Print Page | Close Window

Is David Bowie prog?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Discription: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=93273
Printed Date: August 27 2014 at 12:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Is David Bowie prog?
Posted By: The Mystical
Subject: Is David Bowie prog?
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 15:52


-------------
I am currently digging:

Hawkwind, Rare Bird, Gong, Tangerine Dream, Khan, Iron Butterfly, and all things canterbury and hard-psych. I also love jazz!

Please drop me a message with album suggestions.



Replies:
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 15:56
Originally posted by The Mystical

 
 
 
 
 
 
This.  QFT.  LOL


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 15:58
Progressing through different styles over the years - yes
Concept albums about space aliens - yes
Instrumental experiments with Brian Eno - yes
Silly voices - yes
Imagery, art, Robert Fripp guesting - yes


-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 16:03
He's had some prog leanings over the years but definitely not 

-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 16:54
David Bowie is Art Rock.
End of the thread.


-------------


Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 16:59
No

Doesn't mean he's not good, though.


-------------
My other avatar is a Porsche / http://raregoat.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - RARE GOAT bandcamp page

NEVER forget: the ant can carry eight times its own weight.
Or is it nine?

- Kehlog Albran


Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 17:00
Everyone who was Art Rock is now Prog, a simple name change

-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: wilmon91
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 17:05
I was thinking "art pop". But not prog.

David Bowie is David Bowie.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 18:00
Originally posted by darqdean, in another thread, 3rd October 2007

For many Bowie typifies what has been descibed in the Progressive vs. Prog thread as a progressive artist who is not Prog. Almost everything he does is simultaneously eclectic and progressive - his albums generally arrive from the leftfield and land slap bang in the middle of the mainstream. And that's where the problem lies.
 
He produced some Prog songs, but maybe not whole Prog albums, he did Concept albums (albeit within fairly a standard rock format) and even ventured into the realm of Art Rock and Art School Rock. He has created fusions of every school of music you can care to imagine: minimalism, krautrock, jazz, soul, hip-hop, electronic, hard-rock, folk... and of course prog... (He is also pretty unique in suceeding in influencing some of the people he was influenced by - the only other artist to do that I can think of is Trent Reznor...) yet he remains a mainstream performer in the eyes of the world, even when producing non-mainstream albums.
 
Nothing ch-ch-ch-changes.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: humor4u1959
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 21:35
He was but not since Low and Heroes. Those are the only 2 albums I would consider prog.

-------------


Posted By: Fox On The Rocks
Date Posted: April 30 2013 at 22:13
Of course he is. He's more "progressive" then half of the bands that get labelled as that. No, he doesn't have that classic 70's prog sound, Hammond organs, instrumental prowess, etc. But as artist and a visionary, he's extremely forward thinking. Low and Heroes are some of the greatest albums of all time, and what's great about them is that they haven't been able to alienate a certain audience or fan. They're pop albums, but with immense experimentation and creativity.


-------------


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: May 01 2013 at 02:56
Originally posted by Dean

For many Bowie typifies what has been descibed in the Progressive vs. Prog thread as a progressive artist who is not Prog

Quite this. Perhaps a critical factor is that he was not really an instrumentalist and it was not a 'band'. It was the music conceived by a singer-songwriter. Had he been a competent instrumentalist, or had he been just the composer and singer in a stable band with virtuoso musicians, his output might have been closer to proper Prog.
I find it not too different from the case of Peter Gabriel's solo output, progressive and with some Prog leanings but not archetypal proper Prog.


Originally posted by Dean

 He produced some Prog songs, but maybe not whole Prog albums, he did Concept albums (albeit within fairly a standard rock format) and even ventured into the realm of Art Rock and Art School Rock. He has created fusions of every school of music you can care to imagine: minimalism, krautrock, jazz, soul, hip-hop, electronic, hard-rock, folk... and of course prog... (He is also pretty unique in suceeding in influencing some of the people he was influenced by - the only other artist to do that I can think of is Trent Reznor...) yet he remains a mainstream performer in the eyes of the world, even when producing non-mainstream albums.
The point is clear but this formulation seems to imply that anything "mainstream" can not be "Prog" by definition, which I do not agree as a matter of principle.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 01 2013 at 03:04
Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by Dean

For many Bowie typifies what has been descibed in the Progressive vs. Prog thread as a progressive artist who is not Prog

Quite this. Perhaps a critical factor is that he was not really an instrumentalist and it was not a 'band'. It was the music conceived by a singer-songwriter. Had he been a competent instrumentalist, or had he been just the composer and singer in a stable band with virtuoso musicians, his output might have been closer to proper Prog.
I find it not too different from the case of Peter Gabriel's solo output, progressive and with some Prog leanings but not archetypal proper Prog.


Originally posted by Dean

 He produced some Prog songs, but maybe not whole Prog albums, he did Concept albums (albeit within fairly a standard rock format) and even ventured into the realm of Art Rock and Art School Rock. He has created fusions of every school of music you can care to imagine: minimalism, krautrock, jazz, soul, hip-hop, electronic, hard-rock, folk... and of course prog... (He is also pretty unique in suceeding in influencing some of the people he was influenced by - the only other artist to do that I can think of is Trent Reznor...) yet he remains a mainstream performer in the eyes of the world, even when producing non-mainstream albums.
The point is clear but this formulation seems to imply that anything "mainstream" can not be "Prog" by definition, which I do not agree as a matter of principle.
I tend to write whole sentences rather than well chosen phrases because they mean so much more thus negating any need for the reader to search for any implied meaning, subtext or hidden message burried between the lines.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: May 01 2013 at 03:14
Absolutely not.

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: The Mystical
Date Posted: May 01 2013 at 03:23
I consider "Heroes", "Low" and "Scary Monsters" prog. I also think that all of his 80s pop albums have strong prog influences.

-------------
I am currently digging:

Hawkwind, Rare Bird, Gong, Tangerine Dream, Khan, Iron Butterfly, and all things canterbury and hard-psych. I also love jazz!

