Why does DT not get all the respect they deserve?

[Stadler]

To put it another way: There was NEVER a band BEFORE Dream Theater that was considered "heavy metal," but at the same time you could CLEARLY hear that they were influenced by the likes of ELP, Genesis, Kansas, Alan Parsons, Pink Floyd (although there is some of what Floyd did in Queenseryche's approach to their music) Rush and Yes, among others.

Whaaaa?  Other than UFO, you just listed Steve Harris' biggest influences.   Hell, listen to "Sign of the Cross" (at least the intro).  Sound familiar?

Look, biggest DT fan ever (well...) but they stand on the shoulders of those that came before just like everyone else, and Maiden covered some of the same ground as DT.  As did early Rainbow. 

[bosk1]

Yes, but that isn't the point.  There still was not really a "progressive metal" subgenre before Dream Theater.  No matter how you slice it, that just didn't exist.

[Stadler]

Yes, but that isn't the point.  There still was not really a "progressive metal" subgenre before Dream Theater.  No matter how you slice it, that just didn't exist.

I understand the point; I just don't think it was as abrupt as turning on a faucet (like, say, the punk or grunge movements were).  I think there's a lot to be said for, say, "Seventh Son of a Seventh Son" being "prog metal".   

[Outcrier]

But, today, albums like Awaken the Guardian, Operation Mindcrime and Transcendende are considered progressive metal and were released before DT's own debut.

Fro me, there as hints of prog metal in albums even before then, like And Justice for All and Seventh Son (as Stadler mentioned).

[bosk1]

But, today, albums like Awaken the Guardian, Operation Mindcrime and Transcendende are considered progressive metal and were released before DT's own debut.

Fro me, there as hints of prog metal in albums even before then, like And Justice for All and Seventh Son (as Stadler mentioned).

Yes, they definitely are considered "prog metal" by some.  Personally, I don't think that's an accurate description.  I think they were headed in that direction, and definitely influenced the direction of Dream Theater (and others).  I personally draw the line there between "bands that sometimes had some 'progressive metal' elements" or who influenced progressive metal vs. bands that are progressive metal.  It is most definitely a blurry line, and many might not agree with where to draw it.  That is valid.  But for purposes of this discussion, I still think the demarcation is clear enough for our purposes.

[rumborak]

I think it's silly to deny that DT established the genre. Case in point, they are by far the most copied (in terms of style) band in this genre.

[bosk1]

And that should settle it right there.  I mean, if rumborak and I actually agree on something, there really isn't any room left to debate. 

[emtee]

DT was crowned the pioneers of prog metal and all in all I'm comfortable with that. However there were many heavy bands before
DT that had strong progressive elements. Metal Church, Mercyful Fate (and Kind Diamond) Maiden, Fates Warning and others
that planted some seeds.

[Implode]

While I wouldn't say DT are the pioneers of prog metal, they definitely established the standard. That's how most music genres work; the people who first played with certain styles usually aren't the ones that everyone tries to mimic.

Also, DT's fans are some of the most loyal and passionate that I've seen. I think they've definitely gotten all that they deserve.

[Outcrier]

While I wouldn't say DT are the pioneers of prog metal, they definitely established the standard.

This is how i see it.

[rumborak]

And that should settle it right there.  I mean, if rumborak and I actually agree on something, there really isn't any room left to debate. 

I know!!

One might say it is ...



Astonishing!!

[Prog Snob]

They're the first band to be given that label. Regardless of where their influences came from, like bosk said, the genre didn't exist. You could say that Maiden had some prog influences on one of their albums but they have never been considered a prog band so saying they were proggish metal before Dream Theater makes no sense. Dream Theater certainly didn't get their prog influence from Maiden. Before WDADU unite was released, there was no such thing as prog metal unless you want to consider Fates Warning's Perfect Symmetry prog metal, which you arguably could. They came out the same year. It's a reasonable conclusion to say that DT were the first prog metal band. They're pioneers of the genre, being among the first to explore it.

[rumborak]

The thing is also, I can't from the top of my head think of another band that so consistently combined the two elements of prog and metal. Queensryche for example is mostly a rock/metal band. Their ventures into prog were more a nod to prog than serious footing in it. Same with many other bands that often come up.

