Prog Snobbery
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=90253
Printed Date: December 04 2024 at 05:11
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Prog Snobbery
Posted By: menawati
Subject: Prog Snobbery
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 11:07
|
I got accused of being a music snob today at work because I told this guy all I listen to is prog, jazz, classical, folk and some metal. I explained to him that some of the pop-punk and indie sort of stuff he likes is ok but I'd never buy it or choose to listen to it because it bores me. Now it isn't quite true that I limit myself to those genres. I have loads of stuff I bought over the years from many genres including hard rock, punk, post-punk, alt, indie etc that I still enjoy but whenever I hear something new now it is VERY rare that I REALLY like something outside of prog, jazz, classical or maybe folk. Am I narrow-minded ? Or maybe am I jaded from hearing so much simple 3 chord music before that it all sounds the same now ? Or maybe I really am a snob who subconsciously limits myself ? I'm not sure any more. Do you think that prog fans can become elitist snobs ? ------------- They flutter behind you your possible pasts, Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost. |
Replies:
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 11:19
|
You might be narrow minded if you rely too much on categorization of music to guide you on what to listen to. Just let go and trust your instincts, you might discover something fresh from an unexpected source. We can't all enjoy all the music in the world, so it is ok to have preferences and likes and dislikes, actually; it is inevitable. As for whether prog fans can become elitist snobs, it could happen with just about any genre of music. Not appreciating enunciation in hip hop could become a point of snobbery over others, just as a hypothetical example. Snobbery is basically a "my opinion/tastes are better than yours" syndrome and it happens w.r.t lots of things, not just music, let alone specific genres of music. |
Posted By: Sumdeus
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 11:35
| it's really just a matter of if you act conceited or not.. Nothing wrong with standards. I won't hesitate to tell people I don't care for the music they're playing but if they get butthurt I'll explain that I don't think it's bad or they shouldn't like it, i just know what i like and i like what i know :P |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 11:37
|
I'm a music snob. But I like Lady Gaga and ABBA, so go figure.
------------- 
|
Posted By: menawati
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 11:39
|
Nowt wrong with liking ABBA, they did some of the best pop music ever made. ------------- They flutter behind you your possible pasts, Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost. |
Posted By: menawati
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 11:42
|
I mean with listening to new music though. There's only so much time you have to listen to new stuff and you have to limit yourself because of that. I'd love to be able to listen to every pop-punk release in the hope that there might be something new and appealing in there but the chances are very slim. This is snobbery I suppose. ------------- They flutter behind you your possible pasts, Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 11:57
Not anymore than it's snobbery to mainly read books in genres you already know you enjoy, eat foods you already know you like and watch movies that look good based on their trailers. You obviously can't try everything, so it's just an intelligent use of your time to focus in on what you think you'll have a better chance of enjoying. -------------
|
menawati wrote:Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 11:58
|
Here is the thing. You should never have to limit what you may like in terms of other music, but when you have decerning tastes that's what makes you an individual. Music tastes or affiliations should never really be subjective when you are trying to explain to someone. For example, when I'm asked 'hey man. What music do you like or what's your sound these days???' I simply say I love progressive music. Prog in itself is incredibly diverse and has a multitude I genres that fall under it. I don't start listing off genres to people because it usually goes over the head of a lot of people. Also, I am very affirmed in my music tastes because I know I'm listening to some of the most incredible, diverse music on the planet. When people ask me to check out a band or a specific song I do it because I'm often very curious to hear what others really like. I ask myself questions like 'do they get goosebumps when they listen to this stuff? ' where is the appeal? Anyway, to tell you the truth I guess I'm a hard man to please because 9.5/10 I am very dis interested in other peoples sound. I guess the people that I know in life listen to a lot of sh*tty music......I shouldn't say that though cause what's sh*tty to me is everything to them. I've learned to control my rages with that.
