Why does DT not get all the respect they deserve?

[BlobVanDam]

To clarify this I'd have to go into an explanation on the objective metrics of music and how they relate to quality, for which this forum isn't really a suitable medium, so I suggest we agree to disagree on this particular point, or continue in PM as you wish.

There are objective components to music, but it is subjective as to how they relate to the "quality" of music.

Complexity is an objective measure. There is a staggering difference in complexity between a Beethoven sonata and a pop song. Therefore, a Taylor Swift song could be considered dumbed-down compared to a Beethoven sonata. Doesn't matter if it was directed by others or not.

Only if you make the leap from simpler = dumber or vice versa. The emotional response we have to music is what defines our enjoyment of it, which can just as well be accomplished with 3 chords and a relatively simple melody as it can with a complex layered sonata. This is why the average person doesn't care about prog, not because they're too dumb. Complexity is only relevant when trying to prove your objective musical superiority to strangers on the internet.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Completely understandable.  HOWEVER, they are about as much grunge as Queensryche, which is to say not at all (despite that two of their members founded Pearl Jam after Andrew Wood died).  I would recommend giving them a chance.  I mean, it definitely isn't Kiss/Van Halen.  But it isn't Nirvana either.

Yeah, see, the whole "they went on to become Pearl Jam" thing gives me pause, but if you say it's acceptable, I can at least give it a chance.   

[Podaar]

=subjective vs. objective

[thosava]

What is more interesting to discuss would be why some people enjoy complex music more and why others prefer simple music. Enjoyment of music can't be measured objectively, but one has to admit that the three most complex genres of music are classical, jazz and prog (or am i forgetting some?). Why is it that some people like this more than simpler songs? Simpler songs are amazingly more popular, and the majority can't be wrong, right? Why do we enjoy this music that "no-one" else seem to like?

[In The Name Of Rudess]

To clarify this I'd have to go into an explanation on the objective metrics of music and how they relate to quality, for which this forum isn't really a suitable medium, so I suggest we agree to disagree on this particular point, or continue in PM as you wish.

There are objective components to music, but it is subjective as to how they relate to the "quality" of music.

Like I said, I don't think this forum is a good medium to go into this particular topic at any depth, so I'd prefer not to.

Complexity is an objective measure. There is a staggering difference in complexity between a Beethoven sonata and a pop song. Therefore, a Taylor Swift song could be considered dumbed-down compared to a Beethoven sonata. Doesn't matter if it was directed by others or not.

Only if you make the leap from simpler = dumber or vice versa.

Let's see what the Cambridge dictionary says:
"dumb-down: the act of making something simpler"
Not really a leap, simply the meaning of the word.

The emotional response we have to music is what defines our enjoyment of it,

Only if you stick to a romantic worldview where the only purpose of art is to produce emotions. I can for example greatly enjoy some later pieces by Pierre Boulez purely for their intellectual content even though they produce no emotional response in me. Same for some parts of the Kunst der Fuge. It's like mathematics in a sense.

Complexity is only relevant when trying to prove your objective musical superiority to strangers on the internet.

Nope. For me there are 2 aspects to music: emotional and intellectual. Pop music only reaches that emotional level but is unsatisfactory because it doesn't stir the intellect. Classical music on the other hand is both emotionally and intellectually stimulating which makes it much more satisfying. Therefore it's very relevant to me in a real practical sense.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Not even Domino's can deliver like this thread does.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

]
Enjoyment of music can't be measured objectively,

It can be done. Put someone in an MRI scanner, play some music and check the activation of endorphine producing brain regions.

]
Why is it that some people like this more than simpler songs? Simpler songs are amazingly more popular,

I think it's because simple songs produce instant emotions without requiring any effort. Classical music or jazz usually takes some effort to comprehend and to get into, which most people don't want to exert. Furthermore, people are constantly exposed to pop music, which increases familiarity. Also, many people care a lot about fitting in and are into music for the social aspects, especially when they're young. Since musical preferences are usually created at a relatively young age, it follows that simple music will be popular.

]
and the majority can't be wrong, right?

That is a very, very thorny argument. Can 40 million Nazi's be wrong, for instance?

[thosava]

It can be done. Put someone in an MRI scanner, play some music and check the activation of endorphine producing brain regions.

