Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Steven Wilson Vs. Roine Stolt
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedSteven Wilson Vs. Roine Stolt

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 19>
Author
Message
Triceratopsoil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 03 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18016
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 15:51
Keith Emerson invented classical music
Back to Top
gusmao72 View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 21 2012
Location: Natal, RN
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:04
Although Steven's comment came out as very rude, i totally agree with him. These two bands have never sounded original or unique, even if the songs are good. They are stuck in a particular style, clinging to this formula of writing 30 minute songs that sound exactly like ELP or Yes. I think what he was trying to say is that those bands are not breaking any ground in any way, and are just perpetuating an established genre of music, which is contrary to the true meaning of "being progressive". Now, bands like Mars Volta and Tool don't sound like anything you've heard before, as did Yes when they started out. THESE are TRULY "progressive" bands.
Back to Top
Ytse_Jam View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 08 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 502
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:13
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:


''All musicians owe a debt to other musicians'' just means that we all owe a debt to what comes before.So its okay to copy then and not be inspired?
What he's trying to say (or at least I think he is) is that even the most innovative artists gets inspiration from an existing band/genre. Even those band who are considered giants of prog like Genesis or Yes have had to start from something, to get inspired by something already existing. Wasn't prog born from psychedelic music, jazz and classical stuff? Innovation in his pure form is impossible. Come on, it's like saying King Crimson weren't prog because guitars and drums had already been used by other bands so they're just copying from them :D.. Hovewer, it's quite clear that 70s band and TFK are not comparable in terms of innovation. Actually, TFK have not innovated the prog scene so much, but they are still prog to me. I mean, if we really don't consider prog those bands who take inspiration from past bands without being strongly innovative, well.. Then we should delete more than a half of this website's database I guess.
By the way, I've never agreed with SW's definition of prog and never liked SW's music. This is just my stinky opinion, but my vote goes to Roine.
Back to Top
gusmao72 View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 21 2012
Location: Natal, RN
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:21
One thing is to borrow various influences and incorporate them seamlessly and in a natural way to create fresh sounding music. Another thing is to paste and cut influences artificially, hoping that it sounds proggy.
Back to Top
sleeper View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:25
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

I think you hit the nail on the head John. Prog fans are more than anything, people who reside outside of the popular music spheres, and even if most of us whine about not having anybody to share our musical tastes with, at least in real life, - I think we revel in the mystical and selfserving underdog status that naturally comes with the territory. Then we get to know the prog circles better and better, and suddenly this underdog thing barks again and we start digging even deeper for something obscure and unknown. Why? It's simply cool to listen to music nobody else does. Well that is part of the equation I think. The underdog attitude still pushes us forward to find new under the radar music, and when you finally get there, bands like PT and DT suddenly feel enormous - especially due to the constant free advertising they get from people who just happened to stumble over one of their albums and then got to know the word prog. We are constantly reminded of these big bands, and even if they are far from being the huge billionaire acts some of us see them as, they still stand for something that is corporate and big business like. So it becomes 'cool' to hate on these bands - even if they still carry the torch of our much beloved music and continue to draw people in to progressive waters, where they probably at some point will get to know about all those other bands that deserve much more recognition, because they are more underground...? Bollocks!
Oh and this is coming from a guy who revels in the obscure and out there...

I actually think you are spot on here - at least I've noticed many people seem to hate on the more well known Prog acts and when you look at some of the other music they have given 5 stars to, the only logical explanation is that they don't like these artists because they've been successful.  I myself has always loved Prog simply because I love the music, and I've always hoped that the bands I loved WOULD make it big someday.  I want them to be successful, and I want more people to know about them.

That first sentence is complete and utter bollocks, most people on here rate according to their taste and if they have given popular bands low ratings, it's because they dont like them, and the opposite is true of less known bands with high ratings. This goes back to my previous post in this thread, because a band is more well known it is likely to have had people that wont like them check them out, sometimes extensively, just to find out what they hype is about.

