I've had Porcupine Tree/ Steven Wilson's solo work recommended to me a lot and when I've checked it out I've found it very underwhelming and unprogressive. With Early PT it sounds like there ripping off Early Pink Floyd with a hint of Beatlesque pop but at least these albums aren't overrated or anything. But with this bands release in the 2000s I get even more frustrated. A lot of their songs follow a set formula with alt rock influences and poppy choruses followed by some "Prog Metal" riffs and the production sounds way too clean to the point that it lacks any meat to it. The long songs lack any interesting structures and get buried under long ambient sections. It's obvious that Steven Wilson was trying to be the next Pink Floyd/King Crimson and failing miserably. His solo work gets even more derivative and many songs sound like imitations of early Genesis and King Crimson and the Canterbury scene. I'm not trying to criticize Modern Prog or it's musicians just that I have little interest in it, I like bands like Tool and Primus that have clear Prog influences but don't try to sound like or harken back to the 70s and as a result they often aren't called Prog which I think isn't a bad thing, bands that are called Neoprog often sound a bit dull to my ears like they lack an artistic edge.the new British Art Rock/Post-Punk bands I've been really enjoying such as black midi and Black Country, New Road and I feel like there going for a unique style that has influences from Prog without repeating it. Overall what I'm saying is that Progressive Rock had such an amazing run in the early 70s that maybe it's ok that we leave it there and expand on the ideas that inspired them without copying there music.

I don't associate PT with prog metal, maybe a few songs here and there but not really, Modern Prog suits me fine. 

For me PT is one of the better if not defining bands of Modern Prog, because as you say it pulls from KC, PF, Genesis but with a modern sound to it.

As far as production quality, Steven Wilson is easily one of the best recording/mixing engineers of the past 20 years, his work in the studio with PT as well remixing many classic progressive rock albums is excellent.

SW last couple solo albums are not prog, they are very heavy pop/rock/alternative rock based, so again its how you look at labels. Most of it is very good to great music, especially the early albums.

Or more likely falling Up the Downstair while sleepwalking through a Stupid Dream. 

Yeah and I'm enjoying this exploration

We have every anticipation that upon completion of your forthcoming, detailed PT deliberations, you will be able to furnish this young man with the benefits of your research... something the rest of us await from afar, with great interest...  

rushfan4 wrote: You come across as someone who would enjoy falling down the stairs with a pan on your head.

Are you sure you're not thinking of someone else?

^ Ah, yes, he came to my mind too...

Canterbury23 wrote: As a 19 year old Prog fan who got into the genre with the 70s classics it's been interesting dipping my toe into Modern Prog. (...)  I've had Porcupine Tree/ Steven Wilson's solo work recommended to me a lot and when I've checked it out I've found it very underwhelming and unprogressive. With Early PT it sounds like there ripping off Early Pink Floyd with a hint of Beatlesque pop but at least these albums aren't overrated or anything. But with this bands release in the 2000s I get even more frustrated. A lot of their songs follow a set formula with alt rock influences and poppy choruses followed by some "Prog Metal" riffs and the production sounds way too clean to the point that it lacks any meat to it. The long songs lack any interesting structures and get buried under long ambient sections. It's obvious that Steven Wilson was trying to be the next Pink Floyd/King Crimson and failing miserably.

I pretty much agree with your assessment here, though I would probably write it down differently... For me, too, Steven Wilson is more harking back and compiling from his musical influences than creating "original" music. PT has never been able to convince me... However, his outings under the No-Man monniker, with Tim Bowness, are maybe more interesting. Not necessarily prog, but to me it is more original and more proper to these artists/musicians than any other endeavour he (Wilson) has been in. In my opinion.

PT for sure never were great innovators, I look for such qualities elsewhere. But much of their material does the magic for me just based on musicality and taste. This is hard to explain and very subjective, it has to do with whether I feel that music speaks to me on a deep individual emotional level (it stopped after Deadwing, SW's solo material rarely manages to do the trick). By the way I'd explain my love for Camel similarly. I just get the impression that everything in a track or on an album makes sense for me, has a flow, conveys a mood convincingly, and I'm sucked in. For sure good instrumental performances and sound don't hurt.

As this is so subjective, I'm with Grumpy - if you feel you get your kicks elsewhere, so be it. 

nicely put! 

How did you find out my secret?

Hi,

My thoughts are, on occasion, that it is just a token moment to make it seem like it is progressive. Heck, the Hand.Cannot.Erase is probably more "progressive than some of the stuff PT did in their last years together.

