Tubular.net :: Mike Oldfield Forums Discussion, news, reviews, fan music, and more.
	Search :: Members :: Help :: Guidelines

Question: Progressive :: Total Votes:18 Poll choices Votes Statistics MOTR contains characteristics of progressive music 2  [11.11%] It doesn't 16  [88.89%] Guests cannot vote

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 > [ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

El Mystico Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: Dec. 2005 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 05:17 Hopefully we can put this issue to bed and move on. Back to top

equinoxe Group: Members Posts: 175 Joined: Aug. 2011 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 06:34 No, it doesn't. It's not a progressive rock at all. There are just a couple of very good, catchy but simple songs, emotionally influenced. If anyone claim that instrumental disc sounds like progressive music i propose to listen to many modern pop-rock artists tracks without vocals... And ofcourse the new album is great and i like it even when it's not a progressive rock BTW why would anyone think about the new album as a progressive rock anyway? Is it because it's his first album from years containing more acoustic instruments and more rocky tracks? What about the Earth Moving or Heaven's Open (without balcony track) or even Discovery - are those a progressive rock? Ok, new album is a little different and new in some ways, but hey - its just a classic rock, IMHO ofcourse. Back to top

GusFogle Group: Members Posts: 198 Joined: July 2011 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 10:06 More like pop music, with elements of rock. Or in the case of Sailing, pop music, with elements of modern country.   Back to top

scienceguy Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: Aug. 2012 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 11:26 Oh for Heaven's sake! This POLL will NOT "put this matter to bed" because you have asked the wrong question Absolutely everyone will infer from your wording for the first POLLING OPTION, namely: "MOTR contains characteristics of progressive music" that you are asking whether or not MOTR contains ALL of the characteristics of progressive music... i.e. they will be answering the question: IS MOTR PROGRESSIVE ROCK / PROGRESSIVE MUSIC? And because you have asked the wrong question, the POLL RESULT will in fact be completely irrelevant. That said, let me put this matter to bed for you, hopefully once and for all. MOTR is NOT PROGRESSIVE ROCK MOTR is NOT PROGRESSIVE MUSIC To fall within the categorization of PROGRESSIVE MUSIC it would need to possess ALL of the characteristics of PROGRESSIVE MUSIC. It does not and hence is NOT PROGRESSIVE MUSIC The particular (and only) point that I am making is that MOTR possesses SOME (but not all) of the characteristics that define PROGRESSIVE MUSIC. However, this does NOT mean it qualifies as being PROGRESSIVE MUSIC, because it does not possess all the other characteristics that define PROGRESSIVE MUSIC. HERE is the definition of PROGRESSIVE MUSIC as specified by www.ProgRockandMetal.net: WHAT IS PROGRESSIVE MUSIC? (CLICKABLE LINK) And HERE is the relevant listing of all the characteristics that define PROGRESSIVE MUSIC (as stated by www.progrockandmetal.net): 1) Longer songs (or “epics”) 2) Time changes  (e.g., odd time signatures) 3) More complex, sophisticated instrumentation and compositions 4) Superior vocals 5) More complex conceptual ideas / Heightened, lyrical content Since my only point here is that: MOTR possesses SOME (but not all) of the characteristics that define PROGRESSIVE MUSIC ....the opposing argument is in fact: MOTR does NOT possess ANY (not a single one) of the characteristics that define PROGRESSIVE MUSIC whatsoever; i.e. it is the ANTITHESIS of PROGRESSIVE MUSIC THESE are what the two options for this POLL need to be, if you are indeed interested in putting this matter to bed. AND most importantly you need to make very clear to everyone that you are NOT asking whether or not MOTR is PROGRESSIVE MUSIC, as we are all agreed that it is NOT! Okay?   And for what it's worth, with respect to CRITERIA NUMBER 1, namely "Longer songs (or “epics”)" HERE are MEAN SONG LENGTHS for the various music genres: pop song = 3:30-4:00 rock song = 3:45-4:30 hip hop song = 3:45-4:45 progressive rock song = 4:50-6:30 punk song = 2:30-3:00 metal song = 4:00-5:00 It should be noted that 8 OUT 11 of the tracks on MOTR are 4:50 - 7:00 in length, wherein this clearly qualifies CRITERIA NUMBER 1 (Longer songs (or “epics”)) for starters... Back to top