The more obscure bands tend to be obscure for a reason, they appeal to a much smaller audiance and tend to be specifically searched for by people who know that there is a good chance they will like the music. This is also linked to the fact that prog is such a broad term that two people can like completely different bands with little crossover in their tastes whilst both still being considered Prog fans. You and Triceratopsoil are perfect examples of this.Wink

The last two sentences are the kind of thing that all but the most elitist of snobs would express, we want bands we like to do well so that they can keep on making the music we like, and people also like to share this experience with like-minded people.


Edited by sleeper - August 03 2012 at 16:35
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Back to Top
Horizons View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 20 2011
Location: Somewhere Else
Status: Offline
Points: 16952
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:31
Originally posted by sleeper sleeper wrote:

Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

I think you hit the nail on the head John. Prog fans are more than anything, people who reside outside of the popular music spheres, and even if most of us whine about not having anybody to share our musical tastes with, at least in real life, - I think we revel in the mystical and selfserving underdog status that naturally comes with the territory. Then we get to know the prog circles better and better, and suddenly this underdog thing barks again and we start digging even deeper for something obscure and unknown. Why? It's simply cool to listen to music nobody else does. Well that is part of the equation I think. The underdog attitude still pushes us forward to find new under the radar music, and when you finally get there, bands like PT and DT suddenly feel enormous - especially due to the constant free advertising they get from people who just happened to stumble over one of their albums and then got to know the word prog. We are constantly reminded of these big bands, and even if they are far from being the huge billionaire acts some of us see them as, they still stand for something that is corporate and big business like. So it becomes 'cool' to hate on these bands - even if they still carry the torch of our much beloved music and continue to draw people in to progressive waters, where they probably at some point will get to know about all those other bands that deserve much more recognition, because they are more underground...? Bollocks!
Oh and this is coming from a guy who revels in the obscure and out there...

I actually think you are spot on here - at least I've noticed many people seem to hate on the more well known Prog acts and when you look at some of the other music they have given 5 stars to, the only logical explanation is that they don't like these artists because they've been successful.  I myself has always loved Prog simply because I love the music, and I've always hoped that the bands I loved WOULD make it big someday.  I want them to be successful, and I want more people to know about them.

That first sentence is complete and utter bollocks, most people on here rate according to their taste and if they have given popular bands low ratings, it's because they dont like them, and the opposite is true of less known bands with high ratings.

The last two sentences are the kind of thing that all but the most elitist of snobs would express, we want bands we like to do well so that they can keep on making the music we like.

DtGuitarFan still doesn't realize that tastes differ as much as bands differ. To say that people hate on popular prog acts (LIKE DREAM THEATER OH NO) just because of their success is , like you said, bullocks (bullsh*t).


Edited by Horizons - August 03 2012 at 17:13
Back to Top
sleeper View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:36
Originally posted by Horizons Horizons wrote:

Originally posted by sleeper sleeper wrote:

Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

I think you hit the nail on the head John. Prog fans are more than anything, people who reside outside of the popular music spheres, and even if most of us whine about not having anybody to share our musical tastes with, at least in real life, - I think we revel in the mystical and selfserving underdog status that naturally comes with the territory. Then we get to know the prog circles better and better, and suddenly this underdog thing barks again and we start digging even deeper for something obscure and unknown. Why? It's simply cool to listen to music nobody else does. Well that is part of the equation I think. The underdog attitude still pushes us forward to find new under the radar music, and when you finally get there, bands like PT and DT suddenly feel enormous - especially due to the constant free advertising they get from people who just happened to stumble over one of their albums and then got to know the word prog. We are constantly reminded of these big bands, and even if they are far from being the huge billionaire acts some of us see them as, they still stand for something that is corporate and big business like. So it becomes 'cool' to hate on these bands - even if they still carry the torch of our much beloved music and continue to draw people in to progressive waters, where they probably at some point will get to know about all those other bands that deserve much more recognition, because they are more underground...? Bollocks!
Oh and this is coming from a guy who revels in the obscure and out there...

