Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?

[npiazza91]

I like thinking about the people's personality traits when it comes to different genres of music.  I'm a very introverted person, love meeting people, but don't really like to be around groups of people for a long period of time.  I'm not shy at all, I just have a harder time getting to know people in groups, as opposed to just having a conversation.  I'm not judgmental at all and I'm actually fascinated by how people are so different from each other, yet so alike at the same time.

Anyway enough about me.  It seems like (from who I've spoken to) people think that prog lovers are much smarter people because the music is much more complex and a simple minded person just "doesn't get it".  However, I think it's a little bit different than that.  I think most of the people that listen to prog are generally more open minded about other people and their personal tastes, and they have more of an understanding of interpersonal relationships than other people.  They know what to say, when to say it and how to say it, and are generally perceptive of other people's feelings.  I'm not speaking for everyone that likes prog, but it seems like a lot of them do.  Think about it.  Prog in general sounds different than any other genre of music.  Those who can appreciate the differences and accept them for what they are, actually learn to love these differences and look past the things that the average person would like in the average commercial song, are more likely to do that when it comes to other things in life.

Then again, I could be wrong, and music taste actually has nothing to do with someone's personality, or way that they view the world.  What do you think?

[TAC]

I think Prog is so segmented, I cannot see how someone who was just into prog could have an open mind. I find the people with the most open mindedness are the ones that can listen to anything, especially pop.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

No. Some prog fans are extremely close minded.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, it's just a thing.

[Outcrier]

I find the people with the most open mindedness are the ones that can listen to anything, especially pop.

This. I often see the "complex is automatically better than simple music" mentality (i used to think this way in the past too), which is stupid.

[npiazza91]

I think Prog is so segmented, I cannot see how someone who was just into prog could have an open mind. I find the people with the most open mindedness are the ones that can listen to anything, especially pop.

I agree with the first part, but the "especially pop" part I disagree with.  Pop isn't hard to like for the average person to just pick up and listen to.  I would think it's the opposite, with pop.  However, yes I do agree that the people that listen to more genres than others are generally the more open minded ones, good point.  It's hard to narrow down specific genres without stereotyping people.

[TAC]

  Pop isn't hard to like for the average person to just pick up and listen to.  I would think it's the opposite, with pop.

What? that doesn't make sense. The fact that the average person will like pop means that the average person is generally more open minded about music.

I guess you could make the point that the average person may have some stereotypical notions about certain genres, but I consider pop the most wide ranged type of music.

[bosk1]

Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?

You must be new to the forum.

[King Postwhore]

Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?

You must be new to the forum.

 

[Skeever]

I would say the opposite happens. Prog fans "open up" to prog, think they've found the best music ever, and proceed to never check out anything new that isn't "prog" again, because how could it be good?

Though I guess neither caricature is really helpful.

[npiazza91]

  Pop isn't hard to like for the average person to just pick up and listen to.  I would think it's the opposite, with pop.

What? that doesn't make sense. The fact that the average person will like pop means that the average person is generally more open minded about music.

I guess you could make the point that the average person may have some stereotypical notions about certain genres, but I consider pop the most wide ranged type of music.

My bad, I definitely worded that wrong.  Both of those sentences were basically the same thing, just worded differently.  If you take either of those two sentences out, it makes more sense, haha.  I don't know why I did that.

[Outcrier]

I would say the opposite happens. Prog fans "open up" to prog, think they've found the best music ever, and proceed to never check out anything new that isn't "prog" again, because how could it be good?

Exactly 

[TAC]

  Pop isn't hard to like for the average person to just pick up and listen to.  I would think it's the opposite, with pop.

What? that doesn't make sense. The fact that the average person will like pop means that the average person is generally more open minded about music.

I guess you could make the point that the average person may have some stereotypical notions about certain genres, but I consider pop the most wide ranged type of music.

My bad, I definitely worded that wrong.  Both of those sentences were basically the same thing, just worded differently.  If you take either of those two sentences out, it makes more sense, haha.  I don't know why I did that.

You must be new to the forum.

[npiazza91]

I would say the opposite happens. Prog fans "open up" to prog, think they've found the best music ever, and proceed to never check out anything new that isn't "prog" again, because how could it be good?

Though I guess neither caricature is really helpful.

