Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?

[BlobVanDam]

Again - consensus opinions are still just opinions.  The fact that a lot of people tend to share opinions doesn't magically transform those opinions into facts.

This, exactly.
The reason people agree on things is because they have similar tastes in regards to whatever it is. It's not because there's any level of objectivity or fact to it, but because people interested in and exposed to similar things will likely develop similar opinions based on those things.
If it was objective, we wouldn't need award shows or critics, and everyone would agree. We'd just use these measurable facts and be done with it. But people disagree, and we give weight to critic's opinions based on how similar their opinions are to our own. They don't have greater importance or objectivity.
The point of awards is so people can credit the things they think were great. It's opinions. I can't believe this is even being debated.


This is worse than the objective morals debates.

[hefdaddy42]

Again - consensus opinions are still just opinions.  The fact that a lot of people tend to share opinions doesn't magically transform those opinions into facts.

This doesn't really address anything I said.  In fact, it's just an opinion.

I just don't get this "everything is relative, it's all just opinions" mentality.  In all other areas of human experience, we can say that some people are good at certain things and bad at other things.  But if it's an "art" that all goes out the window.

But whatever.  I can't say any more than I have.

[BlobVanDam]

Again - consensus opinions are still just opinions.  The fact that a lot of people tend to share opinions doesn't magically transform those opinions into facts.

This doesn't really address anything I said.  In fact, it's just an opinion.

I just don't get this "everything is relative, it's all just opinions" mentality.  In all other areas of human experience, we can say that some people are good at certain things and bad at other things.  But if it's an "art" that all goes out the window.

But whatever.  I can't say any more than I have.

That's because a lot of other things are objectively measurable, and relatively comparable to other people to make that assessment. If you can eat more hotdogs than me in 1 minute, then I can objectively call you the better hotdog eater.
The same can't be said for movies or music, because now you're using subjective criteria.

I don't think anybody's saying there's something wrong with calling art good or bad, just pointing out that it can't be considered fact. There's nothing wrong with that. Weekend At Bernie's 2 is still shit, hef. All is well.

[Jaffa]

Well, my position here can be outlined fairly simply: in order for something to be objective, it has to be measurable by objective criteria.  Other areas of human experience can be measured by objective criteria.  For instance, you can measure a professional athlete by the definite statistics of his performance - how many points he scores, how many games he wins, how fast he achieves a certain goal.  And since sports are defined by these objective criteria, players can be measured objectively.  Art, on the other hand, can really only be judged by the perspective of people who experience it.  That's why objectivity goes out the window. 

FAKEEDIT:  Pretty much what Blob said. 

[Jaq]

Hef, you seem to be conflating two ideas: the debate between whether or not art can be judged objectively and whether or not ability can be judged objectively.

No one is saying the latter. By objective standards, I am a lousy drummer. I have crappy handspeed and could lose the beat without trying hard. Any discussion of music I made could fairly say "that guy is a lousy drummer."  The problem is, well, let's go back to Nickelback. People who say they are bad are saying they're bad subjectively but are claiming it's an objective opinion. Nickelback make easily digestible poppy hard rock. By that subjective standard, they're very good at what they do. Objectively, do they have the musical ability of Spiral Architect? Of course they don't. But any opinion on the merits of the bands artistically has to be done by your personal subjective opinion, which is no better or worse than anyone else's.

[jammindude]

Well, my position here can be outlined fairly simply: in order for something to be objective, it has to be measurable by objective criteria.  Other areas of human experience can be measured by objective criteria.  For instance, you can measure a professional athlete by the definite statistics of his performance - how many points he scores, how many games he wins, how fast he achieves a certain goal.  And since sports are defined by these objective criteria, players can be measured objectively.  Art, on the other hand, can really only be judged by the perspective of people who experience it.  That's why objectivity goes out the window. 

FAKEEDIT:  Pretty much what Blob said.

But even statistics can be flawed.

For instance...most (not all...but most) would say that Barry Sanders was the greatest running back of all time.   NOT because of the statistics, but because of the *WAY* he ran.   No one in history (and this is a fact) could make a run for *a loss of yardage* look as beautiful as Barry Sanders did.     

