Mike Oldfield's category? |
Post Reply | Page <123> |
Author | |||||||||||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 24 2008 at 10:18 | ||||||||||||||
... quicker too I would imagine.
|
|||||||||||||||
What?
|
|||||||||||||||
progressive
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 08 2005 Location: Finland Status: Offline Points: 366 |
Posted: October 24 2008 at 10:04 | ||||||||||||||
Well, that's how I justified Panza to Crossover prog! ( http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=51809 ) But Mike Oldfield is definitely crossover prog (those things I don't like in it), but I think it should be moved to eclectic prog, because I also like it. This is the most valid way to judge. Edited by progressive - October 24 2008 at 10:06 |
|||||||||||||||
► rateyourmusic.com/~Fastro 2672 ratings ▲ last.fm/user/Fastro 5556 artists ▲ www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=4933 266◄ |
|||||||||||||||
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 33100 |
Posted: October 23 2008 at 16:25 | ||||||||||||||
A very interesting discussion which I have only just skimmed. I have had several albums by Oldfield, but don't know his discography well-enough to make the call. From what I know, I could see him fitting both Crossover and Eclectic. Since both categories stem from the old "Art Rock" category, I have less problems with the overlap than, say, if a dominantly Prog Metal band was placed in, say, Prog Folk (and of course there are bands that are metal/folk fusion). And similarly to Eclectic, the Crossover category is eclectic in the mix of styles represented by the bands/ artists (and the artists in Crossover need not have a dominant Prog style), but, of course, Crossover is intended for the ones with significant mainstream elements.
|
|||||||||||||||
Just a music fan passing through trying to fill some void. Various music I am into now: a youtube playlist
|
|||||||||||||||
Ricochet
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 27 2005 Location: Nauru Status: Offline Points: 46301 |
Posted: October 23 2008 at 15:54 | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
splyu
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 06 2008 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 316 |
Posted: October 23 2008 at 15:51 | ||||||||||||||
OK, great; I like the direct approach myself but I have become very cautious in using it over a few years of experiences with internet forums... as for continuing the discussion, I feel I've pretty much said all I personally had to say about the matter, though if anyone would like to bring a fresh angle to this, I'd certainly be interested in that. Edited by splyu - October 23 2008 at 15:52 |
|||||||||||||||
Ricochet
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 27 2005 Location: Nauru Status: Offline Points: 46301 |
Posted: October 23 2008 at 11:14 | ||||||||||||||
The title track was the second piece I mentioned, I think
The arrangement of rock, melodic, vocals (Crises! Crises!...), etc. The fact that it isn't aired on the radio because of its length? Not essential, since it's about what Oldfield mixed, stylistically, in that track...
Leaving my word "weakest" aside, I mentioned "experimental, ambient and repetitive rock", I can't find the prog in there.
Okay, a point taken here, but Platinum overall isn't an electronic prog album.
I'm emphasizing Oldfield's change of mentality and closer spirit to pop-rock in the 80s. If he didn't threw away the folk, ambient, improvisations, etc., it's still a step back from the 70s tapes.
Crossover isn't a style here, the definition clearly states what the Crossover category is mostly made of, stylistically. In fact, Eclectic itself is a category.
I don't understand how you understood [sic!] that I dismissed Amarok - on the contrary, I added it in the 5 essential prog albums!! It's, instead, an "exception" inside Oldfield's 1983-1990 musical period. The story behind it confirms it - the avant-garde inside it confirms it - the high rates of prog-fans on this site confirms it - etc.
Splyu, don't think my face is read every time I finished replying to your posts, I'm open to this debate, I just like to take it direct. I don't (DON'T) consider your arguments "invalid". Please feel free to continue the discussion, cause it's interesting by all means - and don't forget the Eclectic Team (+Xover, naturally) will check Oldfield's case nonetheless. My opinion is one of five or six, at least, some other Specialists have already said their view, a couple of others are still to make a full statement regarding this... Edited by Ricochet - October 23 2008 at 11:16 |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
splyu
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 06 2008 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 316 |
Posted: October 23 2008 at 10:54 | ||||||||||||||
I can. Make the experiment – listen to only the second disc of Incantations (parts 3 and 4), and then tell me it isn't very nearly the same style as QE2. Does that mean the second half of Incantations is not prog? No, it means that QE2 is prog, too.