Yeah I used to think that as well.  The only thing is, while yes, music is subjective, the same could be said of paintings, movies, and the beauty of another person (among other things).  I can say all day that a painting by DaVinci is not as good as a painting I made myself.  However, quality is quality.  While taste is subjective, the actual quality of something is not subjective.    My personal opinion is that whatever music anyone likes, I don't think less of them in any way.  People like what they like.  What I do think is that they could potentially be missing out on something they have not tried yet.  That is why pop music is, in my opinion, sort of like a music trap.  The people that like it don't seem to feel the need to like anything that isn't catchy or 3 minutes.  I feel like the people that listen to prog have already opened their mind to get there, since it is not easily accessible.  If it was easily accessible, prog would be all over the mainstream radio hits.

I started listening to pop when I was 7, then glam rock, then old school metal, then industrial metal, then thrash metal, and finally prog.  That's just me.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

I would say the opposite happens. Prog fans "open up" to prog, think they've found the best music ever, and proceed to never check out anything new that isn't "prog" again, because how could it be good?

Though I guess neither caricature is really helpful.

Yeah I used to think that as well.  The only thing is, while yes, music is subjective, the same could be said of paintings, movies, and the beauty of another person (among other things).  I can say all day that a painting by DaVinci is not as good as a painting I made myself.  However, quality is quality.  While taste is subjective, the actual quality of something is not subjective.    My personal opinion is that whatever music anyone likes, I don't think less of them in any way.  People like what they like.  What I do think is that they could potentially be missing out on something they have not tried yet.  That is why pop music is, in my opinion, sort of like a music trap.  The people that like it don't seem to feel the need to like anything that isn't catchy or 3 minutes.  I feel like the people that listen to prog have already opened their mind to get there, since it is not easily accessible.  If it was easily accessible, prog would be all over the mainstream radio hits.

I started listening to pop when I was 7, then glam rock, then old school metal, then industrial metal, then thrash metal, and finally prog.  That's just me.

Enlighten me as to how you can definitively define quality.

[npiazza91]

I would say the opposite happens. Prog fans "open up" to prog, think they've found the best music ever, and proceed to never check out anything new that isn't "prog" again, because how could it be good?

Though I guess neither caricature is really helpful.

Yeah I used to think that as well.  The only thing is, while yes, music is subjective, the same could be said of paintings, movies, and the beauty of another person (among other things).  I can say all day that a painting by DaVinci is not as good as a painting I made myself.  However, quality is quality.  While taste is subjective, the actual quality of something is not subjective.    My personal opinion is that whatever music anyone likes, I don't think less of them in any way.  People like what they like.  What I do think is that they could potentially be missing out on something they have not tried yet.  That is why pop music is, in my opinion, sort of like a music trap.  The people that like it don't seem to feel the need to like anything that isn't catchy or 3 minutes.  I feel like the people that listen to prog have already opened their mind to get there, since it is not easily accessible.  If it was easily accessible, prog would be all over the mainstream radio hits.

I started listening to pop when I was 7, then glam rock, then old school metal, then industrial metal, then thrash metal, and finally prog.  That's just me.

Enlighten me as to how you can definitively define quality.

Well, if I draw a picture, but you can't even make out what I drew, then you drew a picture which had clearly defined details and shades, your picture would be the better picture.  Sure, someone could LIKE my picture better, but yours IS the better picture.  The person that liked mine is liking something of lesser quality.  It doesn't make that person wrong, because TASTE ITSELF is subjective.  People can like what they like.

Take the movie THE ROOM, this is actually a great example.  I'm sure Tommy Wiseau still thinks this movie is a masterpiece.  However, the acting is terrible, the plot makes almost no sense and the characters are all over the place.  Tommy is able to love this movie, but this movie that he loves so much is a terrible film, quality wise.

Now I don't know a whole lot about song writing or music theory, so I can't speak for what songs are actual quality over others, but all I have to say is Beethoven vs Justin Bieber.  Who has more talent?  Even though more people do listen to Bieber, there is no comparison here who's music is of better quality.  For the record, I don't listen to classical at all, so my opinions are in no way, shape, or form, seeping through.

