| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
paganinio 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 07 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1327
|
 Topic: Experimental, Avant-Garde, Modern, Progressive????
Posted: August 17 2009 at 22:41 |
Could someone please explain the Difference between these terms?
Here're a few thoughts.
1. Avant-garde must be ahead of its time. Experimental could be behind its time or ahead of its time.
example: The Velvet Underground are experimental. But since they are behind their time (IMO), they are not avant-garde.
Conjecture: Some albums are avant-garde but not experimental. A (poor) example is Arcturus. They are ahead of their time but there doesn't seem to be any experiments going on in their music. (as I said it was a poor example. But you might get the idea anyway...)
2. Modern could refer to everything from (insert 1900s musician here) to Soulja Boy -- anything from the 20th and 21st century will do.
3. "Progressive" is ambiguous. The word "progressive" is in some genre names, though the music in those genres may not always be progressive.
I only use the word "progressive" when a) the genre is "progressive xxx", b) it is classical music.
example: The Velvet Underground did make progressive music, but I always use the word "experimental music" instead. The same applies to Radiohead and David Bowie.
And while some of Ayreon's work may not be progressive at all, I'm always glad to call his work "progressive".
note: many people use the word "prog" to resolve this ambiguity. So The Velvet Underground are progressive, but they are not prog. I think this will only create more confusions. A more sensical way of handling this would be, "The Velvet Underground are not progressive, while The Velvet Underground are not progressive."
4. I guess "Avant-garde" is also used in art and literature. So the term may have specific meanings there.
So which band make "experimental avant-garde modern progressive metal"? I think Dream Theater do.  They meet my definition of those four words. Please tell me if you disagree with any of what I said.
|
 |
keiser willhelm
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1697
|
Posted: August 17 2009 at 23:48 |
|
i think it depends on how far you push things, though its all relative.
bands that experiment with sounds new things etc. but dont really push that extra little bit into completely unfamiliar territory id call experimental. they play with fire.
bands that BECOME that fire are avant garde. pushing the boundries becomes a driving force behind the music, not just a means to an end. expimental is messing around with a genre, tweaking some things, and in general experimenting. avant garde is developing a new genre with little regard for current cliches. they overlap tons but thats my general take on it.
not even going to touch on the last two definitions but id say dream theater is a terrible choice IMO, no offense meant of course. a band like kayo dot or honry kone might do. even sleepytime gorilla museum.
|
|
|
|
tamijo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
|
Posted: August 18 2009 at 07:33 |
Avant-garde is defined as music ahead of its time, so its not a genre, anyone creating a new style pr. definition avant garde, even the first Disco Queen.
Experimental music : According to Cage's definition, "an experimental action is one the outcome of which is not foreseen" so dropping a child on a guitar and any other Anarkistic aproach is experimental.
As long as you are not doing something where you can controll the outcome, would do.
As most Prog. bands are control freaks, they are pr. def not experimental.
Modern, what is off today is modern, wont be in a few weeks.
Crimson is the Only Prog band, every other band is Post-Prog.
|
|
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: August 18 2009 at 08:20 |
It depends on whether you are using the words as Nouns, Verbs or Adjectives - as nouns their meaning is fixed and refers to specific forms of music.
Once those definitions have been cast in stone a musician can produce music in those styles without using the as words adjectives or verbs - Avant-Garde Music does not have to be avant-garde (cutting edge, vanguard, ahead of its time etc), Experimental Music does not have to be experimental - and Progressive Rock does not have to be progressive. A band may become an Experimental Music band by experimentation, but if another band simply apes that style of music without actually being experimental (or by simply repeating the same experiment as the first band) then they are still making Experimental Music.
Experimental Metal, Advant Garde Metal and Progressive Metal as nouns are distinct subgenres and DT would never be in the two former subgenres when you compare their music with bands like Kayo Dot or Ephal Duath.
...the purpose of experimentation is to prove a hypothesis, therefore the outcome is predicted before the experiment and the results confirms or refutes that prediction. An experiment with unforeseen results is a bit rash in my professional opinion.  |
|
What?
|
|
tamijo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
|
Posted: August 18 2009 at 08:30 |
I was offcourse only joking, the terms are used to define music styles. Any other relation is misleading.
|
|
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
|
Rank1
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 26 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 53
|
Posted: August 19 2009 at 07:44 |
I will mention three bands who were using avant influences and were experimental but where they prog?
