Talk:Post-rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Electronic music (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon Post-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Regional scenes?[edit]

Why no mention of east-London/Essex? That's where Post-Rock was bloody BORN! (Talk Talk / Bark Psychosis / Disco Inferno ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.22.29 (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

weak analytical foundation[edit]

the categorization of bands and genealogy of the term "post-rock" seems to me arbitrary. in fact, the whole article should be restructured. we should pay more attention to the distinction of bands that...

1. were formative for the aesthetic definition of the term, but did not identify themselves with a particular genre (bark psychosis, tortoise, mogwai)

2. operated in the past and have been labeled as post-rock after the emergence of the term (talk talk etc.)

3. explicitly refer to a tradition of post-rock bands (this will destroy you, capsian, mono etc.)

one should distinguish between the attribution of the term by the media, the self-definition of bands and the actual aesthetic appearance. at the moment, these things are still mixed up. everyone who has spent some time dealing with this sort of music could object to every second sentence. most important: there is not "decline" of the genre, just further confusion about how to map a very vital and diverse musical landscape. just have a look on myspace. in the last 12 month literally hundreds of bands emerged, which describe themselves as post-rock. i think the term is more present than ever before.

i think the article should be restructured and rewritten. since i am a n00b on wikipedia, i'm not sure how to do that, without offending the original creators of this text. please help.

best, alexander

  • I fully agree that the post-rock article is pretty bad and should be re-vamped. It should also be mentioned that 'post-rock' technically has been around for ages, and examples of this should be noted in the 'Early Precedents'-section; it wasn't before someone influential coined it as a term, that it gained accepted as some sort of movement, or scene, or musical approach. I also think that Reynold's post-rock definition should be noted in the intro of the article, instead of mentioning which instruments are used in post-rock, as instruments used in post-rock are a wide, wide variety; and this should be mentioned in a side-note. It should be made clear that post-rock, in the first place, is more of an idea, or an approach to making music, than it is a genre. (And it should probably be mentioned that despite this, post-rock developed a certain 'sound' with its 2nd wave).
  • Lastly, I can't believe that Wikipedia still calls 'alternative rock' a genre. It is an umbrella term considering genres and movements with its roots in various independent music-scenes, generally associated with american scenes (but some, like indie rock, has its roots in britain).

Relation to prog-rock?[edit]

I can't really see much that distinguishes post-rock from Progressive Rock. There are many striking similarities: long compositions (many of which are entirely instrumental), fusion of rock with classical and world influences, much attention to timbre and harmonics, use of percussion not limited to a traditional drum kit, fusing "holistic" sounds to create a "soundscape", use of electronics, long intros, "concept" songs/albums, occasional use of strange time signatures... I remember when I first heard many of these post-rock artists, I asked myself "Hasn't this already been done by pink floyd, king crimson, et al?"

Perhaps we should include a brief paragraph that mentions these similarities, and also points out what differences there are between the two genres (if any).

65.195.133.120 14:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)BC

  • Umm... First of all, post-rock has no classical influences at all. Also, there are little to none concept albums in post-rock. (At least in the classical sense of the term. No storytelling. GYBE's collages of found sound are an entirely different matter.) The "soundscapes" in post-rock are influenced by minimal, ambient, trance and, generally, electronic music, not prog-rock. Most importantly, post-rock is firmly rooted in post-punk (taken as adjective, not as a genre name) musical scene, and shares its ethos and priorities, which are entirely different from prog-rock's.
  • As for other characteristics... Sure, had it existed in the 70s, post-rock would be invariably treated as prog-rock's subgenre. But since then the term prog-rock has evolved to mean the specific sound developed back then, and the times when any non-jazz/non-classical recording not conforming to the constraints of popular music format was automatically classified as progressive are long gone. The relation to krautrock (prog rock's subgenre) is specifically mentioned, and that's pretty much all that's revelant and needed here. But, sure, it would be no surprise if prog-rock fans "adopted" the post-rock style as one of their own, I know it's happening sometimes and, if the trend is significant, it obviously deserves a mention. Squeal 13:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