[Enigmachine]

Fates Warning's Perfect Symmetry prog metal, which you arguably could.

I don't think this is arguable and I would also consider the previous three albums to be prog metal (particularly No Exit, which even has a full on prog metal epic).

[Aythesryche]

I understand why, but I never bought into the whole "popular" thing. Just because a whole lot of people agree that something is good doesn't mean that it is inherently better than something else thats inherently subjective. If 20 million people were convinced it was a good idea to jump off of a bridge to their doom, it doesn't mean its a good idea just because it's a popular idea, or anything else that's not common sense. Popularity does not equate to quality as indisputable fact for all in any end of the spectrum, nor does something that's not popular. DT is the greatest band on the planet, and they're also the worst. It just depends on who you ask. Personally, for me, they're an incredibly good band that I enjoy quite a lot. It so happens that a lot of people agree with me, and a whole lot of people don't. I couldn't care less, actually. What matters is what they do for me.

Could DT be the most popular band on the planet that commands more respect than all others? Based on what I know of people, and how there's such a broad gamut of mindsets and how people feel about things... No. Absolutely not. And to me, it would be futile to even be concerned about such things. DT has a good enough following to where the band is still motivated to continue to crank out astonishing stuff. That's good enough for me, and it always will be. Grammy nominations/wins, further recognition, broader respect, etc, etc is all just icing on the cake that's not needed.

[chaossystem]

Yes, but that isn't the point.  There still was not really a "progressive metal" subgenre before Dream Theater.  No matter how you slice it, that just didn't exist.

I understand the point; I just don't think it was as abrupt as turning on a faucet (like, say, the punk or grunge movements were).  I think there's a lot to be said for, say, "Seventh Son of a Seventh Son" being "prog metal".

I KNOW it wasn't as simple as "turning on a faucet." It was a gradual thing. I am also aware that Steve Harris cites Genesis and Jethro Tull as being among his influences.

I also know that Iron Maiden, Metallica and Queensryche, among other metal bands have "progressive influences" in their music. But I don't think we HEAR it as much as we do with DT. They were the first metal band to take that step ALL THE WAY into truly progressive territory.

Also punk didn't REALLY happen "all at once," and grunge, as far as I'm concerned, was just the THIRD WAVE of punk.

As for the OP's original point: Let's don't forget that they DO get a lot of respect among their PEERS. I don't think I've EVER heard of an interview in which another band, or member of a band has said anything that was less than positive about them!

[Stadler]

They're the first band to be given that label. Regardless of where their influences came from, like bosk said, the genre didn't exist. You could say that Maiden had some prog influences on one of their albums but they have never been considered a prog band so saying they were proggish metal before Dream Theater makes no sense. Dream Theater certainly didn't get their prog influence from Maiden. Before WDADU unite was released, there was no such thing as prog metal unless you want to consider Fates Warning's Perfect Symmetry prog metal, which you arguably could. They came out the same year. It's a reasonable conclusion to say that DT were the first prog metal band. They're pioneers of the genre, being among the first to explore it.

Or the first one's to be the "cliché" that requires the genre be "named", like Nirvana (doing what Soundgarden and The Mother Love Bone had been doing for about three years without a name to it...)

<RUNS AND HIDES>.   

Of course I'm kidding.  I'm not looking to denigrate what DT did and achieved.  Without question, they continued on and carried the torch; Maiden, for all their greatness, went through the period of "refining their sound", where Bruce sang in the deeper, raspier register, Metallica went through the "Load/Reload" years... I wouldn't say there is anything like that in the DT catalogue, and in fact they just went more full-on prog. 

So I hear you guys.  Loud and clear.

[thosava]

Even putting aside the fact that jazz has had almost a century and classical hundreds of years to build their respective cases, AND assuming that the average prog piece does actually deserve similar praise as the average jazz or classical in terms of musicianship:

Equating prog to jazz and classical and expecting it to have garnered praise and followers on a similar scale is insanely unrealistic.

Prog is one sub-genre, a backwater niche within the greater body of rock. How much praise does rock music get overall? Plenty.

Jazz and classical are both entire worlds of music on a scale comparable to rock. Take one specific “sub-genre” strand of the greater genres and it will be similarly a minor note in the greater body of the genre, like prog is in rock. How respected and well-known is European free jazz? How much respect and praise does Minimalist classical get?