Please drop me a message with album suggestions.


Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: May 01 2013 at 03:41
I'd say No in general, Yes occasionally. Yet most of his work can be called Art Rock.

-------------


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: May 01 2013 at 03:43
Originally posted by Dean

 
I tend to write whole sentences rather than well chosen phrases because they mean so much more thus negating any need for the reader to search for any implied meaning, subtext or hidden message burried between the lines.
OK, no need to get pissed off Embarrassed


Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: May 02 2013 at 03:15
Originally posted by Gerinski


Perhaps a critical factor is that he was not really an instrumentalist and it was not a 'band'. It was the music conceived by a singer-songwriter. Had he been a competent instrumentalist, or had he been just the composer and singer in a stable band with virtuoso musicians, his output might have been closer to proper Prog.

To quote from Bowie's wikipage:
"Bowie plays many instruments, among them electric, acoustic, and twelve-string guitar; alto, tenor and baritone saxophone; keyboards including piano, synthesisers and Mellotron; harmonica, Stylophone, xylophone, vibraphone, koto, drums and percussion, and string instruments including viola and cello"
Not really an instrumentalist?

He was in several stable bands - The Spiders and Tin Machine among them.

-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: May 02 2013 at 20:43
Originally posted by Man With Hat

Absolutely not.

Sir, are you really sure about that? The word 'absolutely' would mean that Berlin trilogy is not prog too.


-------------
This night wounds time.


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: May 03 2013 at 02:15
Originally posted by Stool Man

Originally posted by Gerinski


Perhaps a critical factor is that he was not really an instrumentalist and it was not a 'band'. It was the music conceived by a singer-songwriter. Had he been a competent instrumentalist, or had he been just the composer and singer in a stable band with virtuoso musicians, his output might have been closer to proper Prog.

To quote from Bowie's wikipage:
"Bowie plays many instruments, among them electric, acoustic, and twelve-string guitar; alto, tenor and baritone saxophone; keyboards including piano, synthesisers and Mellotron; harmonica, Stylophone, xylophone, vibraphone, koto, drums and percussion, and string instruments including viola and cello"
Not really an instrumentalist?

He was in several stable bands - The Spiders and Tin Machine among them.

Sure he could play several instruments, but I meant that he was never a fully dedicated and highly competent instrumentalist. His approach to songwriting was more akin to the singer-songwriter approach (many if not most singer-songwriters can play some instruments too).


Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: May 03 2013 at 03:06
Are there no Prog singer-songwriters?

-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 03 2013 at 17:19
The correct answer is sometimes.

-------------


Posted By: javier0889
Date Posted: May 03 2013 at 18:33
David Bowie is still more "risky" than the average prog songwriter. Length of the song matters not.
But I must agree - he's his own kind of entity, not just "prog" or even "a musical act".  


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/javier0889


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date 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.

-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: Argonaught
Date 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. 


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: May 04 2013 at 11:44
Originally posted by Stool Man

Are there no Prog singer-songwriters?


Ian Anderson, Jon Anderson, Kate Bush, Tori Amos, Bjork, a few I could think of.


Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: May 05 2013 at 03:38
Originally posted by rogerthat

Originally posted by Stool Man

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


-------------
This night wounds time.


Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: May 05 2013 at 03:51
Originally posted by Stool Man

Are there no Prog singer-songwriters?

Peter Hammill and Kevin Gilbert (but not always). But for example, Peter Gabriel is art rock.

David Bowie is not prog. Maybe you could argue the title track of Station to Station? I don't remember it too well.


-------------
"It's music, and I like it" - Miles Davis on Sketches of Spain


Posted By: rogerthat
Date 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.  


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: May 05 2013 at 03:55
Originally posted by King Crimson776

Originally posted by Stool Man

Are there no Prog singer-songwriters?

Peter Hammill and Kevin Gilbert (but not always). But for example, Peter Gabriel is art rock.

David Bowie is not prog. Maybe you could argue the title track of Station to Station? I don't remember it too well.


Damn, missed two of the most obvious names!  Ouch


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: May 05 2013 at 10:56
Originally posted by The Dark Elf

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.......
 
Cool


-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: jude111
Date 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.


Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: May 10 2013 at 17:28
It used to be, then it was changed (I think)

-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 04:07
Artistic pop at its best, not Progressive Rock at all.

[TUBE]ScVi_L817ec[/TUBE]

[TUBE]6IJsAuUgSgc[/TUBE]

[TUBE]oAo7YeRkJYo[/TUBE]


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 04:44
Confused 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.



-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 04:51
Who cares.....seriously. His music matters and good to have him here on PA

-------------
Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 05:32
Originally posted by Dean

Confused 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.


Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 06:38
Originally posted by Svetonio


Originally posted by Dean



Confused 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


Aha! You fell right into his trap.

Quickly Svetonio - shut your trap!

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 07:05
Originally posted by Jim Garten

Originally posted by Svetonio


Originally posted by Dean



Confused 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


Aha! You fell right into his trap.

Quickly Svetonio - shut your trap!

"...I can`t shoot them anymore..."


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 07:15
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.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 07:54
Originally posted by Svetonio

Originally posted by Jim Garten

Originally posted by Svetonio


Originally posted by Dean



Confused 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


Aha! You fell right into his trap.

Quickly Svetonio - shut your trap!

"...I can`t shoot them anymore..."
Oh boy. Do I feel stupid now. This is so embarrassing I'm going to have to lash-out irrationally and with extreme prejudice at the next unsuspecting idiot who crosses my path just to reestabish my self esteme. Or maybe I'll just go O RLY.
 
...also, I don't get the Bob Dylan reference, then maybe I ain't got the power anymore.
 
