Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12656
Posted: May 03 2013 at 21:00
David Bowie, like Ian Anderson, Frank Zappa or Peter Gabriel, was only 'prog' when he wanted to be. At other times they were each something else altogether. The term prog to is often too confining.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Joined: June 04 2012
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 1413
Posted: May 03 2013 at 21:01
For most intents and purposes, David Bowie is a person, and not a catch-all musical genre. As for the genre he is most known for, it's called art-rock.
That said, a portion of his stuff could be classified as prog. Same applies to just about any other rock band of the time who achieved above-average competence and fancied veering off of the beaten 4-chord, 4/4 path.
Joined: January 03 2012
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 1534
Posted: May 05 2013 at 03:38
rogerthat wrote:
Stool Man wrote:
Are there no Prog singer-songwriters?
Ian Anderson, Jon Anderson, Kate Bush, Tori Amos, Bjork, a few I could think of.
Well, that quote is more than a reason to revisit what prog is about.
I don't think that Kate Bush is very PROG. She's art rock. Just like Bowie, but Bowie had more experimental stuff like 'Low'. And then, what is art rock? I personally always thought that it's subgenre and even sometimes alias for prog, art rock can be used to describe something more simple, more poppish, but _still_ with prominent sophistication/prog leanings.
I don't believe that Bjork fans really think that she is prog — but
on that site she, Nine Inch Nails, Lacrimosa and many bands no-one ever
described as progressive are counted in prog categories. Whilst many others, who always were a part of art rock movement, are listed in Prog-Related section, and that simply bugging me.
I know this is old theme for discussion, but this site really demands re-categorisation
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: May 05 2013 at 03:53
I cannot comment on whether Bowie belongs here because I haven't listened to his albums, only a few songs. I don't think Kate Bush and Bjork are out and out prog but they (esp Bjork) have one or two albums that are prog. I am less sure of where Tori Amos fits in. Maybe her later work has stuff that fits in because I don't hear prog on Little Earthquakes or Under the Pink. She's probably less prog than Elton John. I have said it once before that the standards are too high for 70s artists. It was more routine for them to make long tracks and even with lots of changes so it gets discounted vis a vis a 90s artist attempting the same thing.
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20451
Posted: May 05 2013 at 10:56
The Dark Elf wrote:
David Bowie, like Ian Anderson, Frank Zappa or Peter Gabriel, was only 'prog' when he wanted to be. At other times they were each something else altogether. The term prog to is often too confining.
Exactly.......
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1725
Posted: May 09 2013 at 23:20
How about "art rock" as a subgenre? That's a category that I could see being included here on Prog Archives, and would open up interesting possibilities... Roxy Music, Pere Ubu, Bowie, maybe Velvet Underground (hey, with Warhol at the helm, how could it *not* be art rock? :-)
It could be considered a 'not-quite-prog" category, like proto-prog and prog-related.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: May 13 2013 at 04:44
I don't see the relevance of posting three hit singles. That's not unlike posting video's of "Tonight Tonight Tonight", "No Son Of Mine" and "I Can't Dance" and stating that Genesis are artistic pop at its best, not Progressive Rock at all.
Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213
Posted: May 13 2013 at 05:32
Dean wrote:
I don't see the relevance of posting three hit singles. That's not unlike posting video's of "Tonight Tonight Tonight", "No Son Of Mine" and "I Can't Dance" and stating that Genesis are artistic pop at its best, not Progressive Rock at all.
Actually, I posted this three hits because I knew that someone would comment on it in a way like you just did.
Of course, Genesis were recording a number of pop hits, not even so much artistic and elegant as Mr Bowie did but there is hell of reason why Genesis will forever be linked to Progressive Rock.
Mr Bowie will generally always be tied to his magnificient pop hits, not to Progressive Rock.
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
Posted: May 13 2013 at 06:38
Svetonio wrote:
Dean wrote:
I don't see the relevance of posting three hit singles. That's not unlike posting video's of "Tonight Tonight Tonight", "No Son Of Mine" and "I Can't Dance" and stating that Genesis are artistic pop at its best, not Progressive Rock at all.
Actually, I posted this three hits because I knew that someone would comment on it in a way like you just did
Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213
Posted: May 13 2013 at 07:05
Jim Garten wrote:
Svetonio wrote:
Dean wrote:
I don't see the relevance of posting three hit singles. That's not unlike posting video's of "Tonight Tonight Tonight", "No Son Of Mine" and "I Can't Dance" and stating that Genesis are artistic pop at its best, not Progressive Rock at all.
Actually, I posted this three hits because I knew that someone would comment on it in a way like you just did
We have had this discussion before, and I believe also a thread that demanded proof of "prog" in Bowie's material. The fact of the matter is, that no matter which way one wishes to approach him from, be that the glam rock, art pop - hell even disco; you simply cannot deny his fingerprint on a truckload of future experimental artists. He made albums with everything from krautrock, ambient, avant-garde, rag time, funk you name em - plus a string of albums done in Berlin that truly defied every boundary conceived by fans and critics alike.
He was never prog, but he is perhaps one if the most 'progressive' artists ever to have thrived in the mainstream spotlight. I think he is as essential to the prog related sub here on PA, as King Crimson is to the rest of the site.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
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
This page was generated in 0.840 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is David Bowie prog?
Topic Options
Stool Man wrote:
I don't see the relevance of posting three hit singles. That's not unlike posting video's of "Tonight Tonight Tonight", "No Son Of Mine" and "I Can't Dance" and stating that Genesis are artistic pop at its best, not Progressive Rock at all.
