Steven Wilson, Prog heritage and legacy

dr prog wrote: Flower kings, porcupine tree, tool, opeth are mainly crap IMO

There you go... Now, back to the topic... 

Evolver wrote: Dean wrote: Pop is not popular. Rock Music is derived from, and is a subset of, Pop Music. Progressive Rock will always be a derivative (and subgenre) of Rock Music - it has ways to go before it will be considered Art Music.   Dean wrote: Dean wrote: Some folk do get defensive when I use the "Pop" word. We'll have to disagree then. Or I could be snarky back at'cha.

Pop music has always been about selling music to as many consumers as possible.  For that, it has to be safe and unchallenging.  Sure, most rock and roll had come to be classified as pop by the sixties.  But the majority was still based on the same song styles and structures.  Prog, or art rock as it was called at the time, was born out of musicians starting with the rock band as a base, but using other styles and influences to push it to it's extremes.  This created an offshoot of the rock and roll genre.  Yes, it became popular for a time, and the record companies sold it well for a few years, but from a musician's standpoint, it was never aimed at mass marketing.  That it caught on, and made a few artists wealthy was great, but for most that wasn't the goal (although some felt they had to make their music more pop when the industry abandoned their style). 

The same can be said of punk rock.  The first punk bands were rebelling against the music industry's homogenization of rock, and what was pop at the time, and wanted to create something raw, gritty and abrasive (Malcolm McLaren's use of The Sex Pistols to create a fabricated punk chic scene is another story).  But the earliest artists in the sub-genre, were not pop.  The same can be said of the pioneers in any rock offshoot.  Early rap, grunge, whatever, is hard to classify as pop.

What does this have to do with Steven Wilson?

Yet pop music, as opposed to popular music, is an industry construct, and is defined by said industry. So what is pop is dependent upon the definition at the time. Commercial jazz was the big seller in the middle of the 20th century. What was pop then is not pop in other eras. Pop, in the late 60's was identified by the record companies at least as much as artists like Ray Conniff, Perry Como and their ilk, as rock music was. Record bins at most stores were divided into "classical" and "popular", with "popular containing rock, country, folk, jazz, etc.

Using "pop" as such a sweeping term, strips it of any meaning. As someone pointed out after I made a glib statement, at one time, Mozart was pop by that definition.           

^ That's kind of what we have the ranting room thread for. You'll find quite a few SW fanboys here, but none that I know of who would rub that worshiper cake in your face. As for the first post, perhaps you could introduce yourself in the newbies thread.

And no, this ain't a dead thread ... not quite.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - September 14 2013 at 11:28

HolyMoly wrote: I think the discussion in this thread has been pretty well-reasoned - I like Wilson a lot, but I can understand negative feedback about his music and even some of his fans.  What I object to is the title of this thread - which unfortunately gets trumpeted around every time this thread is bumped.  It's one thing to criticize Wilson's music, another thing to criticize his fans, but to question Wilson's own integrity by implying he's a "hypocrite" is just mean-spirited and uncalled-for. ...

stargeezer wrote: I stumbled across this site by accident. I have become disillusioned by Steve Wilson's music over the years, and did a search "steve wilson fanboys"...so here I am. What I have found is that it is difficult to see any negative reposes to his music. And while everyone is entitled to their opinion, I find it difficult to accept ones opinion when it resembles gushing over like little school girls love for Justin Beiber. Sorry for my first post being negative in nature...I used to like PT. I probably used to sound like one of those SW worshipers...but the old PT forum became so brutal, that any criticism of anything he did, I was immediately put of the defensive...I figured this was a good spot to vent. It seems by some of the posts here there is some objective views.....sorry to resurrect a dead thread.

Edited by Argonaught - September 14 2013 at 13:07

It boils down to how well it is executed. What bands want to do and what the audience wants to listen are entirely up to both sides. Just because a band is trying to keep the traditional prog rock alive doesn't make them bad or good. If they do it well and convincingly then they are still a great band. I'm not overly keen on TFK but I wouldn't criticise them for what they are doing because they are honest about it, and their fans dig them. That's all that matters in my eyes.

Also, there is no argument between progressive and regressive. New music can't POSSIBLY be regressive. All music is new - even covers of tunes are not the same as the originals - and thus dialectical. Also, music is an evolving thing. You can't have original music without influence of some kind, it's how our minds work. You can't have Brad Mehldau without Bill Evans. You can't have King Crimson without Stravinsky. You can't have Tool without Black Sabbath. All progressive music is conservative in some way. It HAS to be. Therefore, there is no argument.


Edited by The Pessimist - September 14 2013 at 15:20

Steven Wilson is like an engineer.  He makes everything just so, but he misses the spirit of music many times.  The title track of his last album is technically the weakest on the album, but is probably my favorite for the sheer emotion that is showcased.  

stargeezer wrote: The Pessimist wrote: Also, there is no argument between progressive and regressive. New music can't POSSIBLY be regressive. All music is new - even covers of tunes are not the same as the originals - and thus dialectical. Also, music is an evolving thing. You can't have original music without influence of some kind, it's how our minds work. You can't have Brad Mehldau without Bill Evans. You can't have King Crimson without Stravinsky. You can't have Tool without Black Sabbath. All progressive music is conservative in some way. It HAS to be. Therefore, there is no argument. I guess I have to disagree with that statement...because within all genres there was an originator. Within it all there are sounds that are totally unique that didn't sound like anything before it...the same goes with all the arts. I also feel that there is a distinct difference between being influenced, and molding oneself in the image of.

If you can give me an example of any piece of music that has no influences in anything else then I will quite happily stand corrected.