Bowie prog?

Zargus wrote: Bowie is yust as prog as Peter Gabriel, and even much more IMO, the only reason PG is here and not Bowie is becaus he was in Genesis if it was the other way around Bowie whuld be here and not PG. You cant get more progressiv then Bowie he changed his sound and style more from album to album then most bands and artist do thiere whole carer.

darqdean wrote: For many Bowie typifies what has been descibed in the Progressive vs. Prog thread as a progressive artist who is not Prog. Almost everything he does is simultaneously eclectic and progressive - his albums generally arrive from the leftfield and land slap bang in the middle of the mainstream. And that's where the problem lies.   He produced some Prog songs, but maybe not whole Prog albums, he did Concept albums (albeit within fairly a standard rock format) and even ventured into the realm of Art Rock and Art School Rock. He has created fusions of every school of music you can care to imagine: minimalism, krautrock, jazz, soul, hip-hop, electronic, hard-rock, folk... and of course prog... (He is also pretty unique in suceeding in influencing some of the people he was influenced by - the only other artist to do that I can think of is Trent Reznor...) yet he remains a mainstream performer in the eyes of the world, even when producing non-mainstream albums.

very very very well said...

Atavachron wrote: well I don't know, but if true, that's points for Bowie

it does... but we'll deal with that down the road.

Atavachron wrote: that's a strong point on Bowie's side you raise.. region and background are highly significant

very significant..

ask yourself this David... do you think Steely Dan would be here if they were English..     I'd bet my paycheck on that... they would have, well before  either of us had joined. 


Edited by micky - October 02 2007 at 19:43

Atavachron wrote: yes, and also there's the other ugly little secret of judging music.. and that is personal taste.  It isn't suppose to matter but, in fact, it does-- i.e. I would probably not support the addition of, say, Lou Reed, but mostly because I don't care for his music..  but is he progressive... and well, there you have it

much like Steely Dan...  artists like Reed progresive as they are .. have absolutely no connection with prog.  As Dean likes to say... it is a fine line we walk.  To balance judging upon the music.. versus what public perception is.

The littlest things do make a difference...  like origin..  to use your example, Reed was american and as I posted in the SD thread, during those years prog was european.  Bowie did spring out of that same movement...  he has a much stronger case by association.  What some people will never get through their head is prog was a movement... to expand rock beyond it's boundries... not a genre based on epic track lengths and sh*t like that...   I have found so damn funny, yet sad at the same time, that many of fans of prog,  are amoung the most close minded of music fans.  Whereas like the music and musicians of prog  themselves... had willingness to incorporate other styles and ways of thinking and were quite open minded.  Oh well.  

yes, and also there's the other ugly little secret of judging music.. and that is personal taste.  It isn't suppose to matter but, in fact, it does-- i.e. I would probably not support the addition of, say, Lou Reed, but mostly because I don't care for his music..  but is he progressive... and well, there you have it

just yesterday I was discussing this with a musician friend (always like to get a non-progster's opinion).. when I casually asked if he thought Bowie was 'Prog' he immediately said "No", but then I asked if he thought Bowie was a progressive rock musician, and he said "Oh hell yeah"

The Doctor wrote: I would classify Bowie as more of an experimental rock artist.  Not quite prog.  Certainly some of his stuff would qualify as prog, songs like "Cygnet Committee", "Wild-Eyed Boy from Freecloud", "Station to Station" and some of his electronic meanderings on Low and Heroes.  But not enough of his stuff qualifies as progressive to include him here in the archives I think.  Bowie is probably the most intelligent and experimental pop song writer out there, but that doesn't qualify him as progressive.  And this is coming from a huge Bowie fan.  I believe I own all of his albums, including his stuff with Tin Machine, most of his soundtrack work, etc.

You must be a Bowie fan if you can get into Tin Machine Actually I thought it was cool that he used that band to dump his mega rock star status, which he had at that time, and I also liked their cover of "In every dream home ... "

Edited by Easy Money - October 03 2007 at 00:18

I would classify Bowie as more of an experimental rock artist.  Not quite prog.  Certainly some of his stuff would qualify as prog, songs like "Cygnet Committee", "Wild-Eyed Boy from Freecloud", "Station to Station" and some of his electronic meanderings on Low and Heroes.  But not enough of his stuff qualifies as progressive to include him here in the archives I think.  Bowie is probably the most intelligent and experimental pop song writer out there, but that doesn't qualify him as progressive.  And this is coming from a huge Bowie fan.  I believe I own all of his albums, including his stuff with Tin Machine, most of his soundtrack work, etc. 

Christian wrote: I am Bowie fan since the early 70's and have all his albums. I did not consider him prog, but since we have acts like 10CC, Supertramp and ELO in the arcives I definitely think he fits as well. Listen to the concept album 1.Outside from 1995 and you may agree!

Just a word of clarification: 10CC and ELO are in Prog-Related, which means exactly what it says - that its, they are NOT prog, but influenced by it.

There has been a lot of debate on whether Bowie belongs here. Lots of people are in favour, others are vehemently against. However, since controversial additions are likely to cause quite a bit of unrest in the forums, the Admin Team is trying to keep them under control.