Above all, I don't think we as proggers are really limiting ourselves in any way because of the diversity of the prog genre itself. I hope that going forward nobody feels jaded about that statement. Prog leads to other things. Prog led me to DAFT PUNK for crying out loud. Lol. It's endless. Prog is thee most sophisticated music on the planet to me, so In a sense I AM A SNOB!!! ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: Sumdeus
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 11:58
| yeah i don't know if that's snobbery.. I feel like I don't have to listen to every pop punk record to know that I'm not gonna like any of them :P |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 12:03
|
Hi, Honestly? The pop music world is the snobbiest and most offensive of all the genres. And it's really simple ... for those people to not consider their music good, it would mean they are not very intelligent! Why bother ... it's an endless discussion about weewee size and everthing else in between! I do not talk about "progressive" ... because it is all MUSIC! ... and yeah anyone coming up to me saying they like progressive ... I usually look at them ... it's ok child ... you don't know music anyway ... but you might as well say that you like American Idol, because your comment fits there better!    It's almost like asking if you are black, or white, or green or blue, and your music can't be good because of it ... I really believe we need to get better than that ... "our" music was about this "better", not a style, btw! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 12:07
When people say that I'm a snob for listening MAINLY Prog, I say Yes...isn't that cool? Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 12:32
|
IT'S GREAT TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL!!! Never forget that ladies and gents. Also FYI the pop world is a joke. It's not music it's an entertainment industry. Nothing more! ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 12:32
|
Some Prog fans accuse other Prog fans of being elitist snobs (those who
like the more mainstream Prog compared to the more avant-garde Prog) --
it's a big umbrella. I love lots of pop music, plus classical, jazz, easy listening Tropica etc. I was once called a snob because I preferred the more obscure names under the Prog umbrella to the big names, and because my tastes in progressive rock were more experimental-oriented than the majority. If one disses more mainstream music, and seems to make it clear that one holds one's tastes as superior to others, than one could be expected to be called a snob. Sorry to snip your post:
Did he call a snob just because you mentioned what you liked, or was it after you mentioned that the music he listens to bores you, and that you would never choose to buy it? If it was after you made comments about how much you like the music that he likes, then he may have called you a snob as a reaction to you seemingly dissing the music he likes. There's nothing wrong with liking what you like, and telling people so. In real life more than here, I try not to say anything negative about other people's tastes in music, or film.... I've never been called a snob because of my tastes in music outside of the internet prog community, but then I tend not to talk about music away from the internet. I do seem to remember someone be in so-called real life being called a snob since he only liked so-called classical music (Western Art Music/ Academic Music), and was dismissive of pop/rock generally (as "base", unsopisticated music that appealed to the lowest common denominator).
Lots here like ABBA, including myself. Very talented group, and this is proggy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB1Om-L_O2Q" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB1Om-L_O2Q ------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts |
Posted By: Neelus
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 12:35
|
I think that people that listen to prog, jazz, classical etc. generally have alot more musical knowledge than most folks, and this might scare people off the conversation already...they dont understand it when I start talking music...or alot of them anyway. So I learnt that, when someone asks me what music I listen to, I mention a band, like for instance Pink Floyd or Rush (to make it easier )...often the other person will not even know the band, and just accept that...and sometimes they recognize it and might start talking about it...but each time I tried to explain the genre of progressive music I listen to, I found that mostly it does not quite gel that well  |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 12:37
Is it not then equally true that those who diss non-mainstream music (avant garde, musique concrete, noise, free jazz) are equally snobbish, since they hold their taste superior to others'? -------------
|
Posted By: menawati
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 12:39
I told him I'd heard all that stuff before in other music and that it bores me because it is totally unchallenging. That's when he said I was a music snob. I suppose that is acting a bit like a snob but it was the truth. ------------- They flutter behind you your possible pasts, Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 12:47
Certainly could be, why not? As a generality, yes. Depends a bit upon how equal the disses are, if you know what I mean. I've seen people who have called those types of music inane garbage, which is very snobby. Or called it non-music in a similar way to how some people call abstract art non-art.
I'm not at all surprised that he called you a snob then. ------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts |
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 12:51
 And this in a thread called "prog snobbery"... |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 12:52
|
I agree with what others have said, that being a "snob" is more a question of your attitude than of your preferences. Theoretically, we should all be open minded and give everything a chance before we pass judgment on it. But practically speaking, there are only so many hours in the day, and we tend to avoid (or at least postpone) listening to things we don't think we will like. No shame in that, I don't think. Someday I may give bluegrass music another chance, for example, but I'm in no hurry, and there's 18 other things I'd rather listen to right now. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 12:57
Yup. My snobbery just came out in full force there! Whoops. I admit I feel so strongly by how great prog is in general, so sometimes when I hear the word 'POP' I get scared.  . No no just kidding. There is a few pop elements that I like in music or more commercially sounding sound. Examples would be Genesis's DUKE and the Cure's DISENTEGRATION. Awesome stuff indeed. ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 12:58
Excellent. Now I have a comeback to use the next time someone attacks Metal Machine Music.  -------------
|
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 13:04
|
We Metal Machine Music fans gotta stick together.