 
[tube]AyYO3u_YcPo[/tube]
 
 
peace out.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 08:12
Originally posted by Guldbamsen

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.
Mr Bowie can't be "essential to the prog related sub"; he's not an act  for example as The Who with Mr Townshend  who is an electronic music pioneer in rock music, the guitarist who created power chord and the composer who broked 3-minute mould of the pop song with Tommy;
Mr Bowie put together his collage of what he heard at the time and it worked great and it is here, but pop art collages prepared wtih magnificent pop hits does not mean Progressive Rock.



Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 08:16
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Svetonio

Originally posted by Jim Garten

Originally posted by Svetonio


Originally posted by Dean



Confused 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


Aha! You fell right into his trap.

Quickly Svetonio - shut your trap!

"...I can`t shoot them anymore..."
Oh boy. Do I feel stupid now. This is so embarrassing I'm going to have to lash-out irrationally and with extreme prejudice at the next unsuspecting idiot who crosses my path just to reestabish my self esteme. Or maybe I'll just go O RLY.
 
...also, I don't get the Bob Dylan reference, then maybe I ain't got the power anymore.
 
 
[tube]AyYO3u_YcPo[/tube]
 
 
peace out.

oh ... I feel you're comming... LOL

[TUBE]0tQCNkFoMXM[/TUBE]




Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 08:17

*sigh*



-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 08:17
Originally posted by Guldbamsen

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.

Yes, everything that you've said. Clap

I guess prog related would be the best thing; I wish PA had an "art rock" sub-category, where other bands and artists might also squeeze into PA. For example, I'd love to see Pere Ubu in PA (for The Modern Dance, Dub Housing, and Terminal Tower particularly)...


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 08:27
Originally posted by Svetonio

Mr Bowie can't be "essential to the prog related sub"; he's not an act  for example as The Who with Mr Townshend  who is an electronic music pioneer in rock music, the guitarist who created power chord and the composer who broked 3-minute mould of the pop song with Tommy;
Mr Bowie put together his collage of what he heard at the time and it worked great and it is here, but pop art collages prepared wtih magnificent pop hits does not mean Progressive Rock.


Every act here in PA (or its prog-related genre) is a "music pioneer in rock music"? Is that a prerequisite?

(Although I certainly disagree with you about Bowie not being a musical pioneer.) Your idea about a musical collage is really cool. I wonder though - I'm racking my brains thinking of his 70s work, and I don't hear any collages in there... You are suggesting that Bowie was following every popular trend in music, but in truth he was ahead of trends, setting them. Bowie was a true musical pioneer - it's his defining characteristic.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 08:34
Originally posted by Svetonio

Mr Bowie can't be "essential to the prog related sub"; he's not an act  for example as The Who with Mr Townshend  who is an electronic music pioneer in rock music, the guitarist who created power chord and the composer who broked 3-minute mould of the pop song with Tommy;
Erm.
 
Please explain:
 
1. How, where and when The Who pioneered electronic music in rock music
 
2. When did Peter Townshend create the power chord exactly.
 
3. Which Tommy songs in particular broke the 3-minute mould. (Given that 3-minutes is a figure of speech so we can define the typical pop song as anything between 2:30 and 4:30)
 
Consider your answers carefully, use both sides of the paper if necessary.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 09:20
Bowie is listed as Prog-Related.
I'm not sure if people here are trying to say 'it should be listed as proper Prog' or 'it should not be listed in PA at all'.

For me Prog-Related is where he fits, I think not having him in PA would be a big miss, but indeed he does not fit in any of the 'traditional' Prog sub-genres.

So what's all the buzz about?


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 09:23
Originally posted by jude111

Originally posted by Svetonio

Mr Bowie can't be "essential to the prog related sub"; he's not an act  for example as The Who with Mr Townshend  who is an electronic music pioneer in rock music, the guitarist who created power chord and the composer who broked 3-minute mould of the pop song with Tommy;
Mr Bowie put together his collage of what he heard at the time and it worked great and it is here, but pop art collages prepared wtih magnificent pop hits does not mean Progressive Rock.


Every act here in PA (or its prog-related genre) is a "music pioneer in rock music"? Is that a prerequisite?

(Although I certainly disagree with you about Bowie not being a musical pioneer.) Your idea about a musical collage is really cool. I wonder though - I'm racking my brains thinking of his 70s work, and I don't hear any collages in there... You are suggesting that Bowie was following every popular trend in music, (...)

Exactly. His music is  like a beautiful palimpsest painting.



Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 09:38
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Svetonio

Mr Bowie can't be "essential to the prog related sub"; he's not an act  for example as The Who with Mr Townshend  who is an electronic music pioneer in rock music, the guitarist who created power chord and the composer who broked 3-minute mould of the pop song with Tommy;
Erm.
 
Please explain:

 
2. When did Peter Townshend create the power chord exactly.
 

Unhappy

[TUBE]BMQOlVU-yQU[/TUBE]




Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 09:56
Originally posted by Svetonio

Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Svetonio

Mr Bowie can't be "essential to the prog related sub"; he's not an act  for example as The Who with Mr Townshend  who is an electronic music pioneer in rock music, the guitarist who created power chord and the composer who broked 3-minute mould of the pop song with Tommy;
Erm.
 
Please explain:

 
2. When did Peter Townshend create the power chord exactly.
 

Unhappy

[TUBE]BMQOlVU-yQU[/TUBE]


That would be because he didn't. Very apt that you chose Bowie's cover of the Who's I Can't Explain, which was in turn influenced by:
 
[tube]mMWNwHof0kc[/tube]
 
"It can't be beat for straightforward Kink copying." ~ Pete Townshend (1994).
 
 
You can guess that the answers to the other two questions I posed are also not what you think they are. I like The Who but there is an awful lot of nonsense and mythology about their supposed role in pioneering rock music, it's not even certain that they were the first to produce a Rock Opera.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 10:04
Originally posted by jude111

 
(Although I certainly disagree with you about Bowie not being a musical pioneer.) Your idea about a musical collage is really cool. I wonder though - I'm racking my brains thinking of his 70s work, and I don't hear any collages in there... You are suggesting that Bowie was following every popular trend in music, but in truth he was ahead of trends, setting them. Bowie was a true musical pioneer - it's his defining characteristic.
Fully agree, it doesn't matter if he used elements from this and that, everybody does that to a certain extent, but Bowie was a real trend-setter and a progressive artist. After Young Americans it could have been easy for him to settle into commercial soul-funk-disco stuff but he had the courage and integrity to move forward and experiment (Station to Station being still a transitional album but with the Berlin trilogy leaving no doubts about that).


