Mike Oldfield's category?

clarke2001 wrote: Mike Oldfield is not in Eclectic Prog simply because I don't like him.

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.


Edited by progressive - October 24 2008 at 10:06

Dean wrote: progressive wrote: clarke2001 wrote: Mike Oldfield is not in Eclectic Prog simply because I don't like him. 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. Sure beats the hell out of the system we use   ... quicker too I would imagine.

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.)".

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.

Edited by Vibrationbaby - October 24 2008 at 15:03

... 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.

russellk wrote: ... 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?

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.

Edited by russellk - October 24 2008 at 22:15

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. 

Ricochet wrote: 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.

Ah, but that's a good argument to move Genesis to Crossover as well, isn't it?

Desoc wrote: Ricochet wrote: 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. Ah, but that's a good argument to move Genesis to Crossover as well, isn't it?

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?).