El Mystico Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: Dec. 2005 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 11:56 You're a funny man, ScienceGuy. You write: "my only point here is that: MOTR possesses SOME (but not all) of the characteristics that define PROGRESSIVE MUSIC" The poll question was "MOTR contains characteristics of progressive music" Note - the question does not say ALL the characteristics. By implication, it is some. (It's just like when you wrote "All genres of music can have progressive characteristics"  - you didn't mean ALL the characteristics, just some). If you really think my question wording was wrong, I challenge you to ask a poll using your own wording. Of course, you won't. Because you and both know the outcome. Still, the poll has met its main objective which was to move the "progressive" discussion to a separate thread. Back to top

equinoxe Group: Members Posts: 175 Joined: Aug. 2011 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 12:21 Well, let's take Daft Punk's - Giorgio by Moroder track (sorry for the choice, i know it's different genre, but i want to show something by this). It's about 9 minutes long, it has time changes (actually you can split it into three parts), complicated drums on the second half and overall some attractive instrumentation and interesting "vocals" . And by the way it's real instrumentation - real drums, guitars, some analog synths - has this track contain a progressive elements, and is this a progressive music? And the same thing with track called Touch and a few more from new Daft Punk (the album is amazing for me BTW). The point is - how all those characteristics interact through all the track. If you compare Taurus 2 with Castaway you will notice how different those tracks are - and by definition both tracks has a progressive elements, but what do you think what track can be admittelly called progressive? Back to top

El Mystico Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: Dec. 2005 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 12:46 When you say that both tracks have progressive elements - actually, you are agreeing with what ScienceGuy is now saying. He is now claiming only that MOTR contains some progressive elements. He is not not claiming it is progressive music. Of course, this is different from his earlier posts that caused the head scratching, when he wrote about the album's "progressive instrumental music" and talked of its "progressive nature". But still, he would probably claim that chalk contains some of the characteristics of cheese. After all, they are both creamy coloured. Back to top

GusFogle Group: Members Posts: 198 Joined: July 2011 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 13:08 Quote (scienceguy @ Mar. 08 2014, 11:26) 1) Longer songs (or “epics”) 2) Time changes  (e.g., odd time signatures) 3) More complex, sophisticated instrumentation and compositions 4) Superior vocals 5) More complex conceptual ideas / Heightened, lyrical content Can you please list which of the above characteristics (or other unlisted progressive characteristics) you feel MOTR possesses? 1. Longer songs (epics) There are certainly no "epics" on MOTR. Especially compared to Amarok or Incantations. Song length is only a small factor is how progressive music is anyway. Take ELP's Karn Evil 9 Impression 1, part 2 for example (the one that starts "welcome back my friends"). Its only about 4 minutes, the length of a typical pop song according to you but it contains all the usually associated elements of progressive rock, such as virtuoso musicianship, complex time signature changes and harmonic arrangements, etc. 2. Time signature changes and odd time signatures Not too much of this at all on MOTR. Most of the music is in traditional time signatures such as 4/4, 3/4, and 6/8. 3. Complex and sophisticated instrumentation and compositions Subjective to a certain degree, but compositionally these pieces are not very complex especially compared to many of Mike's songs. Almost every piece here is written diatonically, with few accidentals and few harmonic surprises (Moonshine is one exception but we must remember this track is basically a reworking of something written 20 years ago). Five Miles Out (the song) contains a lot more complex harmonization and arrangement than anything on this album. As far as instruments, you have the typical rock combo of drum kit, keyboards, bass and guitars, with a few ethnic instruments such as fiddle thrown in. I don't think instrumentation is a legitimate factor in how progressive something is anyway. You can create progressive music with ordinary instruments such as just piano bass and drums, as seen by the music of artists such as Hiromi Uehara. 4. Superior vocals Again subjective. In terms of vocal complexity, there is nothing superior here. The guys in Yes and Queen took vocal complexity and harmony to new levels. There is none of that here. Just monophonic vocal lines with little or no harmony overdubbed. The presence of the background singers is rarely detected. 5. Complex conceptual ideas and heightened lyrical content Do we really need to go there? We know the thesaurus is Mike's best friend. He obviously tried hard on this album to write good lyrics but he is never going to be a poet in the traditional sense. Back to top

