Steven Wilson v. To. The. Bone.

[King Postwhore]

Why is it not ok for a musician to say he or she does not like a genre when I see so many on here do the same thing?  Are musicians who make it not allowed to have opinions?

[The Letter M]

I think it has to do with the fact that a lot of fans see Steven's statement about disliking bands who tread on 70's prog to be a bit hypocritical while he himself treads on his 70's prog influences as much as Roine and the Flower Kings do on theirs.

Granted, the difference between SW and Roine is almost night and day, where as Steven is more of the King Crimson and Pink Floyd side of  70's prog, while Roine is more of the Yes and Genesis side of 70's prog, and while they all hailed from the hey-day of progressive rock music, they're still fairly different from each other.

Either way, his statement about TFK being the "death of progressive rock" or whatever seems odd, if he is referring to bands that produce the same kind of music that Yes and Genesis did back in the day, because he himself has created music, between Raven and HCE, that is fairly reminiscent of his 70's prog influences. I can't listen to most of Raven without thinking of King Crimson, and I also think of Floyd and even Rush when listening to HCE. Maybe *HE* doesn't see it that way, and he might not be very transparent about his influences on his music, but the fans will, and the fans will call him out on hypocritical statements.

-Marc.

[King Postwhore]

Even his opinions like those on here can be wrong.

[Mosh]

Why is it not ok for a musician to say he or she does not like a genre when I see so many on here do the same thing?  Are musicians who make it not allowed to have opinions?

He can like whatever he wants, it's the holier than thou attitude that is annoying. When he slams other prog bands for being too retro sounding, then proceeds to make retro sounding prog rock albums.

[King Postwhore]

I see many commentating here that have that same holier than thou attitude as well. Just saying I see a lot of calling the kettle black.

[KevShmev]

I believe his death of prog comment was well over 10 years ago, which he has since walked back a little, so I am not sure why that is still relevant.

[ReaperKK]

About the Marco thing I do think that Steven should of said something to Marco/Guthrie but those awards are given to whoever is playing at the time. Hell the only reason I ran out to buy HCE was to hear Marco and Guthrie play, the album wouldn't of been as good without those two.

[Skeever]

I believe his death of prog comment was well over 10 years ago, which he has since walked back a little, so I am not sure why that is still relevant.

I've never seen him walk back those comments. If he has, I'd love to see it. From what I can tell, he still gives prog the cold shoulder. When I saw him, he even had the audacity to say something like, "you know, back in my day, we didn't call this music prog, we called it jazz!"

I think Zantera is spot on that Wilson seems to take subtle digs at his competition but then goes and dips right in to the same genre, so that you think "oh, this guy hates modern prog, but he's doing it here, so his version must be the good kind, with real integrity."  Don't get me wrong, I still love most of Wilson's music, but I am personally so over his attitude.

[ReaperKK]

Correct me if I'm wrong but what would SW music qualify genre wise? It certainly seem like Prog to me.

[seasonsinthesky]

Correct me if I'm wrong but what would SW music qualify genre wise? It certainly seem like Prog to me.

This is exactly why the discussion is taking place. It's blatant hypocrisy, particularly since GFD, but really since he started PT.

I'm glad he at least admits he's über-pretentious. Maybe that's what he wants his music called: not prog rock, pretentious rock.

[ChuckSteak]

He admits it? Where?

[KevShmev]

Correct me if I'm wrong but what would SW music qualify genre wise? It certainly seem like Prog to me.

Rock.

He is all over the map stylistically enough throughout his career to pigeonhole him into one subgenre.

[bout to crash]

Agreed.

[King Postwhore]

Who gives a flying $%#& about labels. 

Now that I got that out Like Steven my tastes have changed over the years. I just tend not to bash most because I just am lazy and don't want to type a thousand posts debating it on my cell phone. 

[Zantera]

He is only all over the map stylistically if you look at his entire spectrum of work with all the side projects. But PT was definitely progressive rock since the early days. The older albums are definitely more of a nod to 70s prog rock and the more modern PT albums are a more fresh take on the genre, but it's still progressive rock. His solo career is essentially the same, Insurgentes is really the only exception because it's so heavy on the shoegaze/drone/noise/post-punk influences. But GFD, Raven and HCE while different are all still progressive rock albums.

