Tom Waits for RIO

Evolver wrote: Certain artists seem to evoke a strange fear in some members here.  Tom Waits seems to be one of them.  The Grateful Dead are another. (I am not a Dead Head - I like 3 or 4 of their albums. that's it)  The Dead have a handful of prog albums, more than some accepted bands, and without them we might not have other bands, like Phish or Umphrey's McGee.  Their influence is indeniable.

They were a big influence on Miles going fusion as well.

Only thing I have to add is I think Waits more than qualifies for related or crossover, not so much avant (because he isn't). Blood Money, The Black Rider and most of his albums since 1983 is progressive rock (as in rock that progresses, not as in complex rock), no doubt.

Surely he must have been an influence on modern American avantprog such as Bungle/Secret Chiefs 3/Estradasphere/Sleepytime Gorilla Museum/John Zorn/Marc Ribot...

I cant see it - Tom Waits is like Scott Walker =- avant but not prog.

Well sure, prog could also mean anything progressive. But also the subtitle of the website is "Your ultimate prog rock resource."

Edited by Andyman1125 - October 18 2011 at 19:33

Sheavy wrote: Guldbamsen wrote: The Hemulen wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: You don't necessarily have to be good to be 'Prog Related'  you could (I guess) be rubbish prog!  (Although some might say thats impossible). It's not. Re: Prog-Related, I think it's genuinely hard to point to any particular Tom Waits album and say "that's a rock album", let alone "that's a prog rock album". He's primarily a blues/jazz artist, so there's not much to get a grip on from a rock perspective. Say what you like about Blue Oyster Cult and Deep Purple, but they were rock bands and (in the case of the latter at least, I'm not all that clued up on BOC) they knew how to push the envelope when they felt like it, even if that wasn't all that often. That Tom Waits was and remains a unique and experimental force within his genre is not in any doubt, but his relationship with progressive rock is tenuous at best. I'm glad my previous post was helpful, by the way. Whatever it may seem like, we really do make informed choices when it comes to suggestions and try not to let personal taste cloud our judgement. I realise it's not always a very transparent process, but it's the best we can do.   BUT this is after all a prog rock resource.      I still don't understand why it isn't called Progrockarchives.

Edited by Andyman1125 - October 18 2011 at 18:47

If he joins up with Steven Wilson & Tim Bowness, they could do a project called "Tom Waits For No-Man".

Motley Crue for Prog Metal. 

Deathrabbit wrote: Unrelated might be a bit strongly worded, but there are still very stark contrasts in the two styles, and one has a temporal designation as well.

I also wouldn't call it stark, compared to the other subgenres on the site. Temporal designations are irrelevant and useless.

 

ExittheLemming wrote: I don't pretend to know squat about the genre(s) but just from a logical perspective, this doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Unrelated is more than a bit of a strech, but you can differentiate between the two, as RIO also applies to bands that were heavily influenced by the original RIO bands. I would consider RIO more "orchestral", while avant-prog is more closely tied to conventional song structures. Deathrabbit may not have written up anything, but bother one of the ZART people and they can give you a wall of text.

However, I would prefer we remove Zeuhl as a separate genre than make RIO a new one if we're trying to be more consistent. 


Edited by Henry Plainview - October 17 2011 at 08:31

Waits is rejected for RIO/Avant, see the posts from David, Keishiro and Jon (in the previous thread), that's three team members out of four. 

Two unrelated genres? let's look at the current genre definitions:

RIO/Avant-Prog definition

Avant-Prog

Avant-prog is an umbrella term which refers to any progressive rock artist with a strong leaning towards avant-garde and highly experimental approaches to music. Therefore, it includes the sub-genres of Rock In Opposition (see below) and Zeuhl in addition to general avant-prog artists.

Avant-prog is generally considered to be more extreme and 'difficult' than other forms of progressive rock, though these terms are naturally subjective and open to interpretation. Common elements that may or may not be displayed by specific avant-prog artists include:

- Regular use of dissonance and atonality.
- Extremely complex and unpredictable song arrangements.
- Free or experimental improvisation.
- Fusion of disparate musical genres.
- Polyrhythms and highly complex time signatures.

Most avant-prog artists are highly unique and eclectic in sound and consequently tend to resist easy comparisons. However, Frank Zappa is often cited as a major influence on many avant-prog artists due to his early adoption of avant-garde and experimental attitudes within a predominantly rock/jazz context.

I'd be the first to admit that defining Avant-Prog would be a particularly difficult task. (Like nailing a jellyfish to the ceiling) but playing the devil's advocate, it's illustrative of these aforementioned problems that the relatively 'tame' and completely unrelated Crimson and Gentle Giant tick all 5 boxes. You believe that RIO should be separate from Avant-Prog yet would consider the latter is inclusive of any Progressive Rock artists with a strong leaning towards avant-garde and highly experimental approaches to music. Were you to define the demarcating characteristics of RIO then perhaps more of us would be able to consider your idea's merit but there isn't even an attempt to define RIO but merely plot the time-lines of the bands you consider sufficiently exclusive from the all inclusive  Avant-Prog to warrant an entire sub genre to themselves.

I don't pretend to know squat about the genre(s) but just from a logical perspective, this doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.