IF, anyone is "looking" for progressive, starting with Porcupine Tree is not a good example. Even in the early days, I did not think they were progressive. Just a super nice trip band! AND, they have lost the trip and are now using SW's words instead. Not a very progressive idea! Just about the same thing in his solo albums! He won't let the music flow anymore!

You say music... I say "muzak".

Stars Die but prog lives on forever!  

Here's a timely warning from Steven Wilson whilst on tour in America:- 

That sounds more like Mostly Autumn than Porcupine Tree. 

Plus, nobody records an acoustic guitar as well as Steven.

There are always bands we simply don't connect with, tis the way... for me, for example, I have never gotten into Pink Floyd despite enjoying bands similar to them.

This is a really interesting view and I appreciate the sentiment.

Yep when I first heard the Stupid Dream album I was so underwhelmed it was ridiculous . This was a guy that was holding himself up as the saviour of prog rock (and still to some extent does) but there is barely anything interesting going on. Yep the structures are lacking and really a lot of it is uninteresting. Still for some reason it still managed to grab me over time. And that my friend is the problem. You actually have to give it time to settle and not be too judgemental. 

My feeling is that there are at least 3 masterpieces in his catalogue notably In Absentia, Deadwing and The Raven That Refused To Sing. These are tremendous albums on a technical level and to some extent resonate well enough emotionally. The key for me is to stop judging whether something is 'progressive' or not. This is a massive mistake as I realised about 20 years ago and will stop you enjoying music fully. Not everything has to be ground breaking because if that was the case there would be bugger all worth listening to post 1970's.  

Steven Wilson eats tree bark all year round. I think Bryan Josh only eats it mostly in autumn.

No I agree, you miss the point from BrufordFreak......SW is an excellent recording engineer and mixing engineer. So how he captures an acoustic guitar in this case, he is clearly one of the best.

Your talking about the sound these players make with their acoustic guitar vs how it is recorded.

Then your 73 year old wife is truly lovely and wise, and I would not dare mess with that (I say as my wife and I celebrate today our 21st wedding anniversary) 

Ok, I'll play.......what are your reasons why you think this?

SW is not a Mastering engineer, he does not focus on that part of the process, his talents are in mixing and especially re-mixing older recordings, whether they are originally analog or digital. Unplugged was mastered by Ted Jensen at Sterling Sound, who is one of the best mastering engineers around but different than what a mixing engineer does.

I took a look James Taylor album as I don't have that one, originally mastered and cut by Darrell Johnson in 1970, don't know who he is.....but the remastered version you are probably hearing or streaming is from 2008 remastered and cut by Kevin Gray and Steve Hoffman, which I am sure is much better than the 1970 version. Again, those two are some of the best mastering engineers around.

If you don't like what SW does that's fine, but your opinion of his work would be in the severe minority.....Ask Robert Fripp as well Ian Anderson what they think of his work.

Hi,

This is strange ... regardless of the "fact" that TAAB is supposed to have been a bad recording, in the end, it was still known and remembered and appreciated.

The SW remix, is the same thing as hearing an orchestra today doing Stravinsky or Beethoven ... it is much cleaner than before, and you will listen to it, and ... wow ... that's new ... I never heard that before kind of thing, and thus, the SW remix sounds way better, and we think that the original was bad. 

The "standards" have changed since the 70's. If you are suggesting that one recording is "better" than the other, I think you did not have a proper turntable and system to hear the original ... which would likely make it sound very poor specially when the CD was first made and it was a copy of a copy of a copy ... kind of thing. No master anywhere to be found is my thought.

"Should have sounded" is a bizarre idea ... so all the movies from 50 years ago were crap, because they did not have the far out this and that of today? Are you crazy?

The elements in "recording" have changed, and they have helped it look like things are better than they were before ... I don't think they are better ... they are simply a different take on how it was originally done! ... but the music is still ALIVE and appreciated. So, in some ways, a "remix" was not necessary!

In the end, the whole thing is NOTHING, except about how the technical end has changed and been improved so much in the last 50 years and some. Extremely visible in film. And even more so in music! Hard to believe that we think that we need to see a "new" reprint of 2001, in order to say that ... it is now even better than the original. Heck, even in the Cinerama Dome that was awesome. Even music hasn't tried that!

You wrote this.....

It's not a rant, it's when people make claims with nothing much to back it up, but then default to their "own ears", which is perfectly fine but you made comments that go against the norm regarding a recording engineer. The point I am making is one that you keep skirting around, that you called out SW as not a good sound engineer.

You can carry on....I'm done with this thread.