"Arrival" is in fact a cover of an Abba instrumental (the Abba singers aren't involved) in Oldfield's own style. You're making it a bit easy for yourself here, picking out the one track on QE2 that has any direct relation to pop. I have no idea what the other track you're talking of might be.
You can call it whatever you like... since when isn't prog allowed to be melodic and contain vocals? What's so very "commercial" about a 20 minute instrumental track?
It actually sounds very different from Earth Moving, but of course I agree that the first side of that album obviously isn't prog.
Strictly your opinion, and even if it were so, since when is quality the decisive factor in determining the "prog-ness" of a piece of music? "Bad" prog is still prog.
Sorry, I don't get what you're saying here.
I've already agreed those albums aren't prog. But what about, for example, Woodhenge, from Platinum? Ambient prog or not?
I don't think I need to "defend" albums like Five Miles Out with regards to their prog relevance; it seems to be very obvious to most and I think you're over-emphasizing their slight pop elements as if those were enough to disqualify them as prog.
You're basically just saying he's in Crossover because he is Crossover. That's exactly what I was questioning originally, though.
This is your opinion, but you state it as if it was fact. Earth Moving is the only one of those albums that demonstrably has no relation to prog whatsoever. Music From The Balcony is most definitely prog; whether you like it or not is irrelevant, sorry. And when you claim that Amarok is an "exception" and therefor does not count, you're simply dismissing one of the most impressive (and most highly-rated, on this site) achievements in what is undeniably eclectic prog, based on no good argument that I've been able to detect from your posts. Honestly though, I don't like where this is going. I never meant to offend anyone but this debate seems to start getting heated, for no good reason. I guess we'll simply have to agree that our opinions on some of these matters are irreconcilable. If you feel my arguments are invalid, fine, I'll stick to them but I can live well with him being in the Crossover section. (In fact I understand much better now how he ended up there, even if I still would have decided differently; but obviously, I'm not the one in charge here.) |
|||||||||||||||
Ricochet
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 27 2005 Location: Nauru Status: Offline Points: 46301 |
Posted: October 23 2008 at 09:38 | ||||||||||||||
I only meant those 5 are the essential prog albums, further on it gets blurry. True, Oldfield doesn't simply leave out the stuff he made so prog rock, a couple of 80s albums combine the prog reminiscence with the new orientation. But you can't say QE2 and others are prog rock! In fact, I have two favorite tracks in QE2, one's a popular song made with the two singers from Abba, if I'm not wrong, the other one contains strong guitar playing by Oldfield (while the music itself is a bit light). Five Miles Out and Crises have epics, which you can correlate with prog rock, but the reality is the first is a suite of rock-pop-vocal-melodic-ethnic pieces, while Crises is even more commercial. Anyway, Heaven's Open is one of the albums you can least mention in prog, After Oldfield was tired of Virgin's requests, he did the wonderful Amarok, but then, all of a sudden, he returned to another pop-rock album, in the same vein Earth Moving sounded. And the epic itself is one of the weakest Oldfield tracks ever, just experimental, ambient and repetitive rock, with no substance. Here's where I least look for prog in Oldfield's music.
Accessibility here is Oldfield's 70s sturdyness in great compositions and fine rock blends in comparison with the 80s songs and hits. If you wish to break into Oldfield's pitch-playing, that's fine, but I'm not over-analysing this part of the music, as far as genre-izing goes...
All I know is that, while "symphonic, folk, rock", during the 70s, are logic enough to be put under prog rock - and even Eclectic - further on, Oldfield's styles are far from the past, plus new into styles generally different than what we see as prog rock. I remember Eno, I remember his soundscapes, light ambient epics, etc....there's no point directing Oldfield's music towards the electronic side...in fact, Tr3s Lunas & Light & Shade, his latest albums, totally addicted to disco, trance, new-wave and such, are mostly hated by prog fans...so, in terms of prog or commercial, some styles stick out having a prog importance, while others are un-accountable.