His statistics show that is is *one of the best* but statistics do not take style into account....which does account for something.   I know a lot of people will say in the same breath that Emmit Smith was actually not as fantastic as his statistics would have you believe, and that there are many an "average" running back who's stats were bolsters by the fact that they had *an amazing* offensive line that created holes big enough to drive a Mac truck through.   In those situations, even a high school running back could put up Hall of Fame statistics.    Barry Sanders did what he did WITHOUT an offensive line...and that is not to be simply dismissed as being "an opinion"...   Anyone who knows football knows that to be true. 

[LudwigVan]

People are getting hung up on defining good/bad art, but to me, the  real sticking point of this thread is the definition of open-mindedness. I think that terminology is pretty meaningless when it comes to music.  Music is just too multi-faceted to try and pin down to such a trite concept.

[425]

It it was all objective then all the critics would agree, but they never do. They simply put down their own opinions and interpretations of things for others to read/watch/whatever.

If it was objective, we wouldn't need award shows or critics, and everyone would agree. We'd just use these measurable facts and be done with it. But people disagree, and we give weight to critic's opinions based on how similar their opinions are to our own. They don't have greater importance or objectivity.

I can tell from both these posts that there is a degree of nuance to the points I, at least, am making that the two of you, at least, seem to be missing. I can't really blame you for that, because I've been tending to make posts that are absolute beasts (lengthwise), so I'm going to quote here an applicable sections from a previous post of mine that anticipated this type of stance.

...But because there are so many facets of this film, it's not really possible to determine exactly how good or bad it is. This is why you can only make objective statements about something like this as broad generalizations...

What a movie review is, basically, is an attempt to give a rough estimate at the objective value of a movie compared to other movies. A critic has to do his best to be objective and not let his personal likes and dislikes blind him to the actual strengths and weaknesses of the film. My "5/10" rating for Attack of the Clones was my attempt to do so. It's hard to say how well I did, and this is where opinions and discussions and debates come in. For example, some might say that I let my personal liking of the film skew my review too favorably and that 3/10 might be a better rating for it.

That actually brings me to a relevant point: the statement that art has objective quality doesn't mean that we can just measure it and say "okay, done." It's hard for anyone to study every aspect of a piece of art, put aside all of their personal likes or dislikes, and come to a solid judgement on its aesthetic merits. Because of this, debates over the quality of a particular artwork are common, welcome and good. You're looking at different aspects of the artwork and trying to decide whose measurement of its quality is most accurate.

This is worse than the objective morals debates.

I'm not going to get into that other debate on the freaking Dream Theater Forum, but I'll just say this: both of those are important debates to have because they affect a huge swath of the way we look at life. So you can roll your eyes and their mention all you want, but you can't just declare them settled or unimportant. They ARE important conversations to have, the both of them.

[Zook]

Thought experiment: if a musical genius intentionally and successfully writes the most annoying song ever, is the resulting song good or bad?  Keep in mind that this theoretical artist is extremely skilled, simply choosing to use his skill to make an ugly sound rather than an attractive one.  Also keep in mind that the song he writes annoys literally everybody who hears it, including him.  Given these criteria - highly skilled artist creating art that nobody likes - is the song objectively good or objectively bad?

Have you been listening to KrotchRaut?

[ariich]

I can't speak for Blob, but I'm fairly sure there aren't any nuances that I've missed, I think we just fundamentally disagree. Yeah your posts were pretty epic, but I read and followed every word, and I'm fairly sure I understand you, I just don't agree.

Your 5/10 review of Episode II is your attempt to be objective, even though you like the film. But what criteria are you using to reach a rating of 5/10?

And what makes those the objectively correct criteria? What about all the people who couldn't give a rat's arse about any of those criteria, and who care about whether the film is enjoyable/entertaining, or are interested in the technical aspects, or all sorts of other alternative criteria by which a film could be judged.

[hefdaddy42]

Hef, you seem to be conflating two ideas: the debate between whether or not art can be judged objectively and whether or not ability can be judged objectively.

No one is saying the latter.

I'm not conflating the latter.  I'm suggesting that the two are connected.  I don't understand how you can simultaneously believe that ability CAN be judged objectively, but the product of that ability CANNOT.

And going back to the beginning of my involvement, I have been largely talking about artists anyway, not necessarily their art.  I had the gall to suggest that some people just aren't good at their chosen art form.

