The Tech/Extreme Prog metal appreciation

Haven´t listened much to Cloudkicker yet. But I´ve been listening a lot to this artist lately: http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=4884

He he Well some masochistic part of me seems to enjoy the torture. I´ve grown kind of fond of the music.

well guys , you convinced me , i will give Gnaw Their Tongues another chance, when i'll be prepared for that  

Sing A Long Songs for the Damned and Delirious, despite having bad cover art, occasionally annoying lyrics, a stupid title, and the band members suffering from poor fashion sense, is at least as good as Butcher's Ballroom, although I really do not like Tap Dancer's Dilemma at all. Recommended to anyone who wants to inject a little bit of fun into your super serious death metal. ;-)

Edited by Henry Plainview - December 17 2009 at 22:21

Maybe DSO is in tech/extreme for their avant-garde genre, though IMO they're more experimental than avant-gard.

Well as far as I am concerned, true Avant Garde music came and went in the early twentieth century with a lot of classical composers experimenting.  It just means that they "broke" traditions and conventions or the perceptions of music.  A great series of double discs is called "An anthology of noise and electronic music"
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_12?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=an+anthology+of+noise+%26+electronic+music&sprefix=an+anthology

which pretty succinctly summarizes this period of early experimentation... really, one could claim any style has "died" once people just begin to copy each other; further one could claim that music as we know it has died.... as there is not much originality to be had any longer.... there may be some in underground alcoves, but they all borrow from the past. 

Avant Garde music still exists, but true avant garde in terms of breaking conventions is hard to find.  For instance, a lot of what is termed avant garde today is not so (in my opinion)... like I don't consider Code (black metal band) to be avant garde at all.  People tend to think that if they add some odd noises or a few layers of strangeness to their rather plain musical machinations, that it instantly becomes avant garde.

DSO is certainly experimental, especially considering the very, very, very (did I stress the word VERY enough) restricted/ing rules of black metal as a genre.  There are certainly elements that you could argue are avant garde, but they are a little too structured to be full on avant.  They do have several surprises up their sleeves and are as chaotic as a schizo preacher, but they are not full on avant.  I love them more than any other black metal band in existence, partially for their love of experimentation.... and their overall uniqueness (within previously mentioned parameters- especially given their inspirations- which are safely outside of the high and xenophobic walls of black metal). 

I guess I would reserve the term avant garde for bands like Shubb Niggurath.... or like I said, the early 20th century classical stuff.  Harry Partch built his own microtonal instruments.  That's pretty damn avant garde/experimental if you ask me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cKnTj2cyNQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOHBqFevy0k

I guess I find more "avant garde" stuff in magazines like Wire and Signal to Noise...   most true avant garde drives most people crazy.  many musicians with the tag either accept that they will rarely make a living off of it, or they add some structure and hooks to make it appealing to the untrained/unprepared ear.

Savvy?


ps, DSO is musically extreme, so I think they do belong in tech/extreme, as they are technical (especially for black metal's standards) and quite extreme, thematically/lyrically and musically.







Edited by avalanchemaster - December 18 2009 at 10:20

Henry Plainview wrote: But DSO aren't even close to being black metal, so how does it make sense to judge them by the standards of the genre? They aren't even chaotic. And while I haven't heard a Shub Nigurrath album, I've heard samples, and how are they even close to Harry Partch?   I view avant-garde as a useful way to label all those musical ideas that most people don't like. Even if it's no longer on the vanguard, there's no reason that your string quartet that sounds like Webern shouldn't be called avant-garde.

Of course DSO are black metal (not even close?  what do you call them?).... their beginnings and their very evolution springs from the second and third waves of black metal and post-black metal.  Have you even listened to much black metal?  If so, you must not know what you are listening to.  DSO are clearly black metal, even if they are more evolved than the average black metal band.  Call it a blanket genre/sub-genre.  They are certainly chaotic in many ways.  Maybe that is just in comparison to typical black metal bands.  Are you going to argue with me over whether they are black metal or not?  If so, let's agree to disagree.  You probably want to call them some other term (which really is just splitting hairs)... look them up in almost any metal archival site, and you will see that they are widely regarded as black metal.  whether they fit neatly into that limited category is another story altogether.

You really are putting a lot of extra (semantics) words into my post.  It is incorrect to infer that I was comparing Partch to Shubb Niggurath.  Both could be deemed as either experimental or avant garde.  You yourself claimed to not know the difference.  I think they are two branches of the same tree.  The point I was trying to make (in case I was misunderstood) is that true avant garde rarely even exists anymore.  There are elements of it here and there, but very little full-on avant garde.  I love Webern more than the next guy, but a bunch of twelve tone and color tone movements does not necessarily make one avant garde.  Maybe at the time, when the notion of "breaking new musical ground and going against conventions" was a fresh idea; then avant garde thrived.  Now music just borrows from graves and revives old bones of musical yestercentury.   In short, when things are termed avant garde, I usually regard who is making the reference, their musical perspective and musically historical knowledge (and its limits) and consider whether they know what they are talking about when it comes to avant garde.  It's thrown around quite casually fairly often, to label something that may be too tame when called "experimental" (?)  I think these days it is just another selling point.  We all know that the metal elite and extreme music officionados are caught up in the hipster aspects of music, saying things like "the demos were better" "that's more Kvlt...."
or "hey they are avant garde, that means they are on the fringe of being crazy musically..."  I really think there is a general push in the barely underground to challenge notions of what is acceptable.  It's like the pop world is one hundred years or more behind (wait, they are centuries behind, for the most part; writing cotton candy ditties for the ear), It's nice that people may be starting to come around.  Let's face it, within a generation, things need to be challenged and made to appear fresh to be marketable.  Avant garde, as a term, is just another marketing ploy (if you ask me).  It's true meaning was more tangible when it was more amorphous , when it was being questioned and staked out and challenged some more...from all angles.  Now someone throws in some twelve tone or some unusual instrumentation and sells it as avant garde.  What a load of sh*t.  But this all may be like trying to explain conceptual art to someone who did not engage in the act of making the art itself.  (and I don't always understand certain conceptual work either)

That's how I look at it.  It's all primarily subjective.  Just like we may argue over the genre in which DSO fits, others will argue over the definition of Avant Garde.  Don't get me wrong, this is merely my take on it.  Do with it what you see fit.  I appreciate your input, but please don't twist my words into something else to suit your needs to debate online. 

I will readily concede that black metal is not a regular part of my listening, but I'm genuinely trying to understand why you would call them that. The classification does make a difference in your argument, because otherwise, to use an extreme example, you could say Avril Lavigne is extremely progressive black metal because she doesn't sound anything like it! I haven't been able to find anybody else who says that (they all say avant-garde metal, which makes more sense to me than black). Let's do it this way: what parts of the album are black metal? The only growl on Sing Along Songs was under female vocals, and the guitars are more hard rock than Natten's Madrigal or Emperor.

Edited by Henry Plainview - December 20 2009 at 20:01

Wait... Are you talking about Shub Niggurath (Mex) or Shub-Niggurath (Fra)??? 

Jake Kobrin wrote: It depends what DSO album you're talking about, I guess. SMRC is definitely black metal, while anything Kenose or further are more avant-tech-blackened-death...

I think they're talking about 2 different bands without realizing it.

Deathspell Omega and Diablo Swing Orchestra.