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 standardize 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, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Progressive Rock (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock 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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Experimental rock is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Experimental rock:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

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 (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 (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 (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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)


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 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
Is the Pope Catholic?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • @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)
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)
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)


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