Steven Wilson Vs. Roine Stolt

Too much being said here for me to follow it all;  after all, this is page 14.  My own views on the original excerpts:  SW gave his opinion when asked, which is fair enough, but he used some particularly high charged terms.  RS responded with more discrection.  Clearly, they both have different views on what constitutes good progressive rock.  I am, however, in agreement with Epignosis when he said that progressive music is about a song (or whatever) that progresses from its initial form.  I read Keith Emerson saying the exact same thing on someone's signature line on this very site.  This is what the progressive in progressive rock means to me.  It is an approach to music, not a sequence of styles built on other styles (or even negating them).  As our aforementioned friend said, this would mean that disco was a progressive movement.  That SW called some prominent bands the death of music was insulting.  I also find it self-contradictory that the bands he praised, Tool, Radiohead, were well established at the time of the interview; it implied that they should do more of the same, which would make them retro, which is just what he criticized TFK etc. of doing.  Every artist has his or her influences, and some where them more openly than others.  I find a lot of progressive artists in this category.  Does that make them all retro?  I think not.

Progosopher wrote: Too much being said here for me to follow it all;  after all, this is page 14.  My own views on the original excerpts:  SW gave his opinion when asked, which is fair enough, but he used some particularly high charged terms.  RS responded with more discrection.  Clearly, they both have different views on what constitutes good progressive rock.  I am, however, in agreement with Epignosis when he said that progressive music is about a song (or whatever) that progresses from its initial form.  I read Keith Emerson saying the exact same thing on someone's signature line on this very site.  This is what the progressive in progressive rock means to me.  It is an approach to music, not a sequence of styles built on other styles (or even negating them).  As our aforementioned friend said, this would mean that disco was a progressive movement.  That SW called some prominent bands the death of music was insulting.  I also find it self-contradictory that the bands he praised, Tool, Radiohead, were well established at the time of the interview; it implied that they should do more of the same, which would make them retro, which is just what he criticized TFK etc. of doing.  Every artist has his or her influences, and some where them more openly than others.  I find a lot of progressive artists in this category.  Does that make them all retro?  I think not.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Progressive rock is only "pop music" in the very loosest definition of the term.  If you're using "pop" in the way I think you are, that is, in it's literal sense where it refers to all popular music, you could definitely call Rush or Yes "pop music" but you couldn't say the same thing about RIO or Zheul or any of the more obscure prog music that doesn't have any traits or sights set on popularity or mass appeal.

True, I was referring to the more commercially accessible types of progressive rock. So maybe not all of it. But a lot of what we like.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: I would imagine that most people who write their own music start off with a desire to do what they love and that money is a secondary concern for them.  But, once you taste fame and fortune, it's hard to resist it.  Money can corrupt artistic integrity and basically anything else.

What also comes with fame and fortune are delusions of grandeur and self-importance. I would imagine that many musicians who are swayed by success also believe that their music is somehow "artistic" and "relevant". Only the more cynical minds would continue milking the cash cow when they're aware that what they do is worthless. Undoubtedly this happens - and I was probably wrong is my initial assessment that it's very rare - but what irked me was the categorical rejection of all pop as musically worthless and merely business.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Technical incompetence is not rare in popular music, in fact it's quite common in top 40 pop music.  A lot of singers in top 40 pop music cannot actually sing well and were only chosen by the record companies for their charisma and sex appeal.  There are talented people in this style of music, but there are also those, like Katy Perry and Brittany Spears, who are relatively untalented singers and rely on vocal manipulation and lip-synching to make their vocals sound good.

Katy Perry and Britney Spears are undoubtedly mediocre singers, but not technically incompetent. Somebody like Rebecca Black is technically incompetent.

Mirror Image wrote: I don't mind somebody that disagrees with me. It's his attitude towards me that I found a problem with.

I don't have any kind of attitude towards you.