Well, my position here can be outlined fairly simply: in order for something to be objective, it has to be measurable by objective criteria.  Other areas of human experience can be measured by objective criteria.  For instance, you can measure a professional athlete by the definite statistics of his performance - how many points he scores, how many games he wins, how fast he achieves a certain goal.  And since sports are defined by these objective criteria, players can be measured objectively.  Art, on the other hand, can really only be judged by the perspective of people who experience it.  That's why objectivity goes out the window. 

An athlete CAN be judged by things like that, but it wouldn't be a complete picture, especially with an athlete in a team sport.

But guys, while I think this is an important subject (even though it has seemingly sidetracked this thread), if you aren't getting me by now, then I'm pretty much done.

And Tommy Wiseau is a talentless hack.

[Rodni Demental]

I haven't read this entire topic, but I find the discussion quite interesting. I'm just going to respond to the inicial question. And say the answer is yes and no. This and that.

I think in general, you'll find a lot of prog fans to be quite open minded to varying degrees. I think you'll find one doesn't as easily discover something like prog without at least being somewhat open minded. BUT it can start going in the other direction if the prog fan starts becoming pretentious and uptight about music and condescending towards other music and start imposing their cynical preconcepts and expectations on everything they touch. (familiar traits to some prog fans I'm sure ) Although I also think we fluctuate a bit with being open and closed minded depending on mood/experience. Sort of a bit like how sometimes we feel like growing and branching out, if we've outgrown or had enough of a particular experience, or if we're comfortable the way things are, we might not be as likely to let new things in, sometimes in fear of change, but sometimes out of just gladly feeling content at the time. I think it serves us best to be open minded and never deal in absolutes when possible, but when there's a goal or something to focus on, sometimes you just need to believe what you want and get on with it, that's the only way to get results. Because uncertainly can be crippling to progress.

[Lucien]

I would say prog fans are not open minded at all. No offense to you guys, but I see very few prog fans actively listen to music other than prog. Whether this is simply based on preference or the mindset that prog is actually "better" than some average pop song, I can't tell. I personally am beginning more and more to despise the mindset of "this music is better, and I am better for listening to it", from fans of ALL genres. The word "genre" in itself is really starting to bug me, as it puts artists into groups that they can no longer get out of. I don't know what I'm trying to say. Hmm... Take the "classical" genre, which is by far the most diverse genre of music we have today. In reality, we could divide up classical music into a huge amount of subgenres. The light, "poppier" classical music (string quartets, early symphonies in major, etc), the "heavy" classical music (full orchestra works, especially of the 19th and early 20th centuries), the "proggy" classical music (symphonic poems), musicals (opera), and extreme (atonal works of the 20th century) etc etc etc. But it's all called "classical". Fans of one genre might say "I hate all rap, it's just some guy talking into a microphone over a beat", and then never expose themselves to any of it, because they believe that all rap is of a lesser artistic value than what they are listening to, and some might even believe that in existence there is not a single rap song that could be "better" than whatever they are listening to. This is close-mindedness, they have literally closed their mind to all rap and refuse to listen to it. I feel as though this problem doesn't exist as much with "classical" music, as within the "genre", fans listen to all different types of instrumentation, tempo, style, and country of origin without a second thought (though some might close their mind from atonality, and I don't completely blame them).

tl;dr, No. I don't think prog fans are open-minded, if only because genres are stupid (and they are).

[425]

I might be totally off-base, but are there that many people who are music fans for a long period of time who are only fans of one specific genre? I mean, I know that every genre has its blind devotees, but in my general experience, most people enjoy music of multiple genres.

The two main models I've seen from people's stories of how they became music fans are:
1) Didn't listen to much music at all, discovered a band that captured their attention, became devoted fans of that band, expanded their taste to related bands, then to bands related to those, etc.
2) Was raised to love music and embraced a number of artists from an early age.

Both of these models seem to be pretty conducive to gaining a broad set of music tastes. In the former, someone keeps expanding outward from a point of origin, and in the latter, someone is raised probably on a variety of musical styles (and if not, raised with enough background in music to make them likely to embrace multiples styles).

