Talk:Experimental rock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timeline bias?[edit]

The timeline includes almost exclusively bands in the punk/post-punk/noise/industrial tradition, and almost nothing from the avant-prog/art-rock tradition. There's no Henry Cow, no Magma, no Gentle Giant, no Eno, no Amon Düül II, no Thinking Plague, no Ruins, no Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, no Charming Hostess. It's also missing extremely important and influential bands like Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, the Residents and Mr. Bungle. I'm not sure that it's actually possible to create a timeline like this that represents all types of experimental rock equally, but this one doesn't even come close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisible map (talk • contribs) 13:19, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Also, since when is Nirvana "Experimental Rock". The chart is misleading. I'm getting rid of it. Nlm1515 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The time line is inaccurate (since it lists bands few would consider experimental) and biased (since it only examines punk based styles of experimental rock music). Now normally if this were brought to attention, users could gradually add bands to the chart and remove non-essential ones. But then I thought about it, and I think the right think to do would be delete the timeline, because its completely redundant. The entire article is already organized chronologically, and lists bands by decades. We don't need to explain everything twice. So there it goes - I deleted it. Goodbye, crummy timeline. Nlm1515 22:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, seeing as he incorporated elements of Sonic Youth and Dinosaur Jr, already listed, with lyrical technique inspired by William S Burroughs, and succeeded massively with it, I'd say he's pretty experimental rock, certainly post punk. He wasn't as out there as say Can was, but I think he deserves to be up there with all the other post-punk bands, not only for being similar, but for bringing that sound to millions of people. I mean, it's debatable exactly how experimental is experimental, but I don't think the idea is too absurd. Also, where's Syd Barrett's Pink Floyd? Roger Waters can eat it, but Syd was very much in line with all these cats, Syd combined elements of Sun Ra and Keith Rowe with surf, rock, and pop, and later used James Joyce influenced lyrics in his solo work. I know for a fact he influenced at least all of the following - Can, David Bowie, Sonic Youth, Jesus and the Mary Chain, My Bloody Valentine, Blur, The Flaming Lips and The Mars Volta, so I think he's important as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.223.89 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Collective influencing post-rock? Maybe current post-rock bands, but Animal Collective did not start until 2000. Slint and Talk Talk are widely considered to be the first two post-rock bands.

This article is also missing important math rock bands like Don Caballero and Battles.

I would completely remove the section on Grunge, as well. None of those bands had any experimental tendencies, even though it was a new genre.

I think it's a little unfair to exclude Nirvana from experimental rock. The definition of experimental rock by its very nature changes over time. Just because Nirvana's unique combination of metal, post-punk and jangle-pop became popular in bastardized form through the next decade doesn't mean what they were doing at the time wasn't experimental. I'm not the biggest fan of grunge, but even Soundgarden incorporated odd time signatures and noise elements in their early music. If they could be considered experimental by today's standards, how are they not experimental for the 90s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.85.131 (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental =/= Avant-garde[edit]

There is an absolute delineation between the terms experimental and avant-garde. They are not used interchangeably in the context of other abstractions that they are used to categorize. Someone should seriously reconsider recreating this article. It is not factual. Experimental is used primarily to designate something as being "better" or breaking away from traditional form. Avant-garde is used primarily to designate that something is new or innovational and tends to account the importance of traditional form.

Again, revise. As of right now, this is an uncertain article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotsko (talk • contribs) 07:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is that the examples it uses for experimental rock acts are only on the brink of being experimental. Bands like circa survive, coheed and cambria, and glassjaw really aren't experimental, they just have experimental attributes, but really not very many. This article does need revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.71.132 (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As used in the musicological term experimental music, "experimental" means literally unpredictable music, even for the composer themselves, not just unorthodox music that breaks genre rules (which from a wider perspective isn't all that avant-garde to begin with, if these rules are sufficiently narrow). "Experimental" in this sense has very little relevance in popular music, where works are almost always composed or at least improvised intentionally by artists, rather than generated by a computer for example (see computer music, aleatoric music and indeterminacy (music)), and rarely challenge the definition of music as such. Worse, much if not most progressive rock (and chance is that most artists discussed here are in the same vein), while it often uses relatively avant-gardistic elements, from the perspective of mainstream rock music at least, isn't necessarily all that ground-breaking or even just unorthodox, especially compared to other progressive rock. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genre?[edit]