Mirror Image wrote: Progosopher wrote: Too much being said here for me to follow it all;  after all, this is page 14.  My own views on the original excerpts:  SW gave his opinion when asked, which is fair enough, but he used some particularly high charged terms.  RS responded with more discrection.  Clearly, they both have different views on what constitutes good progressive rock.  I am, however, in agreement with Epignosis when he said that progressive music is about a song (or whatever) that progresses from its initial form.  I read Keith Emerson saying the exact same thing on someone's signature line on this very site.  This is what the progressive in progressive rock means to me.  It is an approach to music, not a sequence of styles built on other styles (or even negating them).  As our aforementioned friend said, this would mean that disco was a progressive movement.  That SW called some prominent bands the death of music was insulting.  I also find it self-contradictory that the bands he praised, Tool, Radiohead, were well established at the time of the interview; it implied that they should do more of the same, which would make them retro, which is just what he criticized TFK etc. of doing.  Every artist has his or her influences, and some where them more openly than others.  I find a lot of progressive artists in this category.  Does that make them all retro?  I think not.   This is essentially what I said many pages back. The Flower Kings and Porcupine Tree aren't innovators. They are both, however, unique bands that offer totally different styles.

It seems there is a cadre of us that have this view, or at least a similar one.   I like some of PT, but Fear of a Blank Planet actually turned me off of them.  I still like TFK a lot, athough I cannot say they have progressed much as a band since their inception.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Have you ever actually heard Katy Perry sing?  It's awful.

Okay, so I looked for her supposedly awful "real" singing and this is what I got:



Judging by the comments, she can't sing one bit. Judging by my ears, I have no idea what everyone is talking about. The singing is actually pretty decent, much better than I expected.

Kashmir75 wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Have you ever actually heard Katy Perry sing?  It's awful. Okay, so I looked for her supposedly awful "real" singing and this is what I got: Judging by the comments, she can't sing one bit. Judging by my ears, I have no idea what everyone is talking about. The singing is actually pretty decent, much better than I expected. She's bloody rubbish. Talentless. Got nothing on Steven Wilson. It makes me furious how everyone's heard of this Perry character, yet no one in the mainstream has heard of SW or PT. Criminal.

Edited by Mirror Image - August 22 2012 at 10:09

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Kashmir75 wrote: She's bloody rubbish. Talentless. The music? Very much so. The singing? It's okay. Nothing remarkable, but I'm starting to think that the people who trash her singing abilities have some kind of grudge against her. She's just a pop singer. As Mirror Image said, she'll be forgotten. Kashmir75 wrote: It makes me furious how everyone's heard of this Perry character, yet no one in the mainstream has heard of SW or PT. Criminal. I think you should be happy that the people who have the bad taste to listen to Katy Perry know nothing about Porcupine Tree.

rogerthat wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Have you ever actually heard Katy Perry sing?  It's awful. Okay, so I looked for her supposedly awful "real" singing and this is what I got: Judging by the comments, she can't sing one bit. Judging by my ears, I have no idea what everyone is talking about. The singing is actually pretty decent, much better than I expected. Well, her start was super-shaky and it doesn't sound like she really did nail the first two lines of the verse even on the re-iterations.   Anyway, one video is not enough for me to judge because the best of singers can have a bad day and I also can't tell just how 'real' is this performance.   I don't really have the inclination to listen to enough Katy Perry performances to make a comment, so I will continue to be indifferent.    I have always heard of Britney lip synching in her shows though; it's news to me if she can indeed sing.

Mirror Image wrote: I think you're right though if a band like Porcupine Tree caught onto the mainstream, I would be kind of worried but also suspicious. By the way, I understand your point of view about progressive rock musicians making pop music. They have done it and are as guilty as anyone. Also, I'm sorry for calling you an a****le and for my rudeness towards you yesterday. I was already frustrated that day and arguing on this thread didn't help matters.

Horizons wrote: Progsters mad at (bad) pop. What else is new  There is good pop on the radio at the moment - Gotye.  but anyway...