This is just a hypothesis, and I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to this generalization, but I wonder if most people who are snobby towards genres besides their favorite are people in the early phases of the model #1 of music fan development I described above. I could see hints of this in my 14-year-old metalhead self, and imagine that other young people could develop a similar attitude if they were first introduced to music through another genre (i.e. if someone's first musical love was Yes, I could easily see them acting like a prog snob). I hypothesize that maybe a good number of these people are just one open-minded listening experience from breaking out of their genre elitism.

I will say this, though: Prog can be a pretty good gateway to a variety of other genres. Just to use my own development as an example, I started as a metal fan and got into prog through Dream Theater and Rush. In looking at other recommended artists in the prog genre, I found Porcupine Tree. In songs like Trains or Lazarus, Porcupine Tree demonstrated to me pretty clearly that any ideas I'd had before about pop music being inferior were mistaken. So while it's obvious that prog isn't everything and that prog fans can be plenty closed-minded, I think prog can be a good gateway style to a variety of other genres because of the way that prog or prog-related bands like Porcupine Tree incorporate a variety of types of music.

[npiazza91]

Wow, I'm surprised this topic made it to this many posts.  But I do have a few things to add.

If something is made badly, that is different then simply liking something.  Anyone can like whatever they want, since entertainment itself is completely subjective.  For example, the movie The Room by Tommy Wiseau can be your favorite movie of all time.  However, it is a fact that it is a bad film.  I like some bad movies and I admit it, but I'm not about to say "they're good".  Now take this a step further with blockbusters.  Here's where it gets trickier.  When comparing, say, The Avengers to The Dark Knight, I just don't know enough about film to say which one is better.  Still, I love both movies.

About the prog debate, I've thought a lot about it.  You definitely need to be somewhat open minded to be able to appreciate polyrhythms, strange time signatures and more complicated song structures.  The general mentality is that "if you need to work harder to get to it, or if something is harder to get the hang of, it must be better".  For example, anyone can run a mile in 15 minutes, but 7 minutes is a bit harder to achieve, which obviously means you're better than the people who can't do it.  Now, whether this applies to music or not is up for debate, but it is an interesting thought.  I mean, anyone can listen to a catchy pop song, but put on something like death metal and the amount of people who are able to appreciate it is substantially less.

One of the main facts of life is that the brain grows and develops over time.  When you're a kid, you're generally more immature than when you become an adult.  You mature and broaden your horizons.  Now, instead of thinking about life, think about music in this regard.  Most of us start out liking a pop song, it's basic and easy to pick up.  However, if you're interested in maturing and broadening your musical tastes, you branch out and find the genres that have more quality put into them.  Again, you can like what you like, but with musical intelligence comes more musically intelligent tastes.  Hey, some people are fine listening to catchy pop tunes and don't really care about music too much and that's ok.  I still love watching Disney films, just like a kid, but a kid can't appreciate Citizen Kane, or Stephen King's The Stand (the book).

[425]

I mean, anyone can listen to a catchy pop song, but put on something like death metal and the amount of people who are able to appreciate it is substantially less.

I think your analogy is inconsistent when you bring in death metal. I could understand saying that a Disney film ~ a pop song and that a complex film ~ a complex prog song or classical symphony. But I think the accurate comparison to death metal would be more like this:

An upbeat pop song ~ a Disney film and death metal ~ a horror film. Because death metal is not necessarily more complex or ambitious than popular music, but it is less accessible because to some people it is unbearably ugly (like a horror film). Meanwhile The Dance of Eternity or a Beethoven symphony IS more complex/ambitious than popular music, which is the reason for its relative inaccessibility.

[npiazza91]

Good point, thanks.  I got mixed up with accessibility vs complexity.  There is a fine line between the two though, as the two frequently overlap.  Death Metal does have a lot of talent behind it though.  I just personally can't get into it.  I respect it as much as I do heavy metal, prog and classical, but it just doesn't do it for me.  That's the thing, it's a mature outlook on something.  I have tremendous respect for Death Metal, even though I can't stand it, because I know it's good.  It's ignorant to say prog, classical and heavy metal in general is "bad".  These 3 genres (along with blues, jazz, probably a few others i'm forgetting) take an insane amount of talent that stuff like pop or rap just can't stand up to.  Unless you want to be immature and ignorant, there should be at least a respect and realization that these genres are extremely talented.  It doesn't piss me off that people listen to pop and such, I don't care what people like.  But there's a reason why  there are such things as "guilty pleasures".  If you listen to bad music, at least have the self awareness to know it's bad.  I love Linkin Park, it's my number 5 band, but they're not good, it's just a fact.  Again, I don't care either way and I guess ignorance is bliss, but...suit yourself.