------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 13:27
When you say METAL MACHINE do you mean Industrail sounding metal like FEAR FACTORYor something? Not sure  ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 13:37
|
If you happen to have discerning tastes, so be it! Accusations of music snobbery, prog or otherwise, are usually leveled at people who have delved into music with a lot of depth, and leveled by people that haven't. As has been pointed out, there is no law about what you can be into or not, in music. And then there is the old "classical music listeners are snobs", which is a worn out cliche, and ridiculous, really |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 13:42
It's a double album of nothing but horrible noise by Lou Reed, made to get out of a record contract. It's great. -------------
|
Posted By: menawati
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 14:17
In my experience its the other way round these days. A lot of metal fans who love dark moods and riffs and solos would find much to love in some classical music but they don't want to listen simply bcos its classical. Some metals fans I've thrown stuff like 'Night on a Bare Mountain' or some of the crazy solo violin Paganini stuff or some really dark Wagner have actually said they never knew what they were missing and love a lot of classical now. ------------- They flutter behind you your possible pasts, Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost. |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 14:22
Nothing wrong with being a prog snob.  ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 14:57
|
Inverted snobbery is just as bad.ie Simple is better or the only good musicians are bad musicians.
I believe in listening to bands who can play to a high level and artists who have ideas and preferably write/compose their own music. As someone said nothing wrong with Abba. However why I should I worry why about what others think anyway?
|
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 15:02
Omg that is hilarious!!! I can't believe that. Is it as tortuous as listening to the SHAGS?? Ahhh man that is funny! ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 17:18
|
The Shaggs are easy listening compared to Metal Machine Music. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 21:54
If those are the exact words you used, it is not surprising he would call you a snob. What's boring for you may not be for him. I agree with Logan; I generally avoid criticising somebody else's music in a one to one conversation, I would just say that I don't like it and leave it at that. |
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 22:34
|
I think it's ridiculous that someone should be called a snob for trying to make any sort of objective judgement about music. You can have an opinion that one band or album or song is objectively better than another without considering yourself the ultimate arbitrator of taste, just as you can have a political opinion without considering yourself the ultimate authority on political science. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and some are more true than others. You're not a snob if you think prog music is generally better than pop, nor are you a snob if you think that pop is generally better than prog. It's when people make sweeping generalizations, confine themselves to a single genre, ridicule others for their tastes, or refuse to acknowledge positive aspects of (in their opinion) subpar music that snobbery comes into play. So... Progressive rock is generally artistically superior to pop music because it bypasses crass commercialism, incorporates more interesting melodies, harmonies, and rhythms, and appeals to the deeper emotions of the heart rather than mere physical desires. (legitimate opinion) All prog is amazing and all pop music sucks because it's simple and stupid and mass produced and all of the songs are about sex and drugs (snobbery) ------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs |
Posted By: menawati
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 22:42
But it's boring for me because I've heard much more music than him. That stuff would not be boring for me if I hadn't heard the same old thing loads of times in heaps of popular music he's never heard of. I think it's ok to say something is objectively unchallenging and has been all done before. ------------- They flutter behind you your possible pasts, Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 22:43
That however would contradict the very notion of objectivity, which implies a statement that has basis in facts. It also implies impartiality, which is extremely difficult in music given that we are usually talking about the music we like. What one can be objective about is specific aspects of music taken in isolation...is one musician more technically accomplished than another....this can be evaluated without necessarily implying that makes the music of the former better than the latter. Music is not the sum total of its characteristics; it is a medium of expression. Every composition is like a living, breathing entity that presents, or hopes to present, the listener with an experience that is distinct. Music is born out of a composer's thoughts and goals and often takes shape spontaneously. It is difficult to compare unless both compositions can be reasonably assumed to serve the same need (which more or less rules out comparing compositions of different artists). I don't think it is snobbish to say one genre is better than the other as long as we recognize that it is a subjective statement that reflects our experiences in music. Therefore, it does not make the person who disagrees with such a statement wrong either. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 22:46
He's not obliged to listen to as much music as you, or the same music as you have. As for ok...eh, anything is ok in a free world but you are probably not going to endear yourself to him with such a comment as it would not sound very polite to him. As far as challenging goes, the notion of 'challenging music' is like a tower without a crest. So when you look down on some music as unchallenging, remember that somebody further up the tower is looking down on you as well...and that's a feeling you may not enjoy when you have to confront it first hand. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 22:46
I happen to like listening to horrible noise :( |
Posted By: menawati
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 22:55
Maybe 'challenging' was the wrong word for me to use. I meant more interesting to listen to, more likely to induce some emotion in me, more likely to provide something that's maybe new. As far as someone looking down on me I have no problem with that. Some of the best discoveries I've made in music have been from music snobs looking down on me, scoffing and telling me to listen to X, Y and Z. ------------- They flutter behind you your possible pasts, Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 23:01
It gets better...interesting is even more subjective than challenging. At least challenging implies complexity and what is more or less complex is more objective.
