Joined: Aug. 2012
||Posted: Mar. 06 2014, 05:24
|Quote (knife edge @ Mar. 05 2014, 15:24)|
|These threads about MOTR being progressive (ah ah) are the funniest I've ever read in a forum.|
RIP progressive music.
|Quote (Olivier @ Mar. 05 2014, 14:30)|
|You're a troll or confusing buildup and progressive. At the risk of stating the obvious, totally unrelated: progressive = innovative, buildup = louder and louder|
|Quote (GusFogle @ Mar. 05 2014, 17:51)|
|If Man on the rocks is progressive rock, then Nena's 99 luft ballons is technical death metal.|
Since I have clearly offended you and other fans of PROGRESSIVE ROCK and other PURELY PROGRESSIVE music and since nobody appears to wish to honour my request to 'agree to disagree', to (hopefully) put an end to the entirely uncalled-for condescending sarcasm (and wholly inappropriate Ad Hominem name-calling), let me clarify matters.
Firstly, to the clearly very passionate fans of PROGRESSIVE ROCK and other PURELY PROGRESSIVE music (who are clearly outraged by my using the word PROGRESSIVE) I apologise if I have caused any offense by describing the INSTRUMENTAL component of MOTR as possessing PROGRESSIVE characteristics (which it does); wherein, this is precisely what I said:
|...the INSTRUMENTAL component comprises the same 'Classic Mike' progressive multilayered instrumental structure as his past purely instrumental albums|
So, did I in fact state that I consider INSTRUMENTAL MOTR to be PURELY PROGRESSIVE? NO I did NOT.
I have stated that INSTRUMENTAL MOTR has "the same 'Classic Mike' progressive multilayered instrumental structure as his past purely instrumental albums"
So are Oldfield's past purely instrumental albums ALL PURELY PROGRESSIVE? NO they are NOT. Some are, some aren't, and others are only partially PROGRESSIVE in nature, in that they possess some but not all of the characteristics of PROGRESSIVE MUSIC, as in this particular instance.
Therefore, please kindly note that my perspective is NOT that INSTRUMENTAL MOTR is a PURELY PROGRESSIVE music album. I have never in fact said this.
I repeat, I am NOT stating that INSTRUMENTAL MOTR is a PURELY PROGRESSIVE music album... I AM stating that it possesses some (but not all) of the characteristics of PROGRESSIVE music.
What I have actually done is use the word PROGRESSIVE adjectivally to describe the structure of the INSTRUMENTAL versions of MOTR as being similar to that of 'Classic Mike' INSTRUMENTAL compositions as part of my (continuing) argument why I consider them to be very good indeed in their own right as INSTRUMENTAL music tracks; and why they do not come off as sounding like KARAOKE despite simply having had the VOCAL track muted.
In the spirit of maintaining crystal clarity, the specific characteristics of PROGRESSIVE MUSIC that I consider INSTRUMENTAL MOTR to possess include as follows:
1) Longer songs;
It could be argued that this is applicable to some, but not all of the tracks; however, the fact of the matter is that 7 out of the 11 tracks are between 5 and 7 minutes in length, and this is most certainly significantly longer than the typical vocal Pop/Rock song.
2) Lengthy instrumental passages;
Lengthy instrumental passages are clearly present throughout INSTRUMENTAL MOTR
3) More complex instrumentation.
INSTRUMENTAL MOTR includes a wide array of ‘not-just-typical-band-type’ instruments, including the strange and unusual. This includes: Piano, B-3, Keyboard Synthesizers, Whistles, Violin etc. mixed in with the guitars and drums, thereby contributing to the PROGRESSIVE sound. Note MOONSHINE for example, where this is particularly prominent.
4) More complex conceptual ideas.
Note the unusual, clever, but highly effective way in which some of the various instrumental layers are introduced and combine together in extraordinarily effective complexity (as per with many past ‘Classic Mike’ purely Instrumental musical compositions)… take CASTAWAY for example. Note how the INSTRUMENTAL track starts solely with singular strange sound and how it then progresses thereafter, building in complexity in a highly unusual way. Etc. Etc.
So there you have it. INSTRUMENTAL MOTR most certainly possesses no less than 4 out of 6 of the characteristics that define music as being PROGRESSIVE.
Is it PURELY PROGRESSIVE? NO it is NOT. And I have never stated that it is.
Is it NOT PROGRESSIVE in any respect? Again, the answer is NO.
INSTRUMENTAL MOTR possesses some, but not all of the characteristics of PROGRESSIVE MUSIC. 4 out of 6 of the characteristics of PROGRESSIVE MUSIC to be exact.
I hope that clarifies my perspective on this matter for you and why and how I have used the word "PROGRESSIVE" adjectivally to describe INSTRUMENTAL MOTR.