Not to mention that if you take a modern classical or jazz piece and look at how much attention it gets compared to prog, it will give you a different perspective. Kamasi Washington’s The Epic is one of the most publicised, well-received jazz albums in a very long time, maybe decades. It’s been around for about 9 months, and its most viewed song on youtube has 423,000 views, and that’s WAY out in front of the average track on the album. The Astonishing hasn’t even been released yet, and The Gift of Music has twice that.

I agree with this, and i was thinking about this exact point earlier today. It's just my personal "utopia" to see prog getting as much praise as classical and jazz. I'm picturing a future where people study prog in the same vein as jazz. More mainstream popularity would most likely only be a detriment to the genre.

[hefdaddy42]

And that should settle it right there.  I mean, if rumborak and I actually agree on something, there really isn't any room left to debate. 

One is left to wonder why the thread,

NAY,

THE ENTIRE FORUM was left open after this point.

[TAC]

I think it's silly to deny that DT established the genre. Case in point, they are by far the most copied (in terms of style) band in this genre.

Right. And go to any Album Review site. Dream Theater is constantly referenced as the standard bearer of the genre when other bands' albums are being reviewed.

[Anguyen92]

If 20 million people were convinced it was a good idea to jump off of a bridge to their doom, it doesn't mean its a good idea just because it's a popular idea, or anything else that's not common sense.

Ahhh, yes the old "If so-and-so jumped a cliff, would you do it?"  This version I liked, Marge: If Milhouse jumped off a cliff... Bart: Milhouse jumped off a cliff?  I'm there.

Anywho.  I'd liked to believe, for the most part, Dream Theater is one of the more respected bands around.  I do not think anyone really have a constructively bad thing to say about their music and their professionalism.  Sure, there are naysayers, but there are always naysayers anyway in anything.  Rather than focus on that aspect, I'd like to focus on the positive.  I'm sure DT are more than thankful enough that they have attained the fanbase they got currently, over the years, playing the brand of music that they love creating and are glad that they are still around to create new music that intrigues them and call the shots their way. 

[thosava]

I have lurked a bit on the prog archives forums, and there it seems like they critisize DT with every chance they get.

[?]

While I wouldn't say DT are the pioneers of prog metal, they definitely established the standard.

[Rodni Demental]

Most people that I've seen that don't like Dream Theater are normally making sweeping generilisations from what they've heard, and to their credit, it doesn't have to be appealing and they don't have to like whatever it was they heard. The mistake would be to think everything else also sounds like what they've heard (would be a mistake to do that with anything though really). And so, Dream Theater becomes a definition for their impression of that one thing they heard. Those that are willing to dig deeper, tend to find at least something they like or can respect even if it's still not quite their cup of coffee. Pretty much I'm saying I know people that respectfully dislike them rather than being entirely dismissive.

Now, we know why genres are useful, but we also know why they can be limiting as you can't categorise everything into boxes and expect it to remain consistent. And that's where sub genres come in, but ultimately a band ends up getting defined or associated with the label they've given themselves, ala 'Dream Theater's music'. I've always found the prog label a bit of an oxymoron though. As in, how can a label define something, when the thing it's trying to define represents the sound of music that's trying to break out of the confines of another label? Yes prog is short for progressive, which is an adjective for another label and I don't see the point on going back and forward in it's alternate use or abbreviated form. So, what I'm trying to say is, I'm fairly sure prog music doesn't really exist in the strictest sense; it's still rock music. - Rock music (or metal music if you want) that doesn't necessarily fit into the expected or perhaps common conventions of their broader labels... I guess that's why we call it a sub-genre but what actually makes a bit of rock music 'prog'? Is it because it doesn't necessarily have the expected timing and structure of a conventional (whatever that is) 'rock' song? What makes something rock anyway? Because it rocks back and forward? Because it has guitar in it? What if it doesn't roll? As it obviously derives from rock n roll which I think is safe to say is fairly far removed as a description for all the various forms of 'rock' out there at this point.

Yeah, I don't really have a point and I'm probably just talking in circles and confusing myself here. 

Edit:

Also punk didn't REALLY happen "all at once," and grunge, as far as I'm concerned, was just the THIRD WAVE of punk.

