Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: TEINACDP.jpg (387KB, 1200x1200px) Image search:
[Google]
387KB, 1200x1200px
generally, I would assume that to have music that is "post-" something, it would be characterized by 'artists departing from the traditional genre template to pursue a variety of avant-garde sensibilities and attempting to break from cliché and subvert conventions.' (literally taken from the wikipedia article on post punk).
I can see how early post rock bands did this (like Talk Talk or Dirty Three, or even Tortoise) but I fail to see how current "post-rock" is even considered part of the genre. it's not original, and it doesn't really deviate from the template of traditional rock music in any real way. literally the only difference between what is currently considered post rock and normal rock is that the songs are longer and sometimes instrumental.
is there no connection between the current bands and the first wave other than everyone being a shitty ripoff of GY!BE? Are there any current post rock bands that are actually post rock in the original definition and subvert expectations while moving beyond the limitations of the genre?
discuss.
>>
moral of the story: trying to label genres contemporaneously is pretty dumb
>>
>>71704832
/Thread.
>>
I've always seen it as a ridiculous, unnecessary, and misapplied term and so I don't ever use it.
So many bands that sound absolutely nothing alike all got lumped into "post-rock" just because they were all instrumental and not necessarily jazz, blues, polka, etc. It has always bothered me because if so many disparate things get a label, then essentially it means nothing and people were then no longer describing the actual music at all.
>>
>>71704862
>>71704832
wouldn't say that kills the thread, but it is true.
>>
post rock is just music that uses rock based instruments for texture based music or non rock sounds. third wave is very formulaic but different enough from rock to be post
>>
>>71704930
but why not just call it "long-form rock music?" it's not different enough to be its own genre
>>
>>71704967
because post-rock sounds cool my dude
>>
>>71704782
>I fail to see how current "post-rock" is even considered part of the genre. it's not original, and it doesn't really deviate from the template of traditional rock music in any real way. literally the only difference between what is currently considered post rock and normal rock is that the songs are longer and sometimes instrumental.
OK, how does, say, Explosions in the Sky sound like, say, Chuck Berry?
>>
>Dirty Three
I'd always argue that Dirty Three played it straight as an instrumental rock band with folk sensibilities. They happened to come to prominence as a band in a time that we now retrospectively see as a period of first wave post rock. Everyone has just been grouped them together with these bands because they share some of the same traits.
To answer your question though OP, yeah no.
>>
Call it ambient or intrumental rock if you have a problem
That said Sigur Ross is pretty experimental. And it does take a lot of work to get some interesting guitar sounds.
>>
>>71705005
most modern rock doesn't sound like Chuck Berry but it's still rock music.
Explosions in the sky doesn't really sound any different than most indie rock other than the fact that it's long and instrumental, but somehow it deserves its own genre.
>>
>>71704892
This is pretty much spot on
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1