Are "prog" fans generally more open minded people?

[Jaffa]

You can use any criteria you want for deciding on if you personally like the band or not, because opinions, but someone more talented is better than someone less talented.

You still didn't answer my question regarding respect.

My answer is that whether or not you respect a musician is still going to depend on what criteria you choose to measure them by. 

[425]

Is John Cage's piece considered music by you guys? Good? Bad?

I would say 4'33" is not music for the same reason that 200 blank pieces of paper bound together is not a novel and 2 hours of a blank screen and silence is not a film.

Interesting point. To which I would add that each mind will process and experience music (and indeed any art form) differently. So to develop objective criteria such as those you suggest, you'd have to look at common occurences, probabilities etc., and then you end up going down the route of popular = good. Which, to be honest, is in reality the only objective measure of quality, just not one I think is very important or relevant.

I'm not so sure that would be the case. To be clear, I'm not talking about the specific interpretations or experiences that the mind has of a specific piece of music; I'm talking about mental processes of interpreting and experiencing music in a very general sense. Of course different people are going to have different responses to music, but I think that the actual mental mechanism of processing auditory input would work the same way for everyone.

[npiazza91]

Is John Cage's piece considered music by you guys? Good? Bad?

I would say 4'33" is not music for the same reason that 200 blank pieces of paper bound together is not a novel and 2 hours of a blank screen and silence is not a film.

Interesting point. To which I would add that each mind will process and experience music (and indeed any art form) differently. So to develop objective criteria such as those you suggest, you'd have to look at common occurences, probabilities etc., and then you end up going down the route of popular = good. Which, to be honest, is in reality the only objective measure of quality, just not one I think is very important or relevant.

I'm not so sure that would be the case. To be clear, I'm not talking about the specific interpretations or experiences that the mind has of a specific piece of music; I'm talking about mental processes of interpreting and experiencing music in a very general sense. Of course different people are going to have different responses to music, but I think that the actual mental mechanism of processing auditory input would work the same way for everyone.

Do I see a science experiment coming on here?

[npiazza91]

You can use any criteria you want for deciding on if you personally like the band or not, because opinions, but someone more talented is better than someone less talented.

You still didn't answer my question regarding respect.

My answer is that whether or not you respect a musician is still going to depend on what criteria you choose to measure them by.

Please tell me you're not suggesting that someone would respect a MUSICIAN for something other than talent.  Because respecting a musician for their hair, or the color of their guitar is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard and if someone DID make a statement like that, they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.  Sure, you can respect Skrillex for his bass drops and whatnot, but someone that has MORE RESPECT for Skrillex than Maiden is either uneducated in music, or just hasn't heard Maiden before.  You can like either one better, but one is clearly more talented than the other.

Also, I like how you only keep answering one of two sentences of my posts and continue to disregard the rest of them.

[rumborak]

Why is "The Who" considered one of the greatest bands of all time

Are they? Can't say I hear that sentiment uttered very often.

but someone that has MORE RESPECT for Skrillex than Maiden is either uneducated in music, or just hasn't heard Maiden before.

Lol. I think you are woefully ignorant as to the skill involved in crafting the sounds that go into a Skrillex song. Those sounds aren't just "Program #221" on whatever keyboard he owns, you know.

[npiazza91]

Why is "The Who" considered one of the greatest bands of all time

Are they? Can't say I hear that sentiment uttered very often.

Really?  Look online, take a music theory class, The Who is known to be one of the greatest of all time.

[rumborak]

I see them being referred to as "great", and "classic band", but usually I don't see them traded in the "Greatest band of all time" list. Case in point, just randomly pulled one list up, this list puts them at #29 of greatest artists of all time. That's by no means bad, but it's also nowhere near the top.

[Outcrier]

I think he meant one of the greatest bands, not THE greatest.

[TAC]

I see them being referred to as "great", and "classic band", but usually I don't see them traded in the "Greatest band of all time" list. Case in point, just randomly pulled one list up, this list puts them at #29 of greatest artists of all time. That's by no means bad, but it's also nowhere near the top.

Not that I'm a big The Who fan, but take out the singular artists and Rolling Stone has them still in the Top 10 of actual bands, and they have Velvet Underground and The Ramones ahead of them.

[Lucien]

Please tell me you're not suggesting that someone would respect a MUSICIAN for something other than talent.  Because respecting a musician for their hair, or the color of their guitar is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard and if someone DID make a statement like that, they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.  Sure, you can respect Skrillex for his bass drops and whatnot, but someone that has MORE RESPECT for Skrillex than Maiden is either uneducated in music, or just hasn't heard Maiden before.  You can like either one better, but one is clearly more talented than the other.

Also, I like how you only keep answering one of two sentences of my posts and continue to disregard the rest of them.

