[JrKASperov]

Originally posted by Grojlach: quote: Originally posted by JrKASperov: *snip*

Cliff notes version: you're a 19 year old progrock snob, who will hopefully get some sense in him when he gets older with respect to other people's tastes. You're making the wrong assumption that listening to "difficult" music automatically gives you a carte blanche to trash any other genres, while it only turns you into more of an embittered loner who can't relate to 99.9% of the people musically. [/QUOTE]But you are wrong in assuming that I think the difficulty of the music is the factor. I am pointing to the fact that in all of the mainstream (light) music, there is just less to hear. There is no real interplay between instruments, merely all playing the same chords, there is no virtuosity, merely playing the cliches belonging to a genre, ther is no experimentation, there is only staying in the same already tried out boundaries. That does make certain music better than other, but i will explain further. (the reference to progsnob is simply hilarious and I'm proud to tell that to my friends )

Just believe me JrKASperov, that knowledge of instruments, craftmanship and an urge to experiment in progrock, freejazz, modern classical music, minimalism, abstract IDM, whatever, may help to develop music in new and exciting ways and that they're often impressive feats - in that they turn non-conventional ways of composing into actual music that can be enjoyed on some level and is intruiging at the same time - but that does not automatically result in music that's "better" by fact than mere popsongs; just in compositions that are crafted in more complex ways.

There's simply more to hear and to discover, and the music itself is technically better. This makes for more athmosphere possible, more listening pleasure, more prolonged listening pleasure as well. That makes that kind of music have more quality.

[/qb] If I have to choose between the complex yet snoozefest-inducing guitar wankery of Yngwie Malmsteen and, say, an Outkast song, I'll probably go with the latter. Does that say something about my taste? You tell me - my interests range from King Crimson/Albert Ayler/Louis Andriessen/Coil on the one end to (deceivingly?) simple stuff like, well, see for yourself. Plenty of those latter bands are probably way too simplistic for Your Royal Refinedness, but I really do think there's some real talent involved in the creation of a "lesser" piece of a music that yet manages to capture millions of people and still doesn't grow stale over the years. [/qb]

The fact that lots of people like something is no feat, which has two reasons.
The first is the fact that masses are stupid, and have no special authority about anything. (except for mayhaps some lawful political thingies, but I'm talking about strict moral issues, but let's not digress, this isn't about filosophy)
The second is the fact that anyone can like anything. That makes 'being liked' is a non-feat, as it does not make you more special than anything else, it is simply a matter of what is liked at a certain time. Taste is not something to be discussed, and I'm certainly you agree with that, what i offer is, though, that musical quality can be discussed since it is dependant on several factors I posted in my first post.

(and please, Yngwie Malmsteen is just that, guitar wankery, it has no other thing to listen to )

Taste is in the eye of the beholder, and so is talent, apparently. If a simple singer/songwriter with just a guitar can evoke a more emotionally involved response to more people (and to me) than a self-indulgent progrock band backed by an entire orchestra and their toothless grandmother on kitchen sink percussion in a 9/8 tone pattern, then I'll very likely prefer the former when it comes to judgments of taste and talent - but you'll probably see that differently.

You assume a lot about progbands which are ungrounded, and unnessecary. What if those bands are not self-indulgent and are really searching for something artistically more deep and satisfying? You offer something based on taste, namely having an emotionally involved response, while above I show this to be a non-feat. It is no basis to show someone has talent or not. Everyone can take up a guitar, play some chords, write a song, and have some or a lot of people like it emotionally. That is not a feat.

I'm fine with you using specifications like "light" and "shallow", just not that these should apply to entire genres, nor should you see these labels as ways to distinguish "good" from "bad", or at least not in the way that you seem to imply - judge the artist or the song, not the genre. Dare to admit that making an effort to avoid "shallow" music doesn't mean the piece of music will be any good per se (god, you don't even want to know how much of the so often praised "complex" music is mind-numbingly dull, especially in the progrock genre), or that a song from a "light" genre shouldn't be dismissed by default by Self-Respecting Music Followers, but should be judged on its own merit.

The division in light and artistic isn't mine, but from the 'learned' on this matter. Namely those who have studied the subject on university level. you may find them to have no authority, but they have studied it like no other, I can tell you.

And how can you ever call those types of music dull? there is more to hear, more to discover, more interplay, more change of mood and structure, more experimentation. It has more to offer than any other type of music, yet you proceed to call it dull. If you call it dull it certainly has to do with your approach to music, listening to nothing more than 'the first impression'. Again, there is simply more there in the artistic music, and if a song in a certain genre has more, then it probably belonged to the 'artistic' side of music in the first place. So it is by judging by own merit in the FIRST place which places something in a specific genre!

And you want complex rap music? Try music from the Anticon collective, with affiliations like cLOUDDEAD, Why? and Them. Complex hiphop beats-oriented music? Try Prefuse73, DJ Shadow, Amon Tobin, Madlib. You want quirky, experimental folk music? Try the Animal Collective and its spin-offs. You probably already lost interest when you saw the word "rap", but I'm sure you're seeing the point that I'm trying to make.

I shall try to look for those and give them a spin! Sounds interesting.

I'm probably closer to liking the genres you prefer than most Ironworkers, but I do think your sense of elitism expressed in this thread and others before that (not to forget the not so sophisticated manner in which you sometimes express yourself) is somewhat misplaced, and the sweeping generalizations you make with regards to (theoretically) rather vague genre definitions aren't really providing a strong framework for your argument.

I'm only a progsnob in the way I'm argumentatively calling certain music better, but that in no way infers I order anyone to stop liking something. As I said above, there is a difference in being 'good' or being 'nice'. My first post was simply a bit provocative, which inspired this discussion, which I like. Also, the added effect that you posted to some experimental bands in the 'rap scene' is nice. And please, english isn't my first language, and pared with the fact that I'm over-enthousiastic in these kind of things make me make mistakes.

[ 05-05-2005, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: JrKASperov ]