Like I said, simply LIKING something doesn't make you wrong, as taste is subjective.  But, some things we enjoy are of lesser quality than others.  I really like Batman and Robin for example, it's fun to watch.  However, it is also a terribly made film.

[Outcrier]

That is why pop music is, in my opinion, sort of like a music trap.  The people that like it don't seem to feel the need to like anything that isn't catchy or 3 minutes.

I think you're confusing pop with mainstream radio music because catchy/3 minutes hardly represent all of the genre.

[Skeever]

I would say the opposite happens. Prog fans "open up" to prog, think they've found the best music ever, and proceed to never check out anything new that isn't "prog" again, because how could it be good?

Though I guess neither caricature is really helpful.

Yeah I used to think that as well.  The only thing is, while yes, music is subjective, the same could be said of paintings, movies, and the beauty of another person (among other things).  I can say all day that a painting by DaVinci is not as good as a painting I made myself.  However, quality is quality.  While taste is subjective, the actual quality of something is not subjective.    My personal opinion is that whatever music anyone likes, I don't think less of them in any way.  People like what they like.  What I do think is that they could potentially be missing out on something they have not tried yet.  That is why pop music is, in my opinion, sort of like a music trap.  The people that like it don't seem to feel the need to like anything that isn't catchy or 3 minutes.  I feel like the people that listen to prog have already opened their mind to get there, since it is not easily accessible.  If it was easily accessible, prog would be all over the mainstream radio hits.

I started listening to pop when I was 7, then glam rock, then old school metal, then industrial metal, then thrash metal, and finally prog.  That's just me.

Likewise, I started with rock and pop, moved on to prog, experimental, discovered old school metal (through DT), classic metal, classic prog, indie, electronic, etc., roughly in that order. And I discover new music in non-prog genres that is WAY more interesting than what most prog bands are doing.

Trust me, dude. Prog is just where you are at on your particular path. As someone who discovered prog and now still finds plenty of non-prog stuff that's just as good if not better than prog, where you *think* you are musically and how open minded you *think* are to new things is completely relative to where you started. If you already think you've found the best music your mind is already closed to all the great music (prog and non prog) still yet to be made.

There is nothing wrong for spending some time obsessing over a particular genre, my feeling is that you are just obsessed with prog right now, but if you continue to prioritize listening to music later in life the same way you do when you're in high school and college, you will discover that there is still plenty to discover.

[Outcrier]

Now I don't know a whole lot about song writing or music theory, so I can't speak for what songs are actual quality over others, but all I have to say is Beethoven vs Justin Bieber.  Who has more talent?

See, you pick a defining representant of classical music and put it up against Justin Bieber, who hardly represents anything, making it pretty unfair for Pop.
In that regards, (the best of) Classical x (the best of) Pop would be something like Beethoven (or many others) x Lennon/McCartney or Brian Wilson.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Well, if I draw a picture, but you can't even make out what I drew, then you drew a picture which had clearly defined details and shades, your picture would be the better picture.  Sure, someone could LIKE my picture better, but yours IS the better picture.  The person that liked mine is liking something of lesser quality.  It doesn't make that person wrong, because TASTE ITSELF is subjective.  People can like what they like.

Take the movie THE ROOM, this is actually a great example.  I'm sure Tommy Wiseau still thinks this movie is a masterpiece.  However, the acting is terrible, the plot makes almost no sense and the characters are all over the place.  Tommy is able to love this movie, but this movie that he loves so much is a terrible film, quality wise.

Now I don't know a whole lot about song writing or music theory, so I can't speak for what songs are actual quality over others, but all I have to say is Beethoven vs Justin Bieber.  Who has more talent?  Even though more people do listen to Bieber, there is no comparison here who's music is of better quality.  For the record, I don't listen to classical at all, so my opinions are in no way, shape, or form, seeping through.

Like I said, simply LIKING something doesn't make you wrong, as taste is subjective.  But, some things we enjoy are of lesser quality than others.  I really like Batman and Robin for example, it's fun to watch.  However, it is also a terribly made film.

You haven't defined what makes something good, though. You're just saying something makes some things better than others, but you can't quantify it.

And greater talent doesn't necessarily correlate to greater quality. Some of the best musicians in the world can make completely boring music.

I don't think there's anything inherently "better" about a piece of art in contrast to another, beyond taste and convention.