I like that. Seems like a fair assessment. Grunge movement was basically a similar response to popular music from a different time and one could argue that grunge doesn't really exist either.

[Prog Snob]

They're the first band to be given that label. Regardless of where their influences came from, like bosk said, the genre didn't exist. You could say that Maiden had some prog influences on one of their albums but they have never been considered a prog band so saying they were proggish metal before Dream Theater makes no sense. Dream Theater certainly didn't get their prog influence from Maiden. Before WDADU unite was released, there was no such thing as prog metal unless you want to consider Fates Warning's Perfect Symmetry prog metal, which you arguably could. They came out the same year. It's a reasonable conclusion to say that DT were the first prog metal band. They're pioneers of the genre, being among the first to explore it.

Or the first one's to be the "cliché" that requires the genre be "named", like Nirvana (doing what Soundgarden and The Mother Love Bone had been doing for about three years without a name to it...)

<RUNS AND HIDES>.   

Of course I'm kidding.  I'm not looking to denigrate what DT did and achieved.  Without question, they continued on and carried the torch; Maiden, for all their greatness, went through the period of "refining their sound", where Bruce sang in the deeper, raspier register, Metallica went through the "Load/Reload" years... I wouldn't say there is anything like that in the DT catalogue, and in fact they just went more full-on prog. 

So I hear you guys.  Loud and clear.

I was always a Mother Love Bone fan. I remember when WSOU (Seton Hall's radio station) would always play them. Gentle Groove and Chloe Dancer/Crown of Thorns are two beautiful songs that I still listen to till this day. I'll take them any day over Nirvana. I never liked Nirvana...not at all.

I know that was irrelevant to the discussion, but I felt like bringing it up. 

[In The Name Of Rudess]

This is an interesting thread. Let's first generalize the question a bit:

"Why does DT not get all the respect they deserve?" ->
"Why do people prefer very simple music that only appeals to "base" emotions?" ->
"Why does popular culture in general tend to be very simple, i.e. have a very low intellectual content?"

A great deal has been written about this by academics in the past century. If we look at culture over the past few centuries, we see a steady decline in the complexity and content of art and public discourse in general. In the 18th and 19th century, what is now called classical music was the most popular music around. It is often erroneously thought that classical music was only for the elite, but in fact it was the most widely distributed music around. So we've gone from Beethoven and Liszt to Bieber and Kesha and we've gone from Dostoyevksy and Wilde to 50 Shades of Grey, from Jefferson to Trump. Many prominent anthropologists/sociologists (Eliot, Postman, Llosa, etc.) even refer to this phenomenon as the "death of culture". While I wouldn't go quite as far, it's obvious that the content of mainstream culture and discourse has declined. Now for the "why": the general consensus among academics is that the decline is primarily caused by a change in society from introspection and rationality to a preference for pure entertainment. Our whole society has become geared towards simple entertainment, and the primary goal in life is to feel good and look good, i.e. to maximize pleasure. The consummation of serious culture requires effort, which reduces instant pleasure. Furthermore, it's effort that does not make you any money, which in our hyper-consumerist culture has become the prime motivator of action for most. People prefer to numb themselves while serious culture is confrontational. It forces you to think about things like death, morality and community. Also, going outside of the mainstream reduces your status since it makes you an outsider, which again reduces pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure breeds conformity. This, in a cramped nutshell, is why I think DT does not get the respect they deserve.

[IDontNotDoThings]

[Stadler]

They're the first band to be given that label. Regardless of where their influences came from, like bosk said, the genre didn't exist. You could say that Maiden had some prog influences on one of their albums but they have never been considered a prog band so saying they were proggish metal before Dream Theater makes no sense. Dream Theater certainly didn't get their prog influence from Maiden. Before WDADU unite was released, there was no such thing as prog metal unless you want to consider Fates Warning's Perfect Symmetry prog metal, which you arguably could. They came out the same year. It's a reasonable conclusion to say that DT were the first prog metal band. They're pioneers of the genre, being among the first to explore it.

Or the first one's to be the "cliché" that requires the genre be "named", like Nirvana (doing what Soundgarden and The Mother Love Bone had been doing for about three years without a name to it...)

<RUNS AND HIDES>.   