I notice that a lot of people get very sensitive when dissing their music.  Myself included, I definitely do.  But I also have a reason to.  To say that Skrillex, which is clearly a "fad" "artist", is better than Iron Maiden, is a complete and utter joke.  Lack of self awareness is a huge pet peeve of mine, and it irritates the crap out of me that we have so many people in this world that clearly have no self awareness whatsoever, about anything.  I'll admit, I tend to be a bit too condescending when it comes to music, but at least I admit it.  It's one of my many flaws.

Again, like what you like, but please don't try to tell me that pop or rap, or dubstep is anywhere near the level of heavy metal.  Seriously, it's a joke.  I actually do like a lot of dubstep by the way, but it's not good at all.  I do prefer the heavy side of dubstep.  Now before you say "can YOU make a rap", let me say that "no I can't, but I also don't claim to be anything better than a toddler at it".

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

So death metal is objectively good and pop and rap are objectively bad? And you talk about a lack of self awareness.

[Calvin6s]

So pop is simple?

I love metal, but ......

Hmm.  I think I will put some guitar here.  This next section will have guitar.  Then we can move into a nice guitar part.

[Zantera]

The main problem I have encountered with some Prog Fans is not only the close-mindedness, but the stance that Prog is somehow superior to other genres. Whether they talk about Prog as being more technical, more advanced or talk down other genres. "Anyone can write a good 3 minute song" hell no. It's like some people have to justify their music taste by lifting it up above other genres, or bashing others. And I think this goes hand in hand with why Prog Fans (generally speaking) are less open minded than many other people, at least to me. They lift Prog up so high that nothing else no longer compares. I also have a pet peeve with Prog Fans who say bullshit like "I listen to most genres, I'm pretty open minded about music", and the music they listen to boils down to Prog AND Metal.

Not all Prog Fans are like this of course, and there are plenty of open minded ones as well. This is just a general picture I have after interacting with fans of the genre for years.

[ariich]

You probably think it's more common with prog fans simply because you encounter so many prog fans. Seriously, it's the same with any genre.

[Calvin6s]

You probably think it's more common with prog fans simply because you encounter so many prog fans. Seriously, it's the same with any genre.

Isn't this really all about people's ego?

I'm smart.  What do I like?  That must be what smart people like.  Great minds think alike.

[Nekov]

Isn't this really all about people's ego?

I'm smart.  What do I like?  That must be what smart people like.  Great minds think alike.

I think you nailed it

[Zantera]

You probably think it's more common with prog fans simply because you encounter so many prog fans. Seriously, it's the same with any genre.

Maybe, but DTF is far from the only music-related forum I browse, and so I try to "mingle" with fans of all genres. There are bad seeds in all genres, but prog fans, generally speaking are often the worst to me. But yeah, there are annoying fans of most genres, so it's far from being just one genre.

[snapple]

At the OP hell no. Most prog fans, from my experience, are the most closed minded people musically I have ever met. Super elitist and really unable to appreciate other genres for what they are.


It's fine though, because everyone has their opinions, but you can look at the lack of posts in the hip hop thread or the fact we don't have a single country music thread to realize that prog fans are closed off.

[Tiko]

I don't think musical taste has such strong correlation with personality. Would be different if we were talking about open-mindedness towards music, not towards views of life...

Are people who drink coffee black more philosophical than people who drink coffee with milk? Would I be a completely different person if I liked my brown shirt more than my green one instead of vice versa?

Just throwing another thought in... A nice topic/conversation nonetheless!

[425]

I have tremendous respect for Death Metal, even though I can't stand it, because I know it's good.  It's ignorant to say prog, classical and heavy metal in general is "bad".  These 3 genres (along with blues, jazz, probably a few others i'm forgetting) take an insane amount of talent that stuff like pop or rap just can't stand up to.  Unless you want to be immature and ignorant, there should be at least a respect and realization that these genres are extremely talented.  It doesn't piss me off that people listen to pop and such, I don't care what people like.  But there's a reason why  there are such things as "guilty pleasures".  If you listen to bad music, at least have the self awareness to know it's bad.  I love Linkin Park, it's my number 5 band, but they're not good, it's just a fact.  Again, I don't care either way and I guess ignorance is bliss, but...suit yourself.