Well, to close the loop, even if you do not have a problem with a music snob looking down on you, it doesn't preclude somebody from disliking your perceived snobbish behaviour. |
Posted By: menawati
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 23:02
|
Oh well I guess I'm a snob then. Thanks for the interesting discussion anyway roger ------------- They flutter behind you your possible pasts, Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 23:12
Why the frown? Most of my favorite records are horrible noise. -------------
|
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 23:13
I don't think it contradicts the notion of objectivity, I just think it makes objectivity much more difficult because music is such a personal thing. When you analyze the quality of a composition, you're dealing with facts that you have to piece together with abstract reasoning to evaluate the whole piece. I suspect (in fact, I'm almost positive) that you and I disagree over whether value in music is objective or subjective; I think it's both, which is one of the things that makes music (and art in general) so intriguing, divisive, and appealing. I agree with you about music as a "living, breathing entity" and about the difficulty of comparing different compositions, but I also think that there are objective standards for quality in a piece of music. Ignoring the subjective leads to snobbery; ignoring the objective leads to absurdity (One Direction has equal artistic value to Mozart). ------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs |
Posted By: menawati
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 23:16
I totally agree with you. ------------- They flutter behind you your possible pasts, Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 23:20
As do I. Very well put. -------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 23:21
| Value in music is subjective because it is determined only by the consumers, the audience. Pre-20th century, it was determined by the establishment, which bestowed a lot of value on classical music. In the recording era, popular music gained importance because it could move the most copies off the shelf. I.e., value was being determined by the marketplace, just like any other commodity. I don't think such value is fair and it is frequently absurd (just like stock valuations) but that can't be helped once the Frankenstein is unleashed. It is not for me to say that society should accord maximum value to Mozart; society does what it does and I live with it and as long as I am not deprived permanently of access to the music I like I have no complaints. In any case, determination of value in music can never be a straightforward exercise. Westerners will find Mozart more valuable than Thyagaraja and vice versa for Indians. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 23 2012 at 23:21
Probably because of the "horrible" bit. I guess it's horrible to most people, though. |
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 00:42
I only think it's 'Prog snobbery' when you 'yourself' assume that what you listen to is the best music in the world and everyone else's taste sux if they don't listen to Prog. After all, it wouldn't be much fun if everyone went around name-dropping Caravan as opposed to Black Eyed Peas (now, is that 'prog snobbery' or what ??)  That should be : "now wouldn't it be refreshing if everyone went around name-dropping Caravan instead of Black Eyed Peas ?? " Two different ways of saying the same thing........or maybe I'm just  ........
|
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 01:18
|
I guess I am a snob when it comes to loving my prog. When I hear music I don't like it actually puts in a bad mood. It's my kryptonite really. Ok, now everyone knows how to destroy me....lock me in a room a play sh*tty music. ;( ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 01:34
|
^ that actually is a technique of 'persuasion' known to have been used on terrorism suspects |
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 12:33
well colour me devious!!!  ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 13:02
It's not quite right to view record sales as reflecting value in music. Record sales reflect value in records, not music. For example, people are less willing to pay high prices for classical records in general because most of those works are public domain, so there are lots of different recordings and increased competition. More supply = lower prices. A new record by a pop artist has a monopoly on its music, and so people pay a higher price for the recording. That doesn't mean that the music itself is more highly valued. If there was only one recording of Beethoven's Ninth, it would fetch a much higher price than the bargain basement classical CDs do, and I expect a much higher price than the latest Lady GaGa album. Who would sell more tickets to a live concert today, Justin Bieber or Paganini if he were still alive? Maybe Bieber would, but I think it's far from clear. My point is, the market for music is not the same as the market for records. -------------
|
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 13:09
| I'm a snob. I admit it. I can't help it. I don't even like my snobbery. I sincerely can't help hating people who love or worship certain things that disgust me. I know it is wrong but I can't help it. |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 14:42
|
Interesting observation on classical music vs pop music "monopoly", llama. Because there are but a relative handful of (popular) classical pieces to record, classical "snobs" will tell you that it is the conductor and the orchestra whom they're really evaluating when they listen to the music. They focus on HOW the piece is played, and not so much WHAT the piece is actually like. It's assumed that the musical piece is great, and a classical album's value is based on the quality of the performance. That's one reason I could never get into that stuff. I'm more interested in the composer, and to a lot of classical buffs I've met, the composer himself is almost a moot point.