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 10:09
Svetonio is right about the collage thing though, if it's to do with the lyrics. Bowie used to take a pair of scissors and cut up all the sentences to a tune, and then rearrange them in order to gain something new from the material.

-------------
“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.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 10:18
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Svetonio

Mr Bowie can't be "essential to the prog related sub"; he's not an act  for example as The Who with Mr Townshend  who is an electronic music pioneer in rock music, the guitarist who created power chord and the composer who broked 3-minute mould of the pop song with Tommy;
Erm.
 
Please explain:
 
1. How, where and when The Who pioneered electronic music in rock music
 
2. When did Peter Townshend create the power chord exactly.
 
3. Which Tommy songs in particular broke the 3-minute mould. (Given that 3-minutes is a figure of speech so we can define the typical pop song as anything between 2:30 and 4:30)
 
Consider your answers carefully, use both sides of the paper if necessary.
1. Er,
2. Er,
3. Er
I give up.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/chopper777/?chartstyle=basicrt10" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 10:40
Please explain:
 
1. How, where and when The Who pioneered electronic music in rock music. Answer: Er.

Yes, you're exactly right! It was in the small village of Er, outside of Wheretoforshire, that a proverbial fruit from a proverbial tree fell on a young Townshend's proverbial head, giving him the idea to pioneer electronic music. This happened at precisely 10am or thereabouts. In ancient Persian, they say, "Er O'Clock."
 
2. When did Peter Townshend create the power chord exactly. Answer: Er.

Again, correct answer, for the same reason above. Moving on...
 
3. Which Tommy songs in particular broke the 3-minute mould. (Given that 3-minutes is a figure of speech so we can define the typical pop song as anything between 2:30 and 4:30). Answer: Er. I give up.
 
Right again! The six hour track "Underture" (reduced considerably to fit within the confines of the vinyl record) was originally titled "Er. I Give Up."

A+


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 11:58
"Underture" is not a pop song.
 
 
 
just sayin' Geek


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Stool Man
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 12:30
The 3-minute pop song limitation was set by the old Jukebox companies, who (for obvious reasons) wanted popular songs to be short. They lost their tight grip on the music business in 1965, and Bob Dylan immediately wrote a six minute pop song called "Like A Rolling Stone". He recorded it in June 1965, while The Who were recording their debut album, more than three years before "Tommy"

-------------
rotten hound of the burnie crew


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 12:53
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Svetonio

Mr Bowie can't be "essential to the prog related sub"; he's not an act  for example as The Who with Mr Townshend  who is an electronic music pioneer in rock music, the guitarist who created power chord and the composer who broked 3-minute mould of the pop song with Tommy;
Erm.
 
Please explain:
 
1. How, where and when The Who pioneered electronic music in rock music
 
2. When did Peter Townshend create the power chord exactly.
 
3. Which Tommy songs in particular broke the 3-minute mould. (Given that 3-minutes is a figure of speech so we can define the typical pop song as anything between 2:30 and 4:30)
 
Consider your answers carefully, use both sides of the paper if necessary.

The first thing that came to mind when I read this was that Who song. LOL [TUBE]Wf0d2Rx52wI[/TUBE]

I, uh, can't explain why it came to mind.



-------------


Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 14:20
Originally posted by jude111

Please explain:
 
1. How, where and when The Who pioneered electronic music in rock music. Answer: Er.

Yes, you're exactly right! It was in the small village of Er, outside of Wheretoforshire, that a proverbial fruit from a proverbial tree fell on a young Townshend's proverbial head, giving him the idea to pioneer electronic music. This happened at precisely 10am or thereabouts. In ancient Persian, they say, "Er O'Clock."
 
2. When did Peter Townshend create the power chord exactly. Answer: Er.

Again, correct answer, for the same reason above. Moving on...
 
3. Which Tommy songs in particular broke the 3-minute mould. (Given that 3-minutes is a figure of speech so we can define the typical pop song as anything between 2:30 and 4:30). Answer: Er. I give up.
 
Right again! The six hour track "Underture" (reduced considerably to fit within the confines of the vinyl record) was originally titled "Er. I Give Up."

A+

LOL
Gee, I never had an A+ before, thanks.



-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/chopper777/?chartstyle=basicrt10" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Barbu
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 17:48
Originally posted by Man With Hat


Absolutely.


-------------
Excuse-moi d'casser ton fun mais j'me cherche une rime pour automne


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 13 2013 at 23:25
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Svetonio

Mr Bowie can't be "essential to the prog related sub"; he's not an act  for example as The Who with Mr Townshend  who is an electronic music pioneer in rock music, the guitarist who created power chord and the composer who broked 3-minute mould of the pop song with Tommy;
 

 
1. How, where and when The Who pioneered electronic music in rock music

[TUBE]yh4wkMZXONc[/TUBE]

[TUBE]O5voNyRmvXs[/TUBE]
 

 
3. Which Tommy songs in particular broke the 3-minute mould. 

[TUBE]kcVmJGkMTgc[/TUBE]
 
[TUBE]xApvvkVPUxY[/TUBE]

Sorry, yesterday I owed for the answers to these two questions.



Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 02:04
Originally posted by Svetonio

Sorry, yesterday I owed for the answers to these two questions.