I actually think you are spot on here - at least I've noticed many people seem to hate on the more well known Prog acts and when you look at some of the other music they have given 5 stars to, the only logical explanation is that they don't like these artists because they've been successful.  I myself has always loved Prog simply because I love the music, and I've always hoped that the bands I loved WOULD make it big someday.  I want them to be successful, and I want more people to know about them.

That first sentence is complete and utter bollocks, most people on here rate according to their taste and if they have given popular bands low ratings, it's because they dont like them, and the opposite is true of less known bands with high ratings.

The last two sentences are the kind of thing that all but the most elitist of snobs would express, we want bands we like to do well so that they can keep on making the music we like.

Thank you for pointing out that garbage. He needs to learn that people have different tastes.

LOL, see my massively updated post (I knew I took too long typingLOL).
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Back to Top
darkshade View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:36
Yea, you can easily break down even the most original act. Let's take The Mars Volta as an example.

1 part punk
1 part Latin music
1 part Robert Fripp
1 part jazz-fusion
1 part psychedelia
1 part electronic (more recently)

Doesn't look so original now.

On the The Flower Kings/Transatlantic thing: I don't pretend they're not highly influenced by the likes of Yes, ELP, or even King Crimson and Genesis, in fact, there's nothing wrong with that. But that's not to say that TFK and TA, or their peers, haven't done anything to progress the symphonic prog genre. Take The Flower King's epic hour-long suite "Garden of Dreams". That epic goes in directions that Yes and ELP would never have dreamed of going. The musical landscapes are much bigger, and even more colorful. TFK, also have a nice jazz slant to their music, which the classic bands did not, for the most part.

A TFK-related band, Karmakanic, actually do experiment with their sound, and have actually changed things up throughout their 4 current albums, even though they are symphonic prog. Jonas Reingold has even stated in a recent interview that, and I paraphrase, "It's good to at least have a couple songs each album where we try new things, songs that are actually progressive".

Maybe these bands aren't progressing the genre all the time, and they never claim to be 'future of progressive rock', but to say that they make the same album every time is a little extreme (unless it's Neal Morse Wink ).
Back to Top
Ytse_Jam View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 08 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 502
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:43
Originally posted by gusmao72 gusmao72 wrote:

One thing is to borrow various influences and incorporate them seamlessly and in a natural way to create fresh sounding music. Another thing is to paste and cut influences artificially, hoping that it sounds proggy.
TFK do have their personal style, defining their music as a copy-paste is quite superficial. And yes, they do sound prog to me. Not the ONE and ONLY type of prog allowed, but for sure a part of it.
Back to Top
gusmao72 View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 21 2012
Location: Natal, RN
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:51
Sure, they don't sound exactly the same, but it's dangerously close.
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:51
^Not really
Back to Top
gusmao72 View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 21 2012
Location: Natal, RN
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:56
Hell, even Marillion is a pretty unique band. Sure, they will inevitably remind you of PG Genesis, because of Fish's voice quality, but the songs have a completely different approach.
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:58
^same with Flower Kings. And even if  you think otherwise, Roine has every right to write like that. He is from that previous  age of  Prog. It's just like Yes doing Prog albums
Back to Top
darkshade View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 16:59
ELP remind me of certain classical composers. Yes remind me of The Beatles and 60s folk music. Uh-oh!
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 17:28
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I'm sorry I have not read the thread, but I read the excerpt from the interview.

I agree with Stolt, but not for the reasons he mentions.

When I think of "progressive music," I think of music that progresses in and of itself: That is to say, a piece of music that is adventurous or dynamic, as opposed to pure pop which has a verse and a chorus.  Progressive music for me is that which explores rather than just entertains.