Given the fact that this article has one source, and that is not a very good one, can anyone present some evidence that this is a genre? All these acts might be experimental, but I do not see any evidence that they are in any meaningful way a genre. If not I will remove the genre infobox in a few days.--SabreBD (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the genre infobox since no evidence to support this was forthcoming. I also tagged the article for OR. If reliable sources are not forthcoming this may be going to AfD.--SabreBD (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic quote[edit]

Experimental rock is something of a catch-all label; being that there is no exact definition of what experimental rock is, I think it's a little inappropriate to define it in the lead as "diametrically opposed" to verse-chorus-verse. You could make a sizeable list of artists mentioned in this article itself who incorporate verse-chorus-verse into their songwriting. Regardless, AllMusic is an online database with questionable writing; I don't see why it should be considered an expert journalistic resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.85.131 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Experimental rock[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Experimental rock's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "RIAA":

  • From Hard rock: "RIAA Certifications". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 16 January 2010.
  • From Post-hardcore: "RIAA Gold and Platinum Searchable Database" Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved on February 20, 2009.
  • From The Rolling Stones: RIAA Gold & Platinum database. RIAA. Retrieved 4 December 2011
  • From Industrial music: "Searchable Database". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved October 28, 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite article from scratch[edit]

I am not willing to remake this article, but it is annoying that almost none of its contents are supported by anything, and that it has been that way for almost a decade. I trust nobody will miss it if I initiate a reboot? Here are the only sources I could find within 2 minutes.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mean Deviation is mainly about progressive metal, but does discuss experimental rock. This and this book include discussions of experimental rock. This and this have a list of articles pertaining to experimental rock.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book suggestion[edit]

User:Ilovetopaint considering how unfinished this page still is since you began overhauling it, might I suggest grabbing this other Bill Martin book—haven't read it, but it seems to provide a good overview going through the last several decades. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to go through it all and use it to try to round the page out historically before continuing to add preferential details to one (60s) section. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there's a lot you can read from it on Amazon, so I'll look at it a bit closer. It's already used as a source.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest The Wire and the book The Wire Primers: A Guide to Modern Music. Also books on krautrock, post-punk etc. and various publications on sites like Pitchfork or The Quietus. I think it would take less effort to just provide sources to the previous version of the article (from February 16) and introduce changes where necessary. Chilton (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"It would take less effort to ... provide sources" — about the same, actually, which is why it was never done.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"about the same, actually" — I think you grossly underestimate the effort and knowledge needed to write a satisfactory article on experimental rock. I also don't think it was a good idea to delete most of the article when 7 months later your rewrite doesn't even contain a single reference to most of the important developments. Chilton (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A verifiable article is invariably better than an unverifiable article (WP:V). If you believe there are more "important developments" to be added, then WP:PROVEIT. Complaining is not going to fill the article's gaps, and neither is vaguely suggesting that someone look through books they don't own.
Be a bit more specific here – which Pitchfork and Quietus articles? What important developments are missing? And what made them important?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a point in explaining why psychedelia, post-punk, noise rock or industrial were important. I think anyone who wants to write an article on experimental rock should already know these things. Chilton (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Pope Catholic?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you probably shouldn't be writing an article about the pope for others to read if you didn't yet know that he was Catholic. Chilton (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you're not supposed to be filling an article with claims that you can't substantiate – and that articles are supposed to be accessible for people who know nothing of the topic. For example: "Post-pronk jazz-rock is important. Notable examples are the Florals, Tank Rapper, Boy Conviction, and Soft Carwash." How is this informative to anyone? You can't just namedrop a billion bands and expect someone to have learned anything from it. Swap out the made-up names with any other from this page – no wave, post-punk, post-progressive – it will all be the same to a layman. You have to offer something more substantial. The article will be bloated and incoherent if you fail to use discretion like this.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we were talking about what the article lacks and you wanted me to explain to you what is missing and why it is important. Please don't change the topic like that. Chilton (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see now. Basically, it's not about explaining to me why psychedelia is related to experimental rock, it's about summarizing through sources. Now, where are the sources and what do they actually say? Because the authors can't be misrepresented, and the article can't drift into other topics. You could potentially bloat this article to death by loosely connecting hundreds of thousands of "experimental" rock bands to each other. It would be a mile wide for "experimental" rock music, but an inch deep for "experimental rock". In other words, WP:COATRACK.
Look at Art pop for an example of a properly-written genre article. Almost every source in it uses the term "art pop". If such discretion wasn't heeded, the article would look like "Pop music as an art form", since that's what most people think "art pop" is (it's not).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference between rock bands that are heavily experimental and experimental rock bands. Experimental rock is not some fixed historical genre that doesn't depend on the bands being rock bands and experimental. The bands mentioned in the previous version of the article weren't loosely connected, they were influenced by each other and could be said to form an experimental rock tradition (read up on the Nurse with Wound list, for example), but I guess you didn't know that. Chilton (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument for inclusion is as meaningful as this one:
"There is no difference between pop bands that are heavily artistic and art pop bands. Art pop is not some fixed historical genre that doesn't depend on the bands being pop bands and artistic."
Whatever point you're trying to make, it's failing. All you have to do is find something meaningful from sources that use the terms "experimental rock" or "avant-rock". If you can't do that, then reconsider the idea that maybe you don't know as much about "experimental rock" as you think you do. At the very least, at least familiarize yourself with WP:STICKTOSOURCE, WP:OFFTOPIC, and WP:TRUTH. If you continue with disruptive reverts, I will file a WP:3RR.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chilton: – Can you produce the pages that verify the content you added from Future Days and Rip it Up?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only have access to ebooks. I couldn't find Guru Guru and Popol Vuh being called "psychedelic" in Future Days, so I guess this could be changed. The rest is well-supported as far as I can see. I don't think it would be sensible to provide a page for every band mentioned, as you seem to require in case of no wave - they can be easily found by index. Chilton (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found the ebooks so I will try to fix up the issues myself. One way to find pages is to search the relevant text in Google books. It usually gives you a page number. Thanks for the contributions.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