And I'm sure you knew this about SW's TAAB mix. 

 

Ooops!

I agree completely, Steve, but these types of threads have always been around.. I remember around 15 years ago, someone entitled a thread something like: Rush... Is that it?  

Of course, they rarely lead to anything wholesome as the OP has already made their mind up about a subject and is just waiting for someone to 'bite'....

Ah, but nothing fires up a forum quite like conflict. 

Don't disagree although I think it suited him to be attached to the label and also be aloof at the same time. The guy is not stupid although I am being ultra cynical . I did say I like a lot of his music and anyway the Raven That Refused To Sing is clearly not him distancing himself from the prog label as I see it 

The most important question is: "Is it good or not ?"

And in my opinion, "new" bands like Porcupine Tree, The Pineapple Thief, ... are better than 80% of 70's progressive artists (compositions, vocals, production).

^This

And, of course, what is good for one person may not be for another. There’s no need to belittle what someone else enjoys just because you don’t. The arguments “against” PT in this thread are as boring as a certain someone on this forum who complains about Opeth every chance he can.

Hi,

I'm not sure it is about what someone enjoys and I don't (or the other way around), that is the issue ... when you have a well rounded schooling FOR LISTENING (I don't mean college or U.) ... you will not have "favorites", and will tend to be able to listen to a lot more music, and more different things. The big issue here, is that it's almost always VERY OBVIOUS when someone is not reading, listening, or give a band a chance ... one word comment ... "boring" ... with not explanation. All it says is that the person is not well rounded musically to even make that statement, and of course, that person will come after me, because they are not going to study a little more like I did for 50+ years.

I have a couple of favorites, but for me to sit here and say that one band is better than another ... is stupid!

What I hear in PT, or any other band, is not as important here, because the only thing you see is I like it and I don't ... and music, or any art, is NOT about liking or not ... it's about it making a statement that stood the test of time, and screw you and I if we don't agree. It stood up ... and all we are doing is crying because we can not stand up to the art!

PT is fine, and SW is fine. Not my "favorite" (check the new Marillion by comparison), because a lot of SW's words in my book, are not as important, and tend to go towards the pop sentimentality a lot more than it does about its importance and meaning! But maybe that's what I see!

moshkito wrote: I'm not sure it is about what someone enjoys and I don't (or the other way around), that is the issue ...

Honestly, I think this is exactly the issue! At least, it is this kind of questions that fill PA's forum pages... (which might be considered "useful" to some). It is about appreciation and appreciating (positively or negatively) someone else's appreciation. This is - indeed - not so much about the music, but about our appreciation of that music, which is of course very personal and has nothing to do with any kind of objective stance about this or that music...

The rest of these conversations usually = gatekeeping rationalized as objective standard/merit somehow.

Hi,

I hope we don't think this is about "rules". My only thought is trying to identify why someone would simply "review" something on a thread with just one word! it seems ridiculous to me, and kinda suggests that the person was looking for something he/she did not get at all, and thus the comment. 

This is a thought, and not a reality as fas as I know.

richardh wrote: ... Prog rock came at a time when there was more encouragement to be different. It's hard to expect musicians to make statements when they have families and themselves to feed.  ...

Not sure anything has changed, although I think (I THINK) that these days with the Internet it is a bit easier for bands to make a dollar or two (instead of a deal/contract) and thus keep going ... I do not exactly see how/why this would be an issue at all, in anyone's evaluation of the music.

richardh wrote: ... Music doesn't happen in a vacuum of artistic freedom most of the time.  ...

Correct. However, here (specially) it is really difficult to show folks the inspirations for many things, and one of the easiest to discuss is David Bowie who took on so much theater in his music, and no one seemed to complain about it. But it is a "problem" for "progressive music" for some reason, because it does not follow some invisible and ridiculous rules that have nothing to do with the music itself!

This is the main reason why I mention so much theater or film, and sometimes other arts, that inspire many, and in the past 40 years, these have not been as strong and valuable to the history of the media/medium as they were in the late 60's and early 70's. THAT, is not to say that nothing happened in the 80's, 90's and beyond, but that the adventuresome styles did not manifest themselves as well, and it might have been better (for example) if "new age" stuff did not make it look like a fad, and instead took its music, and arts more seriously other than a commercial trap for women!