I don't know exactly what i meant but i think it was that we can't objectively measure how good music is.

and the majority can't be wrong, right?

That is a very, very thorny argument. Can 40 million Nazi's be wrong, for instance?

This was obviously ironic.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

I think it's because simple songs produce instant emotions without requiring any effort.

Inversely, one would have to conclude that it takes an awful lot of effort for jazz, classical, or prog to produce an emotional response.

[BlobVanDam]

]
Enjoyment of music can't be measured objectively,

It can be done. Put someone in an MRI scanner, play some music and check the activation of endorphine producing brain regions.

I'd love to put someone in an MRI scanner, make them read this thread, and watch those endorphine levels drop to zero.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

[In The Name Of Rudess]

I think it's because simple songs produce instant emotions without requiring any effort.

Inversely, one would have to conclude that it takes an awful lot of effort for jazz, classical, or prog to produce an emotional response.

I wouldn't say an awful lot, but definitely more. IMO, the greater the complexity, the longer it takes to build familiarity, though in the end you get a wider experience.

]
Enjoyment of music can't be measured objectively,

It can be done. Put someone in an MRI scanner, play some music and check the activation of endorphine producing brain regions.

I'd love to put someone in an MRI scanner, make them read this thread, and watch those endorphine levels drop to zero.

well not everyone likes discussions I guess. I must say I like it a lot better than the usual: "so I like this song, do you guys like this song too?" "hey there's a new interview/video/teaser" "hey let's rank stuff. "

[thosava]

I find myself agreeing with almost everything you say In The Name Of Rudess.

[rumborak]

Just asa side point here,I hate it when people glorify the classical music era as this era when "music perception and appreciation was at its height".
Those pieces were not meant, nor listened to, by the general public. They were written by people who resided with dukes and kings, for *their* pleasure. The music of the general masses in those days was no more advanced than today's Irish fiddle songs. Simple and repetitive, so you can dance to it.

This is often claimed but has no factual basis. Classical music was the music of the masses. Your statement is only true for Renaissance music and very early baroque music. After roughly 1700, music printing became much cheaper and what we now call classical music quickly became the most widely distributed music around. Some extra facts:

- Composers like Franz Liszt and Paganini toured Europe and played thousands of concerts during their lifetimes in very accessible venues. They were the first rock stars and real celebrities known to the masses. Many of these were even charity concerts and were freely accessible.
- During the late 18th and 19th century, music was a mass-market. Opera transcriptions by Puccini and Verdi to be played at home were sold by the ten, sometimes hundred thousands. Some great composers like Brahms could live off of sheet music sales alone. This is how widely the music was distributed. Thus it was hardly music for "dukes and kings".
- During the early 18th century, opera houses popped up all over Europe, often featuring very large "footman's galleries" which offered very cheap standing place brimming with workpeople. Opera stars were celebrities and one of the main foci of social gossip, not only among the aristocracy. Anyone who could afford a newspaper knew about them. Although opera was only for the upper middle class during the early 18th century, this quickly changed and was even accessible for common folk during the second half of the 18th and the whole 19th century.

Interesting, thanks for the correction. At the same time, I just have a *really* hard time imagining that a lowly commoner's main "supply" of music was by going to events like that. For the most part these people lived in small village spattered across Europe; opera houses and music halls will have been reserved for large cities, and surely not been on a "I have a hankering for music, gonna swing by the music hall after work".

And, just reading the Wikipedia article about music in the Middle Ages, it seems this was the normal way of listening to music:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelman_(music)

My greater point here is, most history focuses on a small subset of society, usually the well-off who had influences and thus shaped history. One rarely hears about the  everyday life of the commoner. So, I always have the impression that high-society lifestyles are used to assume overall society norms in the Middle Ages and later. I come from a podunk small town in Northern Germany; I am absolutely certain that my town had no opera houses, or big music halls for that matter. But, those people will still have listened to music.

[pcs90]

I think it's because simple songs produce instant emotions without requiring any effort.

