Einstuerzende Neubauten?

Publius wrote: Ah. I thought they were 'mildly progressive' and not prog.

And Einstürzende Neubauten, are they just progressive or prog? I'd say that they're "somewhat" progressive.

Wonderful - so we can both be happy and call it a night.

Edited by MikeEnRegalia

cool, I'll check it out sometime.

my personal opinion is: if "prog" really stands for "progressive", then the Einstürzende Neubauten should be included. the archive lists the sub-genre "avantgarde", which is exactly where they belong. their numerous appearances as musical background for radio or theatrical plays only add to this impression. they are 100% prog, but also 100% avantgarde, so fans of symphonic prog, beware!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: BaldJean wrote: my personal opinion is: if "prog" really stands for "progressive", then the Einstürzende Neubauten should be included. the archive lists the sub-genre "avantgarde", which is exactly where they belong. their numerous appearances as musical background for radio or theatrical plays only add to this impression. they are 100% prog, but also 100% avantgarde, so fans of symphonic prog, beware! But they're dilettantes - at least during the first ten years, when they were most experimental, they couldn't play instruments properly. Surely there's a difference between an artist who is an excellent musician who plays minimalistic stuff (for example Zappa), and an artist who just avoids playing complex music because he's not capable of it.

a lot of bands are or were more or less dilettantes. Tangerine Dream for example never were great virtuosos either. the attitude of "learning by doing" is not the worst one

MikeEnRegalia wrote: IMHO the Einstürzende Neubauten are not good enough to compensate for their dilletantism. Add to that their Punk influences, and you have the reason for not wanting them on this website.

this is where our opinions differ. I think the artistic expression of the Einstürzende Neubauten justifies their inclusion. that's why I especially pointed out their contribution to theatrical and radio plays


Edited by BaldJean

I would not oppose their addition to the archives the way others did when Queen were added. I see why you - and many others - consider them to be progressive. Maybe it has something to do with my musical background, I'm always looking for outstanding musicianship.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Surely there's a difference between an artist who is an excellent musician who plays minimalistic stuff (for example Zappa), and an artist who just avoids playing complex music because he's not capable of it.

And, also, there's a BIG difference between what you think is 'being capable' and what I think. So this is a invalid argument, for sure...

Fantômas wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Surely there's a difference between an artist who is an excellent musician who plays minimalistic stuff (for example Zappa), and an artist who just avoids playing complex music because he's not capable of it.  And, also, there's a BIG difference between what you think is 'being capable' and what I think. So this is a invalid argument, for sure...

Not invalid ... but surely impossible to prove. I just never heard any recording that showed me that the Einstürzende Neubauten can really play. I love listening to Zappa's "You call that music?" where everyone is just goofing around on their instruments, because I KNOW what they're capable of.

Fantômas wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Fantômas wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Surely there's a difference between an artist who is an excellent musician who plays minimalistic stuff (for example Zappa), and an artist who just avoids playing complex music because he's not capable of it.  And, also, there's a BIG difference between what you think is 'being capable' and what I think. So this is a invalid argument, for sure... Not invalid ... but surely impossible to prove. I just never heard any recording that showed me that the Einstürzende Neubauten can really play. I love listening to Zappa's "You call that music?" where everyone is just goofing around on their instruments, because I KNOW what they're capable of. I see your point, but I have a question (in simple words that my poor english can reach): They can play, but they don't... The others 'can't' play and they don't. So this is my question: Where's the difference? The final result is what matters, not what they're capable of (IMO, of course)...

I know what you mean. I'm not saying that I'm right - it's a rule that makes sense to me. As I said - I'm a musician, and I consider prog to be a form of art which is based on music. I'm primarily interested in musically challenging stuff. Even if it was "played" by virtuoso musicians, I couldn't listen to a whole album of noise.