Mike Oldfield's category?

splyu, your well-written, analytical and detailed post is futile. Mike Oldfield is not in Eclectic Prog simply because I don't like him.














Okay, okay, jokes aside, Oldfield's category might be re-evaluated. Actually it will be re-evaluated, since you gave good arguments as a starting point. But the thing is, do not expect results over the night, the Eclectic team is loaded with proposals for artist subgenre relocations; since one of the characteristics of Eclectic category is 'a change of artist's styles through the period of time' it's not that simple as listening a couple of songs and deciding whether the bend belongs to Eclectic Prog or not; we have to, more or less, evaluate the entire discography... however, I'm sure this topic will cause some heated debates among us

Mike Oldfield in in Crossover?? First time I noticed... That's just wrong...

Ok, here goes:

splyu wrote: The defining characteristics of Crossover Prog are: a pop music influence that is largely vacant in typical prog rock. While it's no secret that Mike released a number of straight pop and rock songs (like many other prog artists have), that particular segment of his work is hardly what qualifies him for inclusion in the archives in the first place. By contrast, a lot of his work shows less pop music influence than is typical for prog (e.g. Hergest Ridge, Ommadawn, Incantations, Amarok); another portion has some but certainly no more than other artists that are commonly recognized as pure prog (e.g. QE2, Five Miles Out).

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.

splyu wrote: Songs tend toward shorter, more concise presentations though still reach beyond the typical verse, bridge, chorus pattern. Again, he has done that sometimes but that's not what got him in the archives. By contrast, he has three albums consisting of only two long tracks, one album consisting of only one track, and a double album consisting of only four tracks, as well as several albums where one track spans an entire side. None of these follow any sort of conventional structure, nor does a large portion of his shorter tracks. Additionally, several of his albums that, while divided into individual tracks, flow seamlessly from one to the other, might as well be considered one long composition where the divisions only act as structural elements (e.g. The Songs of Distant Earth).

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.

splyu wrote: The harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic structures may be more easily digested in Crossover while not losing the musical integrity that a prog listener expects. Quite on the contrary, the harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic structures in some of his albums are among the most challenging in all of progressive music. I'll name Incantations and Amarok as prime examples, but they are hardly the only ones.

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.

splyu wrote: Instead, the only logical category I feel he fits in is clearly Eclectic Prog. Eclectic Prog definition: The term 'eclectic' in the context of progressive rock describes a summation of elements from various musical sources, and the influences and career paths of bands that take from a wide range of genres or styles. This fits Mike Oldfield to a tee. 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.

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.

splyu wrote: While progressive music can be, in a larger sense, eclectic, the 'Eclectic Prog' term is specially meant to reference bands that trespass the boundaries of established Progressive Rock genres or that blend many influences. Absolutely applies to Mike. Right from his first album, he has trespassed the boundaries of established genres, prog or otherwise, and has continued to do so on subsequent albums. The fact that later on, he occasionally released things that fit comfortably into an established niche hardly challenges this achievement any more than they do for other artists that have done the same.

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.

splyu wrote: Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core. Again, this is exactly what Mike is about. His music is a hybrid of many different styles and influences, is about as diverse and eclectic as it gets over the course of his career, and has constantly been evolving and changing. There is no one clear "referential core" to his music.

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.

splyu wrote: The basic features lie within the music's variety, rich influences, art tendencies and classic prog rock elements. Extreme variety, exceptionally "rich" influences, definite art tendencies, and classic prog rock elements are all present in Mike's music.

All in Mike's prog rock period, if prog rock is what ultimately counts.


Edited by Ricochet - October 22 2008 at 13:24

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...

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

micky wrote: 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.

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.

splyu wrote: 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!)

• Jethro Tull made very few Prog Folk albums, but are best know for that, so are placed in Prog Folk
• Pink Floyd made very few Space/Psyche albums, but those they made were the most influential.
• Genesis sold more Pop records, but it is as a Symphonic Prog band that we as Prog-fans remember them.
• Gong made Space/Psyche and JR/F albums, but they were associated with the Canterbury scene, so there they live.

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...

Edited by Dean - October 22 2008 at 21:31

^ 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)

splyu wrote: 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).

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.

splyu wrote: Accessibility doesn't mean that his composition techniques aren't advanced and go well beyond what's typical for "mainstream" 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...

splyu wrote: 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)?

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.

splyu wrote: 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.

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.

splyu wrote: Ricochet wrote: splyu wrote: [quote]The basic features lie within the music's variety, rich influences, art tendencies and classic prog rock elements. Extreme variety, exceptionally "rich" influences, definite art tendencies, and classic prog rock elements are all present in Mike's music. All in Mike's prog rock period, if prog rock is what ultimately counts. 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.

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

splyu wrote: 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). "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.

The title track was the second piece I mentioned, I think

splyu wrote: 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. 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?

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...

splyu wrote: 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. 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.

Leaving my word "weakest" aside, I mentioned "experimental, ambient and repetitive rock", I can't find the prog in there.

splyu wrote: 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've already agreed those albums aren't prog. But what about, for example, Woodhenge, from Platinum? Ambient prog or not?

Okay, a point taken here, but Platinum overall isn't an electronic prog album.

splyu wrote: 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. 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.

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.

splyu wrote: 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. You're basically just saying he's in Crossover because he is Crossover. That's exactly what I was questioning originally, though.

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.

splyu wrote: 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. 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.

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 wrote: 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.)

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