    • Well, I'm not so sure about some of that. First off, you mention that "post-rock has no classical influences at all" which is obviously incorrect due to GYBE.
      • Well, I can't recall a time they said anything about classical music being influential in their work. In fact, it's precisely them among the post-rock bunch who cherish their punk roots the most, strange as it may sound.
        • Gy!BE were directly influenced by Swans were directly influenced by Glenn Branca, that was a classically trained musician, and attempted to fuse classical with rock in his The Ascension-era work (and later too in his symphonies). The Ascension's drone-y crescendos are very prominent in Gy!BE.
      • Still, even if the above was true (and it's not) - one band, especially a border case like GYBE, can't be taken as an example of the entire scene. ASMZ, for example, has actual, strong klezmer music influences. Does that mean that post-rock is influenced by klezmer music? Squeal 09:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You also mention that the soundscapes are influenced by electronic music, which is also the case with much prog-rock due to their knowledge of musique concrete and stockhausen etc. In fact, you say one of the electronic influences of post-rock is "ambient"... the term ambient music has its roots in music made by Brian Eno and Robert Fripp from King Crimson (which is a progressive rock band).
      • Yes, yes. But I also argued that the fact that krautrock (you can insert ambient or minimalism here as well) has a visible influence on post-rock doesn't mean that prog-rock (classical music) as a whole has had a direct influence on it. In fact, if it was true, we'd also have to say that it influenced electronic dance music (strangely, someone actually did write that about techno, I'll have to correct that. :), for example. (On a side note - note how quickly ambient was recognized as a distinct genre - yes, it certainly grew out of prog scene, but otherwise had little to do with it.) Squeal 09:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, is it worth noting that many post-rock bands have been kind of brushed aside by critics and the general listening population, relative to prog-rock. Prog-rock was huge, especially with Pink Floyd. This is, of course, my own POV, but I think post-rock's fanbase is limited by people who have heard every Floyd/Crimson/Tull/etc song, and who see post-rock as a bunch of recycled tricks. 128.59.26.132 16:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't think they've been brushed aside. At this point they mostly didn't even come out of the indie scene to begin with. Those who do, like Sigur Rós, are, in fact, usually highly praised (but, well, Sigur Rós has more direct alternative influences (shoegaze)).
      • Also, I'd actually argue that the lack of ability to see a new quality in post-rock music is what shows the difference of tastes between the prog-rock and indie-rock crowd and points to where post-rock actually belongs. ;) I've certainly heard criticism of that kind aimed towards GYBE, for example (not even from a prog-rock fans), but have doubt that it can be aimed towards the genre as a whole - it would be harder to dismiss Tortoise (band), Tarwater, or the aforementioned ASMZ and Sigur Rós on a similar note...
      • But we digress, so, back on topic - as I said earlier, prog-rock fans' reaction to post-rock obviously deserves a mention in the article. :) Squeal 09:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Although I listen to post post-rock and prog-rock, I do not see that post-rock has "stolen" anything from progressive bands. All music and its composers use ideas inspired by others. I just don't see how that should be credited to fans of prog-rock. Days will chase 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        • You can't just say that because post-rock and progressive has some similar instruments and are influenced by the same genres and they have lengthy songs etc, they are similar. Sound-wise, they are only vaguely similar. It's so typical of prog-fans to try and lay claim on other genres, like math rock......

Gybe[edit]

why is it relevant that gybe is political

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 23:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
sorry
It is relevant, only not here. I say remove. Phlebas 01:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I beg to differ. GYBE is all about politics. In fact, they are one of the few acts that do put their money where their mouths are. Efrim, of that group refused to grant interviews (except of one or two very rare occasions), they refused Oliver Stone's attempt to insert their music into a film that they though was inappropriate. They state repeatedly that "While GYBE is guilty of profiting from hateful chain stores" they prefer that patrons of their music avoid purchasing their music through that means. This is a band that could have profitted by more exposure through commercial advertising and outlets yet chose not to. Piercetp 18:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Vacant[edit]

That The Vacant band listed has not even released an album and they already feel they must be in Wikipedia? Their article has been voted for deletion. Remove them from here also! - User:Dalegrett, April 10, 2005.


alternative origins?[edit]

Not that I pretend to know about too much about rock music (worse, I can't cite sources), but I read in some booklet about rock in Mexico that Jorge Reyes (a Mexican, of course, and not the Cuban this link refers to) coined the term "post rock" in the mid '80s. For me, his music is as new age as I bear to listen to, but it certainly fits the technical description about the use of the guitars.

