Steven Wilson, Prog heritage and legacy

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.

The acknowledgement of genres is where I think you when wrong there. Progressive rock was influenced by rock, classical, and jazz. As longer as there is an existing set of music, some of it will influence the music being made, regardless of genre.

In order to create a satisfying artistic expression, however, a degree of differentiation is warranted. Conceptual limits of a certain kind are often necessary and will manifest themselves physically making King Crimson distinct from Stravinsky. The root cause of the artists being distinct is not the presence vs. lack of guitars. It's the thing that people are expressing in the first place that makes artists distinct. The way in which Yes expressed themselves worked for them. But it may not work for a different kind of expression. It seems clear to me that many artists like TFK started with music only and merely at a surface level dived into concept. They don't express what they're trying to express as well as possible, imo, and seem to force the concept onto music instead of having a unified artistic expression. I have the same problem with a lot of older prog artists too. It seems to be what comes from people who are very good at their instruments or who are immersed in musical academia. They revel in merely physical traits of the music, vs. many people who may have had limited technique on their instrument, forced to focus on the artistic use of their meager skills. A little goes a long way, I say.

The Pessimist wrote: Polymorphia wrote: It seems to be what comes from people who are very good at their instruments or who are immersed in musical academia. They revel in merely physical traits of the music, vs. many people who may have had limited technique on their instrument, forced to focus on the artistic use of their meager skills. A little goes a long way, I say. What's that got to do with the price of fish? How can learning more about music and honing your skills as a player effect your focus or musical goal? To be honest this is offensive to every musician practising 5 hours a day to be at the best level they can.

It's not universal, just an easy pitfall. Being good at your instrument isn't a free ticket to artistry like many musicians seem to think.

Is this the same thread as that other one, or am I just confused?

The Pessimist wrote: Polymorphia wrote: The Pessimist wrote: Polymorphia wrote: It seems to be what comes from people who are very good at their instruments or who are immersed in musical academia. They revel in merely physical traits of the music, vs. many people who may have had limited technique on their instrument, forced to focus on the artistic use of their meager skills. A little goes a long way, I say. What's that got to do with the price of fish? How can learning more about music and honing your skills as a player effect your focus or musical goal? To be honest this is offensive to every musician practising 5 hours a day to be at the best level they can. It's not universal, just an easy pitfall. Being good at your instrument isn't a free ticket to artistry like many musicians seem to think. How can you create a dichotomy between being good at your instrument and achieving artistry? They are one of the same. You are only good at your instrument if you are artistic with it, otherwise you are just an athlete.

By good, I mean ability. I am also referring to the ability to create "good" melodies, groove, and the other things associated with being "good" at one's instrument. None of those things are bad and pursuing those things on one's instrument is a noble pursuit, but it's easy to get too caught up in merely the physical side. As a musician who pursues skill at my instrument, I've seen this tendency in myself, so I'm not just pointing fingers.

The Pessimist wrote: Polymorphia wrote: The Pessimist wrote: Polymorphia wrote: The Pessimist wrote: Polymorphia wrote: It seems to be what comes from people who are very good at their instruments or who are immersed in musical academia. They revel in merely physical traits of the music, vs. many people who may have had limited technique on their instrument, forced to focus on the artistic use of their meager skills. A little goes a long way, I say. What's that got to do with the price of fish? How can learning more about music and honing your skills as a player effect your focus or musical goal? To be honest this is offensive to every musician practising 5 hours a day to be at the best level they can. It's not universal, just an easy pitfall. Being good at your instrument isn't a free ticket to artistry like many musicians seem to think. How can you create a dichotomy between being good at your instrument and achieving artistry? They are one of the same. You are only good at your instrument if you are artistic with it, otherwise you are just an athlete. By good, I mean ability. I am also referring to the ability to create "good" melodies, groove, and the other things associated with being "good" at one's instrument. None of those things are bad and pursuing those things on one's instrument is a noble pursuit, but it's easy to get too caught up in merely the physical side. As a musician who pursues skill at my instrument, I've seen this tendency in myself, so I'm not just pointing fingers. And by ability you mean technique I presume? Technique is useless without musical knowledge. I don't know what what you mean by "physical side" though. Care to elaborate your point?

