Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: May 12 2009
Location: Coolwood
Status: Offline
Points: 6467
Posted: August 20 2012 at 21:49
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.
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"
Joined: December 13 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2111
Posted: August 20 2012 at 22:01
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.
“Music is enough for a lifetime but a lifetime is not enough for music.” - Sergei Rachmaninov
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 28059
Posted: August 21 2012 at 01:25
This seems to be going on and on and on..
Wilson was clearly wrong in assuming that only he understands what 'progressive rock' is and then somewhat ridiculously condemning another band by his own logic.
I am interested though in the idea put forward that progressive rock is more about the development of a song structure rather than a development of a style. I've never seen it that way personally and I'm not convinced that prog musicians see it that way. Ian Anderson has always made the distinction between 'prog' and 'progressive' when he talks about the genre. Aqualung was 'progressive' while Thick as A Brick was 'prog' in his opinion.This is what I believe. Prog exists more or less as a recognisable style. Irionically Porcupine Tree don't play what I consider to be prog whil TFK do although I would refer to them as 'retro' while PT to me are more modern. SW has hit on a formula that works and to some extent he is a more commercial artist and has less right to call what he does 'progressive'. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter.As said by Stonebeard its just a load of 'word w**kery' and in the end I hope we all listen to whatever gives us pleasure not just what we think is 'progressive'.
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.
This isn't even old news. Forget the water being under the bridge, the water's already flowed downstream to the ocean, been cycled several times through the atmosphere as precipitation and has already passed under the bridge again.
Joined: May 12 2009
Location: Coolwood
Status: Offline
Points: 6467
Posted: August 21 2012 at 15:59
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.
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Posted: August 21 2012 at 21:12
HarbouringTheSoul wrote:
[QUOTE=Ambient Hurricanes]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.
Have you ever actually heard Katy Perry sing? It's awful.
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.
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.
Hello, mirror. So glad to see you, my friend. It's been a while...
Joined: December 13 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2111
Posted: August 22 2012 at 10:08
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.
Absolutely agree. She doesn't have a clue about music and it shows. I'm not too worried about singers like Perry because her time in the spotlight is only a passing thing. Twenty years from now, she'll be forgotten just like all of these other pop singers.
Edited by Mirror Image - August 22 2012 at 10:09
“Music is enough for a lifetime but a lifetime is not enough for music.” - Sergei Rachmaninov
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.
Joined: December 13 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2111
Posted: August 22 2012 at 11:09
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.
I have no grudge against any pop singer. If this is their idea of real music, then let them make their millions. 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.
“Music is enough for a lifetime but a lifetime is not enough for music.” - Sergei Rachmaninov
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: August 22 2012 at 11:26
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.
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Posted: August 22 2012 at 13:45
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.
I listened to about a minute of that (I couldn't stand the music or the video) but the singing wasn't bad, actually. It wasn't remarkable and there were a few rough spots but it wasn't bad singing by any means (although it sounded completely uninspired). The music is another matter entirely.
Joined: August 22 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 69
Posted: August 22 2012 at 16:19
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.
The Incident reached #25 on the Billboard top 200. I'd say that's about as mainstream as prog gets, at least in this millennium.
Regarding the OP, I tend to agree a little more with SW, though perhaps he could have been a bit more tactful. I really like Roine Stolt and think he's a fantastic player, but there is no question that TFK and Transatlantic are trying to emulate classic prog. Does that make it bad or not enjoyable to listen to? No. Does that make it truly progressive? One could make the case, as SW does, that the answer to this is no.
The irony of SW's more derivative early material is not lost on me. But artists mature, and he's gotten to a very good, very original place. Their level of success demonstrates that fact.
Joined: December 13 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2111
Posted: August 22 2012 at 18:14
Meta wrote:
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.
The Incident reached #25 on the Billboard top 200. I'd say that's about as mainstream as prog gets, at least in this millennium.
Regarding the OP, I tend to agree a little more with SW, though perhaps he could have been a bit more tactful. I really like Roine Stolt and think he's a fantastic player, but there is no question that TFK and Transatlantic are trying to emulate classic prog. Does that make it bad or not enjoyable to listen to? No. Does that make it truly progressive? One could make the case, as SW does, that the answer to this is no.
The irony of SW's more derivative early material is not lost on me. But artists mature, and he's gotten to a very good, very original place. Their level of success demonstrates that fact.
As I mentioned, I think Wilson and Stolt are doing essentially the same things. They're borrowing sounds and styles here and there and putting them through their own blenders. Even for Wilson, it's hard to escape the ghost of prog rock past entirely. Both Stolt and Wilson are doing outstanding things in music and I have respect for both of them.
Edited by Mirror Image - August 22 2012 at 18:14
“Music is enough for a lifetime but a lifetime is not enough for music.” - Sergei Rachmaninov
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.178 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.