"Time Flies" (New PT single)

Jake Kobrin wrote: russellk wrote: p0mt3 wrote: russellk wrote: p0mt3 wrote: -Radioswim- wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: The chorus sounds more like the outro to "Sheep" to me, but it's a very good songs and only sounds slightly familiar. The lyrics in particular seem to have shed some teenage angst. Yeah, the chorus is from 'Sheep', and the verses are from 'Dogs'. 'And after a while . . . ' 'You've got to . . . ' to me seem like clear rip-offs lyrically, as well as musically. PT is turning into DT What? "and after a while" and "you've got to"? are your examples of 'copy cat' lyrics????! are you a fool man? As if Pink Floyd pioneerd those sentance fragments... *laugh* I started eating bananas 'and after a while' i got a stomach ache... 'You've got to' be a fool. Oh man i just copied Pink Floyd everyone... That's very funny. Truly. The lyrics on their own are not enough evidence obviously, but again, as I already stated earlier (I seem to be repeating that sentence a lot lately. ), the lyrics a long with the chords are clearly both from the Animals record. I was making a very astute observation, that's all. If that makes me 'foolish' in your eyes, well frankly that doesn't bother me one bit. Just because you yourself can't grasp what I'm talking about doesn't make my opinion any less relevant or accurate than your own, and to be honest, I'm getting quite fed up with Steve Wilson worshipers taking such offense at my statements. You react with hostility and name-calling as if what I said was negative. I said nothing of the sort. I never meant my observations to be perceived as criticism. I was merely observing that this song takes many cues from a Pink Floyd piece. How exactly is that 'bad'? I swear, I'm beginning to think PT fans are just as bad as Twilight readers when it comes to their tolerance for others' viewpoints. Now, had I maliciously attacked Wilson and his band by calling them a bunch of inspireless t**sers or something of the like, I could see where your name calling and ranting would be justified, but because I say the combination of music and lyrics are ripping off another song (which by the way is a great song!), you see fit to resort to this type of behavior? Maybe you think by me saying PT 'ripped-off' Pink Floyd, that I am in fact calling the four piece a literal 'rip-off'. But let me assure you; I have nothing but love for Porcupine Tree and their music, and I have just as much of a right to criticize it (positively or negatively) as you do. Would you not agree? Actually, I suspect that some on this thread - including me - just don't agree with you. We understand you, you've made yourself perfectly clear on a number of occasions, but we don't agree. I'm looking forward to a healthy exchange of opinions once the album comes out :) You honestly believe that Radioswim was merely saying that he 'just doesn't agree with me'? Calling a person a fool for not sharing their viewpoint on something as subjective as music is seems much more like an attempt to start a fight than a simple disagreement. Note that I said 'some'. And now you two are semi-fighting over over wheher or not you were fighting... p.s. Pyramid.

lmao.