1. 1971 is a little late in the day to be claiming to pioneer electronic music in rock. Electronics, electronic music and synthesisers had been used by other pop and rock artists before then. Both Won't Get Fooled Again and Baba O'Riley used a Lowery Berkshire Deluxe TBO-1 electric organ to create the iconic "synth" rhythm - it is not a sequencer, but an arpeggiator, and it is not producing modal tone sequences, but arpeggiated chords to a samba rhythm. Rather than being electronic music they are pastiches of serialism [they are pastiches because he could not change individual notes in the sequence, he could only change the whole chord]. Yes, Townshend used a VCS3 to modify the sound of the electric organ, but he used it as an effects unit [filter] just like a guitarist would use wah-wah foot peddle, not as a source of electronic sound. What you have is something that sounds like electronic music, but is not. Townshend did not even pioneer the use of arpeggio rhythms in rock.
 
3. The two examples of "breaking the mold" songs are 2 and 3 short pop songs played in sequence, these we call medleys. Many bands had produced single songs that broke the "3 minute mold" long before Tommy.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 02:39
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Svetonio


Sorry, yesterday I owed for the answers to these two questions.


1. 1971 is a little late in the day to be claiming to pioneer electronic music in rock. Electronics, electronic music and synthesisers had been used by other pop and rock artists before then. Both Won't Get Fooled Again and Baba O'Riley used a Lowery Berkshire Deluxe TBO-1 electric organ to create the iconic "synth" rhythm - it is not a sequencer, but an arpeggiator, and it is not producing modal tone sequences, but arpeggiated chords to a samba rhythm. Rather than being electronic music they are pastiches of serialism [they are pastiches because he could not change individual notes in the sequence, he could only change the whole chord]. Yes, Townshend used a VCS3 to modify the sound of the electric organ, but he used it as an effects unit [filter] just like a guitarist would use wah-wah foot peddle, not as a source of electronic sound. What you have is something that sounds like electronic music, but is not. Townshend did not even pioneer the use of arpeggio rhythms in rock.

 


I'd really like to hear an example that the electronic music was incorporated so majesticly in a rock song(s) before Baba and WGFA; a YouTube video will be fine. Anyway, let's see a second video from above.


3. The two examples of "breaking the mold" songs are 2 and 3 short pop songs played in sequence, these we call medleys. Many bands had produced single songs that broke the "3 minute mold" long before Tommy.


These songs are not pop songs, they are Rock at its best. These live performed parts of Tommy are not medleys. I know what you call medley. This is medley:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY9sDk6NyQY" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY9sDk6NyQY (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9kP5_NAsBw" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9kP5_NAsBw (part 2)


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 03:05
Originally posted by Svetonio

Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Svetonio


Sorry, yesterday I owed for the answers to these two questions.


1. 1971 is a little late in the day to be claiming to pioneer electronic music in rock. Electronics, electronic music and synthesisers had been used by other pop and rock artists before then. Both Won't Get Fooled Again and Baba O'Riley used a Lowery Berkshire Deluxe TBO-1 electric organ to create the iconic "synth" rhythm - it is not a sequencer, but an arpeggiator, and it is not producing modal tone sequences, but arpeggiated chords to a samba rhythm. Rather than being electronic music they are pastiches of serialism [they are pastiches because he could not change individual notes in the sequence, he could only change the whole chord]. Yes, Townshend used a VCS3 to modify the sound of the electric organ, but he used it as an effects unit [filter] just like a guitarist would use wah-wah foot peddle, not as a source of electronic sound. What you have is something that sounds like electronic music, but is not. Townshend did not even pioneer the use of arpeggio rhythms in rock.

 


I'd really like to hear an example that the electronic music was incorporated so majesticly in a rock song(s) before Baba and WGFA; a YouTube video will be fine. Anyway, let's see a second video from above.


3. The two examples of "breaking the mold" songs are 2 and 3 short pop songs played in sequence, these we call medleys. Many bands had produced single songs that broke the "3 minute mold" long before Tommy.


These songs are not pop songs, they are Rock at its best. These live performed parts of Tommy are not medleys. I know what you call medley. This is medley:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY9sDk6NyQY" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY9sDk6NyQY (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9kP5_NAsBw" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9kP5_NAsBw (part 2)
Nice try but no coconut.
 
Baba O'Riley and Won't Get Fooled Again are not incorporating electronic music, I don't need to produce anything to show that electronic music was incorporated into a[nother] rock song since those two songs didn't, you said "Mr Townshend  who is an electronic music pioneer in rock music". He wasn't.
 
A medley is a longer sequence constructed from several shorter ones, it matters not whether it uses all or part of each song as long as they seamlessly seque together, Live renditions of short songs segued together do not "break the mold" on the three minute pop song as you claimed The Who did with Tommy. It is immaterial whether you think they are pop or rock songs, you said " the composer who broked 3-minute mould of the pop song with Tommy". He didn't.
 
 


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 03:20
^ So, if you have an organ on marimba repeat, it does not give an electronic sound to the song?

-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 03:38
Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

^ So, if you have an organ on marimba repeat, it does not give an electronic sound to the song?
The marimba is a percussion instrument, the organ is replicating that sound, just as it does on a Hammond. Using that is not an "electronic sound" as such. Townshend created a homage to Terry Riley inspired by Riley's A Rainbow in Curved Air, but he did not recreate the electronic music of Riley, he remained within populuar music strictures of standard chord structures (using the inbuilt one-key chords of the Lowery played arpeggio), he did not use the modal sequential serialism of Riley, nor did he use atonal layering or shifting rhythmns. One is a pioneer, the other is a pastiche. I love Baba O'Riley and it is my favourite Who track, but it is not the melding of electronic music and popular music that people claim it to be,

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 03:55
It would be nice, if you somehow could relegate to us your definition of prog Svetonio, because I don't think I understand where you are coming from.
You would like to see both The Who as well as the Grateful Dead included in proper prog categories, yet you deem Bowie unfit for PA altogether. You see, that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever...

No denying that these bands were experimental at times, especially The Dead, but being experimental - heck even being progressive doesn't necessarily mean you should be on PA. Wutang Clan were progressive - do we really need to include them as well?