I put a notice about the article here. Chilton (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to future editors[edit]

There was a longer version of the article that was basically deleted in February 2016 and that could be helpful in expanding the current version. Chilton (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want added that was lost from that version? Content like "the extremely improvisational and almost unclassifiable Can"? "Pink Floyd's "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun" was directly influenced by Egyptian music."? "Toward the end of the 1980s rap emerged into a mature, experimental phase"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's for others to decide, but I already mentioned that the article lacks material on psychedelia and industrial (and probably other things). Chilton (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so:
  • Psychedelic rock groups such as Fifty Foot Hose, the United States of America, Silver Apples, and Red Krayola introduced avant-garde electronic music into their songs. The sounds of Indian and Arabic music were also widely admired and adapted.
There's already a mention of Silver Apples in the article. We could probably include a footnote that explains what their experimental music entailed. Other potential sources: [1] [2] [3]
  • In Japan, experimental rock acts Merzbow, Keiji Haino, Hanatarash, and Boredoms started their careers in the '80s. In Germany, Einstürzende Neubauten built several instruments for their experimental industrial music. [...] The best-selling offshoots of the post-industrial scene have been industrial rock and metal; Ministry and Nine Inch Nails both recorded platinum-selling albums. Their success led to an increase in commercial success for some other industrial musicians; for example, the Nine Inch Nails remix album Further Down the Spiral, which included contributions from Foetus and Coil, was certified gold in 1996.
This page could establish a link between industrial and experimental rock.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding lead[edit]

Using this as a spot to copy and paste material from the body that can be summarized in the lead:

  • There was always experimentation in rock music, but it wasn't until the late 1960s that new openings were created from the aesthetic intersecting with the social.
  • In 1966, the boundaries between pop music and the avant-garde began to blur, and rock albums began to be conceived and executed as distinct, extended statements.
  • In the late 1960s, groups ... began incorporating elements such as avant-garde music, sound collage, and poetry in their work
  • [experimental rock contains] countertextural aspects ... calling attention to the very recordedness of the album
  • [After 1967] experimental rock [became] commercially viable music ... pop music and experimental rock were temporarily synonymous
  • By 1970, most of the musicians which had been at the forefront of experimental rock had incapacitated themselves.
  • [After the 1970s] ideas from the art world, including those of experimental music and the avant-garde, should be deployed in the context of experimental rock—were a key innovation throughout the decade
  • Germany's "krautrock" scenesaw bands develop a form of experimental rock that drew on rock sources ... as well as wider avant-garde influence
  • During [the late 1970s], funk, jazz-rock, and fusion rhythms became integrated into experimental rock music
  • Some groups who were categorized as "post-punk" considered themselves part of an experimental rock trajectory
  • The early 1980s would see avant-rock develop significantly following the punk and new wave, DIY experimentation, electronic music, and musical cross-breeding of the previous decade
  • the first wave of 1980s experimental rock groups ... had few direct precedents for their sound.
  • In the late 1980s, avant-rock pursued a "frazzled, psychedelia-tinged, 'blissed out'" aesthetic that differed from the self-consciousness and vigilance of earlier post-punk
  • During the 1990s, a loose movement known as post-rock became the dominant form of experimental rock
  • [there is] uncertainty with the term "experimental rock", and that "it seems like every rock band today has some kind of post-, kraut-, psych-, or noise- prefixed to their genre."