Of course I'm kidding.  I'm not looking to denigrate what DT did and achieved.  Without question, they continued on and carried the torch; Maiden, for all their greatness, went through the period of "refining their sound", where Bruce sang in the deeper, raspier register, Metallica went through the "Load/Reload" years... I wouldn't say there is anything like that in the DT catalogue, and in fact they just went more full-on prog. 

So I hear you guys.  Loud and clear.

I was always a Mother Love Bone fan. I remember when WSOU (Seton Hall's radio station) would always play them. Gentle Groove and Chloe Dancer/Crown of Thorns are two beautiful songs that I still listen to till this day. I'll take them any day over Nirvana. I never liked Nirvana...not at all.

I know that was irrelevant to the discussion, but I felt like bringing it up. 

Always good to talk about MLB.   Easily my favorite of all the bands to come out of that time and scene.  There's such a melancholy air to all those songs, even the up tempo ones.   I know that Chris and Stone in particular have disavowed this notion on too many occasions (that Andrew was deeply sad and troubled guy), but there is such an aching sadness to those songs...  Man. 

[Stadler]

This is an interesting thread. Let's first generalize the question a bit:

"Why does DT not get all the respect they deserve?" ->
"Why do people prefer very simple music that only appeals to "base" emotions?" ->
"Why does popular culture in general tend to be very simple, i.e. have a very low intellectual content?"

A great deal has been written about this by academics in the past century. If we look at culture over the past few centuries, we see a steady decline in the complexity and content of art and public discourse in general. In the 18th and 19th century, what is now called classical music was the most popular music around. It is often erroneously thought that classical music was only for the elite, but in fact it was the most widely distributed music around. So we've gone from Beethoven and Liszt to Bieber and Kesha and we've gone from Dostoyevksy and Wilde to 50 Shades of Grey, from Jefferson to Trump. Many prominent anthropologists/sociologists (Eliot, Postman, Llosa, etc.) even refer to this phenomenon as the "death of culture". While I wouldn't go quite as far, it's obvious that the content of mainstream culture and discourse has declined. Now for the "why": the general consensus among academics is that the decline is primarily caused by a change in society from introspection and rationality to a preference for pure entertainment. Our whole society has become geared towards simple entertainment, and the primary goal in life is to feel good and look good, i.e. to maximize pleasure. The consummation of serious culture requires effort, which reduces instant pleasure. Furthermore, it's effort that does not make you any money, which in our hyper-consumerist culture has become the prime motivator of action for most. People prefer to numb themselves while serious culture is confrontational. It forces you to think about things like death, morality and community. Also, going outside of the mainstream reduces your status since it makes you an outsider, which again reduces pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure breeds conformity. This, in a cramped nutshell, is why I think DT does not get the respect they deserve.

That's an overly simple look at things. I tend to think that it's less a "decline" of civilization, than it is a refocusing or recompartmentalization of society.  It's hard to look at a culture that HAS to have a smart phone, that HAS to have cable/internet service tied to your refrigerator, and that HAS to have a car that is almost impossible to work on in your own garage as "base".   

In a time when your music served several masters - communication device, societal union device, entertainment device, intellectual stimulation device - maybe all that is true.  But now, we have the internet to communicate (who sends "mixtapes" anymore when you can send a picture of your cock over text?), we have sports events to serve as a societal meeting place, we have an increased sophistication at work and a plethora of magazines books and blogs by which we stimulate our intellect...  music is being devalued, if anything.  Not "dumbed down". 

Beethoven "competed", if you will, with Mozart.
Dream Theater competes with PlayStation4, Netflix, iTunes, and Facebook.  It's no wonder that emphasis is being placed on the emotive side of the equation.

[Prog Snob]

They're the first band to be given that label. Regardless of where their influences came from, like bosk said, the genre didn't exist. You could say that Maiden had some prog influences on one of their albums but they have never been considered a prog band so saying they were proggish metal before Dream Theater makes no sense. Dream Theater certainly didn't get their prog influence from Maiden. Before WDADU unite was released, there was no such thing as prog metal unless you want to consider Fates Warning's Perfect Symmetry prog metal, which you arguably could. They came out the same year. It's a reasonable conclusion to say that DT were the first prog metal band. They're pioneers of the genre, being among the first to explore it.