Adding more as the Wikipedias expand: Jorge Reyes is in fact this musician, formerly of the band Chac Mool. Since Simons Reynolds' claims to coining the term in 1994 is now relegated to its proper status, maybe someone with more knowledge can have a closer look at post rock's prehistory?

klaus

How is post-rock electronica?[edit]

Are there some post-rock bands which are electronica? That really defeats the point of the 'rock' moniker...

The name post-rock implies that it is not rock, but something that follows it. So yeah, post-rock electronica isn't too farfetched. Timothyreal 07:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"The name post-rock implies that it is not rock, but something that follows it." No, post-rock is a genre of music that uses instruments commonly used in rock music for non-rock purposes, as opposed to power chords or riffs. So it definitely isn't electronica. --Macarion 23:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Being electronic is not a feature of the genera but there are a number of bands that are both M83 comes to mind. Have look at post-rock on last.fm and click on a few of the bands that people have tagged post rock. Lots of them are also tagged electonic (though not as often electronica). For the example I listed M83's page on last.fm they get slightly mroe tags for electronic thatn post-rock but post-rock is the second and most the others are far down. None of the first wave of successful post-rock bands were (primarly) electronic but this is why Generas are so difficult they are not silos they mix and grow. Dalf | Talk 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Slight correction M83 is tagged indie a bit more than post-rock there are 4 taggs that seem to be clustered at the top (the 4th is elctronica). Dalf | Talk 02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The original Reynolds says early on that post-rock groups are "energised by developments in electronic studio based musics such as Techno and HipHop..." The technological aspect of some post-rock—the embrace of machines, samplers, MIDI, the studio, etc. that electronica obviously shares—is discussed extensively in the article. In fact, it is part of his original "definition" if we want to call it that. In the same paragraph that he is talking about "non-rock purposes" and "timbre and texture" he says:
Increasingly, post-rock groups are augmenting the traditional guitar/bass/drums line up with computer technology: the sampler, the sequencer and MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface). While some post-rock units (Pram, Stereolab) prefer lo-fi or outmoded technology, others are evolving into cyber rock, becoming virtual.
I think this side of the original view needs to figure more prominently in the article. Punctured Bicycle 09:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
While it is true that many post-rock bands use electronic effects and instruments it is not a characteristic of the genera. It is not found in all of them and even if it was the extent to which it is included is not to my mind sufficient to warrant adding the category. Dalf | Talk 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes to the Page[edit]

As you all have probably noticed, recent, drastic changes have been made to this page. That's ok. In fact, I like the new material put forth and how it has been divided into sections. However, I feel that this page is a mess now. There's no good opening to the entry, some info is the wrong sections, etc. Someone needs to work on this. Timothyreal 1:23, 28 September 2005


I'll do it if I have time. I'm concerned about the "expanding the sound" section. It basically reads like self-promotion of those bands. Anyone else agree it should be removed? Somrandomguy 4:27, 09 December 2005

I agree. While an "expanding the sound" section could be relevant, it just isn't working in its present state. As Timothyreal said, the whole article basically needs some re-organizing. I'll try to work on the page over my winter break if no one else gets around to it before then. Imaginaryoctopus 21:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I've been following (changes to) this page for some time, it's improving finally. Getting rid of the bands list was a good move. Maybe some pics would add a bit of juice to the article. Also, the connection between post-rock and classical music (e.g., Gorecki) could be explored. -- Cugel 10:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

