Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
He was very progressive in his theatrical stage act. That being a desperate craft he strongly developed to be combined with his compositions. I saw him in "The Hunger" and it made me think about the many roles he took on during live performances.. Originally influenced by Syd Barrett' s music , his hair style. the makeup, expanded Bowie' s mind into doing unorthodox things. I can't imagine the suggestions that Bowie and Visconti made to each other during those early , so praised recording sessions. Apart from Bowie talents, we had Mick Ronson who was a fine and perfectly skilled arranger. Arranging the strings for "Life On Mars" as such proved that his work could easily be compared to the string/horn arrangements of Procol Harums Grand Hotel. Think about it. All those progressive or now defined Proto ..elements existed in Bowie' s music. In 71' he performed at Glastonbury Fayre . ...alone with an acoustic. He was a fine singer songwriter and if you dismiss his harder Rock songs from the early albums and focus mainly on his melancholy pieces, it is evident that he was influenced by a more progressive English writing style which was basically his environment.
^^ Ok, that was pretty enough for PA admins to add him as prog related act as well, but it doesn't mean that this fashionable pop artist was produced progressive rock enough for Crossover section. You would never forget what Dean pointed out: Prog RELATED IS NOT PROG.
Your grasp of this concept appears to be limited and/or somewhat selective.
The question needs to be asked : whilst I am pleased to have many of these 'Prog Related' entries here at P.A. I wonder why they are included here at all if they are 'NOT PROG' ??? If they cross over into Prog territories occasionally then they should be in 'Cross Over'.........
Let's start up the 'Prog Related Archives' and include 'Buggles'............(whom I find more related to Prog than many 'Prog Related' artists........)
They're here because they are:
Influential to or have been influenced by Progressive Rock Considered to have facilitated the development of Progressive Rock in their locale Considered to reflect some/many of the stylistic elements and the erstwhile zeitgeist from which Progressive Rock emerged.
These are of course very broad parameters as this isn't an exact science but it's all there in the published definition on PA which I think ain't bad. No-one pretends that any of the artists in Prog Related are Prog. They're not. They're related to Prog.
By way of contrast Crossover Prog artists are deemed 100% Prog but their music contains elements we would ordinarily expect to find in more mainstream pop/rock idioms e.g. shorter more concise song structures, classical, jazz and folk affectations, a greater focus on repeated melodic hooks etc. They don't crossover into Prog, they crossover from Prog. Similarly, a very useful definition is provided on PA which should be of particular value to Prog Reviewers.
Joined: September 03 2005
Location: Olympus Mons
Status: Offline
Points: 15926
Posted: July 12 2013 at 23:04
Dean wrote:
Svetonio wrote:
^^ Ok, that was pretty enough for PA admins to add him as prog related act as well, but it doesn't mean that this fashionable pop artist was produced progressive rock enough for Crossover section. You would never forget what Dean pointed out: Prog RELATED IS NOT PROG.
Your grasp of this concept appears to be limited and/or somewhat selective.
The question needs to be asked : whilst I am pleased to have many of these 'Prog Related' entries here at P.A. I wonder why they are included here at all if they are 'NOT PROG' ??? If they cross over into Prog territories occasionally then they should be in 'Cross Over'.........
Let's start up the 'Prog Related Archives' and include 'Buggles'............(whom I find more related to Prog than many 'Prog Related' artists........)
Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1754
Posted: July 06 2013 at 20:48
Dean wrote:
jude111 wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
After a month and a half it's 22 to 12 that he's not prog.
And as we know, the minority's usually right
Eh?
Okay, it's not enough to say the minority's usually right. (Clearly that's not the case.) Rather, I'll just say the majority's usually, for want of a better word, 'wrong'. Or, 'off'.
Or to quote Mark Twain: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
He has too many aficionados to be considered anything less than pivotal to developments well beyond his ken. Black Sabbath are in the same hopelessly adrift love boat.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is David Bowie prog?
Topic Options
Tom Ozric wrote:
)