edit: btw "snobs" is in quotes above because I'm using the term facetiously. I try not to use the term in a categorical sense. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 16:36
I'm the same way man. I can't hold back sometimes on the pathetic worships of sh*t music by others. It flat-out puts me in a bad mood. For instance, of I'm in the back seat of a car and one of my friends is playing god awful music from the radio station I simply have to ask nicely and say, 'please, with extra sugar on top, turn this off.' lol I don't stand a chance and it's only getting worse.  ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 18:38
|
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 18:53
That's a logical fallacy, an ad populum, the appeal to the masses. I'm not talking about monetary value; that's obviously determined by the market. I'm talking about a value intrinsic to the music itself. In the same way, the fact that more people hire one company for a particular service does not prove that that particular company is the best; their service may be inferior to another company, but if they are more established, more visible, or have better advertising, they will most likely have more success in the market. I would agree that determination of value in music is anything but straightforward; that doesn't mean it's merely subjective. I also acknowledge cultural, functional, and personal differences in the way each person perceives music. That's the subjective part. I try to take these things into account when evaluating music; to consider that the music might affect someone else differently than me, and to appreciate the music on it's own terms rather than imposing a foreign criteria upon it. Ultimately, artistic value has to do with what the music conveys and how it affects people; certain composition and performance techniques accomplish that goal better than others, but different techniques are prized more highly in different circles, and a musical goal can be accomplished in many ways. ------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 19:51
Which is why it is subjective. How it affects people is way too personal to lend itself to anything more than a personal satisfaction index, which you might call value if you so please. I know what you are struggling with - the thought that all the skill and creativity of a great artist only amounts to something very subjective and abstract may not sound particularly good but that's how it is. Artists have complained that it is difficult to understand compensation in the music field as there is not much correlation between performance and reward. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 19:58
If the market for music is not the same as market for records, what IS the market for music? How IS value in music determined? If it is indeed not completely subjective, there must be a much more systematic way of determining it than any I have heard in several discussions on this subject. How well Paganini would sell today would depend on how he is marketed. If he is packaged suitably as some sort of retro virtuoso, he might just strike gold. Perception has a lot to do with it; whether musicians can convince the audience that they deliver a different experience that might be worth their time. I think people who listen to sophisticated music tend to look too much at skill and technique in this argument but the audience also craves a different experience. An artist who can deliver that and is also promoted well will create 'value'. It is after all such a craving for simpler forms that encouraged the push from baroque to classical. It was a shift not only in musical but also architectural aesthetics. Had nothing to do with the fact that baroque had more complex counterpoint than classical at that point of time. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 19:59
That is partly also because contemporary classical composers are scattered and have a limited market, if any, outside their home territory. People are content to listen to performances of the same 'classic' compositions. The irony! |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 20:07
There is no "pure" market for music, because you can't buy music independently of some format. I think concert sales is a slightly closer approximation than record sales, but it's still not the same thing. How is value determined? It's determined by analysis and opinion. This is the same as for any other good that is not sold in a market. The value of scientific theories is determined by peer review. The value of a free fireworks show is determined by ex-post reviews. Of course there is a lot of subjectivity, but I still think it is not 100% subjective, for reasons that I have explained before. -------------
|
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 21:03
The way in which music affects people is not completely subjective. When a musician composes and performs a piece, he puts an emotion and a message into the song. The devices used to accomplish the conveying of these emotions and messages have an impact upon the human brain, and though the responses may differ with the listener, they are going to fall within a certain range because they are triggered by the same stimuli. Whenever a human encounters a piece of art, he interprets that art according to two "books," so to speak; the "book" of the piece of art, and the "book" of his own mind. The "book" which the composer writes is the objective part; the "book" which the listener writes is the subjective part. You can't do away with either. I'm not "struggling" with anything, by the way; I have thought about this subject quite a bit and have come to this conclusion based upon my own study of music and the analysis I have heard from others. It has nothing to do with me wanting my music to have some kind of objective value, or being unable to deal with the subjectivity of music. As you can clearly see, I do acknowledge subjectivity in musical value along with objectivity (though I do tend to emphasize the objective because the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" view is so prevalent in today's society). ------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 21:08