-------------
“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.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 07:25
Originally posted by Guldbamsen

It would be nice, if you somehow could relegate to us your definition of prog Svetonio, because I don't think I understand where you are coming from.
You would like to see both The Who as well as the Grateful Dead included in proper prog categories, yet you deem Bowie unfit for PA altogether. You see, that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever...

No denying that these bands were experimental at times, especially The Dead, but being experimental - heck even being progressive doesn't necessarily mean you should be on PA. Wutang Clan were progressive - do we really need to include them as well?

No artist / band can escape very far from their artistic nature. Mr Bowie has always been fashionable pop artist. So, at the time when prog rock was fresh and bold, he was linked with that; this link would be a good reason why Mr Bowie is in PA' Proto Prog / Prog Related section. A little problem is that that those two different sections are in one. Imo, Mr Bowie deserved to be in Prog Related, not in Proto Prog because he wasn't an inventor.

The Who were the inventors. All four of them, although in my previous posts I mentioned Mr Townshend only. The Who are among those group of acts that made it possible for progressive rock. The Who deserved 100% to be in Proto Prog section; also, they are Prog Related because of Her Majesty Quadrophenia. The similiar thing is with The Dead. As a part of Psychedelia movement what was one of the most important Art movement in the last century - what made it possible for progressive rock - the Dead deserved to be in Proto Prog section and in PR because of Blues For Allah, Terrapin Station and maybe Mars Hotel (my fav album by them).

It doesn't metter that Mr. Bowie is a pop singer-songwriter, not rock. This genre addopted so many acts who weren't played rock music, for example Miles Davis and Tangerine Dream; they were great inventors in Jazz and Electronic music, they were contemporaries, so prog rock audience accepted them and that is that.

Definition of Progressive Rock? I think that the name of the genre is that definition per se.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 07:32
Confused The two sections are not in one, they are seperate. The Who is in Proto Prog and Bowie is in Prog Related.
 
Frankly, I don't see what you are moaning about.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 08:35
Originally posted by Dean

Confused The two sections are not in one, they are seperate. The Who is in Proto Prog and Bowie is in Prog Related.
 

Frankly, I don't see what you are moaning about.

Yes I know it's separated on the PA' list of the bands but not separated forums for Proto Prog bands and Prog Related bands make it quite simple to be confused.

My point is very simple and please let me repeat that - Mr Bowie is artistic pop, not Progressive Rock at all.

Enough here.


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 08:38
So this isn't progressive rock?

[TUBE]s2L4hL2IvUk[/TUBE]
[TUBE]ZY77zDzNmYw[/TUBE]


-------------
“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.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 09:33

Cool, I didn't realize till just now, reading Dean's post, that Bowie is on PA. I thought all this talk was about getting him on PA... I'm a happy camper :-)


Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 11:06
I agree with Svetonio that The Who could be called proto prog.....but not that Townshend was any kind of electronic innovator. Many early bands of that time were using electronic sounds and keyboards...doesn't make them innovators per se.
But I also don't think Bowied is true prog.....prog related certainly, but not progressive rock imho.
Many here have mentioned artists/bands just as proggy that have not been included here.


-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 13:39
Originally posted by Svetonio

Originally posted by Dean

Confused The two sections are not in one, they are seperate. The Who is in Proto Prog and Bowie is in Prog Related.
 

Frankly, I don't see what you are moaning about.

Yes I know it's separated on the PA' list of the bands but not separated forums for Proto Prog bands and Prog Related bands make it quite simple to be confused.

My point is very simple and please let me repeat that - Mr Bowie is artistic pop, not Progressive Rock at all.

Enough here.
O RLY. Stern Smile

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 13:59

I suppose in England many may consider Bowie to be 'pop.' In the US though, particularly in the 70s, he had maybe 2 'hits', and generally his music was not considered to be accessible or radio-friendly pop music.



Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 17:19
Speaking as an American who grew up in the 50's, 60's ,and college in 70's , Bowie was pretty popular and had more than 2 hits imo.
He was played regularly on fm radio and his pop songs on am.


-------------
Et In Arcadia Ego


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 17:53
Originally posted by Svetonio

My point is very simple and please let me repeat that - Mr Bowie is artistic pop, not Progressive Rock at all.


[TUBE]vrfc8c6VkTA[/TUBE]

Hmmm....let's see here: nine minutes long, symphonic, avant-garde and Brechtian influences without a trace of blues-based rock forms, extended musical themes, fantasy-like ambience and lyrics, ample, rich sounds and productions, part of a concept album, experimental, and varying time-signatures.

Please, explain to me how this is "pop" music.



-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 17:56

Bowie is a rock singer-song writer and musician and he has had pop hits, but that is not is "primary genre" so to speak. Since he has dabbled in practically every style of rock music going it is impossible to say he fits into a one particular genre - Art Rock comes closest as that is an eclectic genre that covers a broad spectrum, but that would exclude his plastic soul and acid-house influenced albums - Art(istic) Pop is woefully inaccurate.

 


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 18:00
Originally posted by The Dark Elf


Originally posted by Svetonio

My point is very simple and please let me repeat that - Mr Bowie is artistic pop, not Progressive Rock at all.
[TUBE]vrfc8c6VkTA[/TUBE]Hmmm....let's see here: nine minutes long, symphonic, avant-garde and Brechtian influences without a trace of blues-based rock forms, extended musical themes, fantasy-like ambience and lyrics, ample, rich sounds and productions, part of a concept album, experimental, and varying time-signatures. Please, explain to me how this is "pop" music.
This is just an exception.

-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 18:16
^^ LOL While I was writing and posting my post, Mr Elf posted the same track.
 
Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

  This is just an exception.
And Cygnet Committee, Wide Eyed Boy From Free Cloud, Memory Of  Free Festival, Width Of A Circle, Quicksand, Bewley Brothers, Time and Station to Station are also exceptions. As is this:
 
A great piece of Frippery...
[tube]i9pByyFqrFI[/tube]


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 18:27
Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

Originally posted by The Dark Elf


Originally posted by Svetonio

My point is very simple and please let me repeat that - Mr Bowie is artistic pop, not Progressive Rock at all.
[TUBE]vrfc8c6VkTA[/TUBE]Hmmm....let's see here: nine minutes long, symphonic, avant-garde and Brechtian influences without a trace of blues-based rock forms, extended musical themes, fantasy-like ambience and lyrics, ample, rich sounds and productions, part of a concept album, experimental, and varying time-signatures. Please, explain to me how this is "pop" music.
This is just an exception.

To be accurate it isn't one song.


-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 18:27
Originally posted by dr wu23

Speaking as an American who grew up in the 50's, 60's ,and college in 70's , Bowie was pretty popular and had more than 2 hits imo.
He was played regularly on fm radio and his pop songs on am.

Interesting. I don't doubt you. I have an American friend who is about 10 or 15 years older than me, and his favorite bands are groups like Genesis, Yes, the Strawbs. He said they were on the radio all the time when he was a kid; whereas I never heard Gabriel-era Genesis on the radio, or the Strawbs. Growing up shuffling back and forth between Baltimore and Florida, the only Bowie songs I heard on the radio were Fame, Changes, Young Americans and Space Oddity.

I think American radio must've become quite conservative and more American-centric as time went by?... I wonder how and why that happened...


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 19:41
Originally posted by Snow Dog

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

Originally posted by The Dark Elf


Originally posted by Svetonio

My point is very simple and please let me repeat that - Mr Bowie is artistic pop, not Progressive Rock at all.
[TUBE]vrfc8c6VkTA[/TUBE]Hmmm....let's see here: nine minutes long, symphonic, avant-garde and Brechtian influences without a trace of blues-based rock forms, extended musical themes, fantasy-like ambience and lyrics, ample, rich sounds and productions, part of a concept album, experimental, and varying time-signatures. Please, explain to me how this is "pop" music.
This is just an exception.

To be accurate it isn't one song.


Neither is Thick as a Brick.


-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 14 2013 at 23:58
Originally posted by The Dark Elf

Originally posted by Svetonio

My point is very simple and please let me repeat that - Mr Bowie is artistic pop, not Progressive Rock at all.


[TUBE]vrfc8c6VkTA[/TUBE]

Hmmm....let's see here: nine minutes long, symphonic, avant-garde and Brechtian influences without a trace of blues-based rock forms, extended musical themes, fantasy-like ambience and lyrics, ample, rich sounds and productions, part of a concept album, experimental, and varying time-signatures.

Please, explain to me how this is "pop" music.


His proggy phase is like a cabaret.
I don't like a cabaret music, so I prefer his greatest hits - they are much better than that, aren't they?

[TUBE]kj28soFeGl8[/TUBE]

[TUBE]LCgzX7vwlFk[/TUBE]

[TUBE]ktdQiODWt84[/TUBE]

[TUBE]CiQKe3WIHFw[/TUBE]




Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 00:08
I don't believe David Bowie is prog, but this treatment of his song is sure progressive!  Clap

[TUBE]KaOC9danxNo[/TUBE]


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 00:56
Originally posted by Svetonio


His proggy phase is like a cabaret.
I don't like a cabaret music, so I prefer his greatest hits - they are much better than that, aren't they?
 

Fortunately, it's not about what you like. Tongue

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 01:24
Originally posted by ole-the-first

Originally posted by rogerthat

Originally posted by Stool Man

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
I agreed. I think to avoid that confusion, it's better to throw out proto prog section and prog related section, and make one new section with the prog albums released by no-prog artists / bands. Of course, it could never happens, but it would not be hard to do because the artists / bands in both section are already classified on the basis of one or two albums.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 02:04
Originally posted by Svetonio

I agreed. I think to avoid that confusion, it's better to throw out proto prog section and prog related section, and make one new section with the prog albums released by no-prog artists / bands. Of course, it could never happens, but it would not be hard to do because the artists / bands in both section are already classified on the basis of one or two albums.
And we should do this because?
 
 
Is it because some people are not very bright?
 
 
 
The site rule is whole discographies - that applies to all artists listed regardless of where they are listed. Once we start being selective on specific albums arguments will follow about which albums to list and which to exclude and that is as much of a futile waste of peoples time as evaluating every band that was a little bit experimental or different. Prog Related is no longer a catch-all category, we do not add every artist suggested.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 02:57
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Svetonio

I agreed. I think to avoid that confusion, it's better to throw out proto prog section and prog related section, and make one new section with the prog albums released by no-prog artists / bands. Of course, it could never happens, but it would not be hard to do because the artists / bands in both section are already classified on the basis of one or two albums.
And we should do this because?
 
 
Is it because some people are not very bright?
 
 
 
(...) Prog Related is no longer a catch-all category, we do not add every artist suggested.

No, of course it is not because are some people not very bright; a smart but musicaly inexperienced newbie, 12-13 yrs old kid comes to mind; a kid who is searching for those ancient  prog albums and then run into that bunch of the bands that do not belong to the genre at all - except one or two albums by them.

Also, on that way you could open a new room for more proto prog and  prog related additions but with a specific prog album by no-prog artist / band and endless discussion like this will not be possible. Of couse, if  discussions as such are required  for any reason, then this categorization is just perfect.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 04:41
Originally posted by Svetonio


No, of course it is not because are some people not very bright; a smart but musicaly inexperienced newbie, 12-13 yrs old kid comes to mind; a kid who is searching for those ancient  prog albums and then run into that bunch of the bands that do not belong to the genre at all - except one or two albums by them.
That's what reviews are for. That's why Prog Related and Proto Prog albums are not listed in the Top-100 charts.
 