That seems pretty accurate.
Strangely enough I have little interest in classical but love prog and most jazz (not so much traditional swing, but jazz fusion stuff that uses a wider variety of styles). For me, my enjoyment of music isn't based on how simple or complex it is. Some things click with me and some don't. For example, I think the instrumental section of Outcry, which a lot of people around here seem to dislike, is great. However I'm bored to death of the one in Metropolis Part 1. And just as much as I love Outcry's crazy instrumental I also love I Walk Beside You, one of the simplest things DT has ever written. The thing is, compared to most mainstream pop, IWBY, These Walls and other simple DT songs have something that the rest lacks for me. I don't know what it is but both of those songs would rank in my top 20 DT songs easily (TW maybe in my top 10). They're very radio friendly tracks. But with a lot of pop I feel no emotion, it's just like background music to me. Not really sure how or why this is the case.

[bosk1]

=subjective vs. objective

Well, unfortunately, a LOT of people obviously don't get it, so resurrecting the horse will continue...

[Podaar]

I just need to stay away from such discussions, bosk. It never fails to frustrate me and I'm no good at explaining why. 

[Outcrier]

I think it's because simple songs produce instant emotions without requiring any effort.

I wouldn't generalize.

[hefdaddy42]

Complexity is an objective measure. There is a staggering difference in complexity between a Beethoven sonata and a pop song. Therefore, a Taylor Swift song could be considered dumbed-down compared to a Beethoven sonata. Doesn't matter if it was directed by others or not.

Only if you make the leap from simpler = dumber or vice versa.

Let's see what the Cambridge dictionary says:
"dumb-down: the act of making something simpler"
Not really a leap, simply the meaning of the word.

Not really.  You can "dumb down" something that has some level of complexity to make it simpler.  That is NOT the same as saying that everything that is seemingly simple is dumb.

For me there are 2 aspects to music: emotional and intellectual. Pop music only reaches that emotional level but is unsatisfactory because it doesn't stir the intellect. Classical music on the other hand is both emotionally and intellectually stimulating which makes it much more satisfying. Therefore it's very relevant to me in a real practical sense.

See the bold print, which is the most relevant part.

Listen, I love prog, jazz, and classical.  I also like to dance and tap my foot to a 12-bar blues, and I like to sing along with a hit in the company of a few hundred to a few thousand of my closest friends.  Neither extreme is better or worse than the other.

And speaking of complexity vs. simplicity in music, sure, groups like, say, Snarky Puppy or Glass Hammer excel at making "complex" music, but the hardest thing to do in music is to make a hit.  That's not really ever going to happen to either group.

[Stadler]

And there you go again, confusing "quantity" with "quality".   It would help your argument a LOT if you didn't keep confusing your assumptions with your conclusions.   There is no causal relationship between "complexity" and "quality", except in your belief system.

"Yesterday". 

To clarify this I'd have to go into an explanation on the objective metrics of music and how they relate to quality, for which this forum isn't really a suitable medium, so I suggest we agree to disagree on this particular point, or continue in PM as you wish.

Bring it.  If you haven't figured it out, you're not talking to a 17-year-old in his mom's basement on this.  I've had this conversation too many times to count (including with at least one person whom you have heard sing on the radio) and done (some of) the academic research.   Even if you do "explain" the objective metrics of music, for one to assess "good" and "bad" you would have to assign a relative worth to those metrics, and BOOM, you're right back in the realm of subjective again.

It seems we're using different definitions of culture. In my first post already, I clarified that by culture I was talking about public discourse and art, i.e. music, visual arts, literature. Sure technology and science have advanced, I never disputed that.

Well, thus my point that you are picking one sliver of "culture" (art is a part of it, but it encompasses all aspects of human intellectual achievement).   Even if we just stick to the application of technology to art, we're in an unprecedented time of human creation.   Not saying he couldn't do it, but I have no doubt that Beethoven would be gobsmacked by what Roger Waters has accomplished, and given that both men were/are unsufferably irascible and not at all taken with social "place" or "status", they might even find themselves compadres of a sort. 

During the golden age, in a city like Amsterdam the aristocracy consisted of about 10% of the population. This may not seem like much, but it's more equal than the current US. Receiving very extensive musical training was a must for this section of society and people who weren't educated in music were poorly esteemed (source: Well-being in Amsterdam's Golden Age by Phillips). The same was true for England and Germany, though it took slightly longer for them to catch up with the Netherlands' colonial urges and economic growth (History of western music by Norton).