Interesting story related to this post: I was discussing the music of Philip Glass (we all know Glass here, yes?) with a girl from Australia. She said that his music reminded her of trains, and that she found it very depressing. She also said that she had an American friend who also found Glass' music trainlike, but that he found it very uplifting. She speculated that Americans have a romantic cultural attachment to trains that Australians lack, hence the differences in their perception of the music. So what Ambient Hurricanes says is right, the stimulus was objective (trains) but their reaction was subjective (depressing vs. uplifting) -------------
|
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 21:24
I have no idea who Philip Glass is, but that's an interesting and telling story. Emotional and cultural attachments and connotations are very powerful in determining our reaction to music. It would be interesting to know what emotion the composer intended to evoke with his piece, and what kinds of things he associated with trains. ------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 24 2012 at 21:33
|
-------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:04
And unfortunately, in music, as well as social sciences like economics, experts find it very difficult to gain common ground on a given topic, most likely because of aforesaid subjectivity. That is the reason why exercises to obtain an objective finding are more fruitful in science than in the arts; a proposition can be tested and demonstrated to be true or false in science. In the arts or the social sciences, it's just one doctrine against another. Even if an expert posits that the value of a given work of music is such and such, it would not be very difficult to find a polar opposite view to his on the same work. Actually, people who write reviews are even encouraged to offer 'different perspectives' and a consensus is discouraged more than it is encouraged in the arts. Which is probably as it should be, but value in such a scenario remains indeterminate. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:14
But music or any other art form is nothing without the reaction. And how large the range of the reaction is depends on the work. The more complex and the more abstract it gets, the more divergent the reactions. And it's not even necessary that it has to be complex to trigger widely divergent reactions. I find Jeff Buckley's Grace album frequently intense and melancholic but I have heard it described as polite and mannered. Without an audience, art remains merely an outlet of self expression for the artist. He can attempt to second guess their feelings or simply go with the flow and remain true to his ideas. But in either event, he relies heavily on an element of chance when he presents the work to the audience. Anyhow, long story short, my point is very simple: subjective + objective = subjective. It cannot be objective because there's too much subjectivity involved and therefore an attempt to objectively determine the value of music is bound to be futile. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:17
If a Dream Theater album plays in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still suck? (yes) -------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:18
It obviously cannot play in the forest without somebody to operate a stereo system, so that's a poor example. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:31
Have you never heard of remote controls? -------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:33
Remote controls to operate a system. None that can move the thing to the forest. In any case, the lions will get infuriated by the sound of JLB's voice and destroy the system before an 'audience' gets to hear it. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:35
But you can move the equipment there and then leave before turning on the record remotely, thereby ensuring that you are not around to hear it. Also, where do you live that has forests full of lions? I thought lions lived in the savannah. -------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:37
| ^^^ That is what I answered...if you left the record to play and ran away, the lions won't stand for it. Since you asked, Asiatic lions live in scrub forests. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:42
|
Ah, I see. That's the trouble. Obviously I was referring to a deciduous needleleaf forest, not a scrub forest.
-------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:44
| I realized that in a while. We don't have forests with towering redwoods, except maybe in the foothills of the Himalayas (not redwoods again, but tall trees). Try grizzlies instead if that works, or jaguars. I am telling you, they are all going to hate his voice. |
Posted By: menawati
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:54
|
I like the way this has ended up being about how much different animals would hate Dream Theater. ------------- They flutter behind you your possible pasts, Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:55
|
I guess Geoff is right. We just have to wind up every topic on our favourite punching bag, don't we?
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 10:55
I think you are right about bears, and I concede the point. -------------
|
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 11:20
...somehow a 6th sense would tell you someone, somewhere is singing bad lyrics waaaaaaaay out of tune
+++hides+++ ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 11:29
|
I'm not sure if anyone in their right mind would go through that much trouble to not hear Dream Theater, although I would definitely admire their effort if they did. |
Posted By: AlexDOM
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 14:50
| Yes for me it's hard not to be a snob since Prog is the greatest genre... |
Posted By: wilmon91
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 16:07
|
Snobbism I think is something superficial, someone dedicated to demonstrate the belonging to a higher social class. I think music snobbism is the same thing, a superficial interest in music were the person is mostly
occupied in appearing smart, knowledgeable and interesting But maybe that's not exactly the general understanding of that term. I guess a pop/rock oriented music snob refers to someone who listens to music, different genres, and is picky and judgemental and classifies everything quality-wise . That's enough to be called a music snob. But there has to be a superficial aspect or else the word "snob" loses its meaning. You can't be a music snob if you don't gain some recognition and respect from somewhere, belonging to some circle, so I think a real pop/rock related music snob would be for example a hipster. The superficial aspect is fashion. And in that sense I don't think there are many prog music "snobs", because you don't gain any credit for listening to prog. But there may be elitists. |