I love to mention how Damo, Klaus (Kinski) and some films at the time, were so explosive in experimenting, and just recently, a book I can not even figure out how to write a review on, the work of Robert Altman, who was not one of the folks I enjoyed the most, but guess what ... he was one of the biggest improvisation artists of all time, and we're not just talking in front of the camera, we are also talking behind it, with lights, sound, and all the possible things that could be done or used. This kind of stuff is historic in film (see the film VISIONS OF LIGHT please to get a better idea!) ... however, when it comes to music, it seems to be ridiculously attached to drugs and one week (so to speak) in the life of a butterfly! And things being discussed as "hits" from the ratings and everything else that so many websites use, make this whole thing even worse ... like comparing apples to oranges! Both good for your diet, and yet, they don't do the same thing or offer the same results!

richardh wrote: ... I would even go as far to say that being open mindedness about music is not a virtue at all.

Depends. I have no issues with the open mindedness, but I am not sure I enjoy reading so much about one band, and what would appear to be a very clear indicator that many people have not given something else a good listen ... in order to ensure that this "open mindedness" is more thoughtful and therefore, appreciated. Instead, it is many times centered, almost strictly, on making sure that many folks show themselves a part of the social milieu by also agreeing with all the others.

At that point, I'm not sure it is all "democratic" anymore, and it becomes might makes right and guess what ... here comes the glut, the commerciality and the wars! I think you would think slightly differently about these things if you had been born  into a country  that was mired in fascism, and made role play something to have fun with by taking out artists and writers. Because, their minds are a threat to their position! Europe lost a lot of folks, some not as well known, because of it ... and we still go about putting these folks down, when some trumpistas take the helm. 

It has to stop sometime, or we can not value "progressive music" or anything else in our life!

I think this boils down to two major factors.

1) How musical preferences are formed.

2) The role music plays in a particular persons life.

If musical preferences are formed within a social context, i.e. parties, nightclubs etc. then it is more likely that any given person will indeed adopt a more populist outlook to music. The music played in these environments will come to be related to and remind the person of enjoyment, pretty much regardless of any artistic merit that the music itself might demonstrate.

If preferences are formed within a more confined or solitary context then a person is more likely to be able to explore a wider range of music without having to consider the preferences of others, and is therefore more likely to take some time exploring music that is not constrained by a perceived popularity.

Artificial stimulants, whether they be alcohol or drugs might indeed become a factor in this decision making process, however musical tastes are already beginning to be formulated before these things become an over arching component, in accordance with other social factors to do with over all upbringing IMO.

Either way, it becomes a personal preference and is therefore beyond criticism really. People are entitled to like what they like, whether it be because of or regardless of anyone elses opinion.

As to what role music might play in anyones life, as far as I can see there are two main ways to experience music. Either as something to be focused on and enjoyed or something to fill the silence.

Music to be focused on and enjoyed then falls into two categories. Music that demands attention to be fully appreciated and music that can be appreciated without paying too much attention to its content.

Music that fills the silence is just signals in the airwaves and could be just about anything anyway.

Once again, this is all a matter of personal preference and is therefore beyond criticism. Any individual likes what they like and they are entitled to their tastes regardless of how they are formed or whether or not they align with whatever number of other people.

To think otherwise is its own form of aesthetic fascism IMHO.

Hi,

Very enjoyable write up of yours ... totally well done!

1. Makes sense, but then, it does suggest that folks that only listen to one kind of music, then, possibly, do not learn enough about music itself and how it can be used or worked. The same thing goes for all the arts ... which is not exactly all copy except for what is taught in schools ... do the tomato. Do the house on the prairie. Do the nude form. Etc ...

2. The role is different. Our house had a massive library of classical music, and dad was known to write poetry to many pieces (published in 36 languages already!), about the music, however, all that hearing thought out the day or night might have had an effect ... the continuity of the music was valuable and important. Today's music listeners are stuck on the radio styled 4 or 5 minutes, and many folks even here on PA will state that the instrumental passages are ridiculous and a waste of space, and bloat the music, which to me, is a thought that they were never grown up around "music", other than pop music. 

My main concern in bringing this "down" is realizing that in the end, all we are finding is how poor we are as listeners to anything other than what we know ... and what your number 2 states is that IT IS THE RULE THAT MANDATES WHAT YOU END UP DEFINING AS MUSIC ... which I totally disagree with ... you and I did not start, or define music ... IT WAS ALREADY THERE, but your (or mine) inability to hear something else should not be what the music is about ... or we are deciding that some things are artistic and the rest is not ... the veritable my God is correct, and yours is NOT.

That will make the discussion of music, or art, a lot more difficult, and we have to bring up its history and see if we can get more folks to relate to it, than just a pop song ... and how in the 60's many "revolted" against a lot of rock music and went to the "jazz" are of it, because it was cleaner, had less drugs and in many ways, was less violated by the media which allowed you to make your own thoughts and ideas.