Bernie Sanders is on the phone; he has a problem with your math.     

Complexity is an objective measure. There is a staggering difference in complexity between a Beethoven sonata and a pop song. Therefore, a Taylor Swift song could be considered dumbed-down compared to a Beethoven sonata. Doesn't matter if it was directed by others or not.

NO NO NO.  It can only be said that it is more or less complex.  The VALUE judgment you prescribe to it - "dumbed down" -  is YOURS and YOURS ALONE.   You are assuming that "complex" is better, you are assuming that Beethoven's complexity was a purposeful endeavor, and you are assuming that it was not evidence of his failure to achieve "simplicity".   That right there is my entire point in a nutshell.  You can measure just about anything, but once you get to the point of putting a qualitative spin on that quantity, you're in the paradox of using your own assumption as proof of your thesis.   

We indeed cannot say who our Shakespeare will be. I can however tell who our Shakespeare will not be by looking at the top 40. Will Justin Bieber be the next Beethoven? Or Kesha the next Mahler? History has shown that pop artists, and especially those who don't break any new ground are very quickly forgotten. Case in point: let's look at the top 40 of as recently as 1960. Ever heard of Chubby Checker? Mark Dinning? Bobby Darin? These people topped the charts and are completely forgotten. Pop artists are mostly disposable products who perform disposable music. There are of course some exceptions like The Beatles, but even then: I gave some workshops in local high schools recently and most 16-year olds can't name a single song by them. A few of them knew a few songs but called them "boring" because they didn't have "a beat". I expect that in 50 years or so, bands like The Beatles will be just as marginalized as classical music, or even more so, because pop music isn't interesting enough for musicologists to write about and it is not possible to perform it since you kind of need the real Beatles for that, unlike classical music where the link between the composer and the performance is much smaller.

Yeah, let's look at the Top 40.  That Elvis, he blows (there are STILL people who believe him alive to this day, even though he would be 81).  Those Beatles.  What a waste, eh?  They just SUCK. No longevity them.   Gone like the passing wind.   

Look, notwithstanding all the griping by others in this thread about dead horses and whatnot, I could have this conversation 100 times.  It's fascinating to me on so many levels.  But I'm not really here to have you spew your opinions as if they were concrete facts.  That "pop music isn't interesting enough for musicologists to write about" is pure bollocks.  As is the performance aspect of it (not even mentioning the thousands of covers of Beatles songs, there is Beatlemania, and the Fab Faux and Yellow Matter Custard to speak about).   There are literally 100's of books on The Beatles alone, and ten times that when you expand it out.  If you can't put aside your subjective bias, and can't stop using your assumptions as proof of your thesis, I'm really going to step aside and be done with it. 

[Stadler]

Completely understandable.  HOWEVER, they are about as much grunge as Queensryche, which is to say not at all (despite that two of their members founded Pearl Jam after Andrew Wood died).  I would recommend giving them a chance.  I mean, it definitely isn't Kiss/Van Halen.  But it isn't Nirvana either.

Bosk is right; it is STEEPED in Kiss/Van Halen, but it isn't those.  It's got some glam in there too (Queen-style)... it's hard to quantify except by what it's not.    It's smarter and more musical than Nirvana, it's rawer than Queensrhyche, it's lighter and less metallic than Soundgarden...

If you like Soundgarden, maybe start with the "Temple of the Dog" record; Cornell was Wood's roommate and friend, and when he died, Ament and Gossard (of MLB and later Pearl Jam) got together with Chris to put out this record.  The first two songs - Say Hello 2 Heaven and Reach Down - were written in the immediate aftermath of Wood's death, and the rest came from the recording of those two. 

But Apple is a solid work of art by any standard.  It's really a strong record.   (It's available as part of a compilation album that has Apple and all but one song from their earlier EP, Shine).   The Shine version of "Crown of Thorns" - with the "Chloe Dancer" intro - is preferred, in my opinion.   

[Stadler]

Nope. For me there are 2 aspects to music: emotional and intellectual. Pop music only reaches that emotional level but is unsatisfactory because it doesn't stir the intellect. Classical music on the other hand is both emotionally and intellectually stimulating which makes it much more satisfying. Therefore it's very relevant to me in a real practical sense.