When was the article better organized? I looked back to July and it appears about the same. Hyacinth 10:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking back through the history, it seems that the article wasn't necessarily organized better in the past, but the format it has taken now may be a bit confusing. For instance, back in July there weren't any real sections to the article. Now it has subsections, which I would say are an improvement, but some material in certain sections doesn't seem to fit. For instance, much of the last half of "birth of the scene" would probably look better in a different section.
Re-reading my previous comment, I suppose it might look like I want a complete overhaul of the article. That's not what I intended. The organization isn't bad now. However, I think maybe a section that would go chronologically between "birth of the scene" and "expanding the sound" - something from about 2000 on (Explosions in the Sky/Mono era). Or maybe this could be merged into "expanding the sound".
I tend to ramble, so, to sum up, my main two problems are:
  1. "Birth of the scene" contains too much material that doesn't fit.
  2. New bands in "Expanding the sound" aren't relevant.
Does anyone agree/disagree? Imaginaryoctopus 15:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with both of those analyses. I'd fiddle with some changes, but my knowledge post-rock isn't quite up to snuff for the task.

Somrandomguy 12:16, 21 December 2005

Mono[edit]

There are two different post-rock bands named Mono on wikipedia:

It'd be nice if somebody pointed the link from this page to the right one. It links to disambig page now. --Dijxtra 19:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The second is not a band but a DJ and is electronic/trance not post-rock. Or so I am told, I have some of his music here maybe ill listen and decide for myself. Dalf | Talk 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Rock genres[edit]

Post-rock isn't really considered rock, so it should be removed from rock genres. Electronica is a bit more acceptable, although not entirely correct. I'd say it falls much more nicely under experimental music.

Thoughts?

--What is considered rock anyway? In it's 50-ish years of existence it has really branched out.

I think it should stay in rock genres. I agree that it's not really rock; however, it's such a unique genre that it really doesn't fit anywhere. I'm in favor of it being included in several broad genres instead of being left completely on its own. And at any rate, some of the lines between rock and post-rock are being blurred anyway - some of the tracks on Mogwai's new album come to mind. Imaginaryoctopus(talk) 19:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I woudl disagree that it is not derived form rock (which is what it means to be a rock genera), I woudl call it instrumental rock for some purposes (see above for the electronica bit, most of the big post rock bands have no electronic instruments). Dalf | Talk 02:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, post-rock is considered rock music. While it isn't really rock, neither it is electronic music, nor jazz, nor anything else, so, since it grew out of the indie rock scene, we have no choice as to classify it as such, since its influence and popularity is too small to warrant awarding it its own distinct category. Case in point: krautrock, the godfather of modern electronic music, is regarded as rock to this very day. Squeal 13:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be considered rock, it's definitely not electronica. They all use the same instruments rock bands do, just in different ways. *shrug*
This is true, when talking about the genre as a whole. However, when looking at groups of bands, GSYBE and ASMZ and those linked to those two, verses the more electronic, Múm and M83 (both who are listed in the P-R list of bands page), you can see that it doen't belong fully in either "rock" or "electronica". GSYBE are definately not electronica and Múm is definately not rock. Days will chase 07:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

why dont leave it on world? as it is on their albums.. i mean on windows media player they clasify them as world


Why in the hell does everything have to be a genre? Why can't rock just be rock? Seriously. Listen to a rock radio station, do you hear rock and metal and post rock and prog rock and post-grunge and post-rock and nu metal and pop rock? In the course of a normal day, probably so. Come on, its just freakin' rock. Most of the bands that were called Grunge were pretty adamant they were just rock bands. Would you call Mother Love Bone pre-Grunge because they were one of the direct forebears of the Grunge sound? Stop with the damn genres already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.0.34 (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are these bands notable?[edit]

I've never heard of Yourcodenameis:milo or Hope Of The States, and they're listed as "relatively commercial" bands? Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but yeah. Why haven't I heard of them?--Anaraug 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, who is Boxhead Ensemble? The article makes them sound like they're very influencial and famous. If so, someone should make their link blue.--Anaraug 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree on Boxhead Ensemble, the section should be reworked (not just another band inserted in their place, I wouldn't think.) Moonty 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

References[edit]

This article is in serious need of some references. I'll start on that tonight. Moonty 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few references, but it doesn't seem complete. Adding a list of articles with links (on here, the talk page, not the article) for perusal.

