What about David Bowie
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Suggest New Bands and Artists
Forum Description: Suggest, create polls, and classify new bands you would like included on Prog Archives
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29084
Printed Date: March 03 2025 at 12:26
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What about David Bowie
Posted By: yarstruly
Subject: What about David Bowie
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 12:45
|
There are some real prog connections there (Wakeman, Fripp, Eno, others
?)...Is he prog to any degree ? Discuss.... ------------- Facebook hashtags: #100greatestprogrockchallenge #scottssongbysong #scottsspotlight |
Replies:
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 12:47
|
IMHO, the most progressive thing about him was his make up..  ------------- -music is like pornography... sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more... -sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue... |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 12:50
|
...nah...
------------- 
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 12:52
you're right, Twisted Sister's make up was proggier...  ------------- -music is like pornography... sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more... -sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue... |
Ricochet wrote:Posted By: yarstruly
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 12:53
|
C'mon what about Space Oddity, Ashes to Ashes, etc....
I am not a huge Bowie fan, but thought he was at least kinda artsy... ------------- Facebook hashtags: #100greatestprogrockchallenge #scottssongbysong #scottsspotlight |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 12:58
|
Bowie was one one the poster children for the art rock movement.. probably should be given more consideration than he is
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: yarstruly
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 13:00
My point exactly.....
I'm not saying he should be on the PA listings, but is certainly worthy of discussion here and had some influence..... ------------- Facebook hashtags: #100greatestprogrockchallenge #scottssongbysong #scottsspotlight |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 13:01
-------------
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 13:22
|
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. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: WaywardSon
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 14:18
Bowie is referred to as Art Rock on a lot of sites. Maybe it is time to shuffle a few groups around and create another genre. Have Art Rock and Prog Rock
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 16:49
These kids don't know -- they think muppet metal is prog! 
Bowie has been discussed about a hundred times here. I always vote "yes," but still, he's excluded. I hate the "if X, then Y" argument, but if Roxy Music is here....
He's not as close to prog as Triumph, Deep Purple, Talk Talk, Radiohead, The Too-Fast Nasty Screaming Blood-Dripping Gore Mongers, or the Beatles, apparently....
 Yeah -- right!  ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 16:54
If you'd have left out Radiohead from that list then I'd be in agreement with you... What is it that is not progressive about Kid A or Amnesiac? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 17:05
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 much of his stuff has been pretty darned "far out." ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: AngelRat
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 17:09
|
I think there's to some extent 'prog' in his music. But 'prog' or not, I just enjoy his albums (at least his 70s stuph).
-------------  |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 17:17
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. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 17:35
Sorry Cert. I have tried and tried, but Radiohead does not fit the bill for me. I like "The Bends," but that is obviously not prog. "Kid A" strikes me as nothing more than ambient. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 17:37
^  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.
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?
 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 ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Australian
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 20:01
|
I say Nah. As has been said before if Bowie was included many other related bands would also have to be included.
He isn’t progressive either if compared to recognized prog bands from the same era. ------------- 
|
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 20:08
|
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. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 20:25
|
David Bowie really embodies the spirit of progressive rock. He constantly experimently with different styles, making interesting and at times very abstract music. None of his albums are alike and many of them are extremly experimental, full of elements of prog rock. He was also very artsy and creative like are fellow progressive rockers. Low, Heroes, and the Station to Station are definetely full blown art rock. -------------  
|
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 20:50
|
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. But the problem lies in the description of progressive music, and how people perceive it. Like mentioned before as long as people insist on making cases for bands based on their likeleness with other bands who are included, than I say be exclusive, rather than inclusive.
When the time comes and bands are judged purely and entirelly on their own merits, Bowie would be my first choice, I love the dude for what he created, and would love to see him here. ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: kebjourman
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 21:53
|
David Bowie!
yes!
here here!
|
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 21:54
|
Bowie is excellent. He was always ahead of his time. |
Posted By: Kleynan
Date Posted: September 27 2006 at 21:55
|
On wikipedia he is listed under art-rock... ------------- 
You've just had a heavy session of electroshock therapy, and you're more relaxed than you've been in weeks. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: September 28 2006 at 03:18
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? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: September 28 2006 at 04:28
|
Bowie is not really progressive in the sense that we are interested in the site.
And he was never art rock (he was Glam Rock or glitter rock) until some idiotic journalist started rewriting music's history, lumping all these glam "arty (as in artsy-farsty)" artistes (Mott and Roxy) and wanting to give them more credibility. ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: September 28 2006 at 08:17
|
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. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: September 28 2006 at 11:27
More important: he's not stuck on the past. His recent colaboration with Trent Reznor produced an incredible album. His constant dedication to grow within his own art is the reason why he is not extinct as creator, while other musicians insist in keep emulating a decade that is long gone already. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: Phil
Date Posted: September 29 2006 at 09:05
| "Heroes" and "Low" both of which feature Eno are great albums and I think warrant a "progressive" tag. The rest of his work is great but not prog. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: September 29 2006 at 09:19
You do have a point. I always consider Bowie's oeuvre mainly under his 70's glam thing and the last album I really heard (against my will I must say) is that horrible Let's Dance. But nowadays, that period represent a small percebtage of his total works.
