Steven Wilson Vs. Roine Stolt

HolyMoly wrote: If this happened in 2005, I think it's pretty much water under the bridge by now.  I think both parties came off a bit childishly.  Take Roine Stolt and Steven Wilson, and drop them in a discussion room of hard core "GLEE" fans.  Let them hear people argue at length over whether Finn and Rachel's marriage will be successful, or whether Puck is really a good guy or just a manipulative punk, the choice of songs in the "Madonna" episode, and whether or not Curt is a fair portrayal of a gay student.  After a couple of hours of this, Roine and Steve will understand that they're not so far apart after all.  They're both into progressive rock to the GLEE fan.

I remember when this came out and i was put off by Wilson's attitude but at the same time i was and still am a huge fan. As others have mentioned this was a long time ago and back then Wilson didn't have a lot of good things to say about progressive rock period. He always distanced himself from it while today he champions it. So i'm happy Wilson came around and i think he has matured some too.

Mellotron Storm wrote: I remember when this came out and i was put off by Wilson's attitude but at the same time i was and still am a huge fan. As others have mentioned this was a long time ago and back then Wilson didn't have a lot of good things to say about progressive rock period. He always distanced himself from it while today he champions it. So i'm happy Wilson came around and i think he has matured some too. I honestly think that the way The Flower Kings promoted a positive message and brought light into music pissed Wilson off back then as he was into the darker, melancholic style.

I agree mostly with SW, even if he is a total ass. Though I'm not a fan of TFK, Roine gets points in my book for being mature.

zumacraig wrote: of course,all of this means nothing.  let's talk about something really important, like Chik-Fil-A!

I didn't look at this thread until now because I thought it was another poll.  

As many have stated here, I do agree with Wilson's opinion about the kind of bands that move the genre forward. And also about the bands that don't move it forward. And if he doesn't like those bands, it's perfect, and he can say so without any recrimination from anyone. But implying that it is wrong what Stolt is doing with music, and that said music is bad music, that's what I think was wrong... he might have been a bit more diplomatic. That's always the better. I actually like what I have heard from both men, as long as the music is good, I don't care if it's retro or avant or whatever. I guess that if the musician is good, symphonic prog still has a lot to offer (I really love The Whirlwind as much as the best albums from the 70's, for example), if the musician is bad, avant music just won't be good.

I really have a hard time understanding the why of this kind of thing. Wilson is extremely talented, why should he feel the need to trash anybody? Artistic insecurity? I guess an artist is only as good as the next idea he has? I like music that is interesting enough to return to, over and over again. Both of these guys have created music that have done this for me- and both have created stuff that I don't listen to all that often. I don't like PROGRESSIVE MUSIC. I like music that is most easily described as Progressive. There is a difference and I am ever so thankful there continues to be music being made that I love, regardless of the genre, tag, or label associated with it.

questionsneverknown wrote: Sorry to go against the tide here but I don't think that Wilson is actually being that mean.  The interviewer asked him what he thought about current directions in progressive music and which ones he'd like to see be pursued further.  He then offered his opinion.  He spoke of bands that he thought moved the genre forward and others that he thought didn't, and he gave aesthetic reasons for why he thought this.  That seems completely reasonable.  It's what artists in most fields do--I like this direction, I don't like this one; I'd prefer to more of this and it's what I'm trying to do; I could do without more of that; it's not what I'm into and I don't think it's healthy for the field.  Again, that seems reasonable to me.

^ I agree completely with you Rob and i think it's a shame that people take the word "progressive" to mean the music has to explore new territories(good luck with that anyway). Progressive music is as you say music that isn't necessarily verse, chorus, verse, chorus etc but music that explores. I've even heard WIlson describe it this way. When you listen to Blues whether from 1960 or 1980 it's still Blues. It's a style of music just like Progressive Rock is a style. The word isn't a verb.