[Nekov]

Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?

You must be new to the forum.

/thread

[npiazza91]

I would say the opposite happens. Prog fans "open up" to prog, think they've found the best music ever, and proceed to never check out anything new that isn't "prog" again, because how could it be good?

Though I guess neither caricature is really helpful.
[/quote]

Yeah I used to think that as well.  The only thing is, while yes, music is subjective, the same could be said of paintings, movies, and the beauty of another person (among other things).  I can say all day that a painting by DaVinci is not as good as a painting I made myself.  However, quality is quality.  While taste is subjective, the actual quality of something is not subjective.    My personal opinion is that whatever music anyone likes, I don't think less of them in any way.  People like what they like.  What I do think is that they could potentially be missing out on something they have not tried yet.  That is why pop music is, in my opinion, sort of like a music trap.  The people that like it don't seem to feel the need to like anything that isn't catchy or 3 minutes.  I feel like the people that listen to prog have already opened their mind to get there, since it is not easily accessible.  If it was easily accessible, prog would be all over the mainstream radio hits.

I started listening to pop when I was 7, then glam rock, then old school metal, then industrial metal, then thrash metal, and finally prog.  That's just me.
[/quote]

Likewise, I started with rock and pop, moved on to prog, experimental, discovered old school metal (through DT), classic metal, classic prog, indie, electronic, etc., roughly in that order. And I discover new music in non-prog genres that is WAY more interesting than what most prog bands are doing.

Trust me, dude. Prog is just where you are at on your particular path. As someone who discovered prog and now still finds plenty of non-prog stuff that's just as good if not better than prog, where you *think* you are musically and how open minded you *think* are to new things is completely relative to where you started. If you already think you've found the best music your mind is already closed to all the great music (prog and non prog) still yet to be made.

There is nothing wrong for spending some time obsessing over a particular genre, my feeling is that you are just obsessed with prog right now, but if you continue to prioritize listening to music later in life the same way you do when you're in high school and college, you will discover that there is still plenty to discover.


Thank you for this insightful response.  I am on a "prog binge" right now, and it is really hard to open your mind to other things when you're on a particular binge.  We all have a music path to follow, and let me tell you, I love every second of mine.
[/quote]

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Another thing about being new to the forum: quote mishaps.

Although that happens to regular members too.

[npiazza91]

Now I don't know a whole lot about song writing or music theory, so I can't speak for what songs are actual quality over others, but all I have to say is Beethoven vs Justin Bieber.  Who has more talent?

See, you pick a defining representant of classical music and put it up against Justin Bieber, who hardly represents anything, making it pretty unfair for Pop.
In that regards, (the best of) Classical x (the best of) Pop would be something like Beethoven (or many others) x Lennon/McCartney or Brian Wilson.

Well my post above somehow got screwed up, let's see if this one will be ok.  Yu make a good point, it was unfair.

[Lolzeez]

lolno

[npiazza91]

Well, if I draw a picture, but you can't even make out what I drew, then you drew a picture which had clearly defined details and shades, your picture would be the better picture.  Sure, someone could LIKE my picture better, but yours IS the better picture.  The person that liked mine is liking something of lesser quality.  It doesn't make that person wrong, because TASTE ITSELF is subjective.  People can like what they like.

Take the movie THE ROOM, this is actually a great example.  I'm sure Tommy Wiseau still thinks this movie is a masterpiece.  However, the acting is terrible, the plot makes almost no sense and the characters are all over the place.  Tommy is able to love this movie, but this movie that he loves so much is a terrible film, quality wise.

Now I don't know a whole lot about song writing or music theory, so I can't speak for what songs are actual quality over others, but all I have to say is Beethoven vs Justin Bieber.  Who has more talent?  Even though more people do listen to Bieber, there is no comparison here who's music is of better quality.  For the record, I don't listen to classical at all, so my opinions are in no way, shape, or form, seeping through.

Like I said, simply LIKING something doesn't make you wrong, as taste is subjective.  But, some things we enjoy are of lesser quality than others.  I really like Batman and Robin for example, it's fun to watch.  However, it is also a terribly made film.

You haven't defined what makes something good, though. You're just saying something makes some things better than others, but you can't quantify it.