I sense a bit of over-defense in this, mainly because, to my belief, every strong rock fan can see how different Oldfield played in 70s and what changed during the 80s. If Oldfield himself went almost mad every time Virgin asked him to release hits-albums such as Heaven's Open, is clear that it was an aggravated moment of a long period of plain rock, pop-rock hybridism or commercial stuff. King Crimson had a strong pop influence in the 80s, yes. So? King Crimson are in Eclectic because they've gone from Symphonic to Art Rock, Jazz, Experimental, Avant-Garde, Dark Improvisational Rock, Metal, etc. Oldfield just has Prog Rock (worthy of being placed in Symphonic or Eclectic, if strictly talking about genres), while the rest falls in Xover, Prog-Related or Non-Prog.
Sorry, no. Maybe longer than Platinum, up to 1983-1984. But Crises, Discovery, Islands, Heaven's Open, Earth Moving...it's just Oldfield's 80s spirit, nothing of the prog rock aquainted classics prolongs into this. Edited by Ricochet - October 23 2008 at 09:43 |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Draith
Forum Groupie Joined: March 25 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Posted: October 23 2008 at 04:27 | ||||||||||||||
I also thought it was weird, him being in Crossover. His early stuff is sort of progressive new age (well, it sounds new age to me, at least... just not pretentious and boring like most new age), and if you consider new age a sort of form of pop music, than... ok that argument died, I know. If it were up to me, he'd be in Symphonic prog. Lots of classical influence, I think. Even then... it's difficult to place him. I guess we could just leave him in crossover just because we wouldn't know where else to put him.
|
|||||||||||||||
Chris S
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 09 2004 Location: Front Range Status: Offline Points: 7028 |
Posted: October 23 2008 at 03:56 | ||||||||||||||
^ I think more along the lines of Songs From Distant Earth being more of a progressive evolution from even TBII and it is his last really great stand out studio work. No doubt the new age feel is there too. Please do not compare it to latter day Vangelis either ( No crticism on Vangelis)
Also albums like Platinum, QE2 and Five Miles Out are IMO essentially full on progressive but when Islands came out there was a distinct pop prog flavour beginning to emerge. There are maybe four albums after Islands that escape the pop prog label which were Amarok, Songs..., Voyager and Guitars. I do agree that Songs from the Balcony is an excellent progressive track. Not left overs from Amarok either ( I know that for a fact)
Whilst I can agree on the Crossover tag in the main I personally reflect on his music as ' progressive rock' for his 70's /early eighties influence. Aside from that he is in PA that is all that really matters now from my perspective.
Great discussion though!!
|
|||||||||||||||
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
|||||||||||||||
splyu
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 06 2008 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 316 |
Posted: October 23 2008 at 02:25 | ||||||||||||||
Well, honestly I have a bit of a problem with labeling that material "Pop Prog". He has done straight pop songs, yes, but the vast majority of his proggier, instrumental work (from the 80s) is definitely rock, often with a folk / world music edge, but not pop.
I tend to think of that album has his first full-on new age offering. But it's very cleverly constructed and flows seamlessly throughout, so there might be a case for calling it prog. Edited by splyu - October 23 2008 at 02:26 |
|||||||||||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 22 2008 at 21:30 | ||||||||||||||
While I've no intention of fighting the Crossover corner here (if there is a better home for him then by all means take him) I would make two points:
1. Unlike most other subgenres Crossover Prog is not a distinct style of Prog, therefore cannot be judged by comparison with other bands that are within the subgenre.
And the mainstream elements within a Crossover Prog album do not necessarily have to be Pop - those can come from any genre of popular music that isn't normally seen in Prog, even Trance.
Also, it is a 100% Prog subgenre - all the artists listed in Xover made 100% Prog albums, unlike Prog Related - putting Oldfield in PR would be a travesty.