p0mt3 wrote: russellk wrote: p0mt3 wrote: -Radioswim- wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: The chorus sounds more like the outro to "Sheep" to me, but it's a very good songs and only sounds slightly familiar. The lyrics in particular seem to have shed some teenage angst. Yeah, the chorus is from 'Sheep', and the verses are from 'Dogs'. 'And after a while . . . ' 'You've got to . . . ' to me seem like clear rip-offs lyrically, as well as musically. PT is turning into DT What? "and after a while" and "you've got to"? are your examples of 'copy cat' lyrics????! are you a fool man? As if Pink Floyd pioneerd those sentance fragments... *laugh* I started eating bananas 'and after a while' i got a stomach ache... 'You've got to' be a fool. Oh man i just copied Pink Floyd everyone... That's very funny. Truly. The lyrics on their own are not enough evidence obviously, but again, as I already stated earlier (I seem to be repeating that sentence a lot lately. ), the lyrics a long with the chords are clearly both from the Animals record. I was making a very astute observation, that's all. If that makes me 'foolish' in your eyes, well frankly that doesn't bother me one bit. Just because you yourself can't grasp what I'm talking about doesn't make my opinion any less relevant or accurate than your own, and to be honest, I'm getting quite fed up with Steve Wilson worshipers taking such offense at my statements. You react with hostility and name-calling as if what I said was negative. I said nothing of the sort. I never meant my observations to be perceived as criticism. I was merely observing that this song takes many cues from a Pink Floyd piece. How exactly is that 'bad'? I swear, I'm beginning to think PT fans are just as bad as Twilight readers when it comes to their tolerance for others' viewpoints. Now, had I maliciously attacked Wilson and his band by calling them a bunch of inspireless t**sers or something of the like, I could see where your name calling and ranting would be justified, but because I say the combination of music and lyrics are ripping off another song (which by the way is a great song!), you see fit to resort to this type of behavior? Maybe you think by me saying PT 'ripped-off' Pink Floyd, that I am in fact calling the four piece a literal 'rip-off'. But let me assure you; I have nothing but love for Porcupine Tree and their music, and I have just as much of a right to criticize it (positively or negatively) as you do. Would you not agree? Actually, I suspect that some on this thread - including me - just don't agree with you. We understand you, you've made yourself perfectly clear on a number of occasions, but we don't agree. I'm looking forward to a healthy exchange of opinions once the album comes out :) You honestly believe that Radioswim was merely saying that he 'just doesn't agree with me'? Calling a person a fool for not sharing their viewpoint on something as subjective as music is seems much more like an attempt to start a fight than a simple disagreement.

Note that I said 'some'.

p0mt3 wrote: -Radioswim- wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: The chorus sounds more like the outro to "Sheep" to me, but it's a very good songs and only sounds slightly familiar. The lyrics in particular seem to have shed some teenage angst. Yeah, the chorus is from 'Sheep', and the verses are from 'Dogs'. 'And after a while . . . ' 'You've got to . . . ' to me seem like clear rip-offs lyrically, as well as musically. PT is turning into DT What? "and after a while" and "you've got to"? are your examples of 'copy cat' lyrics????! are you a fool man? As if Pink Floyd pioneerd those sentance fragments... *laugh* I started eating bananas 'and after a while' i got a stomach ache... 'You've got to' be a fool. Oh man i just copied Pink Floyd everyone... That's very funny. Truly. The lyrics on their own are not enough evidence obviously, but again, as I already stated earlier (I seem to be repeating that sentence a lot lately. ), the lyrics a long with the chords are clearly both from the Animals record. I was making a very astute observation, that's all. If that makes me 'foolish' in your eyes, well frankly that doesn't bother me one bit. Just because you yourself can't grasp what I'm talking about doesn't make my opinion any less relevant or accurate than your own, and to be honest, I'm getting quite fed up with Steve Wilson worshipers taking such offense at my statements. You react with hostility and name-calling as if what I said was negative. I said nothing of the sort. I never meant my observations to be perceived as criticism. I was merely observing that this song takes many cues from a Pink Floyd piece. How exactly is that 'bad'? I swear, I'm beginning to think PT fans are just as bad as Twilight readers when it comes to their tolerance for others' viewpoints. Now, had I maliciously attacked Wilson and his band by calling them a bunch of inspireless t**sers or something of the like, I could see where your name calling and ranting would be justified, but because I say the combination of music and lyrics are ripping off another song (which by the way is a great song!), you see fit to resort to this type of behavior? Maybe you think by me saying PT 'ripped-off' Pink Floyd, that I am in fact calling the four piece a literal 'rip-off'. But let me assure you; I have nothing but love for Porcupine Tree and their music, and I have just as much of a right to criticize it (positively or negatively) as you do. Would you not agree?