Talent is something one finds when they try a new hobby. Talent is when a person seems to be naturally good at something very early. It is their responsibility to WORK to nurture that talent, and if they do nothing and just rely on the talent, it will do them no good. If someone with no talent works really hard they will undoubtedly be better than the person who does not nurture the talent they have, and if they work even harder they can become better than even the person who works hard to nurture their talent. In reality, "talent" is also rather meaningless.

Skrillex is an example of someone who worked REALLY HARD for his position. He was not helped to fame, he worked very hard to obtain it.

Why is "The Who" considered one of the greatest bands of all time

Are they? Can't say I hear that sentiment uttered very often.

Really?  Look online, take a music theory class, The Who is known to be one of the greatest of all time.

  I'm sorry, but I'm currently taking theory in college, and I don't get why being musically educated would suddenly make me appreciate The Who. They have a few great songs, sure, but there are a ton of bands in that era that also have songs that are in my opinion equally as great.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

Eh, TVU deserve to be like #2 IMO.

[npiazza91]

I see them being referred to as "great", and "classic band", but usually I don't see them traded in the "Greatest band of all time" list. Case in point, just randomly pulled one list up, this list puts them at #29 of greatest artists of all time. That's by no means bad, but it's also nowhere near the top.

Ok, great we're getting somewhere.  As a critic, music or film, it is not their job to rate a film/band based on how much they LIKE it.  They are supposed to give a score based on how good it is.  Since there's so many variables to film and music, it's very hard to pin point everything and you just can't completely master the craft of giving something a rating.  But as you can see, a band like The Who pretty much fluctuates between #5-30 or so.  Seeing as how many bands are out there, that's amazing.  Now, when you get to comparing the top 50 or so bands of all time, this is when it gets very complicated, but comparing The Who to Miley Cyrus is a joke.  Why is there such a thing as "professional critic"?  Why do they need to go to school for it?  Why not just go to the theater and tell their boss if they liked it or not?  If everything is "just an opinion", then what do they need to learn?

The very fact that we're even discussing this for 10 pages speaks volumes about what I'm trying to say.  This would only go to 10 pages on something like Dream Theater forums.  Go to a Justin Beiber forum and try talking about this...they will be confused about what music theory even is, and that's ok.  They don't listen to Beiber for musical talent, they listen to him for their own reasons.  That is completely fine.  But compare Dream Theater and Justin Beiber, and there is no comparison as to which is the more talented artist.  Ok, it may be unfair because Bieber is only one person.  Yeah, he can sing really well, but can't play guitar very well, can't play drums very well, so DT already has the edge.  There's a reason why Rebecca Black is so hated...she doesn't know what the hell she is doing.  She is incompetent at the craft of making music.  Sure, you can like her music, anyone can LIKE anything.  I can bang on my table, call it a song and like it.  But the talent difference is night and day.  And talent=something you're good at.  If you're talented at something, you're good at it.

[Lucien]

Ok, great we're getting somewhere.  As a critic, music or film, it is not their job to rate a film/band based on how much they LIKE it.  They are supposed to give a score based on how good it is.  Since there's so many variables to film and music, it's very hard to pin point everything and you just can't completely master the craft of giving something a rating.  That being said, when something is rated by many many critics, it gives a ballpark indication on how good/bad it is, objectively.  If it wasn't objective, then why is there such a thing as "professional critic"?  Why do they need to go to school for it?  Why not just go to the theater and tell their boss if they liked it or not?

That totally explains why no critic who makes a list like that will end up with the same list as every other critic. No matter what, subjectivity will always be involved, because, again, there is no way to measure music objectively, only parts of it that don't really matter. When you get a degree in critical analysis of whatever, you're analyzing stuff in the same way we analyze stuff here. Opinions will still exist, and they are sure to always be different in some way, no matter how "objectively" you try to analyze, at least when talking about art.

[npiazza91]

Ok, great we're getting somewhere.  As a critic, music or film, it is not their job to rate a film/band based on how much they LIKE it.  They are supposed to give a score based on how good it is.  Since there's so many variables to film and music, it's very hard to pin point everything and you just can't completely master the craft of giving something a rating.  That being said, when something is rated by many many critics, it gives a ballpark indication on how good/bad it is, objectively.  If it wasn't objective, then why is there such a thing as "professional critic"?  Why do they need to go to school for it?  Why not just go to the theater and tell their boss if they liked it or not?

That totally explains why no critic who makes a list like that will end up with the same list as every other critic. No matter what, subjectivity will always be involved, because, again, there is no way to measure music objectively, only parts of it that don't really matter. When you get a degree in critical analysis of whatever, you're analyzing stuff in the same way we analyze stuff here. Opinions will still exist, and they are sure to always be different in some way, no matter how "objectively" you try to analyze, at least when talking about art.

Then what is the school trying to teach them?  What's the point of going to critic school if it's all opinions anyway?

[rumborak]

Being a good critic is much more about putting a certain piece of art into context, than saying "this sucks" or "this is great".

