|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?
Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland
Moderator
|
- #1
- Posted: 02/22/2016 16:01
- Post subject: Point of Discussion: "Experimental" Music
|
POINT OF DISCUSSION
This is Point of Discussion, a thread for people to discuss issues and topics related to music in a thoughtful and productive way. The goal of this is to make you think, to make you take a look at what you believe, why you believe it, and what others believe. Good discussion is the key to any society, and this is a place where, hopefully, that can be fostered. If you would like a certain topic to be discussed or question to be posed, PM me or post here and I'll toss it in when I can.
All of that being said, there are a few guidelines.
The Guidelines:
1. Don't be a dick - it's fairly simple, just be civil. Say what you want, believe what you want to believe, that's fine, just don't be a dick about it.
2. All opinions are welcome - no matter how unpopular you may think your opinion is (or how unpopular it eventually proves to be), post it. It's welcome. Just be prepared to defend that opinion if it's challenged.
3. There are no wrong opinions - like, it's literally impossible. These are opinions, so no matter how strongly you feel about it, it's neither right nor wrong, it's just an opinion, so keep that in mind.
4. The conversation can go anywhere - even if the discussion goes off of the original topic, that's fine. All kinds of tangents are possible, just try to keep it semi-relevant.
The Topic:
This topic courtesy of Satie:
| Satie wrote: | | I'm interested in how we conceive of "experimental" music. It seems like a lot of listeners have a threshold for "compellingly experimental" and another for "wank/pretentious/etc." I'm interested in where these goal markers are, how something being labeled experimental persuades or dissuades us from giving it a listen or repeat listens. I'm also interested if there's a way to come to a consensus of what exactly it means. For me, it seems like kind of a badge of honor that rock fans add to certain albums they consider of a higher caliber as far as complexity and presentation, etc. even when an album doesn't literally experiment with the sound of the genre it's in (for example, the past two Swans albums have followed largely the same blueprint; how, then, could both be literally experimental? what does it mean that we call them experimental rock?). |
_________________
2023 Chart
Early Psychedelic Rock
Electronic Chart
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
meccalecca
Voice of Reason
Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment
|
- #2
- Posted: 02/22/2016 16:22
- Post subject:
|
The term experimental is no doubt tossed around haphazardly. I think it all ends up being a matter of relatively. For a recent Swans record to be called experimental may not make much sense in relation to their own previous output, but within the context of traditional rock, it could definitely be perceived as experimental.
Should music have to be experimental in the context of the all of music history to labeled as experimental?
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Satie
|
- #3
- Posted: 02/22/2016 16:27
- Post subject:
|
| meccalecca wrote: | but within the context of traditional rock, it could definitely be perceived as experimental.
Should music have to be experimental in the context of the all of music history to labeled as experimental? |
To answer these in reverse, no, I think that being experimental within the parameters one chooses for their music (in a simplified way, their genre or scene, though obvious cases exist where there might be tension between where the band sees themselves and where listeners and critics do in that regard) is enough. My question is what makes Swans experimental. To me, they've grafted the rage of their industrial rock roots to the long-form structures of post-rock music that has been made with equally intimidating instrumental ensembles since at least the early '90s. And yet because post-rock was a radical departure once upon a time, they get the legacy label of experimental forever after. It's weird to me that a band could be playing with a 25-year-old sound and be said to be experimenting in any serious way, but maybe I'm missing something with Swans in particular that makes them radically different than other post-rock music.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
meccalecca
Voice of Reason
Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment
|
- #4
- Posted: 02/22/2016 16:43
- Post subject:
|
| Satie wrote: | | My question is what makes Swans experimental. To me, they've grafted the rage of their industrial rock roots to the long-form structures of post-rock music that has been made with equally intimidating instrumental ensembles since at least the early '90s. And yet because post-rock was a radical departure once upon a time, they get the legacy label of experimental forever after. It's weird to me that a band could be playing with a 25-year-old sound and be said to be experimenting in any serious way, but maybe I'm missing something with Swans in particular that makes them radically different than other post-rock music. |
Swans are obviously less experimental in context than they once were, partially because they opened doors in the noise rock world alongside Sonic Youth. So, yes their later release stand apart much less than they would have 20 something years ago. I think labelling them as experimental is partially a legacy tag, but I think they'll also maintained an ability to stand alone and separate themselves tremendously from imitators. There have been bands who have share similar song structures, and bands equally as heavy, but it's hard to find anyone quite the same. I have a hard time thinking of another post-rock band that really sounds all that similar to Swans.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Satie
|
- #5
- Posted: 02/22/2016 16:50
- Post subject:
|
| meccalecca wrote: | | I have a hard time thinking of another post-rock band that really sounds all that similar to Swans. |
So is experimental just another word for unique?
