Not true at all? Let's break it down:
"Progressive music tries to elevate itself as an art form." That's not true? Certainly nothing you wrote rebuts that statement. Do you really believe this not to be true? In answering this question, note my use of the word "tries," which implies that it is not always successful.
Yes and no. Not all prog music tries to elevate itself as an art form. Some of it is bands and artists trying to imitate and recreate music that struck and emotional chord with them. In fact, I'd wager that that's the majority of prog that's out there. #NotAllProg tries to be super artsy. Prog is simply a genre of music and a means of expression. Every genre of music has artists that try to reach that lofty standard of "high art" with mixed results (yes even pop), and artists that try to play it safe with mixed results. Prog doesn't really lean strongly to one way or the other. At the end of the day, music (regardless of genre) is about expression and emotion. That's it.
"Many (possibly even a majority) of consumers of pop/rock music are not seeking high artistic statements from their music." I broke down the second part of my dichotomy into two parts, but really the entirety of the second part was focused on what "consumers of pop/rock music" are and aren't seeking, and your assertion that there are "a lot of 'high artistic statements' in pop music that are a) really popular, and b) well-liked" (two terms which, as far as I can tell, mean exactly the same thing) doesn't rebut what I wrote.
When I used the term "many," I obviously meant some number less than all, and by also using the parenthetical "possibly even a majority," I was clearly implying that "many" could easily be some percent of "consumers of pop/rock music" less than 50%.
I used "popular" to indicate a) commercial success, and b) renown. There are plenty of things that are commercially successful and renowned but not well-liked. Love Beach hit #55 on the Billboard Hot 100 and went Gold and is fairly well-known, but it is definitely not well-liked. It's popular, but it's not well-liked. That probably should've been clearer, I admit.
There's an implication in your post that progheads are trying to seek out high artistic statements and popheads/rock fans are not. Both of these are generalizations that don't really hold much truth to them. Quite a few popheads/rock fans are looking for grand artistic statements and quite a few progheads are looking for music that sounds familiar and they can enjoy. If you look at the pop charts at rate your music, you'll easily see this. Michael Jackson's Thriller (the best selling album of all time) is listed at #29 under much more experimental acts like Bjork and Kate Bush (who, btw, were both very successful as pop acts and are household names). There's a lot of pop music that fits the criteria of what you describe as the pophead's ideal, but isn't successful. Katy Perry's recent album was a massive flop and it fits that ideal. Meanwhile, more complex "high artistic statements" of pop music have been extremely successful. To add more recent examples, Kate Bush's first tour in 39 years made international headlines. Back a couple of years ago when Radiohead announced A Moon Shaped Pool, it was all anyone ever talked about and it definitely could be described as an attempt at some sort of "high art". Last year, Lorde's Melodrama debuted at #1 on the Billboard Hot 100. A lot of more experimental and "artistic" bands and albums sell very well, even in recent times. Even those progressive "high artistic statements" were huge hits. Most of the four classic albums by Pink Floyd were, Close to the Edge and Tales from Topographic Oceans (the poster child for "progressive high artistic statements") both hit in the Top 10 in the US and UK, with TfTO reaching #1 for two weeks.
Your entire premise that the general population aren't seeking anything "artistic" is incredibly flawed, because clearly those "high artistic statements" in music are being sought out frequently and consistently.
You seem to have interpreted what I wrote as some sort of attack on popular music. It was anything but. Remember that the OP's inquiry was why "many people" call "prog rock" "pretentious." My response was an attempt to offer an opinion about why those persons who do characterize "prog rock" in that way (and I think we can all agree that this does occur) do what they do. Because the inquiry is why these persons do this, the focus of my response was on those people and no on popular music. I have personally had discussions with folks who view progressive music as "pretentious," and it is my observation that the persons who feel this way "are not seeking high artistic statements from their music."
Rereading your post, I can't interpret it any way but "prog is high art, pop is low brow music for the uneducated masses". You're implicitly attacking pop music and the people who listen to it by saying that there's a clear distinction between "high art" (prog) and pop. If this wasn't your intention, you
really did not do a good job of getting your point across.