I've heard bits and pieces on the radio after the mid-80's, but it is very limited compared to his entire later discography. I am not so sure that he was that experimental, though, he tried to be alternative (not in the indie rock sense, though) for sure, though!!
as for Glam (which was used loosely after that period which ended roughly with Punk's arrival) it seems that there is a revival lately
then there was also that glam metal scene in the second part of the 80's which was also called HairMetal ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: WaywardSon
Date Posted: September 29 2006 at 11:08
|
Seems like this thread is in the wrong place and should be in the Suggest new bands section.
But really., there have been tons of "Is Bowie Prog?" threads.
I think we spend far too much time on categorisations, and not enough time talking about the artist.
I also believe he is Art Rock or Prog Related in some way.
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: September 30 2006 at 05:53
|
But somehow I could not possibly imagine Bowie really included.
Should he be, it should not be in a full blown prog category. >> prog-related at best as is Roxy Music ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: September 30 2006 at 06:03
Point well taken, Greg - and thread moved! |
Posted By: Australian
Date Posted: September 30 2006 at 19:37
|
I have an idea, how about we work on the inclusion of bands already on the master list before suggesting anyone new. -------------
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 30 2006 at 19:48
hmmmm..... nah....  what master list?.... we just add them when we find them... discussion is a good thing  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: September 30 2006 at 19:51
|
Prog or not, David Bowie kicks ass. -------------
|
Posted By: Australian
Date Posted: September 30 2006 at 20:35
I heard master list some where, probably dreamt of it or something
  Oh well its not my problem anyway...carry on -------------
|
Posted By: yesfan88
Date Posted: October 02 2006 at 19:03
Yes! And I think he's prog-related. He's quite experimental. ------------- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"- Evelyn Beatrice Hall |
Posted By: Leningrad
Date Posted: October 02 2006 at 23:54
| I just got a Bowie CD two days ago, and it rules. |
Posted By: gong
Date Posted: October 04 2006 at 07:36
| one of the greatest artists of 20th century! |
Posted By: fairyliar
Date Posted: October 10 2006 at 07:51
|
I agree that some stuff (with Eno) are prog and that in the path he has taken with music he also represents a progressive vision of music. |
Posted By: Zargus
Date Posted: October 11 2006 at 04:28
Queen & Deep purple here but not Bowie! Thats %&¤#" joke!  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 11 2006 at 09:56
Forgive me Wiz for picking up on your post to make a general point.
A few of the posts here focus merely on how "good" Bowie is, and how much people like his music. Such comments, while understandable and well intended, do not further the cause for him to be added. The imply that people want him added because the like his music, not because he fits here. This actually helps the case of those who don't want to see him (or whoever we are discussing) added.
This not intended a criticism, just a pointer.
|
Posted By: KeyserSoze
Date Posted: October 11 2006 at 13:08
Isn't that case of Iron Maiden? They were added because many people like their in my opinion naive and immature metal music. I think that category "prog-related" is a disaster for this site because now we'll get questions like why Bowie isn't included when Iron Maiden are? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/mhron/?chartstyle=artists" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: October 11 2006 at 13:12
|
David Bowie is great, but if we include him in PA then we'll have to include...T Rex.....then....The Sweet....thennn....ELTON JOHN!!!!AAAARRRRRGGGHHHH...and then....good
bye MF!!!
-------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: tdbark
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 16:21
|
NO! You would not have to include those groups. Understand that while good, those groups (and John) did nothing to really stretch beyond their immediate style of music. Bowie was and is different.
I would include the following albums as Progressive:
The Man Who Sold the World
Diamond Dogs
Low
"Heroes"
Outside
and the following songs are examples from other albums:
Cygnet Commitee
Station to Station
There are more but I cannot think of them right now.
Listen to these albums.... You hear a theme and a particular fullness to a vision. The music is challenging and is at times expansive and fully realized progressive songs. ------------- Twenty men crossing a bridge into a village, are twenty men crossing twenty bridges into twenty villages. Wallace Stevens |
Posted By: WaywardSon
Date Posted: November 15 2006 at 18:18
|
People say "Where is the prog?" , then people spend their time explaining (like tdbark) saying which albums and which songs..
Then the next post says "No! No! He doesn´t belong here!'
This is just so damn frustrating..
Another prog song would be "Wild Eyed boy from feecloud" off Space Oddity.
Prog Related at the least
|