Is David Bowie prog?

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

Edited by Dean - May 14 2013 at 02:27

Svetonio wrote: Dean wrote: Svetonio wrote: 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 (part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9kP5_NAsBw (part 2)

Nice try but no coconut.

Dayvenkirq wrote: ^ 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,

Guldbamsen wrote: 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.

Dean wrote:  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.

Svetonio wrote: Dean wrote:  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.

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.

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.

Edited by Dean - May 14 2013 at 18:00

^^  While I was writing and posting my post, Mr Elf posted the same track.