And greater talent doesn't necessarily correlate to greater quality. Some of the best musicians in the world can make completely boring music.

I don't think there's anything inherently "better" about a piece of art in contrast to another, beyond taste and convention.

For the first point, I gave a few examples of what makes a film better than another.


For the second point, I agree with this.

For the third point, I disagree.  I think there is a difference between perceived quality and actual quality. 

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

OK, well for the film comparison, let's take that further. How do you define "good" acting? If there is some objective standard, why do people not agree on what constitutes good acting? And some film makers (David Lynch, I think) are revered for films where the plot makes no sense.

The thing it always comes down to is subjectivity.

[npiazza91]

OK, well for the film comparison, let's take that further. How do you define "good" acting? If there is some objective standard, why do people not agree on what constitutes good acting? And some film makers (David Lynch, I think) are revered for films where the plot makes no sense.

The thing it always comes down to is subjectivity.

Good acting is where the actor can clearly be convincing in becoming the person he is portrayed as.  I do know some people who cannot tell good acting from bad acting.  That is ok, but it is up to them to decide if they want to educate themselves on how to act or what good acting entails.

David Lynch is a weird example haha.  I happen to love his movies, however his films are so strange, over the top, and dream like that I would actually put him in the category of completely subjective, since trying to analyze his films so much to the point of figuring out how good of films they actually are...would make one's head explode.  I'm still debating about "Lost Highway" to this day.  Someone may hate David Lynch films (actually many people do) but you can't argue that the psychological themes of most of his films are of better quality than that of a typical R rated comedy.  To go way in depth into Lynch's films would make someone go crazy...I'm kidding of course.  It's funny you bring up David Lynch, because I think of Lynch the same way I do Prog...hard to understand and appreciate at first, but if you put in the effort, it pays off.

[jammindude]

Well, if I draw a picture, but you can't even make out what I drew, then you drew a picture which had clearly defined details and shades, your picture would be the better picture.  Sure, someone could LIKE my picture better, but yours IS the better picture.  The person that liked mine is liking something of lesser quality.  It doesn't make that person wrong, because TASTE ITSELF is subjective.  People can like what they like.

Take the movie THE ROOM, this is actually a great example.  I'm sure Tommy Wiseau still thinks this movie is a masterpiece.  However, the acting is terrible, the plot makes almost no sense and the characters are all over the place.  Tommy is able to love this movie, but this movie that he loves so much is a terrible film, quality wise.

Now I don't know a whole lot about song writing or music theory, so I can't speak for what songs are actual quality over others, but all I have to say is Beethoven vs Justin Bieber.  Who has more talent?  Even though more people do listen to Bieber, there is no comparison here who's music is of better quality.  For the record, I don't listen to classical at all, so my opinions are in no way, shape, or form, seeping through.

Like I said, simply LIKING something doesn't make you wrong, as taste is subjective.  But, some things we enjoy are of lesser quality than others.  I really like Batman and Robin for example, it's fun to watch.  However, it is also a terribly made film.

Your first point completely discounts any sort of abstract art whatsoever.   So by your definition, abstract art cannot be better than more straight forward forms of art.

[rumborak]

Prog, to about 90%, is absolutely contrived horse shit. The most generic statement you could make about prog listeners is that they are likely to listen to contrived horse shit.

[hefdaddy42]

Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?

You must be new to the forum.

I love you so much.

To the OP : no.

[npiazza91]

Well, if I draw a picture, but you can't even make out what I drew, then you drew a picture which had clearly defined details and shades, your picture would be the better picture.  Sure, someone could LIKE my picture better, but yours IS the better picture.  The person that liked mine is liking something of lesser quality.  It doesn't make that person wrong, because TASTE ITSELF is subjective.  People can like what they like.

Take the movie THE ROOM, this is actually a great example.  I'm sure Tommy Wiseau still thinks this movie is a masterpiece.  However, the acting is terrible, the plot makes almost no sense and the characters are all over the place.  Tommy is able to love this movie, but this movie that he loves so much is a terrible film, quality wise.

Now I don't know a whole lot about song writing or music theory, so I can't speak for what songs are actual quality over others, but all I have to say is Beethoven vs Justin Bieber.  Who has more talent?  Even though more people do listen to Bieber, there is no comparison here who's music is of better quality.  For the record, I don't listen to classical at all, so my opinions are in no way, shape, or form, seeping through.