Or the first one's to be the "cliché" that requires the genre be "named", like Nirvana (doing what Soundgarden and The Mother Love Bone had been doing for about three years without a name to it...)

<RUNS AND HIDES>.   

Of course I'm kidding.  I'm not looking to denigrate what DT did and achieved.  Without question, they continued on and carried the torch; Maiden, for all their greatness, went through the period of "refining their sound", where Bruce sang in the deeper, raspier register, Metallica went through the "Load/Reload" years... I wouldn't say there is anything like that in the DT catalogue, and in fact they just went more full-on prog. 

So I hear you guys.  Loud and clear.

I was always a Mother Love Bone fan. I remember when WSOU (Seton Hall's radio station) would always play them. Gentle Groove and Chloe Dancer/Crown of Thorns are two beautiful songs that I still listen to till this day. I'll take them any day over Nirvana. I never liked Nirvana...not at all.

I know that was irrelevant to the discussion, but I felt like bringing it up. 

Always good to talk about MLB.   Easily my favorite of all the bands to come out of that time and scene.  There's such a melancholy air to all those songs, even the up tempo ones.   I know that Chris and Stone in particular have disavowed this notion on too many occasions (that Andrew was deeply sad and troubled guy), but there is such an aching sadness to those songs...  Man.

I know what you mean. There was an innate melancholy being imbued on the listener that you could feel through his words and even the mood of the song. I think I'll listen to them today.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

This is an interesting thread. Let's first generalize the question a bit:

"Why does DT not get all the respect they deserve?" ->
"Why do people prefer very simple music that only appeals to "base" emotions?" ->
"Why does popular culture in general tend to be very simple, i.e. have a very low intellectual content?"

A great deal has been written about this by academics in the past century. If we look at culture over the past few centuries, we see a steady decline in the complexity and content of art and public discourse in general. In the 18th and 19th century, what is now called classical music was the most popular music around. It is often erroneously thought that classical music was only for the elite, but in fact it was the most widely distributed music around. So we've gone from Beethoven and Liszt to Bieber and Kesha and we've gone from Dostoyevksy and Wilde to 50 Shades of Grey, from Jefferson to Trump. Many prominent anthropologists/sociologists (Eliot, Postman, Llosa, etc.) even refer to this phenomenon as the "death of culture". While I wouldn't go quite as far, it's obvious that the content of mainstream culture and discourse has declined. Now for the "why": the general consensus among academics is that the decline is primarily caused by a change in society from introspection and rationality to a preference for pure entertainment. Our whole society has become geared towards simple entertainment, and the primary goal in life is to feel good and look good, i.e. to maximize pleasure. The consummation of serious culture requires effort, which reduces instant pleasure. Furthermore, it's effort that does not make you any money, which in our hyper-consumerist culture has become the prime motivator of action for most. People prefer to numb themselves while serious culture is confrontational. It forces you to think about things like death, morality and community. Also, going outside of the mainstream reduces your status since it makes you an outsider, which again reduces pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure breeds conformity. This, in a cramped nutshell, is why I think DT does not get the respect they deserve.

That's an overly simple look at things. I tend to think that it's less a "decline" of civilization, than it is a refocusing or recompartmentalization of society.  It's hard to look at a culture that HAS to have a smart phone, that HAS to have cable/internet service tied to your refrigerator, and that HAS to have a car that is almost impossible to work on in your own garage as "base".   

In a time when your music served several masters - communication device, societal union device, entertainment device, intellectual stimulation device - maybe all that is true.  But now, we have the internet to communicate (who sends "mixtapes" anymore when you can send a picture of your cock over text?), we have sports events to serve as a societal meeting place, we have an increased sophistication at work and a plethora of magazines books and blogs by which we stimulate our intellect...  music is being devalued, if anything.  Not "dumbed down". 

Beethoven "competed", if you will, with Mozart.
Dream Theater competes with PlayStation4, Netflix, iTunes, and Facebook.  It's no wonder that emphasis is being placed on the emotive side of the equation.

I don't see how your argument proves that current culture isn't dumbed down. You're only arguing that it's okay for it to be dumbed down because we have a wider array of intellectual sources available than before. That doesn't change how culture has in fact declined. When you compare for instance 19th century classical music with current pop music I don't see how you could not conclude that music has been dumbed down.

