Mike Oldfield's category?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=52762
Printed Date: October 31 2024 at 17:00
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Mike Oldfield's category?
Posted By: splyu
Subject: Mike Oldfield's category?
Date Posted: October 22 2008 at 10:49
|
Without intending to make too much ado about the matter, I'd like to express my complete puzzlement over the inclusion of Mike Oldfield in "Crossover Prog", and to suggest considering a move to the Eclectic Prog section. To explain my reasoning behind this, let's go through the defining characteristics of those genres as given in their respective descriptions. The defining characteristics of Crossover Prog are:
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).
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).
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. Instead, the only logical category I feel he fits in is clearly Eclectic Prog. Eclectic Prog definition:
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.
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.
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.
Extreme variety, exceptionally "rich" influences, definite art tendencies, and classic prog rock elements are all present in Mike's music. |
a pop music influence that is largely vacant in typical prog rock.Replies:
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: October 22 2008 at 11:50
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 
------------- |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 22 2008 at 12:01
|
Splyu, I'll attempt to get back to your arguments, point-by-point, soon, for now, I can say that, as a progger who had once Mike Oldfield among his essential artists, I discerned well enough why I left him in Crossover Prog, instead of Eclectic (when Art Rock was split, I mean): despite the first four albums, which are Prog Rock at its (his!) best (in fact, Ommadawn is something you rarely hear twice in life), and despite more complex albums such as Amarok, Oldfield was always a popular rock figure, Tubular Bells itself being more recognized by its soundtrack rhythms than to its true prog rock value (or meanings?). But, this aside, since 1979 (Platinum), Oldfield has really gone into rock, pop, his discography from then on, being, in my opinion, a great indicator of "prog with mainstream leanings/fusion/bond/etc.". Eclectic is a place for artists that were more commited to "100% prog", instead of doing a fair amount of prog rock, then turning themselves in to the "pop police". In other words, the combination of prog + pop, given that the two styles strike out so differently based on Oldfield's entire career, isn't quite the ideal Eclectic one. Albums like Amarok are exceptions, and Oldfield's pop-rock-prog can basically not be qualified as Eclectic. That's my point for now, I'll try to get back to your arguments later, as promised... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: October 22 2008 at 12:27
|
Mike Oldfield in in Crossover?? First time I noticed... That's just wrong... ------------- Bigger on the inside. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 22 2008 at 13:08
|
^Care to elaborate?
-------------
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date 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. -------------
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date 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... ------------- |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date 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... -------------
|
Posted By: splyu
Date 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. |
Posted By: splyu
Date 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!) |
Posted By: micky
Date 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 |
Posted By: splyu
Date 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. |
Posted By: micky
Date 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 |
Posted By: Dean
Date 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)
------------- What? |
Posted By: splyu
Date 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. |
Posted By: Chris S
Date 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] |
Posted By: Draith
Date 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. 
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date 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. -------------
|
Posted By: splyu
Date 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.) |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date 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... -------------
|
Posted By: splyu
Date 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. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 23 2008 at 15:54
 -------------
|
Posted By: Logan
Date 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.
------------- Two tracks per many of my fave acts: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - A Youtube Playlist |
Posted By: progressive
Date 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.  ------------- 
► rateyourmusic.com/~Fastro 2672 ratings ▲ last.fm/user/Fastro 5556 artists ▲ www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=4933 266◄ |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 10:18
... quicker too I would imagine.
  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 10:25
Definitely, my axiom was always "Van der Graaf Generator and Peter Hammill are awesome, and I won't allow any other genre to have them. (Especially not James' genre.)".  -------------
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 11:00
------------- |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 15:02
|
Here`s my two cents. Why not just call him New Age ? That`s where he`s found in many music stores now. Haven`t heard the new album yet though. I`ll check it out today.
------------- |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 15:03
The new albums have nothing to do with prog - and Oldfield was never added here for those... -------------
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 15:35
|
... but if he is to be categorised by the albums for which he was added, surely he'd be ... (here I advertently reveal my ignorance - as opposed to all the times I inadvertently revealed it) ... symphonic prog? More accurately, OLDFIELD’s progressive work is Symphonic Prog with one or two latter-career exceptions. In fact, I believe OLDFIELD is the absolute exemplar of Symphonic Prog, and it astounds me that his classification here seems to be driven by his non-prog material. As a long-time lover of 'classical' music, I've yet to find another artist that more closely approximates the structure of concertos or symphonies in his compositions. Even in his supposedly 'commercial' albums he still spins out album-length themes, reworking them and adding variations. The disco 'Guilty' is a variation on the main 'Incantations' theme. 'The Lake' contains elements of 'To France'. He does this on every album. But the most obvious examples are his second, third and fourth albums. 