SW goes out of his way to call his music jazz, classic rock, or just about any genre that isn't prog, yet he is the face of progressive rock and has been perhaps the most iconic artist in the genre of the last 10 years, and he puts out progressive rock album after progressive rock album. He even jumped ship on several of his side projects like Blackfield (which he did return to) and No-Man to focus even more on his solo progressive rock project. Bass Communion was also side swept so that he could focus more on his solo project.

Not saying it's a bad thing. But SW used to be a more diverse musician with how many different albums he put out under different names, but not so much anymore.

[King Postwhore]

Didn't he say he was going for the early 70's prog style with TRTRTS?  I remember that's why he wanted to work Alan Parsons.

[Mosh]

I've never heard anything from SW outside of his solo albums and PT, but I don't have any problems classifying that as simply prog rock. The label isn't important anyway, I definitely give SW credit for introducing lots of influences outside of what you'd expect from the prog rock genre. So I definitely don't get the impression that he confines himself to anything, but the influences that come out most often are King Crimson/Genesis/etc.

[ChuckSteak]

Correct me if I'm wrong but what would SW music qualify genre wise? It certainly seem like Prog to me.

When an interviewer talked about prog and asked Steven about what music does PT plays he said: Porcupine Tree plays Porcupine Tree music. So I guess Steven Wilson plays Steven Wilson music, not prog. You know, an unique genre. 

[Kwyjibo]

He thinks (or at least thought) that prog-rock as a genre has become stale and retro-oriented and is not evolving. He thinks that his own music with PT or his solo band is not stale, not retro and that it is evolving, so he doesn't want to be thrown in in the same category as the rest of the not evolving prog-rock bands.

Imo, sometimes he's just a little bit too pretentious and elitist.

[RoeDent]

I've often heard artists try and deny they belong to particular genres, even though their music absolutely screams it. They should face it: we decide where they belong in the music spectrum. We notice the music's elements and based on that, we clump them in with a genre.

[Kwyjibo]

I will file his music under the prog-rock label till he comes along personally to rearrange my cd-collection   

[ChuckSteak]

He thinks (or at least thought) that prog-rock as a genre has become stale and retro-oriented and is not evolving. He thinks that his own music with PT or his solo band is not stale, not retro and that it is evolving, so he doesn't want to be thrown in in the same category as the rest of the not evolving prog-rock bands.

Imo, sometimes he's just a little bit too pretentious and elitist.

I have no problem with his opinion. The problem comes when he treats his opinion as the ultimate truth, disconsiders what everybody else think and has that "high and mighty" attitude. The only bands truly prog, the only bands that truly innovate, are the ones that HE likes. Funny isn't it?

[Skeever]

Yeah, Wilson is definitely prog, which makes his evasion of the term so silly.

Not only is most of his music prog, but also very few people know of him outside prog circles. I know plenty of people who love genres like jazz, noise, drone, shoegaze, classic rock etc., and none of them know who Wilson even is, despite knowing of tons of way more obscure bands. The fact is, Wilson is a major blip on one radar - the prog one. He's not even a little blip anywhere else.

[RoeDent]

Apologies if this is going off on a tangent, but further to my earlier point about genres, we as consumers of music need these labels and genres to describe their music. It's really the only way to answer so many questions: "What music do you like?", "How would you describe [artist/band]'s music?", to name just two.

It would be nice to be all "We don't need labels; music is music!", but that is simply impossible with something so hugely varied and otherwise indescribable. Labels and genres are here to stay, and bands need to accept that that's just the way it is. They can go in other directions, but they'll still essentially be labelled "prog" because prog by its very nature takes elements from many different styles.

[ChuckSteak]

Apologies if this is going off on a tangent, but further to my earlier point about genres, we as consumers of music need these labels and genres to describe their music. It's really the only way to answer so many questions: "What music do you like?", "How would you describe [artist/band]'s music?", to name just two.

It would be nice to be all "We don't need labels; music is music!", but that is simply impossible with something so hugely varied and otherwise indescribable. Labels and genres are here to stay, and bands need to accept that that's just the way it is. They can go in other directions, but they'll still essentially be labelled "prog" because prog by its very nature takes elements from many different styles.