Furthermore, a few centuries back music didn't necessarily serve more functions as you imply. It's not like music was the only thing around, there was theater, political debates and rallies, plenty more public events than today, literature... Music was competing with many other sources of leisure. It's just that the content of all of these things was much more cerebral. It was fairly normal for the average Joe to attend Shakespeare plays or political debates, or to read Homer or academic essays, especially in the early US. Brain training was encouraged the same way physical training is now encouraged. All of this has changed.

Also, by "It's no wonder that emphasis is being placed on the emotive side of the equation. " are you implying that more complex cultural media have less emotional impact than simple cultural media? I would highly dispute that and would generally claim the opposite.

[bosk1]

I was always a Mother Love Bone fan. . . . Gentle Groove and Chloe Dancer/Crown of Thorns are two beautiful songs that I still listen to till this day. I'll take them any day over Nirvana. I never liked Nirvana...not at all.

I know that was irrelevant to the discussion, but I felt like bringing it up. 

I will contribute to the distraction by simply giving a "+1" to all of that.  ALL.  OF.  IT.  And while there are any number of songs you could add to the list, I will just give a quick plug for Man of Golden Words and relinquish the mic.

[Prog Snob]

 

I'm going to check that song out specifically.

[bosk1]

Quick fun fact:  Queensryche's Empire and Mother Love Bone's Apple were my two most-played tapes during my stay in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during Desert Storm/Shield.  Seattle ruled my Walkman in the desert. 

[Stadler]

I don't see how your argument proves that current culture isn't dumbed down. You're only arguing that it's okay for it to be dumbed down because we have a wider array of intellectual sources available than before. That doesn't change how culture has in fact declined. When you compare for instance 19th century classical music with current pop music I don't see how you could not conclude that music has been dumbed down.

You're all over the map.  Is it "culture" that is dumbed down, or is it "music" that is dumbed down?  They are not the same thing.

What I'm saying is that when you have more than one variable ("culture" is made up of more than just "music"), you can't point at ONE variable (here, "music") and say it is indicative of all of them.   And then, you are, within music, comparing one specific genre of one time period with another specific genre of another time period.  It's not enough to say "classical music was the "pop" of it's time".  No, it wasn't, in the sense that there were not the modes of transport that there are now.  You wanted music?  You had to go to a music hall and hear it performed.  There was no "studio" with which one could "create" a piece of sound with no regard for the actual playing of it.

It's like the guy that drinks RC Cola, which starts to use less and less sugar (even though Coke, Pepsi, Fanta, etc. is using more and more and more sugar) and says "Damn, soda these days.  Less and less sweet!". 

Furthermore, a few centuries back music didn't necessarily serve more functions as you imply. It's not like music was the only thing around, there was theater, political debates and rallies, plenty more public events than today, literature... Music was competing with many other sources of leisure. It's just that the content of all of these things was much more cerebral. It was fairly normal for the average Joe to attend Shakespeare plays or political debates, or to read Homer or academic essays, especially in the early US. Brain training was encouraged the same way physical training is now encouraged. All of this has changed.

"Plenty more"?   I'm thinking NOT.  Everything you mentioned has an analogue today; but not everything from today has an analogue to then.   What was the analogue to the mall?  To movies?  To the smartphone?  To sporting events?  To surfing the internet?   To "Netflix and chill"?  To PlayStation?  To playing on GarageBand?   To cable television?   To regular telephones?  To cooking?  To any of 1,000 things that people do today to find emotional and intellectual relief and stimulation.   

Also, by "It's no wonder that emphasis is being placed on the emotive side of the equation. " are you implying that more complex cultural media have less emotional impact than simple cultural media? I would highly dispute that and would generally claim the opposite.

No, I'm not implying it, I'm outright saying it.  Yeah, I am.   What's the most common knock against the Malmsteens and Manginis of the world?   Phenomenal technique, no emotion. "Robotic".  I'm not suggesting that it is true all the time, but there's a reason that "The Beatles" wasn't John Van Halen, Paul Pastorius, George Malmsteen, and Ringo Peart.    There's also a reason - and I don't mean to venture into sexism here, but it's something to contemplate - that women flocked to the Beatles and not to Weather Report.