Mike Oldfield's category?

Desoc wrote: Ricochet wrote: 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. Ah, but that's a good argument to move Genesis to Crossover as well, isn't it?

You're on to it, Desoc. Big can of worms here. Heaven forbid someone makes the argument that Genesis should stay in Symphonic because they're important, while Oldfield should stay in Crossover because he's not. It's not about how well regarded an artist is, it's about the music, surely.

My honest view is that 'Crossover Prog' is a problematic genre. It doesn't describe the music, rather it describes the supposed intention of the artist. It's a result of the unhealthy obsession around here of people determined to separate 'prog' from 'pop' - as though prog isn't a subset of popular music.

^Fair enough, Dean - I wasn't really questioning the sub-genre, more feeling for its boundaries, I guess. I still haven't got a real sense of Xover, even though many of my favourite artists have found a home here. I wondered where Gazpacho had gone!

I guess the problem is my own. I hear pop music in most classic prog. It's further confused by the commercial success many prog bands enjoyed, even on the singles charts, in the early 1970s. For that reason I've always been strongly resistant to the myth that pure prog bands became pure pop in time for the early 80s - I don't think it was as fundamental a shift as that. There was pop in the prog of the 70s and prog in the pop of the 80s, it seems to me. This makes Xover a difficult concept for me to grasp.

russellk wrote: I guess the problem is my own. I hear pop music in most classic prog. It's further confused by the commercial success many prog bands enjoyed, even on the singles charts, in the early 1970s. For that reason I've always been strongly resistant to the myth that pure prog bands became pure pop in time for the early 80s - I don't think it was as fundamental a shift as that. There was pop in the prog of the 70s and prog in the pop of the 80s, it seems to me. This makes Xover a difficult concept for me to grasp.

I absolutely agree here. In fact, I feel that Hergest Ridge and Ommadawn (not even Incantations!) are among the only prog albums I've ever heard from any artist that contain no or next to no pop influence at all. Remember pop doesn't just mean 80s plastic pop. It initially meant The Beatles and the like, and The Beatles have influenced all of the early prog pioneers (name an exception if you can).