Instead of under "Experimental/Post Rock" with Radiohead, I think The Mars Volta's sound is more of a jazz rock combination. They should be listed under fusion on the archives in my opinion.

NetsNJFan wrote: Mars Volta fits better under Post-Rock/Exprerimental than Fusion.  They are definately not Fusion.

I think they belong there. Or at least more than in the post rock category, which has been explained to me only as "using rock instruments for non rock purposes," which probably makes less sence to the speaker than to me.

xhamasaki wrote:  but mars volta is experimental and not post rock

I still think they should be under fusion. Another example, the Dixie Dregs. All kinds of musical styles, but mainly rock and jazz, therefor they're put under fusion. I think the Mars Volta is the same way. I mean, does anyone else think they compare better next to Brand X than Radiohead?

definitely not fusion....experimental post/rock post/prog or something.

They obviously have funky/salsa/jazz influences and references but they have not set out to express a deliberate slant on jazz or fusing rock with jazz

Trouserpress wrote: DavidInsabella wrote: Frank Zappa includes all sorts of influences is his music, more than The Mars Volta, (Mainly because of his longer career) and he's classified under fusion. Not any more. Us collabs pointed this out and shoved him into Avant Prog which is far more appropriate. I'm happy with TMV where they are.

I think lumping in experimental with post rock is kind of odd, much stranger than throwing cantebury in with RIO. Marsvolta is the polar opposite of post rock, post rock is the use of rock instrumentation for non-rock purposes. TMV puts the ROCK back into progressive rock, I think they should also be put in avant prog. If their history thus far proves anything its that they are going to dabble in even more styles as time moves on. Classifying them as experimental is acceptable, but lumping experimental in with post rock is not however. All the other experimental bands are put in the RIO/Avant-prog section. I think that marsvolta was put in with the post rock so as to placate any 70s prog purists by not having them in the same section as Henry Cow

Hangedman wrote: Trouserpress wrote: DavidInsabella wrote: Frank Zappa includes all sorts of influences is his music, more than The Mars Volta, (Mainly because of his longer career) and he's classified under fusion. Not any more. Us collabs pointed this out and shoved him into Avant Prog which is far more appropriate. I'm happy with TMV where they are. I think lumping in experimental with post rock is kind of odd, much stranger than throwing cantebury in with RIO. Marsvolta is the polar opposite of post rock, post rock is the use of rock instrumentation for non-rock purposes. TMV puts the ROCK back into progressive rock, I think they should also be put in avant prog. If their history thus far proves anything its that they are going to dabble in even more styles as time moves on. Classifying them as experimental is acceptable, but lumping experimental in with post rock is not however. All the other experimental bands are put in the RIO/Avant-prog section. I think that marsvolta was put in with the post rock so as to placate any 70s prog purists by not having them in the same section as Henry Cow

Besides, like I said, experimental and progressive are kind of the same thing. So why put it in the same category as post rock.

I still say they're Art Rock.

frenchie wrote: I dont see why they aren't art rock bands though to be honest.

Because in actuallity prog is a subgenre of art rock, EVERY band on this site is a type of art rock. Most art rock bands (on this site) are proggy pop, and have very little to no experimental qualities at all. TMV are not pop and have a very high level of experimentation, and like i said earlier they will only dabble with more styles and become more inaccesable. I think the avant-prog secton suits them best.

God there is some crap here, and the sound of elastic being broken as knickers get in a twist..

Progressive music in the 60's was a variety hybrids of rock with other musics, which had not been brought together before, and the more successful bands generated a synegism of original sounds. Fusion in 1965 or even before meant jazz fused (or hybridised) with other musics - the first with Indian ragas i.e. with various Joe Harriott/John Mayers Indo-Jazz Fusion groups. Specifically jazz rock (fusion) was developed independently in the States at the same time, and it as been recently suggested that the likes of Georgie Fame, or Graham Bond were playing jazz rock in the UK as early as 1963 - although their music then more definitely in keeping with the R'n'B club scene.

 'Fusion' and  'hydridisation' are synymous in the English language, but fusion wrt to music has come to mean jazz with some other form of music. Alas terms stop having their literal meaning in music many decades ago, and here at Progarchives there is a confusion as to whether terms used to categorise, should be employed literally or otherwise. Sorry remember we are stuck with some unfortunate historical conventions. So unless we are dealing with rock music with a significant proportion of jazz, fusion used here at Progarchives is an ambiguous term and not consistent to its use outside of Progarchives. Therefore use of fusion here is often very confusion and wrong. I suggest we get rid of it, unless used in full as jazz rock fusion.

The specific case of TMV: the band  has progressed in the literal sense by hybridising musics not normally found in traditional progressive rock. Indeed there are distant and brief echoes to Mahavishnu Orchestra, but too little to park them in the jazz rock - neither would you do that to Yes, even with Tony Kayes jazz-and R'n'B flavoured Hammond or Bruford jazz influenced drumming.

At least, it would make more sense in the Fusion section than in the Post Rock one... They should be in Prog Metal, Art Rock, Symphonic, Psychedelic, anything BUT post rock... they aren't doing post rock at all, it's some pure prog rock with a punk/metal edge.