2. If placement is based upon the Progressive works the artist is best known for, then Crossover is the correct subgenre for him. For example:
So even though Oldfield may have made an Eclectic album, or may have produced Prog-Folk pieces, it is his Pop Prog stuff he is more widely known. (discounting his Pop-Rock albums and singles). I actually think Songs From Distant Earth is a post '92 Prog album and one that fit's Xover... (In my opinion, Tubular Bells is a Xover album - as are all the variants of it Oldfield has recorded)
Edited by Dean - October 22 2008 at 21:31 |
|||||||||||||||
What?
|
|||||||||||||||
micky
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46828 |
Posted: October 22 2008 at 19:05 | ||||||||||||||
of course.. and it wasn't taken that way at all
|
|||||||||||||||
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|||||||||||||||
splyu
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 06 2008 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 316 |
Posted: October 22 2008 at 19:03 | ||||||||||||||
Oh yes, I absolutely understand that. I never expected immediate results nor do I think this matter is particularly important in the grand scheme of things (I tried to make that clear from the start). Just wanted to see what others think and suggest considering a move, not demand or even just expect anything. |
|||||||||||||||
micky
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46828 |
Posted: October 22 2008 at 18:58 | ||||||||||||||
personally I think he would fit better in eclectic myself... but that is Vic's call... I don't waste too much time with the categorization here. What really matters is they are here to be reviewed and 'discovered'.... the sub's are more guides than anything written in stone. We do try to place like-minded and sounding artists in the same subs... Oldfield does on the face of it seem like he might be a better fit in eclectic than Xover... but sure not losing sleep over it. I've known he's been there.. and haven't thought once about asking Vic to consider taking him. If people haven't different notions about what is prog or not.. they sure as hell will have different notions about the various flavors of prog. it's just a dead end street of time and labor in my mind for the collabs, who have more than enough on their plates, to fuss over. We volunteer time here when we have free moments in our personal lives. Nice posts though splyu.
|
|||||||||||||||
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|||||||||||||||
splyu
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 06 2008 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 316 |
Posted: October 22 2008 at 18:50 | ||||||||||||||
All that said, I'm not on any sort of personal crusade here... just expressing my surprise at seeing him basically lumped together with the likes of Supertramp, The Moody Blues etc. Isn't it obvious how little he fits in there? (Honestly, I feel even Prog Related would be better, since ultimately, I guess he's a misfit in any category one might try to put him in). But if you who are in charge decide you'd like to leave things as they are, that's absolutely fine by me. (Thanks for taking the time to discuss this!)
Edited by splyu - October 22 2008 at 18:52 |
|||||||||||||||
splyu
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 06 2008 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 316 |
Posted: October 22 2008 at 18:22 | ||||||||||||||
Well, I strongly disagree about only those five albums you mentioned being prog albums. TB, HR, Omm and Inc are the only albums that have a 70s prog sound. However, contrary to popular belief, prog did exist in the 80s, and in fact I think that Oldfield is one of the strongest contributors to prog during that decade - or its first half at least (and then again in the early 90s). I don't really see what's not prog about Platinum, and I definitely don't see what's not prog about QE2 (very similar in style to the second disc of Incantations!), Five Miles Out (except one track), the first side of Crises, or the second side of Heaven's Open (one of his most eclectic tracks, btw: Music From The Balcony). I'll admit however that he hasn't really released any prog since after Tubular Bells II ('92). His "renown" as a pop-rock artist that you say existed even in the 70s seems irrelevant to me; Tubular Bells is the only thing he released during that time that was even remotely "pop"-rock (that includes the various singles). Just because people thought of him that way doesn't make it so; the actual music is what counts.
Accessibility doesn't mean that his composition techniques aren't advanced and go well beyond what's typical for "mainstream" music.
Here it gets really difficult. What are and aren't "prog" elements/styles? Prog in itself is a highly syncretistic style, formed from many elements. Where can you draw the line? And even if you want to go by a conservative definition, how can you exclude classical and ambient (remember Eno)?
Malign? Seriously, Mike was one of the few stalwarts who still released proper prog in the 80s - not exclusively, but still in large quantities. I just don't see how it's possible to dismiss a track like, say, Taurus II as "not prog" or even just "pop prog" - it's not poppy at all except for one of its many sections. The use of pop in this manner doesn't make the piece itself "pop", it only makes it eclectic. (King Crimson had a strong pop influence in the 80s, no?) The rest is pure prog rock with a folk tinge.