"Getting caught up in the physical side" is referring to presenting the melodies, harmonies, form, rhythms etc. however "good," as the end all be all of the music, no deeper sentiment, just those physical parameters that we acknowledge in Western Music. With those who have been taught that satisfying those parameters is the definition of artistic excellence, they simply learn to satisfy those parameters with nothing more personal in their expression, and when they do start to express it, they start at a very basic level, because they've abstracted the physical side of music from personal expression for so long, that they've learned little to nothing of expression itself. There are a lot of artists I've heard out of such-and-such school with such-and-such accolades, who are "good" in that they satisfy a certain internalized criteria for melody, harmony, rhythm, form, and timbre. I don't dislike that. But there is often something lacking in their music. It isn't even emotion, always. Artists can try to express as much emotion as they can, but unless they effectively communicate that to the listener, only people who directly relate to the experience will have a personal connection with the artist. To effectively communicate a sentiment takes more than just satisfying that which is imposed by one's respective institution. It takes more thought than that, and to do both at the same time, takes even more. It's just that there are many artists out there that don't know how to satisfy the institutional parameters, so artistic expression is all they have. They simply use sound to do that and often very well. Examples of this would include The Cure, The Fall, Radiohead, and Sonic Youth. I still think it takes craft to do what The Flower Kings or Glass Hammer do, and respect them for being able to do so, but "to what end?" I don't accuse them of being too derivative because I put large stock in innovation for the sake of it. It's as you said. All music is new music. I simply ask, "Why?" and, in their music, I receive no answer.

Polymorphia wrote:   "Getting caught up in the physical side" is referring to presenting the melodies, harmonies, form, rhythms etc. however "good," as the end all be all of the music, no deeper sentiment, just those physical parameters that we acknowledge in Western Music. With those who have been taught that satisfying those parameters is the definition of artistic excellence, they simply learn to satisfy those parameters with nothing more personal in their expression, and when they do start to express it, they start at a very basic level, because they've abstracted the physical side of music from personal expression for so long, that they've learned little to nothing of expression itself. There are a lot of artists I've heard out of such-and-such school with such-and-such accolades, who are "good" in that they satisfy a certain internalized criteria for melody, harmony, rhythm, form, and timbre. I don't dislike that. But there is often something lacking in their music. It isn't even emotion, always. Artists can try to express as much emotion as they can, but unless they effectively communicate that to the listener, only people who directly relate to the experience will have a personal connection with the artist. To effectively communicate a sentiment takes more than just satisfying that which is imposed by one's respective institution. It takes more thought than that, and to do both at the same time, takes even more. It's just that there are many artists out there that don't know how to satisfy the institutional parameters, so artistic expression is all they have. They simply use sound to do that and often very well. Examples of this would include The Cure, The Fall, Radiohead, and Sonic Youth. I still think it takes craft to do what The Flower Kings or Glass Hammer do, and respect them for being able to do so, but "to what end?" I don't accuse them of being too derivative because I put large stock in innovation for the sake of it. It's as you said. All music is new music. I simply ask, "Why?" and, in their music, I receive no answer.

""Getting caught up in the physical side" is referring to presenting the melodies, harmonies, form, rhythms etc."
So............everything that makes music then.  I'm not sure how else you are supposed to do it.

The rest of your post is just talking about personal tastes and subjective qualities of music that vary from person to person.  I simply ask, "Why?" 

Guldbamsen wrote: The only thing he doesn't deserve, is the poor choice of thread title.

Hmmm I just read through the op, and he does seem a little snooty all around. I guess what it boils down to is whether Steve is making progressive music or just rehashing old ideas.