How do you know death metal is good? How did you come to that conclusion when you "can't stand it"?

It's ignorant to say prog, classical and heavy metal in general is "bad".  These 3 genres (along with blues, jazz, probably a few others i'm forgetting) take an insane amount of talent that stuff like pop or rap just can't stand up to.  Unless you want to be immature and ignorant, there should be at least a respect and realization that these genres are extremely talented.  It doesn't piss me off that people listen to pop and such, I don't care what people like.  But there's a reason why  there are such things as "guilty pleasures".  If you listen to bad music, at least have the self awareness to know it's bad.  I love Linkin Park, it's my number 5 band, but they're not good, it's just a fact.  Again, I don't care either way and I guess ignorance is bliss, but...suit yourself.

So the sole measure of good music is talent involved? If I find the fastest, most technically guitar player in the world, then, and record an album of him wanking around on his guitar for 75 minutes, is that then one of the best albums of all time?

I certainly agree that there are many people of talent in those genres, however, I don't think that it's wise to go around in essence saying that even people who don't like those genres should pay them lip service.

Plus, as I just alluded to, pop music =/= bad music. And simple music =/= bad music. If you don't believe me on the second count listen to some Steven Wilson, a prog icon who often decides "simpler is better" and simplifies his songs. On the song The Raven That Refused To Sing, as Steven and his guitar player Guthrie Govan put it, the guitar player only plays around three notes, but they're the right three notes.

Again, like what you like, but please don't try to tell me that pop or rap, or dubstep is anywhere near the level of heavy metal.  Seriously, it's a joke.

Disagree. Whatever metric you're using, it's hard to argue that heavy metal forever and always beats out pop music. If all you're looking for is complexity—which, as I pointed out above, is not the only thing that matters—I would say that most modern pop is more complex than, say, Motörhead. If you really listen to a pop song, you'll hear that there's usually more than what you're expecting. It's not just a four chord synth pattern repeated for three and a half minutes. As Zantera said, no, it is not easy to write a good pop song.

[Implode]

I just read this thread and now my brain is melting out of my ears.

Objectively.

[ariich]

You probably think it's more common with prog fans simply because you encounter so many prog fans. Seriously, it's the same with any genre.

Maybe, but DTF is far from the only music-related forum I browse, and so I try to "mingle" with fans of all genres. There are bad seeds in all genres, but prog fans, generally speaking are often the worst to me. But yeah, there are annoying fans of most genres, so it's far from being just one genre.

Fair enough if that's your own experience, but I do think it's an unfair statement. I interact with people with all sorts of musical interests too, but ultimately notice this sort of snobbery in the genres where I know the most fans (prog, metal and indie, and recently I've been noticing it with electronic music as I've been getting into it more). And honestly, the snobbery is almost identical in each, just with a different underlying reason/mentality.

[hefdaddy42]

I would also like to point out that "snobbery" is almost always a fan thing, and not an artist thing. 

[npiazza91]

So death metal is objectively good and pop and rap are objectively bad? And you talk about a lack of self awareness.

Like I said, if you like pop and rap that's awesome, there's many fans of every genre.  I like a lot of dubstep, but it's bad.  Liking something and thinking it's good are completely different.  Every time I see a movie and someone asks me if it was good, I'll always say, yeah it was a very good film, but I personally hated it, or "it was terrible, but I actually liked it".

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

I'm probably going to regret this, but why? Why is dubstep bad? What objective measures can you possibly be using to derive objective quality for a piece of music? I could just as easily say the opposite, "I like metal, but it's bad. I hate dubstep, but it's good", and it would have just supporting evidence (i.e., none).

[Lucien]

Music is completely subjective, there is no "bad" music. Saying something is "good" is COMPLETELY PERSONAL OPINION, meaning if you actually like something, it will be "good" TO YOU. Saying you like something but also saying it's "bad" makes it sound like a guilty pleasure to you, which is wrong.

[Podaar]

but Lucien is correct

[TioJorge]