but broadly agree with this as well.  It's important to distinguish between reasoned observations and whimsical impressions.  

Didn't she do an all-Tom Waits cover album? I hate her almost as much as Sheryl Crow and Rod Stewart for that.

Most people prefer "Music to dance to", which does not require much attention to details, just a nice beat and a catchy tune, not giving much importance to content.

"Music to listen to" on the other hand, has rich compositions, complex arrangements, elaborate orchestration, and requires attention while listening to it, to fully appreciate it. This type of music is for the intellectually inclined type of people, which is not the case for most of the human race, and is quite difficult for the average person to relate to.

"Music to listen to" includes classical, jazz, prog, and other genres which focus on composition, not on the beat, and is largely ignored by the music industry and general public, but it's highly appreciated by their fans. Most of it stands the test of time, unlike the vast majority of popular music of yesterday and today. 

 

I'm not a fan of Celine Dion either, but that definition is more to do with 'you' than 'we'.