The definition Wilson gives that progressive artists must in some way "progress" (i.e., find something new and venture into new styles) has always been silly to me.  Some bands do very well with that (King Crimson, er Bob Fripp, made a career out of it, but he is the exception here, and a likely one since KC was hardly ever the same band at all).  Imagine if Yes had, after Fragile, took what they had stylistically as a band and made disco (an emergent genre at the time): Would that have been considered progressive rock?  Well, many bands went toward popular music (and disco!) and progressive rock fans have regarded many of those albums as rubbish.  What progressive rock fans wanted was more of what they had fallen in love with.  Hence the rise of "Neo-Prog" bands like Marillion and IQ.  They were doing in the 1980s what Yes and Genesis ceased to do.

So no, Steve.  I don't want my prog to sound like Nickelback, thank you very much.  I want bands to make the music they want to make, and I will continue to be the judge and jury with respect to their product.

Derivative trumps boring anyway, I say.
 
very well put but the problem that many have is that modern neo or symph prog is just copying something that has already been done rather than trying to forge a new way or approach. ELP ,Yes and Genesis never copied other bands.
 
You comment about Yes not changing style after Fragile and so invalidating themselves as 'progressive rock'. Yes created the syle and they owned it so why should they then change? Flower Kings and nowadays Glass Hammer seem to be trying just to replicate it. Pointless unless they are going to improve it and that is simply not going to happen.Yes on the other hand looked to improve what they were doing up to Relayer at least. After that I think some criticism is deserved. They were not untouchable!
 
 


I don't have time to respond to the whole post, but I have to address this before I go.

ELP, Yes, and Genesis were all to one degree or another "copying" other bands.

I know when I started I would have been happy to sound like the Beatles or Joe Tex or whoever. You want to sound like most bands, you want to sound like their records and that's how you learn your chops. - Jon Anderson

ELP essentially sprang from an earlier band called The Nice and Emerson's desire to do renditions of classical pieces (that's not exactly original, is it?).

Genesis began as pretty much a pop band.

So no, Yes did not "create" a style.  TFK and GH won't "improve" a style because stuffy codgers would never allow them to.  No musical style exists in the background.  All musicians owe a debt to other musicians.  This is inescapable.



Emerson only 'copied' (actually he plainly didn't) a band that he had created himself.
Yes started off wanting to be the Beach Boys but 'evolved' or 'changed' or whatever word is best suited. Roine Stolt and the like don't seem that interested in change or evolution
Genesis began as a pop band. Your point is what?
Yes created something very distinct it seems to me as near as you can be to nailing down 'progressive rock' as a style. You claim they didn't create a style but don't offer any reason to support that.
''All musicians owe a debt to other musicians'' just means that we all owe a debt to what comes before.So its okay to copy then and not be inspired?


No one has "copied" anyone.  If they did, it's called copyright infringement and lawsuits happen.

Has Genesis or Yes ever done a song like "Paradox Hotel?"  If so, point me to it.  The Flower Kings is a distinct band that sounds very little like Yes.  Sorry. 

Jonas Reingold?  Very different from Chris Squire.
Hasse Froberg?  A boisterous voice and very different from Jon Anderson.
Tomas Bodin?  I have never heard anyone play keyboards like him before, least of all Rick Wakeman.
Roine Stolt?  He has the eclecticism of Steve Howe, but that's about it.  And he sings better.

So I have no idea how we get this crew to be Yes Jr.  Roine Stolt was a member of Kaipa, which coexisted with Yes, but was in a different country.

I think it's just that Yes was more famous than Kaipa in the 1970s.  Had Kaipa been huge in the 1970s, and Yes not, would your viewpoint remain the same?

As far as creating a style goes, no one creates one because whatever he does is merely an amalgamation of other styles.  Nothing (completely) new under the sun, my friend.

Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 17:36
In the end it all boils down to: is the music any freaking good?  FK left me cold and I went nuts for PT.  Which isn't to disrespect FK.  My first sampling of PT infected me.  My first of FK didn't.  Sometimes it's just a matter of encountering music at the right time.  I could give a rat's ass about how "original" something is.  So I wound up gobbling up all the PT I could get my hands on and stopped at one FK.

