post rock/math rock

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't have difficulty with labels at all, I have distaste for people feeling they have authority to;

A) Make them up.

and B) For no justifiable reason.

If anything, post-rock would therefore be the era, not the genre. They're rock bands, just a different kind of rock band. No need for "Post" anything.

Being "standard" in the eyes of many doesn't make it right.

Radiohead are an alternative rock band, if anything. Not what you said.

-AC

see, that's the thing. post and math were "made-up" for a justifiable reason...there were bands that couldn't be classified any other way. unless you just wanted to call them "alternative", but that's so non-specific as to be worthless. the fact that they're a different kind of rock band is the exact reason to need "post".

radiohead is indeed alternative rock, but that's a blanket genre. it encompasses things like grunge and post-rock and such.

VVD, i meant post as in reactionary, not as in actual postmodern rock.

Originally posted by manorastroman
see, that's the thing. post and math were "made-up" for a justifiable reason...there were bands that couldn't be classified any other way. unless you just wanted to call them "alternative", but that's so non-specific as to be worthless. the fact that they're a different kind of rock band is the exact reason to need "post".

Metal is a different kind of rock, but they gave it an individual name. 'Post' tends to make things a bit silly. Same way rock is 'post-blues', essentially.

Originally posted by manorastroman

VVD, i meant post as in reactionary, not as in actual postmodern rock.

Thought so. The name fits, but I don't like it much.

Anyway, GYBE are my favourite band of the genre, whatever we might call it.

metal is only a different kind of rock in that it uses the same instruments.

Originally posted by manorastroman
see, that's the thing. post and math were "made-up" for a justifiable reason...there were bands that couldn't be classified any other way. unless you just wanted to call them "alternative", but that's so non-specific as to be worthless. the fact that they're a different kind of rock band is the exact reason to need "post".

There are quite obviously ways to classify them besides the era they came from. Such as instrumental rock, which is more accurate than calling them post-rock, referring to the era.

It's better to be non-specific and correct, than try to be a pretentious idiot and specify a band wrongly, as you're doing.

Originally posted by manorastroman
radiohead is indeed alternative rock, but that's a blanket genre. it encompasses things like grunge and post-rock and such.

So? It's correct isn't it? Why go any further?

You're doing bands greater injustice by putting them in boxes than you are by saying they are something generally.

Originally posted by manorastroman
metal is only a different kind of rock in that it uses the same instruments.

Metal is distinguishable by the way those instruments are played and the way the music is composed.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There are quite obviously ways to classify them besides the era they came from. Such as instrumental rock, which is more accurate than calling them post-rock, referring to the era.

It's better to be non-specific and correct, than try to be a pretentious idiot and specify a band wrongly, as you're doing.

So? It's correct isn't it? Why go any further?

You're doing bands greater injustice by putting them in boxes than you are by saying they are something generally.

-AC

quit bucking the system. the problem with instrumental rock is that some post-rock bands, like slint, also have vocals. notice how i'm not calling you a pretentious idiot for mislabelling that.

and no, i don't think it's better to be non specific and correct. because that's worthless to everybody and everything, with the exception of your false sense of superiority.

...how am i doing bands injustice? if anything, it's an injustice to put radiohead in the same box as nickelback, another "alternative rock" band.

Originally posted by manorastroman
metal is only a different kind of rock in that it uses the same instruments.

Well, it's essentially the same music, except slightly different guitar and drums, and sometimes vocals. Even then, there is overlap. The difference is often only tone or theme. At extremes, certainly there is a big difference. The early metal bands such as Sabbath aren't miles away from rock at all, though. Some would call them rock.

Tool could be described as rock or metal, with a convincing argument in each case.

'Post-rock', though, literally is only the same in that it uses the same instruments. The dynamics are completely different.

excellent use of the word dynamics, i very much agree.

and sabbath metal is very close to rock, but most modern metal isn't. i would have a very hard time calling ion dissonance or opeth "rock".

Originally posted by manorastroman
quit bucking the system. the problem with instrumental rock is that some post-rock bands, like slint, also have vocals. notice how i'm not calling you a pretentious idiot for mislabelling that.

And a lot of those vocals, while there are lyrics, are indecipherable and often used purely as extra INSTRUMENTATION, like Isis, who are often called post-metal.

So they can still be considered instrumental rock or at a very large stretch, instrumental metal. I didn't mislabel anything. Though I just refer to Isis as a metal band and Godspeed as a rock band, because for all the ins and outs, that's what they are.

Genres so specific as that are created, usually, by marketing people so that idiots with no sense of perception can know, by name and recognition, what it is they're after. Instead of saying "Godspeed are like...", you say "Post-rock", and people go "Oh like...*Another band falsely labelled*? I'll buy that then, cos they're probably similar.". Godspeed are nothing like Esmerine, or Explosions in the Sky, or Pelican etc. So they are getting falsely or inappropriately labelled in marketing, which causes misinterpretation by people getting into it.

Godspeed themselves have expressed distaste to the label.

Originally posted by manorastroman
and no, i don't think it's better to be non specific and correct. because that's worthless to everybody and everything, with the exception of your false sense of superiority.

Sense of superiority in the way that you are deciding specific pigeon-holing is best for everyone?

When everyone goes around calling Porcupine Tree a neo progressive rock band, Steven Wilson says "No, we're just a rock band.". Godspeed don't enjoy "post-rock" labelling, King Crimson vehemently spoke out against the term prog rock. Why? Because they are all too narrowing and are ALSO applied as blankets.