Moonty 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Samples[edit]

Some samples are needed here. What would be best? Moonty 20:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd think a mixture of the more string, and movement based stuff, Godspeed!, ASMZ or something else alike. Maybe some of the more played stuff, Sigur Rós, Mogwai. Then, also some of the more electronica styled stuff, Múm, etc. Days will chase 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Review/discussion as to the merit of the inclusion of the following is needed:

The Silent Ballet has great coverage of current post-rock and instrumental artists. Already they have almost 150 reviews (with ten new posted every week), a great news feed, and a growing post-rock wiki of their own. It's a great resource for post-rock fans. 63.144.174.79 06:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I get a 503 error on The Silent Ballet now--but your reasoning is good. Also checked WP:EL, fits under those guidelines. ATPR doesn't, however. I support inclusion of The Silent Ballet (once the 503 is resolved, at least.) Moonty 14:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The Silent Ballet is working fine now; apparently they were updating their databases last week which is probably why you were getting errors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.164.170.58 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
Why did you delete the silent ballet link again? 24.164.170.58 16:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't--I deleted a link to IndieRockCafe posted by the user IndieRockCafe, obvious COI/Linkspam. The Silent Ballet is still there. Moonty 17:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Why has the after the post rock link been removed? I can't think why it shouldn't be there? Or the post rock wikipedia? (wiki.afterthepostrock.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.9.121 (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
after the post rock does not meet the WP:EL guidelines. Factual accuracy of forums is not consistent. I checked this new site "the silent ballet" and discovered they have a wiki with many bands and lots of bios. Many bios still need to be filled in by they have over 100 informative spots. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.1.212 (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Dec. 8 2006 reversion (God is an Astronaut)[edit]

I've made a reversion to an edit by an IP (see the history)--they included God is an Astronaut in a listing of bands that have used death metal-style vocals. Regardless of whether it is the case, the band doesn't seem to be notable in the genre -- and if it is, it needs to have an article written about it. This should carry over to other bands in the listing; are there any issues with this? Moonty 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, they do not use death metal-style vocals: the band is purely instrumental. I'd say they're talented but not notable as GYBE, EitS and so on... Doubt97 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubt97 (talkcontribs)

Seeing as how they have become quite notable in this genre (in fact having more traffic on Facebook than many other mentioned bands), I think it is about time they got a mention on the page. --122.169.67.231 (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt, traffic on Facebook means nothing to us. We need references from reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (see WP:V). If you can find quality sources, by all means add a mention in the article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Provo Post-rock[edit]

Noticed the changes made by anon-ip re: Provo scene being notable. I'm not so sure this is the case--as much as I'd like it to be so. Some discussion is warranted, at the very least. Some 'notable' (for the area) groups from Provo and the greater Salt Lake region:

*Theta Naught [2]
*Uzi and Ari (touring Europe, on MTV Europe) [3]
*Coastal [4]
*I Hear Sirens [5]
*On Vibrato [6]
*Pleasant Pictures [7]
*The Weak Men [8]
*Coup de Grace [9]

Removed text:

Another surprisingly prominent and unlikely "scene" today is that of Provo, Utah. Bands like Niobion, Coup de Grace, and most notably The Weak Men consistently sell out shows in Utah and other areas in the western U.S.

At any rate, more discussion is needed before such a change could be implemented or the scene considered notable. Moonty 14:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this movement is significant outside of quantity alone. Theta Naught should deserve a mention in the article though. The silent ballet has put them in the top 20 instrumental releases for 2006 (#11) and 2004 (#12). It would seem that they're one of the main proponents of improvisational post rock, along with Triosk (2006 (#5) and Pivot 2005 (#11). Maybe those articles themselves should be referenced? A subjective overview, yes, but possibly informative? (72.94.1.212 05:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC))
I personally don't think that element is significant in post-rock itself. Triosk is, at its base, a jazz band, their electronica and ambient influences blending into what could be seen as relevant to post-rock. Pivot, through its Tortoise influence could be labelled as post-rock, though in terms of improvisation, they have only one song with any improvisational element and that is, itself, borne out of their history as jazz players. Otherwise, they have strict song structures, and improvisation takes a relatively small role. 211.31.37.3 04:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What is all this nonsense about "identifying with the hardcore punk ethic, but not its sound"[edit]