Actually, I suspect that some on this thread - including me - just don't agree with you. We understand you, you've made yourself perfectly clear on a number of occasions, but we don't agree. I'm looking forward to a healthy exchange of opinions once the album comes out :)

-Radioswim- wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: The chorus sounds more like the outro to "Sheep" to me, but it's a very good songs and only sounds slightly familiar. The lyrics in particular seem to have shed some teenage angst. Yeah, the chorus is from 'Sheep', and the verses are from 'Dogs'. 'And after a while . . . ' 'You've got to . . . ' to me seem like clear rip-offs lyrically, as well as musically. PT is turning into DT What? "and after a while" and "you've got to"? are your examples of 'copy cat' lyrics????! are you a fool man? As if Pink Floyd pioneerd those sentance fragments... *laugh* I started eating bananas 'and after a while' i got a stomach ache... 'You've got to' be a fool. Oh man i just copied Pink Floyd everyone...

That's very funny. Truly.

The lyrics on their own are not enough evidence obviously, but again, as I already stated earlier (I seem to be repeating that sentence a lot lately. ), the lyrics a long with the chords are clearly both from the Animals record. I was making a very astute observation, that's all. If that makes me 'foolish' in your eyes, well frankly that doesn't bother me one bit.

Just because you yourself can't grasp what I'm talking about doesn't make my opinion any less relevant or accurate than your own, and to be honest, I'm getting quite fed up with Steve Wilson worshipers taking such offense at my statements. You react with hostility and name-calling as if what I said was negative. I said nothing of the sort. I never meant my observations to be perceived as criticism. I was merely observing that this song takes many cues from a Pink Floyd piece. How exactly is that 'bad'? I swear, I'm beginning to think PT fans are just as bad as Twilight readers when it comes to their tolerance for others' viewpoints.

Now, had I maliciously attacked Wilson and his band by calling them a bunch of inspireless t**sers or something of the like, I could see where your name calling and ranting would be justified, but because I say the combination of music and lyrics are ripping off another song (which by the way is a great song!), you see fit to resort to this type of behavior?

Maybe you think by me saying PT 'ripped-off' Pink Floyd, that I am in fact calling the four piece a literal 'rip-off'. But let me assure you; I have nothing but love for Porcupine Tree and their music, and I have just as much of a right to criticize it (positively or negatively) as you do. Would you not agree?

-Radioswim- wrote: Nothing can be said to warrant 'copy cat' lyrics from those sentance fragments. Unless they are in the same context, and in the same structure as said name song.

 . . . and that is exactly the case with this track.


Edited by p0mt3 - August 11 2009 at 00:19

AtlantisAgony wrote: I think perhaps that he meant the way this lines are fitted in to the music, how they are sung, etc...

I think perhaps that he meant the way this lines are fitted in to the music, how they are sung, etc...

Edited by AtlantisAgony - August 08 2009 at 11:05

So I'm the only one who thinks it sounds more like TMV than PF? Ah well, I can bear the burden of truth alone. ;-)

IGNEO1991 wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: P0mt3 I don't know why you're freaking out. You do realize that PT has been trying to sound like PF since they started. I mean come on. Well, they haven't succeeded until now, my friend.   wht?? listen to the 'sky moves sideways'... if that doesnt sound like pink floyd to you then listen again

As I stated already, Sky Moves Sideways is the only other time PT has sounded blatantly like PF, but even then, it was only because Wilson was adopting a similar playing style to Gilmour, and that was where the similarities ended.

With this track, the chords are almost exactly the same, with only a few tweaks here and there to give the song some sense of identity. It therefore is the first time PT have actually succeeded in sounding exactly lie Pink Floyd.

My opinion.

I really wish people would overview what I type before bringing up stuff I've already addressed. It saves me from repeating myself, after all.

I find the single somewhat dissapointing. It really does sound like PF's Dogs, which I don't think is a bad thing, as I am a huge Floyd fan. I do think that the song lacks power though. I find it kind of uninteresting at some times. This might be caused because I had some very high expectations on the single after hearing the medley of the whole album. 

So I listened to half of the song, and I must admit I'm seriously disappointed. I dont know if it was the boring guitar, or if I was just put off the the ridiculously corny lyrics... "I was born in '67 the year of Seargeant pepper..." Ugh kill me.