For the record my first encounters were In Absentia and Stardust We Are and I haven't ruled out further FK exploration.


Edited by Slartibartfast - August 03 2012 at 17:42
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 37232
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 18:01
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I'm sorry I have not read the thread, but I read the excerpt from the interview.

I agree with Stolt, but not for the reasons he mentions.

When I think of "progressive music," I think of music that progresses in and of itself: That is to say, a piece of music that is adventurous or dynamic, as opposed to pure pop which has a verse and a chorus.  Progressive music for me is that which explores rather than just entertains.

The definition Wilson gives that progressive artists must in some way "progress" (i.e., find something new and venture into new styles) has always been silly to me.  Some bands do very well with that (King Crimson, er Bob Fripp, made a career out of it, but he is the exception here, and a likely one since KC was hardly ever the same band at all).  Imagine if Yes had, after Fragile, took what they had stylistically as a band and made disco (an emergent genre at the time): Would that have been considered progressive rock?  Well, many bands went toward popular music (and disco!) and progressive rock fans have regarded many of those albums as rubbish.  What progressive rock fans wanted was more of what they had fallen in love with.  Hence the rise of "Neo-Prog" bands like Marillion and IQ.  They were doing in the 1980s what Yes and Genesis ceased to do.

So no, Steve.  I don't want my prog to sound like Nickelback, thank you very much.  I want bands to make the music they want to make, and I will continue to be the judge and jury with respect to their product.

Derivative trumps boring anyway, I say.
 
very well put but the problem that many have is that modern neo or symph prog is just copying something that has already been done rather than trying to forge a new way or approach. ELP ,Yes and Genesis never copied other bands.
 
You comment about Yes not changing style after Fragile and so invalidating themselves as 'progressive rock'. Yes created the syle and they owned it so why should they then change? Flower Kings and nowadays Glass Hammer seem to be trying just to replicate it. Pointless unless they are going to improve it and that is simply not going to happen.Yes on the other hand looked to improve what they were doing up to Relayer at least. After that I think some criticism is deserved. They were not untouchable!
 
 


I don't have time to respond to the whole post, but I have to address this before I go.

ELP, Yes, and Genesis were all to one degree or another "copying" other bands.

I know when I started I would have been happy to sound like the Beatles or Joe Tex or whoever. You want to sound like most bands, you want to sound like their records and that's how you learn your chops. - Jon Anderson

ELP essentially sprang from an earlier band called The Nice and Emerson's desire to do renditions of classical pieces (that's not exactly original, is it?).

Genesis began as pretty much a pop band.

So no, Yes did not "create" a style.  TFK and GH won't "improve" a style because stuffy codgers would never allow them to.  No musical style exists in the background.  All musicians owe a debt to other musicians.  This is inescapable.



Emerson only 'copied' (actually he plainly didn't) a band that he had created himself.
Yes started off wanting to be the Beach Boys but 'evolved' or 'changed' or whatever word is best suited. Roine Stolt and the like don't seem that interested in change or evolution
Genesis began as a pop band. Your point is what?
Yes created something very distinct it seems to me as near as you can be to nailing down 'progressive rock' as a style. You claim they didn't create a style but don't offer any reason to support that.
''All musicians owe a debt to other musicians'' just means that we all owe a debt to what comes before.So its okay to copy then and not be inspired?


No one has "copied" anyone.  If they did, it's called copyright infringement and lawsuits happen.

Has Genesis or Yes ever done a song like "Paradox Hotel?"  If so, point me to it.  The Flower Kings is a distinct band that sounds very little like Yes.  Sorry. 

Jonas Reingold?  Very different from Chris Squire.
Hasse Froberg?  A boisterous voice and very different from Jon Anderson.
Tomas Bodin?  I have never heard anyone play keyboards like him before, least of all Rick Wakeman.
Roine Stolt?  He has the eclecticism of Steve Howe, but that's about it.  And he sings better.