scienceguy Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: Aug. 2012 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 13:31 Quote (El Mystico @ Mar. 08 2014, 12:46) When you say that both tracks have progressive elements - actually, you are agreeing with what ScienceGuy is now saying. He is now claiming only that MOTR contains some progressive elements. He is not not claiming it is progressive music. Of course, this is different from his earlier posts that caused the head scratching, when he wrote about the album's "progressive instrumental music" and talked of its "progressive nature". But still, he would probably claim that chalk contains some of the characteristics of cheese. After all, they are both creamy coloured. Oh here we go... THANK YOU for confirming what I already suspected, namely that you have in fact fully understood what I have been saying all along and in fact are just being deliberately obtuse and obnoxious. You know very well that I am not "NOW CLAIMING" anything different than I have all along... please feel free to quote anything that I have said that supports your invalid claim, because you won't be able to. You also know very well that I have never in fact ever stated that MOTR is PROGRESSIVE MUSIC or PROGRESSIVE ROCK... I have only used the word PROGRESSIVE adjectivally, wherein I was very very clearly referring to SOME but not ALL of the CHARACTERISTICS that define PROGRESSIVE MUSIC; and this was as part of my entirely valid point regards why the MOTR INSTRUMENTAL tracks have enough complexity to stand in their own right as great INSTRUMENTAL TRACKS without sounding like KARAOKE.   You also know very well that by wording this ridiculous poll question as "MOTR contains characteristics of progressive music" that everyone and anyone would infer the meaning to be ALL the characteristics... Now why don't you act your age. This isn't the school playground. It takes two to tango my friend and I am not dancing. If anyone else wishes to ask a valid question of me or have a sensible discussion then I am of course at your service Back to top

El Mystico Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: Dec. 2005 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 13:40 Well argued. I'd go back to ScienceGuy's original posts on this subject. Where he says "The Man On The Rocks INSTRUMENTAL Album is Oldfield at his best." It's a valid opinion. I don't agree with it - it doesn't stand comparison with TB, HR or O. But his key point was that the instrumental album was well worth listening to, and more than just a karaoke backing. It's just a bit sad that, in his excitement, he said it was of a progressive nature. And even sadder that he is now just digging a deeper hole for himself. Particularly since I agree with him, that the instrumental album is worth listening to. Which, I think, is all he really ever meant to say. Back to top

scienceguy Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: Aug. 2012 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 13:47 Quote (GusFogle @ Mar. 08 2014, 13:08) Quote (scienceguy @ Mar. 08 2014, 11:26) 1) Longer songs (or “epics”) 2) Time changes  (e.g., odd time signatures) 3) More complex, sophisticated instrumentation and compositions 4) Superior vocals 5) More complex conceptual ideas / Heightened, lyrical content Can you please list which of the above characteristics (or other unlisted progressive characteristics) you feel MOTR possesses? Very happy to do so It is quite simple. My singular point here is that INSTRUMENTAL MOTR possesses some PROGRESSIVE CHARACTERISTICS that make the INTRUMENTAL VERSIONS work very well in their own right as INSTRUMENTAL TRACKS, without sounding like KARAOKE. In a nutshell, I consider MOTR to possess elements of 3 and 5; namely: "More complex, sophisticated instrumentation and compositions" and "More complex conceptual ideas" 1, 2 and 4 are in fact irrelevant to my point, so I do not see any point discussing whether they are applicable or not... even so, as it happens I pretty much agree with your perspective. And for what it's worth, it is very clear from my previous posts that I have not changed what I am saying at any point; and hence that this is what I have been saying all along. Back to top

