A la lecture de cette interview, j'ai eu comme un léger doute sur la sincérité de Steve Wilson!
Après quelques recherches...
Il semblerait que Porcupine tree n'avait pas de contrat d'enregistrement, à l'époque...Concessions faites à Snapper music (le label qui accepta de les enregistrer, plus tard dans l'année 99), pour sortir de l'étiquette progressive, peu porteuse, à l'époque?
Lien wiki: http://fr.wikipedia..../Porcupine_Tree
Aussi trouvé une interview plus récente, pour ceux qui auraient le courage de la lire, et qui date de 2007, où Wilson déclare que cela aurait été "le baiser de la mort" à l'époque de "In absentia" (2002) de se réclamer de la mouvance progressive!
Q: And lastly, do you still express disagreement with the term
> "progressive rock" to describe Porcupine Tree's music?
I've kind of mellowed slightly about the word progressive. The problem
> as I saw it is that for a very long time, progressive suggested a very
> narrow definition of music. On your website, I see people struggling
> to define what progressive is and to review albums under that premise
> - if it's a good album but it's not necessarily likely to appeal to a
> hardcore progressive fan, then should that get a lower rating? That's
> crazy but I understand the dilemma. I think that's the problem of
> trying to limit the scope on a music site. I love your site and check
> it out all the time, but I think progressive has become a much broader
> term than it was 5 years ago when we released In Absentia. Then I
> think it would have been the kiss of death to have promoted it using
> the word "progressive". I mean I personally couldn't care less, but
> in order to survive in this industry you certainly have to be aware of
> what kind of prejudices there are out there.
> People in the mainstream media used to believe that progressive meant
> it sounded like Genesis circa 1972, or King Crimson circa 1969, and
> that clearly wasn't the case with PT music. However, I see over the
> last 5 years there's a new kind of breed of bands that have really
> changed the way people think about the term progressive. It's now used
> frequently in the media in a genuinely positive sense. With The Mars
> Volta, Tool, Opeth, The Flaming Lips, Sigur Ros, Isis, Mastodon,
> Radiohead, Muse, Coheed and Cambria, suddenly the definition is much
> broader than it was. So, I'm not so against it as I was. To be honest,
> I don't like classifying music it at all. I don't like the idea of
> Porcupine Tree as a generic band. I like to believe that we have
> ambition, that we have scope, that we're an eclectic band. I don't
> like the idea that you can sum all that up in one convenient tag.
> It's music, you either like it or you don't, so who cares what we call
> I'm guessing that many of the original 70's bands did not consider
> themselves progressive either. I don't believe Pink Floyd or Yes ever
> called themselves progressive rock bands. I think they just did what
> they did. They had their own sound, and created their own identity and
> philosophy. I think that's the same with Porcupine Tree. While I'm not
> averse to people describing us as such, I personally wouldn't call us
> any kind of band, except a Porcupine Tree kind of band.
Son avis sur la question est beaucoup plus modéré, à présent...
Aussi, on peut penser, qu'à l'époque de Stupid dream, il était primordial de survivre...
J'adore ce genre de débat!