So I have no idea how we get this crew to be Yes Jr.  Roine Stolt was a member of Kaipa, which coexisted with Yes, but was in a different country.

I think it's just that Yes was more famous than Kaipa in the 1970s.  Had Kaipa been huge in the 1970s, and Yes not, would your viewpoint remain the same?

As far as creating a style goes, no one creates one because whatever he does is merely an amalgamation of other styles.  Nothing (completely) new under the sun, my friend.



A lot of Prog bands have basically copied classical compositions.  If the compositions are in the public domain already, than there is no copyright infringement (provided they're not lifting a performance).  There's a ton of compositions that one can legally use, and sadly, it is not always properly credited when bands do use the compositions.  Variations on others themes of course was not uncommon in classical music.


Edited by Logan - August 03 2012 at 18:02
Back to Top
darkshade View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 19:19
Aside from a couple moments where Roine Stolt is channeling Steve Howe ala Relayer, Stolt is more influenced, to my ears, by Frank Zappa's guitar playing, but again, only 'influenced". Zappa's music, when not being strictly classical, was pretty much a fusion of blues/R&B, and 20th century classical like Stravinsky and Varese. The fact that he hired rock and jazz musicians to play his music gave it the sense of jazz-fusion, or prog rock.

 I agree that no one else in the band sounds like their Yes counterpart, especially Tomas Bodin (and Jonas Reingold). I would throw a lot of the Paradox Hotel album at people's faces to help them realize TFK are not Yes clones; nothing on that album is something Yes, ELP, or Genesis would do. 

Edited by darkshade - August 03 2012 at 19:23
Back to Top
Mellotron Storm View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 27 2006
Location: The Beach
Status: Offline
Points: 14050
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 20:39
I agree with Slarts, it all boils down to whether i like it or not. THE WATCH certainly sound a lot like GENESIS but i can't help but love their sound. ANEKDOTEN early on sounded like KING CRIMSON but i fell for them too. Sure the bands that lead other bands into new territory deserve special recognition but i often like the followers as much or more.
"The wind is slowly tearing her apart"

"Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2012 at 21:14
Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

I think you hit the nail on the head John. Prog fans are more than anything, people who reside outside of the popular music spheres, and even if most of us whine about not having anybody to share our musical tastes with, at least in real life, - I think we revel in the mystical and selfserving underdog status that naturally comes with the territory. Then we get to know the prog circles better and better, and suddenly this underdog thing barks again and we start digging even deeper for something obscure and unknown. Why? It's simply cool to listen to music nobody else does. Well that is part of the equation I think. The underdog attitude still pushes us forward to find new under the radar music, and when you finally get there, bands like PT and DT suddenly feel enormous - especially due to the constant free advertising they get from people who just happened to stumble over one of their albums and then got to know the word prog. We are constantly reminded of these big bands, and even if they are far from being the huge billionaire acts some of us see them as, they still stand for something that is corporate and big business like. So it becomes 'cool' to hate on these bands - even if they still carry the torch of our much beloved music and continue to draw people in to progressive waters, where they probably at some point will get to know about all those other bands that deserve much more recognition, because they are more underground...? Bollocks!
Oh and this is coming from a guy who revels in the obscure and out there...

I agree with a lot of this in terms of the attitude of many prog rock listeners towards the 'popular'...it's been expressed all too many times in different discussions on this forum.  Although I don't share that perception because I somehow seem to remember that I was introduced to music through popular artists and not, ermm, Unexpect or Present.   

But I don't think this is just a case of people taking PT to be a big band and bashing Wilson.  There's plenty of scope to interpret his comments on Flower Kings and Transatlantic as rude.  It's fine if some people thought he is just expressing his preferences (doesn't read that way to me), but I think this interview does a swell job of antagonizing people as it is.   Strangely enough, it's Wilson who likes to claim that he could have been far more successful had he chosen to be a pop musician.  Well, who's stopping you, Steven?  Didn't Fripp say that you have to either work for the music industry or serve music?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 19>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.523 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.