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 21:45
Maybe the lions and bears would be more receptive if you were to loop Portnoy's vocal segment in A Nightmare to Remember over and over again, as his grunts would be more familiar to the animals, who actually do sound (somewhat) like that. I'm pretty sure my dog likes DT, though. ------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs |
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: October 25 2012 at 22:08
I agree with you on many counts: first, that music needs an audience (it cannot fulfill its purpose without it) and that reactions to a piece of music can be quite divergent (as I affirmed in my discussion with Logan). Music matters because it is made for the audience, and because it can be good for the audience. A person's enjoyment of a song is not enough to say that the song can be called good or beautiful. The question that must be asked is: "is the effect that the music has on a person positive, negative, or neutral?" When you listen to Kesha, it teaches you to think a certain way. When you listen to Bach, it also teaches you to think in a certain way. Bach is artistically superior to Kesha because 1. Bach's music teaches order and harmony, while Kesha's teaches sex and drugs and 2. Bach's music is capable of producing a profound emotional effect, while Kesha's is not. Now, the reactions to either of these artists are going to vary from person to person. One person may enjoy Bach, and another may not, but that doesn't diminish the objective quality of the music. One person may associate different emotions with a different composition, but the quality of the composition comes with its capability of evoking strong emotion within a range. The key to understanding this is that you can't have the objective or subjective without each other. The quality of a piece of music is objective. Each person's specific reaction is subjective. Without the quality of a piece, the reaction can't happen. Without the listener to react subjectively, the music fails to achieve its goal. If you're going to objectively analyze a piece of music, you have to look past your own reaction and examine the musical qualities of the piece. It also helps to study the reactions others have had to the piece. I'm not saying that total objectivity is attainable (it's not) or even desirable (that would be boring). No one can totally ignore their reaction to a piece. If they could, they wouldn't agree on the criteria to judge it musically. But hey, the same thing happens in politics, and no one is claiming that's subjective ("hey guys, you know it doesn't really matter who wins the election, because it's all subjective anyway...;" try telling that to someone who's lost their job and whose house is in foreclosure). Every objective judgement anyone makes about a piece of music is colored with the subjective. Any subjective reaction is caused and informed by the objective. The two can be distinguished, but not separated; one can be emphasized, but it can never rule out the other. ------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs |
Posted By: menawati
Date Posted: October 26 2012 at 09:56
|
If I think a certain bridge is beautiful but an architect comes along and says another bridge is more beautiful because it is a much greater engineering feat that isn't snobbery it's experience and greater understanding. But it probably won't change my opinion. If I think a certain sculpture is beautiful but a sculptor comes along and says another sculpture is more beautiful because the stone that was used is much harder to work with then again that isn't snobbery it's experience and greater understanding. But it probably won't change my opinion. If I think a certain piece of music is beautiful but a musical expert comes along and says another piece of music is more beautiful because of its textures, its clever use of time signatures and its subtle employment of polyrhythms to bestow a sense of conflict against which the melodies are accentuated then again that isn't snobbery it's experience and greater understanding. But it probably won't change my opinion. In each case though I might be inspired to attain a deeper level of understanding of that particular art form which, over time, could well alter my perceptions of what is beautiful and what is not. I guess I'm trying to say that I think you can apply objectivity to art and it isn't snobbery to claim that you have a greater understanding of its objective nature than someone else. Furthermore, deeper appreciation of the objective nature of an art form can affect your subjective reaction to it. ------------- They flutter behind you your possible pasts, Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 26 2012 at 10:01
I am going to respond to that with a counter example from art. What about Alex, the vile protagonist of A Clockwork Orange? He thinks nothing of inflicting violence just for kicks but loves the music of Bach. And I don't think that is necessarily an extreme, hypothetical example. I see the same politicians who are embroiled in corruption scams attend classical concerts here....and not all of them are there just to get clicked for the papers. The other day, a facebook friend of mine made what could be characterised as an anti-Islamic rant and somebody asked if all this music only taught him to be hateful. So, imo, music can teach you something if you allow it to....and it could potentially teach you whatever. I am not sexist just because there is a copy of Virgin Killers in my collection and I am not going to particularly respect a person who jumps to that conclusion. I just like the riffs and the amazing solos and it's really too bad they couldn't find something else to sing about over the music but I'll take it. In just the same way as priesthood doesn't stop a person from violating kids, music does not shape a person. It is the person who reacts to the music from the prism of his experiences. It is why we get something entirely different from the same composition.