This is the sort of bullshit I hate about this kind of music, whereas the actual music itself I can enjoy. Personal opinions aside, the articles Slint and Mogwai (band) seem to state this. Does this have any real meaning, or is it just some crap made up by the bands themselves? Is it truly relevant to articles on post-rock bands, almost all of whom seem to have this "leftist political ethic" (which is uncited in this article currently, yet it stands)? I think that GY!BE really did a lot to spread this idea of an 'ethic' associated with their music, even though it has nothing to do with it per se.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Such claims ought to be backed by a quote from the band that they in fact associate with this "hardcore punk ethic". I don't want to think that GY!BE has much to do with it, but what those bands themselves give off that idea with their artwork, what they say, etc. You wouldn't see it in Explosions in the Sky or múm, for example (at least I don't think so). –Pomte 11:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh hey again Pomte, do you want to add yourself to the list of users who are helping maintain the King Crimson article? I've nominated it for GA. As for what you said, GY!BE are the most obvious (Yanqui U.X.O. and its back cover denouncing the major music labels and their connections to arms manufacturers), but Mogwai too (on the Come On Die Young album, the song "punk rock:"). I'd be dubious about calling múm post-rock at all - I greatly like their debut album, but I'd say that they lean more towards electronica. Like somewhere between Aphex Twin and Sigur Ros, maybe?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Chamber music is rooted in leftist politics? Come on...that's got to go.

You're right, political views that promote freedom and choice only support one type of instrumentation. Punks are such hypocrites. 76.105.5.83 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed bit about explosions in the sky[edit]

Removed the following: The former in particular has lately been garning large amounts of fans from the traditional 21st-Century indie rock audience, as well as gaining more fame for performing the soundtrack to the film and successful television show Friday Night Lights.

Something of this nature would be fine on the Explosions in the Sky page, but actually says very little about post-rock as a subject, in and of itself. Now, if there were connections made to post-rock and its growing popularity, perhaps with some other groups shown to be growingly popular as well, I'd have no problem; indeed, I think this would be a wonderful addition. But, at any rate, it isn't this way; as such, I've opted to remove it.

moonty (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

no mention of the term "epic"[edit]

I think this article should mention something about the epic sound that many post-rock bands use, like the use of cymbal mallets over an intense crescendo. I know it talks about crescendos, but I feel the term epic needs to be incorporated because that is how many perceive the genre. Along with this trait, it could talk about how post-rock music today is frequently used in films and TV shows during montages and even finales. Of course, an expert on the subject would be nice. Thoughts? I know it's a very minor point... - tbone (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed: 'Common Instruments' misleading[edit]

I removed synthesizers from the common instruments...Most post-rock doesn't include synths - while there are effects used, it's rarely done with synths. There are far more string sections in post-rock (A Silver Mt Zion, GY!BE (and associated acts), Mono, Mogwai). I put synths in the other 'less common instruments' section - although I believe they shouldn't be mentioned here at all. It's 100% definitely not as standard an instrument as guitar, bass or drums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.91.54 (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Alternative rock?[edit]

Citation please. I feel post-rock is not derived from alt rock at all. Plus, it is not even listed in stylistic origins.. --71.203.149.71 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


The cited article at the top of the page explicitly refers to post-rock as a genre of progressive rock. Alternative rock isn't mentioned and as such there should be a separate citation if anyone continues to insist that post-rock is related to alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.246.104 (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Stylistic origins[edit]

I changed some of the genres represented here. Post-rock has nothing in common with alternative rock, and while post-rock may be a movement of the indie scene, it doesn't have anything in common with indie rock either. I added chamber music and minimalist music to the list as well. If anyone has any issues with the changes I made they can bring it up here and I can expand on my reasoning. bob rulz (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigur Ros's "limited radio play"[edit]

"[Sigur Rós's] most recent album, 2008's Með suð í eyrum við spilum endalaust, has even gained them some limited radio play and appearances on TV commercials."