King Crimson...and Pink Floyd...and Rush. Let's throw the prog blanket over them shall we? Why? They're entirely different bands, but the one thing they all are? Rock bands. Why go further? You're doing greater injustice by being a genre-labelling fool.

Originally posted by manorastroman
...how am i doing bands injustice? if anything, it's an injustice to put radiohead in the same box as nickelback, another "alternative rock" band.

I'm not putting them in the same box as Nickelback, someone put Nickelback in the same box as Radiohead because they ran around with the label gun not knowing how to use it.

Like you putting them in the same box as Pulp.

System of a Down, at one point, were actually a nu-metal band. Just because everyone started lobbing ANYBODY in that box with them, it doesn't mean System are now in the wrong place also. It means people are dumb.

-AC

Originally posted by manorastroman
excellent use of the word dynamics, i very much agree.

and sabbath metal is very close to rock, but most modern metal isn't. i would have a very hard time calling ion dissonance or opeth "rock".

I don't really have a problem with thinking of Opeth as rock, personally.

I'd describe them as metal, though, I suppose, should someone ask.

Sabbath were basically the first major metal band though, and they were close to rock. If they had been called post-rock, the labelling would be up shit creek by now.

slint uses vocals as many bands do, as a narrative vehicle. it's not my fault people use labeling as marketing. i use it for the following situation:

say my friends and i are talking about slint, tortoise, etc. when somebody enters the conversation and asks what we are talking about, we say a) alternative rock, in which case the new guy says "oh i love stone temple pilots" or b) instrumental rock, in which case he says "oh i love man or astro man".

see the problem here? if we had said c) post rock, he says "oh, i love tortoise". simple as that. you admitted you know which bands fall under the label, so what''s the pproblem? that's all labels are used for.

I think that Radiohead and Opeth both are "progressive" bands overall. Technically "alternative", while they incorporate the same instruments as most common bands, it's what they do with them that sets them apart, obviously.

"Alternative" today has been totally redefined by groups like Gnarls Barkley. They absolutely cannot be labelled, and I don't either of the aforementioned bands belong in that category.

As far as this whole "post" thing goes, if it's to suggest that the form incorporates elements of a supposedly dead genre, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If you're using it to label music that's a parallel to an already established genre, if the music is so different, why not let it speak for itself and defy catagorization?

I used to get bent out of shape when I heard "post-hardcore", as if to say hardcore is dead. I've realized it truely is. If bands like Comeback Kid fall under this label, then it surely is.

gnarls barkley IS classifiable, though. generally as neo soul/experimental rap. props to danger mouse for hanging out with elephant 6 back in the day.

Originally posted by manorastroman
slint uses vocals as many bands do, as a narrative vehicle. it's not my fault people use labeling as marketing. i use it for the following situation:

say my friends and i are talking about slint, tortoise, etc. when somebody enters the conversation and asks what we are talking about, we say a) alternative rock, in which case the new guy says "oh i love stone temple pilots" or b) instrumental rock, in which case he says "oh i love man or astro man".

see the problem here? if we had said c) post rock, he says "oh, i love tortoise". simple as that. you admitted you know which bands fall under the label, so what''s the pproblem? that's all labels are used for.

Then the problem is you care too much for catering to people who need things spelled out in brightly coloured crayon. If someone asks me what a band sound like, I describe it in the way I hear it. If I say "post-rock" to describe Godspeed, they may think of Explosions in the Sky, and if they don't like that band, they've lost out on hearing Godspeed haven't they?

I know which bands fall under it, but it doesn't mean they do so correctly. Pelican are not "post-rock", they can't be if Godspeed are, and Godspeed can't be if Explosions are, because they are all so vastly different in dynamics. What they all are, is rock bands, with the exception of Pelican who could be argued to be metal.

-AC

Originally posted by manorastroman
neo soul/experimental rap

Show me that section at Best Buy. See my point? Take into consideration what stations their music airs on. They're alternative, especially covering Violent Femmes.

that cover sucked...now who is catering to marketing? who gives a shit about best buy sections.

Originally posted by manorastroman
slint uses vocals as many bands do, as a narrative vehicle. it's not my fault people use labeling as marketing. i use it for the following situation:

say my friends and i are talking about slint, tortoise, etc. when somebody enters the conversation and asks what we are talking about, we say a) alternative rock, in which case the new guy says "oh i love stone temple pilots" or b) instrumental rock, in which case he says "oh i love man or astro man".

see the problem here? if we had said c) post rock, he says "oh, i love tortoise". simple as that. you admitted you know which bands fall under the label, so what''s the pproblem? that's all labels are used for.

Wouldn't that lead to one label per band? Just thinking that through?

ultimately, yes, but there's no reason to see such an illogical conculsion come to fruition.

Originally posted by manorastroman
ultimately, yes, but there's no reason to see such an illogical conculsion come to fruition.

Yes there is. You want it to apply it to the bands you are talking about at the moment...this would lead to at least many genres as there are groups of two bands .

I mean think about it

You talk about Opeth and Radiohead
You talk about Radiohead and The Arcade Fire
You talk about The Arcade Fire and The Smiths
You talk abiout The Smiths and Pearl Jam

You'd need a different label for each of those groups to explain them to your friend that's coming to join the conversation...and you could probably find some with a reasonable amount of ignorance and creativity. It's much easier to just talk about the bands and give a very general label than making one up that is supposed to be accurate, but in the end not really enough to describe what kind of music those bands are making.