But you are irreparably confusing what YOU prefer with some cosmic "objectivity".  I for one intellectually "prefer" simple, because it is so hard to do well.   I keep bringing it up, but I am far more intellectually stimulated by "Yesterday" than I am "The Revealing Science of God" because of the greater disparity between what Paul accomplished with what it's impact is.  Classical music isn't at all "intellectually" stimulating to me in that sense, though I concede a fascination with certain musical concepts that are far easier to ascertain in classical than in most rock/pop, like counterpoint, for example.  And I have yet to hear a classical piece that can move me to tears, but dammit if I can't listen to Drops of Jupiter without bawling like a baby.  I'm not saying I am the standard either, but rather putting myself out there as a data point that disproves your theory.

And before you go there, I played guitar since I was 15 (haphazardly, though professionally for a short time), have two advanced degrees and have been a member (well, eligible; I suppose I should pay the dues at some point) of MENSA for the better part of two decades.    So it's not a question of "capability" or "intelligence". 

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

Nope. For me there are 2 aspects to music: emotional and intellectual. Pop music only reaches that emotional level but is unsatisfactory because it doesn't stir the intellect. Classical music on the other hand is both emotionally and intellectually stimulating which makes it much more satisfying. Therefore it's very relevant to me in a real practical sense.

But you are irreparably confusing what YOU prefer with some cosmic "objectivity".  I for one intellectually "prefer" simple, because it is so hard to do well.   I keep bringing it up, but I am far more intellectually stimulated by "Yesterday" than I am "The Revealing Science of God" because of the greater disparity between what Paul accomplished with what it's impact is.  Classical music isn't at all "intellectually" stimulating to me in that sense, though I concede a fascination with certain musical concepts that are far easier to ascertain in classical than in most rock/pop, like counterpoint, for example.  And I have yet to hear a classical piece that can move me to tears, but dammit if I can't listen to Drops of Jupiter without bawling like a baby.  I'm not saying I am the standard either, but rather putting myself out there as a data point that disproves your theory.

This particular point was only about my own experience (for me, to me, etc.) and not to be generalized per se.
I also wouldn't say your experiences disprove any theories. In my experience, classical music simply requires a far greater degree of familiarity to become "effective" so to speak. As a child I hate classical music, and it wasn't until I had studied it for years that it really clicked, and I've heard the same from others.

Bring it.  If you haven't figured it out, you're not talking to a 17-year-old in his mom's basement on this.  I've had this conversation too many times to count (including with at least one person whom you have heard sing on the radio) and done (some of) the academic research.   Even if you do "explain" the objective metrics of music, for one to assess "good" and "bad" you would have to assign a relative worth to those metrics, and BOOM, you're right back in the realm of subjective again.

Like I said, I don't have time or energy now to write a whole essay on a backwater forum where a handful of people will read it. I don't doubt your intelligence.

Well, thus my point that you are picking one sliver of "culture" (art is a part of it, but it encompasses all aspects of human intellectual achievement).   

Depends on your definition. I think the whole of culture is much too broad a topic to discuss, hence my preference for discussing slivers.

Bernie Sanders is on the phone; he has a problem with your math.     

I'm not from the US (or from the English speaking world for that matter) so I know he's a candidate but that's about it. Going to have to pass on this one.

NO NO NO.  It can only be said that it is more or less complex.  The VALUE judgment you prescribe to it - "dumbed down" -  is YOURS and YOURS ALONE.   You are assuming that "complex" is better, you are assuming that Beethoven's complexity was a purposeful endeavor, and you are assuming that it was not evidence of his failure to achieve "simplicity".   

Beethoven was perfectly capable of writing very simple though high quality pieces. Take the Für Elise for example. Since he was able to write good simple music, he must have felt limited by the lack of complexity or have had another good reason to write difficult music, or otherwise he wouldn't have taken the (much greater) effort required to do so.

Yeah, let's look at the Top 40.  That Elvis, he blows (there are STILL people who believe him alive to this day, even though he would be 81).  Those Beatles.  What a waste, eh?  They just SUCK. No longevity them.   Gone like the passing wind.   