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Experimental rock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iadmc (talk · contribs) 18:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. No problem with grammar and spelling but the prose too often loses its focus and meaning. The second sentence starts "Artists aim to liberate..." Liberate what? We are not told. Then we get: "...most of its leading players had incapacitated themselves in some form". How? Presumably drugs/alcohol but this isn't addressed in the article. Next: "...new openings were created from the aesthetic intersecting with the social...". Yuk! It's even marked "jargon". Then: "...was released to a four-month chart stay..." Is that really how people speak? Why not: "...spent four months in the charts..."? And: "...inspired the trend of experimental rock as commercially viable music..." This clause is too loosely constructed and sounds more impressive than it actually is. Why not: "...inspired experimental rock musicians to attempt to make money from their music..."? Worst is the sentence starting "From then on, the ideas and work of British artist and former Roxy Music member Brian Eno...", which at that point breaks off into a massive aside by the end of which I'd forgotten what the context was.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Layout fine. The prose (thus WtW) is the problem as highlighted above. Also, "In the opinion of Stuart Rosenberg..." doesn't tell us who he is or why we should listen to him. (Perhaps the film director, Stuart Rosenberg?) Ditto "professor Kelly Fisher Lowe claims...", [Claims? Is her word in doubt?] "Author Doyle Greene identifies..." [another WtW...] and "author Barry Faulk writes...". Who are these people? We need to know, otherwise one could just quote some bloke's book bought in a second-hand book shop that didn't even make its advance back...
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Fine, if a bit over-complex for my taste.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Presumably the people I mentioned above are reliable. Some of the citations are from hard copies without e-versions, so I can't verify, which is another reason this is on hold... perhaps someone else can verify the sources?
2c. it contains no original research. Everything appears to be attributed to sources (aside from the "leading players had incapacitated themselves" bit in the lead which is a well-known enough fact but still needs citing, IMO).
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. As far as I can tell, all good.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Well rounded and to the point.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No problem here either.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. All good.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. A bit of vandalism but what article doesn't?
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All seems good. One is out of copyright; one is a cropped version of one from flickr; the third is a cropped version of one assumed by Commons to belong to the uploader.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All good.
7. Overall assessment. I can't in all honesty pass this article. If I find myself wanting to edit while reading, it can't be a Good Article. And there are too many places where I would edit as highlighted above. Indeed, I might come back and do just that! Hopefully next time...
  • 1b — This is per WP:INTEXT. Their statements are sorta subjective and difficult to paraphrase in Wikipedia's voice. Simply stating "Tte most groundbreaking group", for example, would be WP:PUFFERY. I think it would be awkward if the article spent every 2 sentences providing a bio for its sources. Every other issue you raised was a fair point, I'll try to address them.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah... I got a bit too knit-picking with 1b. The other points are important to address though. I'll give you a hand when I've time — Iadmc♫talk  23:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic does not automatically mean Experimental.[edit]

There is currently a Beatles overrepresentation. There's also a few other bands, that while great, are not Experimental Rock. The introduction with Beach Boys and Beatles to talk about studio techniques and how influenced later on is fine but that's where it should end. They were monumental bands for Art Rock and released a couple of psychedelic pop albums but they were not experimental. Sgt. Pepper's, Magical Mystery Tour and The Who Sell Out do not belong next to The Fugs, The Velvet Underground and The Mothers of Invention in an Experimental Rock article.

I would also replace their image in the 60's section (maybe with Velvet Underground). Look, I love The Beatles but there's some Beatlemaniacs shoving them everywhere... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMTWTFS (talk • contribs) 06:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Experimental_rock&oldid=1207327194"