Which, as I maintain, was much longer than you'll give him credit for - essentially up to Tubular Bells II, with some "breaks" in between. Again, I'll admit that little of what he's released since then has been prog in any conventional sense of the word. Edited by splyu - October 22 2008 at 18:37 |
|||||||||||||||
Ricochet
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 27 2005 Location: Nauru Status: Offline Points: 46301 |
Posted: October 22 2008 at 15:50 | ||||||||||||||
I agree that, if strictly relating to five albums (TB, HR, Omm., Incantations + Amarok), Oldfleld completes an "essential prog" file, and with this, he fits in Eclectic (there's Symphonic, Folk, Rock, Classical, and ultimately Avant-Garde in Amarok). Theoretically, he also fits in Eclectic, because there's a chance the Symphonic Team, and even to a lesser extent the Folk Team, could accept Oldfield. That shows that Oldfield's prog music practically does not have a "referential" style - though it could be to a listener's perception if HR sounds symphonic, while Ommadawn is great folk, and Incantations...both!.
Can we totally ignore Oldfield's 80s-90s & 00s, with all the proper +15 albums? Of course we can. We even lobby for such ignorance in Genesis' and Yes' case. Nonetheless, the difference I see in this prog-pop transition is how Genesis and Yes have sold-out, while Oldfield's transition was natural, like converting the great sounds and compositions of the prog period into rock and pop music (of course, eventually, that same natural touch in pop-rock died itself, resulting in new, even more ordinary, orientations, without anything breakthroughingly). Will Oldfield's 80s-90s & 00s make sense in Eclectic? Of course not, it will be both a "Less-Prog"/Non-Prog material three times larger than the Prog one and an un-fit for Eclectic material three times larger than the material fit for Eclectic (...this is answer both questions: "is it Prog?" and "what subgenre?"). While in Crossover, Oldfield's genre placement is only questioned in regards to the first albums - and it does, indeed, sound fair to resolve those questionings more, since this is ProgArchives -, but his pop affairs are also tempered, especially a bit of prog + pop-rock does happen, at least until Virgin whips Mike to compose just pop tunes, or Mike himself interiorizes himself, only this time in the New-Age/etc. way... While in Eclectic, Oldfield's genre placement can be childishly questioned given the 3xNon-Prog stuff, even if we, as Specialists, perfectly secure Oldfield's prog albums. In fact, in Oldfield's case, we've got nothing to discuss, in prog terms, except 5 main albums. Usually, in the case of major artists of the Eclectic sub-genre, we can freely talk about the music, even the artist himself, rather than doing the equations "A=prog; B=not prog. Ignore B, focus on A". And, to resume one of my arguments, Mike Oldfield's music isn't truly Eclectic. We only have: 1973-1977 - Prog Rock (where we can obtain an "eclecticism" - small e - certificate because, besides the Symphonic music, we also got Folk, Classical, etc.) 1979-1989 - Pop-Prog (a style usually corelate with Xover); Pop-Rock 1990 - the Amarok earthquake 1992-1997 - "ambient, pop, trance, new age, techno, folk, classical, etc. 2003-2008 - electronic (trance, ambient, the whole stuff), classical, other mashed small elements... |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
clarke2001
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 14 2006 Location: Croatia Status: Offline Points: 4160 |
Posted: October 22 2008 at 14:57 | ||||||||||||||
Wait, wait, I have to give my two cents here. First of all, I'm NOT in favour nor against re-locating Oldfield in Eclectic/leaving him in Crossover. I just want to emphasize a point or two of this analysis. After we successfully complete the algorithm 'Is an artist prog rock or not' and we conclude it is a prog artist, the next step is defining a suitable subgenre. There is no accepted rule of a thumb whether we have to do addition or multiplication first while solving the prog subgenre formula: the artist that is undoubtedly prog; undoubtedly eclectic and undoubtedly showing pop tendencies will always be debated throughly, probably be bounced/discussed between both subgenre teams, and finally accepted with borderline 'yeses' and few borderline 'no's' into a specific category. Hence, it might fit both just fine - as well as being misfit in both. The next thing is, of course, public perception of artist's work -- it's our cross here when adding controversial names. But public perception on what level? Yes and Genesis (any many others) went POP in the 80's - and that is not minusculizing their prog origins from our point of view. I really doubt anyone disagree with Genesis being primarily a symphonic band. But from the point of view of wider musical audience - they're both pop bands -- Genesis being very successful pop band, Yes being the one doing 'Lonely Heart' during the era of new wave. They