Vangelis - Prog?

Dean wrote: Dave, Vangelis is "represented" here and has been here for over six years - whether Prog Related is seen as some second-rate category is irrelevant - anyone who wants to review a Vangelis album can do so - and that's pretty much all this site is here for - to allow people to review and rate albums and if they think that album is Progressive or Symphonic or Jazz-Rock/Raga they can say so in their review.

The effort is better spent reviewing the albums rather than fretting over the categorizations.

I think jazzmusicarchives has a better organization.  "Related" isn't a second class citizen category and not having to put one artist in a single category are improvements.  I only have to guess that transitioning PA over to something like that now would be a monumental undertaking.


Edited by Slartibartfast - November 09 2011 at 19:36

richardh wrote: I have many Vangelis albums. These are most certainly 'progressive electronic':   Heaven and Hell Albedo 0.39 Spiral Beauborg Invisible Connections Direct   beyond that little lot I'm not convinced anything else is 'progressive ,most of it being a mixture of OST's ,quasi classical works and 'new age' stuff.   Much of Vangelis work is just Vangelis being Vangelis. Not sure if he even really cares about being 'progressive' anymore and probably hasn't been in any way 'progressive' since about 1990.   His very early albums like Earth, Hypothesis and The Dragon are quite experimental but don't actually feature synthesisers to the best of my knowledge so could they really be classed as 'progressive electronic'?

    Not sure about that Richard, the way he used the Hammond and the effects is quite electronic experience IMHO

moshkito wrote: richardh wrote: I have many Vangelis albums. These are most certainly 'progressive electronic':   ...  beyond that little lot I'm not convinced anything else is 'progressive ,most of it being a mixture of OST's ,quasi classical works and 'new age' stuff.   Much of Vangelis work is just Vangelis being Vangelis. Not sure if he even really cares about being 'progressive' anymore and probably hasn't been in any way 'progressive' since about 1990.  ...   He's a self taught musician in a house of musicians. And if we can add a non-joke here, may I suggest that you stop listening for the OST's and other definitions and start listening for the spoons. AND, that is a no kidding and from his own mouth! They are in EVERY one of his compositions, regardless of what it is!   He was one of the very first to talk about the selling out of music, way back in 1975 and 1976 and his comments about "commercial music" still are quite vivid in my mind, and probably are the very foundtation of the work I write and state in this board, for example, which some folks do not like.   All in all, he doesn't need to be considered "prog" ... like Mike, or Ryuichi and others ... he's a COMPOSER and he deserves that right for the amount of work he has done, including an Oscar. And it doesn't matter to me if we think it is "prog" or not ... once again ... it's MUSIC. And that's more important than "prog" will ever be.

Good ole Moshkito , the man with the ''truth'' the way forward .. a light in the darkness..

^ There is nothing worse than a self employed building inspector booking a room in a construction he considers we're lucky still to be alive in to alert us of this fact


Edited by ExittheLemming - November 11 2011 at 05:26

^ ... I thought I'd read somewhere that he had studied music at academic level. I also believe that other musicians spoke out about commercial music long before 1975 - the phrase "sell-out" being a popular term of derision in Prog circles for many years.

Dean wrote: ^ ... I thought I'd read somewhere that he had studied music at academic level. I also believe that other musicians spoke out about commercial music long before 1975 - the phrase "sell-out" being a popular term of derision in Prog circles for many years.

Exactly, and most of the ones who protested against selling out, ended making commercial music for different reasons, mainly because they required money to survive.

A good example is Rick Wakeman, a prolific Prog musician who found at the age of 25, after a heart attack, he had made a terrible business with a label (A&M) and that his family was not protected in case he died.

A few years later, he made music he could sell easily, but when he got enough money, he returned to his beloved genre.

Peter Gabriel almost fell in bankruptcy due to the artistic acclaimed WOMAD, and he made a couple of simpler albums (Still all very good) to get back on his feet, then he returned to his roots

Life is not easy, but Prog Archives has a duty to support PRIMARILY artists who devoted themselves to Prog, of course not forgetting artists who made a Prog - Commercial career if they fit in a sub-genre,  if they don't fit in one,  Prog Related is their place.

Of course I believe guys like Vangelis, Wakeman and Gabriel have a place in a full genre (each one in a different one), due to what they did in their Prog facets. 

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 11 2011 at 10:06

^ We must leave Relayer well alone....Moraz was just perfect

Vangelis is awesome. Prog? Certainly. That's where my vote went.

The very first albums were avant-jazz, then he went to symphonic prog, then progressive electronic with excursions in newage and avantgarde/contemporary classics (beaubourg and invisible connections). Why is he considered "related"? for his works with Jon Anderson? In that case please note that "Jon and Vangelis" is a different entity on PA.

Of course, I think Heaven and Hell is Symphonic, but also the suite on Chariots of Fire comes in mind.