Like I said, simply LIKING something doesn't make you wrong, as taste is subjective.  But, some things we enjoy are of lesser quality than others.  I really like Batman and Robin for example, it's fun to watch.  However, it is also a terribly made film.

Your first point completely discounts any sort of abstract art whatsoever.   So by your definition, abstract art cannot be better than more straight forward forms of art.

Abstract art is different than being a bad artist.  I can't make a bad drawing/painting and say it's abstract art.  They even joke about it in some comedies.

Here's another example.  Say I try and make a bench.  I know nothing about bench making, but a carpenter, who probably knows how to make one a lot better than I do, will make the better bench.  He is more skilled at making things, therefore his work will be of better quality.  Haven't you ever heard people say "oh he's the best doctor/lawyer/whatever?  They are good because the work they do is better than what other people do in the same field.  It's the same with musicians or writers or directors.  Some people make better things than others.  Sure, I might like the shitty bench, for whatever reason, but it's not as good of a bench than the one the carpenter made.  It's just how it is.  I understand what "subjective" means.  People are going to like different things, I get that, and there is nothing wrong with that.  The fact is, though, certain things are just better than others.  Now if you take different types of soda, such as Coke or Pepsi or Mountain Dew...they are of equal quality and this is where subjective is 100% on the subject.  However, store brand Dr Pepper is of lesser quality than regular Dr Pepper.  Some people might like store brand better (myself included) but it is the lesser of the two.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

That's because a bench has a definable purpose. Movies, music, art, they don't, except to be enjoyed. And enjoyment, then, is still subjective.

[FreezingPoint]

Abstract art is different than being a bad artist.  I can't make a bad drawing/painting and say it's abstract art.  They even joke about it in some comedies.

Here's another example.  Say I try and make a bench.  I know nothing about bench making, but a carpenter, who probably knows how to make one a lot better than I do, will make the better bench.  He is more skilled at making things, therefore his work will be of better quality.  Haven't you ever heard people say "oh he's the best doctor/lawyer/whatever?  They are good because the work they do is better than what other people do in the same field.  It's the same with musicians or writers or directors.  Some people make better things than others.  Sure, I might like the shitty bench, for whatever reason, but it's not as good of a bench than the one the carpenter made.  It's just how it is.  I understand what "subjective" means.  People are going to like different things, I get that, and there is nothing wrong with that.  The fact is, though, certain things are just better than others.  Now if you take different types of soda, such as Coke or Pepsi or Mountain Dew...they are of equal quality and this is where subjective is 100% on the subject.  However, store brand Dr Pepper is of lesser quality than regular Dr Pepper.  Some people might like store brand better (myself included) but it is the lesser of the two.

Is seems as if the first question you need to answer is: What is quality and how can it be measured?

Is quality simply a conformity to the norms of a group of people about how a certain product (music, soda, film, etc.) show be made and presented?

Also, you can't compare music across such a wide field in terms of raw quality. How can pop and prog be compared when they don't even usually share the same musical goals? And make no mistake, there is usually a lot of skill behind the hit pop songs (and many times the ones that aren't hits as well). It may not always be the name on the album that possesses that skill, it may not be the name that sells the concert tickets, but it is somewhere there nonetheless.

[senecadawg2]

Take the movie THE ROOM, this is actually a great example.  I'm sure Tommy Wiseau still thinks this movie is a masterpiece.  However, the acting is terrible, the plot makes almost no sense and the characters are all over the place.  Tommy is able to love this movie, but this movie that he loves so much is a terrible film, quality wise.

This is bullshit.

Oh hi Mark

[npiazza91]

That's because a bench has a definable purpose. Movies, music, art, they don't, except to be enjoyed. And enjoyment, then, is still subjective.

It depends on the artist.  Also, music doesn't necessarily have to be for entertainment.  I mean, part of it is, but depending on the group, person, or song, each has its own goals and trying to diagnose every single one of those will probably get you nowhere.  You bring up a good point, but it's far more complicated then just enjoyment.  I can't speak for how smart you are, but realistically I consider myself a bit above average (don't know my actual IQ) but going as deep into it as I proposed earlier won't be easy for me.