probably won't even know they were something else in the seventies, nor care. Of course, we don't care that much about the view of the wide pop audience, we care about the prog point of view. Then why should we care about public perception about Oldfield being a pop perfromer (arty pop performer)? It's the same people who know about 'Moonlight Shadow', and never heard any of the vinyl-side-long suites. Which applies to 'Owner of a Lonely Heart' and 'I Can't Dance', too. We might say: okay, but prog giants abandoned prog in the 80's completely because of money, fashion, whatever, while Oldfield kept being arty and poppy, hence the Crossover tag. But then, many prog giants of the 70's remained 'arty' yet 'poppy' in the 80's, for example Jethro Tull (flute was still around, as well as carefully crafted synth layers). To be honest, while evaluating the whole picture of a prog artist that I wasn't familiar before, and it has a discography streching through three decades or more, I more or less completely ignore the 80's to affect my judgements. Influences Mike has included in his music over the course of his career include: rock, classical, folk, postmodern classical, hard rock, a wide variety of ethnic music from all continents, avantgarde, ambient, chillout, pop, trance, new age, techno, disco, reggae, children's music, jazz, and more. I agree those underlined categories are not much relevant to prog and not much relevant to Eclectic Prog. But take a grain of salt: even if a non-prog artist is eclectic enough (eclectic with a small e) to include such a variety of styles - it will be mentioned in prog circles and sooner or later probably even proposed here. As for evaluation of his essential prog works--more on that later... |
|||||||||||||||
Ricochet
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 27 2005 Location: Nauru Status: Offline Points: 46301 |
Posted: October 22 2008 at 13:23 | ||||||||||||||
Ok, here goes:
As mentioned, Tubular Bells, Hergest Ridge, Ommadawn, Incantations, Amarok are prog albums, in fact they're the basis of Oldfield being included in (I dare say) any prog "archive". But, different to Yes and Genesis selling out, Mike Oldfield didn't just go wrong into pop, he's in fact renown as a pop-rock artist, as much as TB or Ommadawn can be appreciated. Sure, for prog rock's purpose, the prog albums count more and no one says they don't! But Oldfield went deep into pop-rock as well, so there's no reason not to count that side as well.
This part of the definition is purely generic, the fact that Oldfield released two-part-sided LPs until Platinum doesn't mean he fits wrongly in Crossover. The description of songs mentioned is just to indicate a tangency with the "mainstream" area.
Here I think Oldfield's music is fairly accessible, it moreover counts what's prog and what's pop-rock, cause there is no real fusion between the two, Oldfield's first years is one thing, the next decades (regardless of exceptions) fall in other side.
No definitely not! We're talking a combination of prog elements/styles. Ambient, chillout, pop, trance, new age, techno, disco, reggae, children's music, classical are NOT prog elements/styles.
He has trespassed from prog rock to pop & rock (and, recently, new age, trance, classical). That fits much more the "prog with tangency in mainstream" that Xover elaborates.
Disagree again, mainly because you misunderstood, from the definition, the terms "combinations", "hybrids", "evolutions", all these must (naturally) include prog, so "prog combinations", "prog hybrids", "prog(ressive) evolutions". 1. Mike Oldfield's diversity of themes can be acknolwedged, but that doesn't mean his prog rock albums are one thing, and his pop-rock ones are not a totally different thing. In fact, I think he "diversified" more in the 80s & 90s, then in the first albums. 2. Mike's evolution in music is "malign" so to say. Everyone can rarely mention "prog rock" among the main frame during the 80s and 90s, in comparison with the 70s. It's a normal musical evolution, not the one that keeps the prog ahead of anything else - as Eclectic definition points (or should point) out. 3. During the 70s, you can clearly say Oldfield's music is "prog, folk, rock", these are referential cores. In the same time, however, the 80s/90s/00s also have "pop, rock, ethnic, trance, new age" as referential cores, depending on the album. It's true, you can't tell that Oldfield's entire career has a continuous red line, but when you draw the line at the Platinum-OE2 period, the things before that moment being prog, the things before being slightly something else (except ... the exceptions aka Amarok), it's not a progressive career fuse either.
All in Mike's prog rock period, if prog rock is what ultimately counts. Edited by Ricochet - October 22 2008 at 13:24 |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Post Reply | Page <123> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions 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 |