El Mystico Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: Dec. 2005 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 14:00 'More' than what? Three blind mice? Back to top

scienceguy Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: Aug. 2012 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 14:11 Quote (El Mystico @ Mar. 08 2014, 13:40) Well argued. I'd go back to ScienceGuy's original posts on this subject. Where he says "The Man On The Rocks INSTRUMENTAL Album is Oldfield at his best." It's a valid opinion. I don't agree with it - it doesn't stand comparison with TB, HR or O. But his key point was that the instrumental album was well worth listening to, and more than just a karaoke backing. It's just a bit sad that, in his excitement, he said it was of a progressive nature. And even sadder that he is now just digging a deeper hole for himself. Particularly since I agree with him, that the instrumental album is worth listening to. Which, I think, is all he really ever meant to say. I am calling you out buddy... Like I have already said, you have in fact fully understood what I have been saying all along and are now (for reasons unknown) just being deliberately obtuse and obnoxious. HERE is is a post of yours from TWO DAYS AGO that demonstrates this: Quote (El Mystico @ Mar. 06 2014, 15:52) Be fair; as he's pointed out, he isn't talking about Prog rock. I'd misunderstood. He's saying the instrumental component is 'progressive'. He then defines progressive as 1) Longer songs;Lengthy instrumental passages;3) More complex instrumentation. 4) More complex conceptual ideas. Now, frankly I've heard Fleetwood Mac songs with lengthy instrumental passages and more complex instrumentation, so still would disagree. But compared with, say, Spice girls, yes, it is more complex. But his key point is that the instrumental CD is more than karaoke - it is sufficiently interesting and rich to be worth listening to in its own right. And that's a valid opinion. So there you have it, you have known for DAYS exactly what my point is... Like I said this isn't the school playground. So grow up and act your age. I have no idea what it is that you are trying to achieve here, but your deliberate antagonism is not going to work. Sorry! Back to top

El Mystico Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: Dec. 2005 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 14:26 Oh, cool! I'm delighted that you recognise that I'm trying to appreciate your basic point: "it is sufficiently interesting and rich to be worth listening to in its own right." As you know, however, what everyone here is calling you out on is the idea that this album has progressive characteristics. Which, it seems, no one here agrees with. And, in particular, your claim that it is IN NATURE progressive.  As you claimed in your original posts, but have not subsequently defended. I note you didn't post a poll with your chosen wording. So at this point I call "TROLL" . Which is a pity, because it would have been interesting to discuss which were the most interesting instrumental tracks. Back to top

scienceguy Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: Aug. 2012 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 15:01 Quote (El Mystico @ Mar. 08 2014, 14:26) Oh, cool! I'm delighted that you recognise that I'm trying to appreciate your basic point: "it is sufficiently interesting and rich to be worth listening to in its own right." As you know, however, what everyone here is calling you out on is the idea that this album has progressive characteristics. Which, it seems, no one here agrees with. And, in particular, your claim that it is IN NATURE progressive.  As you claimed in your original posts, but have not subsequently defended. I note you didn't post a poll with your chosen wording. So at this point I call "TROLL" . Which is a pity, because it would have been interesting to discuss which were the most interesting instrumental tracks. WOW   You do realize that YOU are the one who has been (and still is) attacking ME right? So how in what universe does that make me a TROLL? Which part of "I am not dancing" did you not understand? I am not going to fight with you. For what it's worth I don't need to defend anything. You already know (and in fact have known for DAYS) what my point is (as I have just demonstrated)... If you disagree that MOTR has any PROGRESSIVE CHARACTERISTICS and hence are of the view that it has absolutely NO PROGRESSIVE CHARACTERISTICS whatsoever and hence is the ANTITHESIS of PROGRESSIVE MUSIC, then I respect your opinion and would ask that you respect mine, and let's agree to disagree. If everyone else concurs with your perspective, then it looks like I am in the minority and everyone agrees with you and disagrees with me... in which case, I respect everyone's opinions as well as yours, but I will still stand by my opinion regards MOTR possessing elements of PROGRESSIVE CHARACTERISTICS 3 and 5. Sure, this might mean that they are only 'more complex' as compared with The Spice Girls, but sufficiently so nonetheless that they stand in their own right as INSTRUMENTAL TRACKS without sounding like KARAOKE. I trust we can put this matter to bed once and for all, as there is absolutely nothing further to say regarding this matter. Back to top

oldfield_fan Group: Members Posts: 198 Joined: May 2001 Posted: Mar. 08 2014, 16:16 Please, show some respect and stop with these personal attacks. It's not acceptable to call anyone a troll. Back to top