And I don't think citing your interpretation of private conversations you've had is a reliable source at all.
"and are happy with short, easily accessible songs about simple subjects." I separated this part of my response out because it could be interpreted as a stab at pop music, but let's look at it closer. First of all, as noted above, we're talking about the people who refer to "prog rock" as "pretentious" and considering why those people do that. I believe it to be true that such persons are far more interested in "simple" pop music than pop music that is, itself, on the more complex side of things (whether musically or lyrically).
No, but you didn't mention that at all. You said "
consumers of pop music" not "
people who consider prog pretentious". You're conflating the two, which are not inclusive. By mentioning "consumers of pop music", you're implying that that group considers prog pretentious. Not every consumer of pop music considers prog pretentious, and there are a lot of people who like both.
I wouldn't even consider most pop music "simple". Some of the techniques they use for arrangement and production are really in-depth, there tends to be a lot of playing with lyrical structure, and making a catchy melody is not as simple as most people think. But even if pop music were "simple", what you argued still wouldn't be true. If you even look at the Billboard Hot 100 for this week or any week, you'll consistently find a mix of what would be called "simple" pop music and more experimental and complex pop music. Heck, the #1 album right now is "ye" by Kanye West, which is...a bit on the experimental side, to put it lightly.
While it's true that people who prefer "three chords and the truth" probably won't be fans of prog music (although, you'd probably be surprised), it's not true that there's a significant overlap between "consumers of pop music" and "people who prefer simpler music and find prog pretentious", which is what you seem to be arguing.
Of the "recent examples" you cited, the only one with which I have any familiarity is "The Black Parade," and that's only because that song was used as the theme song for the Los Angeles Kings' 2012 Stanley Cup run. Are the lyrics a "high artistic statement"? I honestly can't say because I never analyzed them to any great extent, but I'm perfectly happy to assume they are. The music certainly isn't anything special, except that it is evocative and emotional (as is the singer's delivery). However, this simply illustrates the point I made elsewhere in this thread that there's a lot of really good pop music. As an aside, I'm not entire sure how "popular" this song or band is because I don't think I've ever heard of either outside of the hockey context I mentioned.
I'm actually a little surprised you hadn't heard of most of those. All of them were nearly inescapable, at least in the US. The Black Parade went Triple Platinum in the US and was accredited in a number of other counties. Plus, there are a lot of memes.
That said, there are a number of things that most of them have in common:
1) Most, if not all of them are concept albums. That's already an attempt at reaching for some "high artistic statement".
Spoiler alert: "The Black Parade" is specifically a concept album about a young man who's dying of cancer and reliving his life in his final moments. Eventually, he dies and begins musing on how his death affects others, his life and its significance, and even on what death is. Which could qualify as a "high artistic statement".
2) They attempt to go beyond the conventions of the genre (which even the illustrious prog doesn't do very frequently) to create new sounds and interpretations of music in that genre.
The Black Parade brought in more "art-rock" influences from the likes of Queen, Pink Floyd, and David Bowie. There's a lot of guitar orchestrations that wouldn't be present on emo/punk albums from that time, more polished and complex guitar work, the inclusion of sound effects, and some neat vocal harmonies.
3) They tried to bring other artforms into their expression and push the boundaries of those mediums as well. Lemonade, famously, was accompanied by a 45min music video.
The Black Parade used theatrical elements like costumes, staging, and effects in the live shows and music videos.
Honestly, though, I'm still very surprised you aren't familiar with most of them. American Idiot was adapted into a Broadway musical (which I've heard is good), most of the albums have gone some form of platinum, and they attracted lots of attention and talk. What's even cooler is that these more experimental albums were some of these bands' greatest hits. The extreme presence of "highly artistic" popular music that is still well-regarded and extremely popular completely negates your claim that "consumers of pop/rock music are not seeking high artistic statements from their music and are happy with short, easily accessible songs about simple subjects". All evidence points to the contrary.
And, for the record, if you had said something like "People who like simpler music would find prog's attempts at making grandiose higher artistic statements pretentious", I would have taken 0 issue with it. If that's what you meant at the core, fine, but there were unnecessary digs at pop music and generalizations you included that I did take issue with.