For most people in their teens and twenties they're indeed gone like the wind. The name remains, but most young people rarely listen to Elvis or the Beatles nor do they have a lot of knowledge about them. Most would be hard pressed to name a single song by either of them.

That "pop music isn't interesting enough for musicologists to write about" is pure bollocks.

Compare the amount of academic papers on classical music and pop music and you'll see that the bollocks are not so pure. Most papers on pop music are written by anthropologists researching the cultural implications of pop music, not the music itself. The first academic society on pop music wasn't founded until 1994, and even now it remains fairly weak and little research is performed. From a theoretical point of view, there's just not so much to write about in pop music compared to dense contrapuntal music on which you can build a career.

As is the performance aspect of it (not even mentioning the thousands of covers of Beatles songs, there is Beatlemania, and the Fab Faux and Yellow Matter Custard to speak about).

Beatles cover bands generally have a pretty limited following of people pretty much exclusively in the "Beatles generation age" (50-60) and will likely never be close to mainstream. The Beatles as they were recorded are gone forever which I think is problematic for their survival.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

or have had another good reason to write difficult music, or otherwise he wouldn't have taken the (much greater) effort required to do so.

He thought the chicks would dig it.

They did not.

See also:  prog.

[bosk1]

...and have been a member (well, eligible; I suppose I should pay the dues at some point) of MENSA for the better part of two decades.   

STOP RIGHT THERE! 

...

Okay, now you may continue.


^This is what is known as a MENSA-pause.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

or have had another good reason to write difficult music, or otherwise he wouldn't have taken the (much greater) effort required to do so.

He thought the chicks would dig it.

They did not.

See also:  prog.

Ah, so that's why he never got married 

[hefdaddy42]

...and have been a member (well, eligible; I suppose I should pay the dues at some point) of MENSA for the better part of two decades.   

STOP RIGHT THERE! 

...

Okay, now you may continue.


^This is what is known as a MENSA-pause.

How long have you been waiting to use that one?

[Tumdace]

Who cares, as long as they keep putting out great music.

I love the fact that I can enjoy music from this hidden gem that most people have never heard of.

[Prog Snob]

This thread. This thread is why prog music and its fans don't get respect.

I'd like to agree with you, but if people are basing their musical taste on what others have to say about it, they're foolish.

[BlobVanDam]

This thread. This thread is why prog music and its fans don't get respect.

I'd like to agree with you, but if people are basing their musical taste on what others have to say about it, they're foolish.

That's not how I meant it. I meant what it says about the music that this is the level it's analyzed and appreciated at by fans, not that the fans and this type of discussion are directly what puts people off the music. I meant the indirect correlation rather than the direct.
As I said, for most people music is about raw emotional response, not about time signature changes and "complexity" and academic analysis.

So just go ahead and agree with me.

[Prog Snob]

This thread. This thread is why prog music and its fans don't get respect.

I'd like to agree with you, but if people are basing their musical taste on what others have to say about it, they're foolish.

That's not how I meant it. I meant what it says about the music that this is the level it's analyzed and appreciated at by fans, not that the fans and this type of discussion are directly what puts people off the music. I meant the indirect correlation rather than the direct.
As I said, for most people music is about raw emotional response, not about time signature changes and "complexity" and academic analysis.

So just go ahead and agree with me.

Not everybody scrutinizes the music and goes through it with such diligence. The fans who do strip it apart and analyze every note, time change, and nugget, are also people who love the music. I doubt they're sitting here fervently describing every nuance about a song while having no love for the music itself. If some of them are, they're the exception not the rule. Directly or indirectly is irrelevant. Listen to something. If you like it, then that's it. What other people say shouldn't matter. At what level people analyze the music shouldn't matter.

[BlobVanDam]

Again, that wasn't my point as to why people dislike prog.

[Prog Snob]

You made your point clear on the second try after your first one was a vague generalization about the thread in general. Regardless of any of that though, my point is still that people should just listen to the music they want to and not be concerned about subordinate details. If they're not going to listen to something because of the reasons you stated, then they're completely oblivious to the point of appreciating music and that people appreciate music on different levels.

[BlobVanDam]

My first post was a dig more than anything else.
You should know by now not to overanalyze anything I say. But then again, this whole thread is about overanalyzing things to death.