'Ommadawn' is about the most perfect thing these ears have heard, and I've never thought of it as anything other than symphonic. Having said that, we can’t shift OLDFIELD: if we do, the whole Crossover sub-genre will be unpicked. YES, GENESIS, GENTLE GIANT, ELP – all the greats – allowed the sounds of the late 70s and 1980s to influence their work (which many call ‘mainstream’ or ‘commercial’). So, merely using logic, these bands ought to be classified as Crossover. They’re not so classified: so what has influenced their current classification? Something other than logic. OLDFIELD never fully surrendered his progressive past. Until ‘Earth Moving’ he nearest he came to letting go of prog was on ‘Discovery’, but the fully prog ‘The Lake’, a twelve-minute instrumental, was enough to remind us of his prog talents. Also, the whole of ‘Discovery’ reprises his main theme: this symphonic trick (used in other albums such as ‘Ommadawn’) welds the album together and makes it something more than a collection of unrelated pop and rock songs. I said that already, didn't I. It’s an understandable mistake to think that the long tracks ‘Taurus II’ and ‘Crises’ are more ‘commercial’ than his previous extended prog compositions. They use contemporary instruments, and embrace the sounds, techniques and production of the early 1980s. But they are every bit as prog as his earlier work: the underlying compositions take a varied selection of influences and meld them into extended melodic tracks that build to a symphonic climax. Just because they sound like the 80s doesn’t mean they’re built like the 80s. OLDFIELD for symphonic! You may be derisory now. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 15:36
The new album is Crossover, but Crossover Classical (à la Vanessa May et al) not Crossover Prog. Very strong Tubby Bells flavour to it though. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 15:48
(just trimmed your post for continuity, so we could ignore the dolt who posted just after you, not to dissmiss your reasonings)
The Oldfield/Symphonic question has come up in the past, before the Art Rock split (here: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25163 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25163 ) - the general consensus was Not. But as I say, that was before the split and before he was put into Crossover. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 15:50
|
^I was just gonna say that (Dean checked quicker than me). In fact, here's the official statement of Oldfield moving out from Symphonic: Mike Oldfield (UK) - Not Symphonic, absolutely unique and hard to describe him, I’ve seen his albums in the Jazz, New Age, Rock and Progressive Rock sections of musical stores, some sites have created a new sub-genre based only in this band, another book case of Art Rock -------------
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: October 24 2008 at 22:15
| Hmm. I wonder why not Symphonic. Curious only, and not worried about it. He began as prog-folk, of course, and there's still a fair bit of that in Tubular Bells. |
Posted By: splyu
Date Posted: October 25 2008 at 10:52
While this is true, it seems to me like it is more a certain sound that qualifies albums as "symphonic", rather than the way they're constructed. There are bands in "symphonic" whose tracks have pretty simple constructions, but that have the typical "symphonic" sound (e.g. Novalis). On the other hand, Oldfield's 80s albums may be constructed like classical pieces, but they don't "sound symphonic" (i.e. like a "rock orchestra"). I'm not saying I necessarily endorse that view, but that's what the situation seems to be from my observations.
Those three albums would probably be the only ones that would qualify as "symphonic" in the above sense (though even they sound different from Genesis and Yes).
True, but according to that reasoning, wouldn't Oldfield have to be shifted, to avoid having to shift all the others instead?
Very well put! |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: October 27 2008 at 16:54
|
Well I listened to the new album music Of The Spheres in the music store. Music stores are lonely places these days with all this crazy dowlaoding. Why don`t we just call him Mike The Orchestra Leader. Good music to listen to in the dentist`s chair. Can`t really figure out what demographic he`s aiming at here.
------------- |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 27 2008 at 18:25
As Music of the Spheres went #1 in the UK Classical chart and #10 in the Billboard Crossover Classical chart it is fair to say it was squarely aimed at the Popular Classic market and the people who also buy Vanessa Mae, Star Wars soundtrack albums and that music from that advert on TV that goes 'da-dah-dah-de-dah-de-dah' - i.e. Not Prog. (and he's probably made more cash out of it than he ever did with Amarok) ------------- What? |
Posted By: Desoc
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 10:13
Ah, but that's a good argument to move Genesis to Crossover as well, isn't it? |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 10:23
------------- |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 12:01
No. Genesis played and (in our books) pioneered Symphonic Prog for 9 years. Oldfield made prog rock fans proud thanks to 5-6 albums. If you're willing to leave the Symphonic Prog genre orphan of one of the godfathers of Symphonic Prog, just because there was also pop in the band's career, it's your own view. On the other hand, Oldfield would be polished of everything non-prog in his music, which is almost a non-sense, since Oldfield blended somewhat constantly styles and such. That allows a few degree of "lesser-progressive" art in his music, but also makes the pop-rock (& others) more than just "plain rezidues" (sp?). -------------
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 15:11
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. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 15:51
Not quite true from the Xover Team's perspective - we genuinely assess the music regardless of the intent. Some bands who use 'Progressive' as a catch-all tag on MySpace do not produce music that can be related to Progressive Rock as we know it, we try our best to assess those bands on their music, not their intentions. However, this approach is used for new additions, not for artists that were already extant in the Art Rock sub before the split... we could go through the entire sub and re-assess every band, but we do not have all the free time in the world to do that.
Individual cases (such as this) when brought up will be looked at - over the past year after re-assessing them we have moved several bands out of Xover while a few other's have been moved in (Gazpacho, It Bites, Paatos, Timothy Pure) . To date we (as a Team) have never blocked a move out of Xover and Mike Oldfield would be no different if another subgenre Team accepted him.
Xover was created around artists like Supertramp, The Moody Blues and Mike Oldfield who fused Pop with Prog, rather than bands like Yes, Floyd and Genesis who did both but not at the same time. A slight variation of this is the number of solo-artists from Prog bands who reside in Xover (Tony Banks, Keith Emmerson, Peter Gabriel, Steve Howe, Roger Waters, Alan White, Carl Palmer, Jordan Rudess & John Petrucci) rather than in the sub of their 'home' band because they produced Crossover solo albums rather than Prog Related solo albums (eg David Gilmour  )------------- What? |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: October 28 2008 at 20:08
|
^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. |
Posted By: splyu
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 02:52
Sorry, this is simply not true. Genesis had pop tunes in the 70s - More Fool Me, I Know What I Like, Follow You..., Carpet Crawlers, and more. And they had prog tunes in the 80s and 90s - Dodo / Lurker, Home By The Sea, Domino, Fading Lights, and more. Not to even mention Duke which is a par excellance example of an album that combines prog and pop. How is that so much different from what Oldfield did? |
Posted By: splyu
Date Posted: October 29 2008 at 02:56
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). |