What about David Bowie

With hindsight, it's quite obvious that his music fits the Art Rock description better than "Glam" or "Glitter" rock.

That fashion passed away decades ago, and Bowie moved on - many, many times. His recent music has little in common with T-Rex, The Glitter Band, The Sweet, Slade or any of that crowd.

His constant re-invention and willingess to experiment puts him firmly in Art Rock.
    

Edited by Certif1ed - September 28 2006 at 08:17

Peter Rideout wrote: Once we started including artists along the lines of "Well, X are in here, and Y don't sound too much different," the site was bound to grow and mutate almost beyond recognition. (Y leads to Z, etc.) Categorizing something that's as tied to individual response as music is, is very problematic. "Prog" is such an artificial, restrictive notion! How many musicians (these days) embrace the term? Precious few! Now why is that? [IMG]height=17 alt="Stern Smile" src="smileys/smiley22.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>[ Speaking from a purely intellectual perspective, (perhaps not a practical, economic or emotional one)  I still think a name change for the Archives is warrented, in the long run. Progcetera

    
I think the name ProgArchives is fine - we've been moving towards Progressive Music as opposed to Progressive Rock for a very long time - pretty much right from the inception.

For example, Progressive Metal is NOT a type of Progressive Rock - it is a different sort of music, being based largely on riffs.

However, that can only be a good thing, as being inclusive leads to fans of one band discovering others - and keeping the old music alive (as it so rightly deserves).

I agree that the reduction "Prog" is ambiguous as well as personally restrictive - but as a simple shortening of the term "progressive", it works well. And when journalists use the term "Prog Rock", I always think of the "dinosaurs" with affection, as a fan of the music. Who cares about cheap jibes from those who haven't got it yet?

Bowie is excellent. He was always ahead of his time.

My vote will always be a firm yes, maybe not prog as main style, but underneath his songwriting there' always been an aspect of chalenging new things.

David Bowie belongs to his own cathegory, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about being or not included anywhere. Beyond that, my only question is "¿Howcome Mercury Rev is listed as prog act, and Bowie is not?, ¿what's the logic behind this?. I certainly would like to know, just for curiosity. Meanwhile, Both MErcury Rev and David Bowie belong to my collection, wich is the only thing I care about.

^ I've only heard a very little, Cert, but from what I heard, I can see why they're here, and why you make a case for them.

Peter Rideout wrote: Certif1ed wrote:       If you'd left out Radiohead from that list then I'd be in agreement with you...   I've nothing against them, Cert -- just naming some of the prior controversial inclusions here by way of saying that "prog" (or "related" "proto," whatever), is a pretty vague, subjective concept.   Again, I think it's a term that has outlived its usefulness (except to refer to a bygone era & a historic musical movement), and that this is a site that has long since outgrown the restrictions that the word "prog" should perhaps have imposed upon it.   The concept is just too subjective -- calling it "Good" Music Archives would not be much less contentious. We bring in other genres, and tack "prog" onto their existing names, but other genres are excluded. (eg, new age)     "Prog" is not much more than a value judgement now, IMO.   Anyway, I'd certainly mix some Bowie in with some of the accepted "prog" acts on a homemade compilation. He's all over the place, stylistically, and some of his stuff has been pretty "far out."

    
I agree that the term Prog seems to be getting watered down, but I don't think that Radiohead specifically are one of the bands that are watering down the values of prog - I think that they (albeit unintentionally) have flown the Prog flag higher than most bands from the late 1990s until today in the true spirit of Prog in the 21st century.

I'm not saying you have some kind of petty thing against the band, but, purely from seeing you list them among non-prog bands, I do think that you may not have "got" them yet!

I know from experience that, like other great prog bands, time reveals more about their music than you might think was there.

Certif1ed wrote:       If you'd left out Radiohead from that list then I'd be in agreement with you...

Edited by Peter Rideout - November 16 2006 at 15:16

These kids don't know -- they think muppet metal is prog!

Edited by Peter Rideout - September 27 2006 at 16:52

    I think people balk at Bowie because of his more straight ahead rock numbers. If you look at his entire catalogue, there is a lot of progressive aspect there. Proto or related would be my choice.