Edited by Guldbamsen - September 17 2013 at 09:25

infandous wrote: Polymorphia wrote:   "Getting caught up in the physical side" is referring to presenting the melodies, harmonies, form, rhythms etc. however "good," as the end all be all of the music, no deeper sentiment, just those physical parameters that we acknowledge in Western Music. With those who have been taught that satisfying those parameters is the definition of artistic excellence, they simply learn to satisfy those parameters with nothing more personal in their expression, and when they do start to express it, they start at a very basic level, because they've abstracted the physical side of music from personal expression for so long, that they've learned little to nothing of expression itself. There are a lot of artists I've heard out of such-and-such school with such-and-such accolades, who are "good" in that they satisfy a certain internalized criteria for melody, harmony, rhythm, form, and timbre. I don't dislike that. But there is often something lacking in their music. It isn't even emotion, always. Artists can try to express as much emotion as they can, but unless they effectively communicate that to the listener, only people who directly relate to the experience will have a personal connection with the artist. To effectively communicate a sentiment takes more than just satisfying that which is imposed by one's respective institution. It takes more thought than that, and to do both at the same time, takes even more. It's just that there are many artists out there that don't know how to satisfy the institutional parameters, so artistic expression is all they have. They simply use sound to do that and often very well. Examples of this would include The Cure, The Fall, Radiohead, and Sonic Youth. I still think it takes craft to do what The Flower Kings or Glass Hammer do, and respect them for being able to do so, but "to what end?" I don't accuse them of being too derivative because I put large stock in innovation for the sake of it. It's as you said. All music is new music. I simply ask, "Why?" and, in their music, I receive no answer. ""Getting caught up in the physical side" is referring to presenting the melodies, harmonies, form, rhythms etc." So............everything that makes music then.  I'm not sure how else you are supposed to do it. The rest of your post is just talking about personal tastes and subjective qualities of music that vary from person to person.  I simply ask, "Why?"

You didn't quote the whole sentence: "'Getting caught up in the physical side' is referring to presenting the melodies, harmonies, form, rhythms etc. however 'good,' as the end all be all of the music, no deeper sentiment, just those physical parameters that we acknowledge in Western Music." I mean that artistry is not a process of expressing your institution, it's a process of expressing yourself. Those parameters are not bad things, but they do nothing when they are the criteria of what makes things good.

And those aren't 'everything that makes music,' by any means. Music is simply man-made sound for the purpose of artistic and aesthetic appreciation. Sound cannot truly be divided into parameters, and any idea regarded as an objective parameter of the sound is arbitrary. I acknowledge the Western parameters as a set of limits. But those limits are simply institutional. They don't make the music artistically good. I think if you read the rest of my post above, you'll see that I am not talking about something subjective. Artistry is having a reason for doing the things you do in music. Music does not exist to satisfy our Western parameters. If that was the case, then any music which breaks or broke Western "rules" is bad music. When I listen to music, I examine it artistically as well. Why does "Kid A" have electronic instruments, aleatoric lyrics, and a bleak, alienating atmosphere? Why does "Tales from Topographic Oceans" have a slow, languid progression of psychological time? Why does the song "Money" have a bluesy sound to it in comparison with the rest of "Dark Side of the Moon?"

No, I am ok with regressive tendencies in music...or rather, imitation, which was the word I used.   It is the artist's choice to imitate, though I personally am indifferent to music that is mainly about imitating some influential artist's work (with riders that I won't go into for the sake of brevity).  I only do not agree with saying there is no difference between pioneers and imitators.  There is and the fact that the pioneers too have some source material is beside the point.  If everybody was busy imitating since time immemorial, there may not have been any prog rock to begin with.  Time and time again in the history of music, some artists decided to buck the 'trend', decided to follow some impulses, some direction of their own to express themselves, which in turn influenced the direction of other musicians.  Does that effort really count for nothing at all?  Wow.

Edited by rogerthat - September 18 2013 at 07:55