[Jaffa]

Also, I like how you only keep answering one of two sentences of my posts and continue to disregard the rest of them.

Sorry if that offends you.  I'm trying to make specific points, and so I'm addressing the parts of your posts that are relevant to those specific points.  I could address everything you say on a line-by-line basis, but it wouldn't further the discussion I'm trying to have in any meaningful way.

Please tell me you're not suggesting that someone would respect a MUSICIAN for something other than talent.  Because respecting a musician for their hair, or the color of their guitar is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard and if someone DID make a statement like that, they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.  Sure, you can respect Skrillex for his bass drops and whatnot, but someone that has MORE RESPECT for Skrillex than Maiden is either uneducated in music, or just hasn't heard Maiden before. 

What I'm suggesting is that you are wrong to imply that musical talent is the same thing as technical skill.  I don't respect Skrillex for his technical skill with an instrument.  I respect him for the massive amount of influence he has had on modern popular music, and for the way his creativity has helped advance a genre.  This is completely independent of technical skill, but it does factor into talent, as far as I'm concerned.

[rumborak]

Can you guys please stop being ignorant about Skrillex' skill? The guy is being hired for major Hollywood movies to design their sounds.

[Lucien]

Can you guys please stop being ignorant about Skrillex' skill? The guy is being hired for major Hollywood movies to design their sounds.

[Jaffa]

I didn't mean to imply anything negative about his skill level. 

[Lucien]

I didn't mean to imply anything negative about his skill level.

I didn't hear any implication from you, I was agreeing with rumbo

[Jaffa]

Fair enough.  I just wasn't sure whether or not his post was meant to be addressing me, so I thought I'd clarify my position.  I think Skrillex is massively talented, just not necessarily in the purely technical sense that npiazza has been focusing on. 

[rumborak]

I was just listening to "Bangarang", and the main part is just jaw-droppingly good, both technically and creatively.

[rumborak]

Trying it back to the OP point, people like Skrillex are truly progressive. The prog genre, for the most part, has a bunch of flies flying over it. It's just all technical skill at this point and regurgitation of tired concepts.

[TAC]

What's a Skrillex?

[Lucien]

Trying it back to the OP point, people like Skrillex are truly progressive. The prog genre, for the most part, has a bunch of flies flying over it. It's just all technical skill at this point and regurgitation of tired concepts.

I completely agree






 

[rumborak]

What's a Skrillex?

 https://youtu.be/YJVmu6yttiw

Do yourself a favor and turn it up, and wait until 0:25.

[TAC]

WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT??

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Yeah, I've tried multiple times to listen to Skrillex, but I just don't get it.

[rumborak]

This one is probably my favorite song of his:

 https://youtu.be/WSeNSzJ2-Jw

And again, crank it up. Its incredible.
I mean, it doesn't have to be your next "best music ever", but listen to how he constructs those bizarre sounds into a cohesive whole that is truly progressive, at the literal meaning of the word.

[ThatOneGuy2112]

It's very clear that Skrillex and other dubstep artists have loads of talent and are pushing many envelops, but the music just doesn't do it for me. It really doesn't have anything to do with me "not getting it", and if people dig it, that's fine. They hear something in it that I don't. It's not bad or anything, but I feel many dubstep songs end up being a tad formulaic. I don't want that to be a sweeping generalization though. I think someone earlier in the thread mentioned Burial's album Untrue, which is a great album. Skrillex is just one artist that doesn't do it for me, progressive or not.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

This one is probably my favorite song of his:

 https://youtu.be/WSeNSzJ2-Jw

And again, crank it up. Its incredible.
I mean, it doesn't have to be your next "best music ever", but listen to how he constructs those bizarre sounds into a cohesive whole that is truly progressive, at the literal meaning of the word.

Oh yeah, not denying that, I just don't enjoy listening to it.

[TAC]

Is that what dubstep is, cuz I was unclear on that too.

Well, there is certainly talent in the construction of the sounds. But seriously, how could anyone listen to that?

[rumborak]

@ThatOneGuy: And that's totally fair. It's not that I listen to the stuff in my spare time either. It gets played at the rock gym I go to, and it has a unique energy to it.

But the main point here is, many prog fans will go out of their way to discredit other genres based on those genres' supposed lack of skill, where in reality they are listening to a genre that is virtually dead, and the only progressive part is in its title.

[Jaffa]

This one is probably my favorite song of his:

 https://youtu.be/WSeNSzJ2-Jw

And again, crank it up. Its incredible.
I mean, it doesn't have to be your next "best music ever", but listen to how he constructs those bizarre sounds into a cohesive whole that is truly progressive, at the literal meaning of the word.

On the contrary, I've found that the bizarre sounds tend to detract from the overall cohesiveness of his music.  They have a way of distracting me from the brilliance of some of the underlying music.  But that's just me, of course. 

[King Postwhore]

I blame the Japanese programmers that work for Nintendo. 

It takes skill to program that but it's an assault on my ears.