What does "limited radio play" mean? I found out about Sigur Rós when I heard "Olsen Olsen" played on the radio in the early/mid 2000s (it was certainly before the release of Takk...). Another track of theirs I recorded off the radio (because I haven't found it on any of their albums nor on their website) around the time of the release of Takk. This was in Australia.

I don't want to be pedantic, but I simply don't understand what the significance or contribution of the "some limited radio play" is here. It might be that there's some in-group meaning of this term, but people who read this article might not be a member of that group..

Felix the Cassowary 12:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

2000s[edit]

I don't want to be the editor, but I feel there are a number of inaccuracies in this section. There exist a very large number of post rock bands currently using vocals (Ancestors, Black Math Horseman, Monkey3, Husky, Wooden Shijps, ...), Sigur Ros is mentioned too many times, radio play is unimportant in the era of the internet, and the movement is hardly obsolete when the fedora wearing hipsters of Silverlake/Echo Park here in LA listen to it constantly and pack the postrock shows that TeePee Records or other labels put on. Trendy would be a better word choice than obsolete (even though the author then goes on to contradict that point - it truly is unnecessary in the first place). And as for the "citation needed" warning, any copy of the LA Weekly would do. 71.130.130.61 (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Rock[edit]

How does it differ from progressive rock? Just later and even further from rock? Does it face the same anti-classical influences bias as progressive rock and metal have always faced inside the "Rock Establishment"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.148.120 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Possible earlier foundations[edit]

Through Warren Ellis' blog I found an article about the origins of the phrase "post-rock". The article shows literary uses of the phrase post-rock to describe music and musicians, some being as early as 1968. Can someone take a look into this? 137.99.178.237 (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find the term being used with various meaning since the invention of the term rock and roll. What matters is the definition that survived and became notable.

Different Rhythm, Harmonies, Melodies, etc[edit]

I've erased the part in the beginning, where it says that post-rock is "usingrhythms, harmonies, melodies, timbres, and chord progressions not traditionally found in rock". Part of it is simply not plausible (most post-rock music DOES have pretty much the same simple quadrupal meter and make use of the same musical scales as rock music does), and second - it exaggerates facts in order to come to the conclusion (all pieces of music differ in terms of melody; thus saying that post-rock differs from rock melodically is not pointing at a substantial difference, but at a fact that is generally true for all genres of music). --FaceInTheSand (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's sourced in the article, whereas your opinions are just that: opinions. If you think these factors aren't what sets Post Rock apart from other genres, then please provide an opposing reference and we can figure out how to write the article using contradicting sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not giving personal opinion, I'm pointing at an inconsistency between theory and what the article is saying. By the way, I read the sources thoroughly and none of them mentions anything about different chord progression, melodies, etc. "The Wire" article says that "Post-rock means (...) using guitars as facilitators of timbres and textures rather than riffs and powerchords". Texture refers to how melody, harmony and rhythm combine to form the composition; saying that that those three combine differently in rock and post-rock is correct; saying that rock and post-rock differ in rhythm, melody and harmony is not. --FaceInTheSand (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. I added back the mention of timbre and texture in the lede as well as rhythm because it's mentioned (and sourced) later on in the article. I didn't go through all of the sources, but if chord progression, harmonies, and melodies aren't mentioned then you're right, we shouldn't mention them at all. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we drop the pretension[edit]

It's rock, and it's psychedelic rock (or at least neo-psychedelic rock). This isn't a criticism of the page's name or anything (because that is how the genre is known), just a criticism of the article which repeatedly tries to distance post-rock from rock when that's totally ridiculous. None of the bands would agree with that, either. And the extreme psych-rock influences aren't mentioned? Come on. 24.189.46.33 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you suggest a source that says this? Woodroar (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)