But what ARE the musical qualities of a composition? Suppose there are two compositions that are both organized in a fairly linear manner and have melodic/harmonic/rhythmic changes that don't jar...but one composition is much more complex than the other? Does that necessarily make the complex composition better than the simpler one? It may not if the simpler one has parts that are more 'attractive'. And what is attractive is subjective. Henry Plainview doesn't post here these days but he actually found so-called catchy parts a turn off. But I wouldn't therefore proceed to dismiss the very exercise of dissecting and discussing music as some subjectivists seem to. I think it is important that we do take subjective topics and discuss them because we can't define everything in precise terms and man should learn to empathize with the feelings of the other sometimes instead of banking only on numbers. Even though music is a subjective business, as long as the language we use to discuss it is the same, there is still some way for us to understand each other. I love discussing singers and analyzing their technique threadbare. But I recognize that my opinion is still a subjective one (and that is where I disagreed with you earlier in the thread; you can't make an objective statement and still say that it is ok for someone to have the polar opposite position of yours because, then, it is not very objective at all) and wouldn't impose it on another person. It is ok if he can follow my train of thought and it is ok if he doesn't because he has his own that I don't relate to. Classical singing is probably the most technically demanding in Western vocal styles but I can't relate to opera because to me, that kind of overwrought projection of emotions is all 'wrong'. It may not be so for somebody else's cultural perspective, but it certainly is for me and no matter how 'open minded' I try to be about music, I know this is one bridge I cannot cross because it revolts my sensibilities which were informed by more restrained modes of emoting and which I prefer. It doesn't matter at the end of the day how 'objectively good' the music is because the subjective reaction overpowers it. |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: October 26 2012 at 10:12
|
I dont like American Film
I dont watch reality telly
I couldent care less if Obama win or loose
I read only History or Science books, nothing more boring than J.R. Tolkien, I cant imagine reading a Si/Fi or Fantacy novel ever again
But i like all kind of music
Now, am I a snob ?
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 26 2012 at 10:12
It is not snobbery to claim you understand the objective (which more or less means the technical/formal) aspects of an art form better than somebody else. It is snobbery to therefore claim you understand the art form better.
It can in desirable and less desirable ways. A little bit of awareness of technicalities makes people indifferent to what they perceive as not technical (and therefore, so goes the logic, not good). Roger Waters doesn't have the range and power of some of these power metal angels but he could (IMO) convey a lot more with just the way he sings the words than the latter could hope to. It is difficult to characterize that as 'better' but it is also a skill that could be useful in music, especially rock music. |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: October 26 2012 at 10:19
The answer is no.
But Im a snob if i start saying,:
I dont like American film, because i know so much about film that i can conclude they are bad.
Science books are better books than novels.
ect.
Because that is not true, you cant claim things like that. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 26 2012 at 10:20
For the second time this week, I am in complete agreement with you. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 26 2012 at 10:25
|
You don't like American film? That is a pretty sweeping claim. It is like saying "I don't like European music." American films comprise a majority of all films ever made, and encompass hundreds of styles and genres. You don't like any of them? -------------
|
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: October 26 2012 at 10:44
My post was not factual at all, I was only showing how the same question could look, if you took it away from music.
And moved it elsewhere.
BTW : I dont think this is true : American films comprise a majority of all films ever made ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: October 26 2012 at 11:13
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 26 2012 at 11:55
It was an admitted guess on my part. You are probably right, but I think I am close. I can't find a source to confirm. IMDB lists a total of 2,338,126 titles, but that includes shorts and TV episodes (more than half are TV episodes.) Of these the United States has produced 489,683, or about 21%. There are only 279,404 feature films, and while there's no way to sort those by country, I would wager that the US would do considerably better than in all categories, since we had a considerable lead in features in the early days of film, whereas now television shows and features are being more evenly produced around the world. -------------
|
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: October 26 2012 at 12:15
|
No i have been looking around myself, didnt get any figures. But its not important, your point was that US is the major force in filmmaking, and that is true. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: October 27 2012 at 11:15
Hey!! Be nice to DREAM THEATER. they are one with the highest art forms of music ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 27 2012 at 12:50
| Hey, I like some Dream Theater once in a while (can't speak for thellama). But James LaBrie...sorry, man, but that's nails to a chalkboard for my ears. |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: October 27 2012 at 13:20
I'm sorry, how can a band be a form of music?
|
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: October 27 2012 at 13:35
James LaBrie is a hit or miss with most people. I mean you either really love his voice or hate it. There is no in between I find. Personally, I really love his voice and he is a great fit with the band, but I didn't feel that way at the start. His voice grew on me...grew slowly though ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: October 27 2012 at 13:44
Sorry for the ambiguity there. What I mean is that because DREAM THEATER took a genre of music (PROGRESSIVE METAL) and expanded on it, which really in my opinion made it their own sound. They didnt event progressive metal of course, but they redefined and expanded the genre itself. So in a way, I feel that dream theater as a band defined a new art form of music.  ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: King Manuel
Date Posted: October 29 2012 at 01:22
I'm a music snob. But I like Roxette and James Blunt!
Funny, I always acuse my dad of being a music snob. He hardly listens to anything except classical music. The only albums with electric guitars on he ever bought are some Beatles albums. ------------- Don't Bore Us, Get To The Chorus |