Talk:Experimental rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Experimental rock is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Rock music (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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 (talkcontribs) 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)
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)


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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 07:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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":

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)