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
meccalecca
Voice of Reason
Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment
|
- #6
- Posted: 02/22/2016 17:00
- Post subject:
|
| Satie wrote: | | So is experimental just another word for unique? |
Not necessarily. Just responding to your own questioning regarding what makes them radically different from other post-rock.
I think for the most part, Swans carry the experimental label for their legacy, as you said. When they were doing this stuff early on, it was relatively experimental. I guess then you have to ask, if they continue doing somewhat the same thing over a couple decades with various tweaks, at what point does the descriptor "experimental" stop applying.
I believe a lot of the time "experimental" ends up just being used for works that stray from the standard and are a bit more jarring. Same thing happens across a bunch of genres. I think more abrasive works tend to get labeled as experimental, even if something really soothing is actually far more experimental in theory.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
SuedeSwede
Ognoo
Gender: Female
Age: 26
Location: On a cloud
|
- #7
- Posted: 02/22/2016 17:02
- Post subject:
|
I couldn't see any of the Swans' eras being labelled as "experimental" insofar as just being experimental whatever pure experimental can be considered as. Were they part of an uprising scene that experimented with rock (specifically post-punk)? Yeah, sure. Were they themselves experimenters? No, not really. So this really raises questions as to what makes a band "experimental" or even part of an experimental scene like no wave, and the truth is I couldn't really tell you what sets apart experimental and just unique or untried methods of music recording.
Another way of putting this is: since noise is such a big movement with a huge history, how is it that we can consider the newest of noise artists experimental, that don't really even experiment within its own genre.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Norman Bates
Gender: Male
Age: 51
Location: Paris, France
|
- #8
- Posted: 02/22/2016 17:05
- Post subject:
|
All music is experimental.
It can sound like a jest just thrown in for a little childish provocation, but ultimately I've come to believe it's true.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
craola
crayon master
Location: pdx
|
- #9
- Posted: 02/22/2016 17:09
- Post subject:
|
when i call a song i write "experimental", it just means that i'm experimenting with a technique, song structure, or etc. that i haven't before. it might not be cutting edge to any scene as a whole, but it's cutting edge on a personal level.
in that respect, i consider an artist "experimental" when they're pushing themselves to new horizons and are open to trying new things.
_________________
follow me on the bandcamp.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Satie
|
- #10
- Posted: 02/22/2016 17:11
- Post subject:
|
| SuedeSwede wrote: | | I couldn't see any of the Swans' eras being labelled as "experimental" insofar as just being experimental whatever pure experimental can be considered as. |
I don't think anyone's claiming that. People are calling them Experimental Rock.
| SuedeSwede wrote: | | Were they part of an uprising scene that experimented with rock (specifically post-punk)? Yeah, sure. Were they themselves experimenters? No, not really. So this really raises questions as to what makes a band "experimental" or even part of an experimental scene like no wave, and the truth is I couldn't really tell you what sets apart experimental and just unique or untried methods of music recording. |
I would hazard that experimental music almost needs to have a conceptual grounding and emphasis on challenging norms in music. Paul Simon might bring new elements to pop rock music, but it isn't done with the idea of subverting or radically altering how people appreciate or approach pop rock music. Likewise, I would say that the Beatles, despite literally experimenting quite often, were not really part of the "ethos" of experimental music as I perceive it. But this is the ground we end up on - I say poe-tay-toe, you say poe-tah-toe. My overall implication with this topic is that I think Experimental is a label that is vague to the point of uselessness, and I rarely see something labeled Experimental that someone more versed in that type of music might re-label. For some reason, rock fans, as I perceive it, in the internet age, have tended to "claim" certain artists like Radiohead who might just make moves to different genres of music but then are held up as experimental rock musicians instead of derivative IDM musicians.
| SuedeSwede wrote: | | Another way of putting this is: since noise is such a big movement with a huge history, how is it that we can consider the newest of noise artists experimental, that don't really even experiment within its own genre. |
like whom? the reason that things like EAI and Noise continue to get labeled experimental is because people are usually physically tinkering with different objects and/or software manipulations to literally create new timbres. yes, they have long histories, but the whole idea of both is to find and combine unique timbres, relate them to different spaces, etc. it's far less determinate than taking a page from the Godspeed You! Black Emperor Handbook of Forced Catharsis and adding a gong and some yelling.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 1 of 7 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