I don't think we need labels at all, but it certainly helps to get to know similar bands. Music is so diverse that having labels makes it easier, but I see it as a necessary evil.

I could answer the first question by saying the name of the bands I like and the second question is irrelevant, since music has to be heard and not described. The description is not the described.

[Kwyjibo]

I don't know what's wrong with labels. If you list the bands you like and the other person hasn't heard of them, then your answer isn't much help. Giving the generally direction would then be more helpful.

Sure music is for listening, but it's for discussing also, otherwise we wouldn't need this forum 

And I simply don't have the time to listen to everything everyone mentions. If it's labeled I at least have a general idea, not about good or bad, that is up to the personal opinion of each listener, but of what to broadly expect. You can't describe music completely, but without labels you can't describe it all for someone who doesn't know the band.

When we begin to add judgements to labels, like all rap is not music, jazz is too artsy fartsy, country is just for rednecks, then it gets problematic.

[BlackInk]

I don't see what's wrong with labels either. It doesn't constrict the creative output of the artist, which is the only thing that would have made it bad. Aside from that I see only positives.

[LudwigVan]

SW is a reverse prog-snob.  Who's in denial.

[devieira73]

I’m not talking specifically about SW, but everytime an artist or musician says that his work can’t be labeled, I have always the impression that he/she thinks that “my work is so incredibly original and creative that it’s impossible to be labeled”, which sounds a bit pretensious and arrogant to me. All right, maybe they just don't want to be "confined" to a determinate style, but still...

[RoeDent]

I’m not talking specifically about SW, but everytime an artist or musician says that his work can’t be labeled, I have always the impression that he/she thinks that “my work is so incredibly original and creative that it’s impossible to be labeled”, which sounds a bit pretensious and arrogant to me. All right, maybe they just don't want to be "confined" to a determinate style, but still...

We just go ahead and label it anyway. And on another pre-album marketing cliché, when a band say their album is "like nothing we've ever done before", it usually ends up being similar to their previous work anyway. It's the same musicians, the same singer with the same voice. And even if it is quite different, after a little while when we've digested the album, it becomes part of the band's "sound" anyway. So that apparent originality doesn't last for long at all.

(PS. Steven Wilson. Just to keep this on topic.)

[KevShmev]

I suspect a lot of his reason for wanting to avoid any genre tag is he knows how weird fans can be if you stray too far from your alleged core sound, so if you get labeled a certain way and then do something outside of that box, some fans get weird/nervous/critical/etc.  However, I think he has softened towards it in recent years because he probably realizes how hardcore his fans are now and that they will stay with him along for the ride no matter what he does, so he is more comfortable with labels he would have wanted to avoid like the plague 15 years ago, for example.

[?]

You also have to consider that prog was an ugly word in the British music press in the late 90s and early 00s, and SW most likely didn't want to alienate any potential listeners because of the genre tag.

[RoeDent]

Then it's on the potential listeners to change their attitude and thinking. The way prog has been treated by the mainstream press is just as "snobbish" as they purport prog to be, so they have no moral high ground to criticise prog for apparent snobbishness (whatever that stupid term even means). Criticising musicians just because they can actually play? Pah! How ridiculous!

[Kwyjibo]

I suspect a lot of his reason for wanting to avoid any genre tag is he knows how weird fans can be if you stray too far from your alleged core sound, so if you get labeled a certain way and then do something outside of that box, some fans get weird/nervous/critical/etc.

When you have a core sound that is liked by the fans then it doesn't matter if it's given a genre tag. When you stray from your core sound, when you vary your musical output there are always fans that complain.

[ChuckSteak]

That's how labels are negative. If you have no labels then you have no way of pre-judging the music and you listen to it without having any thoughts, assumptions or expectations. If you have a label, you are already expecting the music to be a certain way, you already have an idea about it, and this can seriously affect how much you will enjoy the album or the band. Not to mention that if you know a band has a certain label, it often makes you not want to listen to it at all because you already have a bad experience with bands with the same or similar label. It can make you close-minded.