People, especially 12-13 year olds, are bright enough to see which albums are worth buying and why. They are also smart enough to appreciate that Prog Related IS NOT PROG and they should be intelligent enough to realise that when an an artist is being discussed in this lounge it is because they are already listed here and are in one of the two categories. They should be wise enough to realise we do not to discuss unlisted artists in this lounge, and clever enough to appreciate that we do not suggest or propose our favourite non-prog artists for addition in this lounge.

Originally posted by Svetonio


Also, on that way you could open a new room for more proto prog and  prog related additions but with a specific prog album by no-prog artist / band and endless discussion like this will not be possible. Of couse, if discussions as such are required  for any reason, then this categorization is just perfect.

Nope. We really don't want any more unsolicited Proto Prog or Prog Related suggestions or any more additions, this is why only Special Collaborators can suggest artists for these two categories. This is a Prog site for reviewing Prog albums, all this stuff is but a distracting diversion. This is why we don't allow people to create polls in this lounge. Why this poll was moved here is a mystery to me.
 
 


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 06:00
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Svetonio


No, of course it is not because are some people not very bright; a smart but musicaly inexperienced newbie, 12-13 yrs old kid comes to mind; a kid who is searching for those ancient  prog albums and then run into that bunch of the bands that do not belong to the genre at all - except one or two albums by them.

That's what reviews are for. That's why Prog Related and Proto Prog albums are not listed in the Top-100 charts.

 

People, especially 12-13 year olds, are bright enough to see which albums are worth buying and why. They are also smart enough to appreciate that Prog Related IS NOT PROG and they should be intelligent enough to realise that when an an artist is being discussed in this lounge it is because they are already listed here and are in one of the two categories. They should be wise enough to realise we do not to discuss unlisted artists in this lounge, and clever enough to appreciate that we do not suggest or propose our favourite non-prog artists for addition in this lounge.

Originally posted by Svetonio

Also, on that way you could open a new room for more proto prog and  prog related additions but with a specific prog album by no-prog artist / band and endless discussion like this will not be possible. Of couse, if discussions as such are required  for any reason, then this categorization is just perfect.


Nope. We really don't want any more unsolicited Proto Prog or Prog Related suggestions or any more additions, this is why only Special Collaborators can suggest artists for these two categories. This is a Prog site for reviewing Prog albums, all this stuff is but a distracting diversion. This is why we don't allow people to create polls in this lounge. Why this poll was moved here is a mystery to me.

 

 


Anyway, if you have a section for the prog albums by no-prog bands, what I virtualy suggested, you can comfortably add for example this album 

[TUBE]l3u_objODa4[/TUBE] 


Without Wilson's masterpiece, I believe that many would agree that the PA' Proto Prog story is like a book with missing very important chapter.

Regards!


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 07:04
 
An album that was never finished and never released managed to influence the development of Progressive Rock prior to 1969 when Wilson's re-imagined version wasn't released until 2004 and the sessions reconstruction version (which is an approximation of what the completed album may have sounded like), wasn't released until 2011 ... wow, that really was a special album.
 
 


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 07:56
Originally posted by Svetonio



Anyway, if you have a section for the prog albums by no-prog bands, what I virtualy suggested, you can comfortably add for example this album 

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=93288&PID=4770334#4770334" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=93288&PID=4770334#4770334


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 09:52
Originally posted by Dean




 
An album that was never finished and never released managed to influence the development of Progressive Rock prior to 1969 when Wilson's re-imagined version wasn't released until 2004 and the sessions reconstruction version (which is an approximation of what the completed album may have sounded like), wasn't released until 2011 ... wow, that really was a special album.

 

 


Yes, it's really great album


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 10:18
Words cannot express what I am thinking at this moment in time. Stern Smile

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: May 15 2013 at 21:29
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Svetonio


His proggy phase is like a cabaret.
I don't like a cabaret music, so I prefer his greatest hits - they are much better than that, aren't they?
 

Fortunately, it's not about what you like. Tongue


As Dean mentioned, that you don't like "cabaret" or prefer Bowie's greatest hits is neither here nor there in the conversation. And no, I don't think Bowie's greatest hits are necessarily better than Bowie's more outlandish and experimental stuff. For instance, I'll take "Sweet Thing", "We are the Dead" or "Big Brother" over "1984" or "Rebel, Rebel" from the Diamond Dogs album, or "Time" or "Lady Grinning Soul" over "The Jean Genie" from Aladdin Sane.

It's rather amusing that we are on a purportedly progressive site and you're touting greatest hits packages.


-------------
Please pay a visit to my blog... http://darkelffile.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Dark Elf File ...a slighty skewed journal of music reviews, literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.


Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: May 16 2013 at 00:03
Originally posted by The Dark Elf


Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Svetonio



His proggy phase is like a cabaret.

I don't like a cabaret music, so I prefer his greatest hits - they are much better than that, aren't they?

 


Fortunately, it's not about what you like. Tongue
(...) It's rather amusing that we are on a purportedly progressive site and you're touting greatest hits packages.

Actually, we are on PA Proto Prog / Prog Related forum. As Dean pointed out - Prog Related IS NOT PROG. So, I did that freely to present with some YouTube samples that my claim that Mr  Bowie's timeless pop hits are much better because they're stronger expression than those cabaret-like song(s) you posted above (with a question adressed on me - 'is this pop', in the spirit of this poll I supposed) from his proggy atempts what was at the time also very fashionable -  nothing less fashionable and mainstreamy than this 

[TUBE]x92Z49WwTAo[/TUBE]

[TUBE]5nNsNw2t0RI[/TUBE]

[TUBE]ec9Ae4Vb8gQ[/TUBE]

Regards!





Posted By: Barbu
Date Posted: May 16 2013 at 00:41
Is he or not?

-------------
Excuse-moi d'casser ton fun mais j'me cherche une rime pour automne


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: May 16 2013 at 00:47
He is both.

-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: May 16 2013 at 02:36
Originally posted by Dayvenkirq

He is both.

Bowie has always been both in everything Wink



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz - http://www.webwiz.co.uk