But yo still did not create a sort of theory about it all ... how you rejected one thing and took up another, and making it seem like that other one you don't like anymore is not the right one, or proper music.

....

Hugh Manatee wrote: ... If musical preferences are formed within a social context, i.e. parties, nightclubs etc. then it is more likely that any given person will indeed adopt a more populist outlook to music ...

There by losing the ability to make a good statement about the art form in general, since the comments are specific to one thing, not the whole specter of the art form!

Hugh Manatee wrote: ... Artificial stimulants, whether they be alcohol or drugs might indeed become a factor in this decision making process, however musical tastes are already beginning to be formulated before these things become an over arching component, in accordance with other social factors to do with over all upbringing IMO. ...

Depends on a lot of things. Europe has a massive history of music ... America does not and spent a lot of time erasing a lot of it from many black folks and indigenous folks for hundreds of years, or at least make sure that the songs got lost in the plantation, so to speak!

I'm only a proponent of the ability to listen and enjoy a lot more music. I was lucky that I had it at 12 with classical music, at 15 with Beatles and Rolling Stones, at 20 with Jimi, Janis, CSNY, Moodies and others, and then later at 22/23 with a lot of European Music that I still love and listen to day in and out, because its creativity and design, is STILL different from most rock songs, and from a lot of classical music ... we still don't see that, and instead end up listening to a lot of rehashes that are merely repeating the same old song with new words!

It's not the same thing!

PT or anything from SW is far from original, but then there's not much else that sounds similar, IMO. (and I enjoy Riverside, Pinneaple Thief, Airbag, PRR, but IMO, each one has unique characteristics). Pink Floyd has been mentioned a lot, but I don't think they sound much like it, SW guitar playstyle is a lot different from David Gilmour, and a lot worse regarding skills, tbh lol, even though IMO SW underestimates his guitar skills. The drums are completely different and Barbieri is a much more soundscape guy compared to the jazzy Wright. (my favorite keyboard player ever, btw)

Even in the earlier days, I always saw them closer to Ozric Tentacles than Pink Floyd. And then, PF is not much more than another very big bag of influences, too, as many other bands are too. It's much different something like Greta Van Fleet that has clearly a heavy infusion of LZ (and I don't think they are bad, tbh)

As I see it, it's easy to say but certainly not easy to do, and if it has to be done really successfully, it requires particularly good times which are surely not present nowadays. So it's more constructive to lower the expectations - but it's of course very good if some musicians make a try. 

Hi,

I do not subscribe to this theory at all ... the 70's had a way for a lot of this music to get played that was not owned by the corporate rapists, and it was free form for many years, with a lot of DJ's playing their own thing.

Today, it is all recorded by some high level company, that owns the whole thing is simply masticating money out of the same songs over and over, and we are all too stupid to put a stop to it and kill the listenership of those stations ... we still put them on in the background and then go ... such a nice song!

Music never died. Music will NEVER DIE. Music with CONTINUE TO LIVE FOREVER. But we are too short sighted to accept that towards the 80's this music lost one of its most valued supporters ... radio (specially America) that was free and far out.

When you compare this to today, there is a lot on the Internet that could rival those early days of FM radio, however, we don't see that, and we don't listen, or care for many of those shows, because they are not ranked/rated top some crap or other for us to hear music. And no one gives a sh*t that things like one show STILL plays new material after 48 years and so many insulting moments in various stations as to why that silly guy never became rich and sucked up to the money, like most of us do and did!

It is a horrible insensitive side of the whole thing here that we think the music died ... the only thing that died was the media telling you drugs were bad (they said they were worse and look at the left overs!!!), or that flowers in your hair was stupid and you wouldn't do it stoned, drunk or anywhere else!

We stopped believing in OURSELVES. Instead we believe a top this or that and CONTINUALLY support a system that is designed by commercial interests for their own interest. 

And then we say that things died .... to me this is such an insult to all the artists ... and the folks to whom it was all more important than a f**king radio station now owned by Texaco!

As Jim Morrison screamed ... WAKE UP ... HAS THIS DREAM STOPPED? And we still think he was just drunk and ripped! We don't listen, and we don't care and it's all about some lyrics that have very little meaning and art in them!

well, they morph into chat rooms after a while don't they?

er, what was the question again?

ten past three! 

Grumpyprogfan wrote: The OP's last post was over a month ago. Yet, we carry on??

Why is this a problem? An exchange about how we listen to PT may interest a lot of people regardless of the OP.