El Mystico Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: Dec. 2005 Posted: Mar. 09 2014, 07:17 Good call. I apologise for suggesting you are trolling. From one Oldfield fan to another. Back to top

Nezzico Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: Aug. 2012 Posted: Mar. 09 2014, 07:37 Does "Man of the Rocks" really needs the "award" progressive rock?  Maybe that has been, what some fans expected, when Mike announced a "Rock" album. This wish doesn't come true. Instead it is imo a feelgood pop-rock album, something more unusual for the year 2014. This music is highly welcome by a lot of people. A sign that pop-rock with some folk elements was missed for a long time. The attribute "progressive" stands for some kind of intelectual quality, but isn't really a garanty for a masterpiece. On the other hand also a pop-album could be a masterpiece as well, although it is more usual that it brings more easy listening, good feeling and commercial succes. Both kinds of targets has there entitlement. In different areas of his life Mike delivered different expectations - both of those. After his exegesis experience - something in Mike changed totaly, so that has been the end of an era, which I dont believe, that it is possible again - in the exactly same way.   Well, changes are part of everyones life and there is no way to avoid them. Creativity and genius are not self-evidence, and they usually happens in moments, not in a whole life granted in the same kind of way. The base for progressive music is a kind of critical thinking, a revolution against the usual ways. The young Mike fits to that kind of thinking. Already for a long time, his relation to his music has changed - and still it does. Its a kind of all time moving process. And when his genius will maybe shine again in future the heaven is open for all kind of possibilities in which way he will do it. Progressive or not - we will see it ... then. Back to top

CJJC Group: Members Posts: 210 Joined: Aug. 2010 Posted: Mar. 10 2014, 14:53 Well, this is fun. -------------- IMHO Back to top

Jesse Group: Members Posts: 394 Joined: Aug. 2007 Posted: Mar. 10 2014, 16:12 Quote (scienceguy @ Mar. 08 2014, 13:31) Quote (El Mystico @ Mar. 08 2014, 12:46) When you say that both tracks have progressive elements - actually, you are agreeing with what ScienceGuy is now saying. He is now claiming only that MOTR contains some progressive elements. He is not not claiming it is progressive music. Of course, this is different from his earlier posts that caused the head scratching, when he wrote about the album's "progressive instrumental music" and talked of its "progressive nature". But still, he would probably claim that chalk contains some of the characteristics of cheese. After all, they are both creamy coloured. Oh here we go... THANK YOU for confirming what I already suspected, namely that you have in fact fully understood what I have been saying all along and in fact are just being deliberately obtuse and obnoxious. You know very well that I am not "NOW CLAIMING" anything different than I have all along... please feel free to quote anything that I have said that supports your invalid claim, because you won't be able to. You also know very well that I have never in fact ever stated that MOTR is PROGRESSIVE MUSIC or PROGRESSIVE ROCK... I have only used the word PROGRESSIVE adjectivally, wherein I was very very clearly referring to SOME but not ALL of the CHARACTERISTICS that define PROGRESSIVE MUSIC; and this was as part of my entirely valid point regards why the MOTR INSTRUMENTAL tracks have enough complexity to stand in their own right as great INSTRUMENTAL TRACKS without sounding like KARAOKE.   You also know very well that by wording this ridiculous poll question as "MOTR contains characteristics of progressive music" that everyone and anyone would infer the meaning to be ALL the characteristics... Now why don't you act your age. This isn't the school playground. It takes two to tango my friend and I am not dancing. If anyone else wishes to ask a valid question of me or have a sensible discussion then I am of course at your service Just curious, but why do you put emphasis on so many words? Ontopic: I don't care so much for labeling music Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ] Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net