The Velvet Underground used avant influences and were experimental but they were not progressive or prog-rock like. That does not mean they were not ahead of their times because "Sister Ray" and "Venus In Furs" sound ahead of their times. I would say they were experimental rock, avant rock and a huge influence on Modern Rock.
Frank Zappa also used avant influences but his compositions was progressive and his music very experimental. Early albums like Freak Out and Absolutely Free were very experimental and it uses strong influences from avant music. I would say he was very prog-like, experimental, and strong influences from jazz and avant music. A huge influence on Progressive Rock and many Modern rock acts.
The Beatles used experimental/avant tape influences with microtonal Indian music and merged it with pop music. An example of this was "Tomorrow Never Knows" very influential to modern electronic music and it sounds way of it's time. Some songs like "A Day in the Life" were very prog-like and it uses avant influences. The Beatles were IMO the pop version of experimental, avant, and progressive which you can hear in songs like "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "A Day in the Life". The Beatles influenced everything from Progressive rock, songwriting to how musicians used the studio as an instrument.
|
|
Figglesnout
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1455
|
Posted: August 19 2009 at 09:41 |
 paganinio wrote:
The Velvet Underground are experimental. But since they are behind their time (IMO), they are not avant-garde. |
I don't see how you can argue that a band that introduced tons of sounds that would later dominate (Krautrock in the early 70s, punk in the late 70s, and tons of alternative rock since) was behind their time.
Avant-garde = pushing boundaries beyond what is the status quo
Experimental = incorporates unexpected, left-field tendencies, but is not necessarily original in doing so
Modern = of the same age as the phrase in which modern is used, with how far back "modern" extends depending on context
Progressive = forward-thinking, ahead of the curve
|
|
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case
|
|
Rank1
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 26 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 53
|
Posted: August 19 2009 at 10:18 |
The Antique wrote:
paganinio wrote:
The Velvet Underground are experimental. But since they are behind their time (IMO), they are not avant-garde. |
I don't see how you can argue that a band that introduced tons of sounds that would later dominate (Krautrock in the early 70s, punk in the late 70s, and tons of alternative rock since) was behind their time.
Avant-garde = pushing boundaries beyond what is the status quo
Experimental = incorporates unexpected, left-field tendencies, but is not necessarily original in doing so
Modern = of the same age as the phrase in which modern is used, with how far back "modern" extends depending on context
Progressive = forward-thinking, ahead of the curve |
The Velvet Underground were using things like dissonance, feedback, drone, and extreme distortion that was long established in rock music. So in that sense they were behind their time but you could say that about any band that came out in the 60's. They were experimental but they were already a handful experimenting with what the Velvet Underground were doing in 1966. It's how they assembled these influences is why they became influential.
The Beatles can be argued were the band that mass popularized guitar feedback as a recording effect in rock music in 1964 with "I Feel Fine" or the use of drone from Indian Instruments like the tamboura in rock music. They were one of the first rock artists to use pre-recorded loops, sampling, and backward music. That is a sign of being ahead of the curve. Frank Zappa creating long sound-collages from avant music is also a sign of being ahead of the curve.
|
|
Figglesnout
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1455
|
Posted: August 19 2009 at 10:54 |
|
Right, but the Velvet Underground were ahead of their time because their overall sound, the sound which they were the first to have, is a sound that would gain prominence and dominate in later years, or at least be hugely influential to the styles that did dominate. What they did preceded the works of numerous important bands. That's textbook ahead of their time.
|
|
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case
|
|
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
|
Posted: August 19 2009 at 11:23 |
|
I totally agree that the Velvet Underground were avant-garde. Their rather monotonous style was a big influence on bands like Can and Amon Düül 2. And those bands definitely were avant-garde, at least in their beginning. One member of Amon Düül 2 (I think it was Chris Karrer, but am not sure at the moment) said "Velvet Underground played their instruments like pigs, but the result was fantastic".
|
 BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
|
|
Figglesnout
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1455
|
Posted: August 19 2009 at 11:50 |
|
Yeah, when you hear the old saying that nobody heard VU's debut, but everyone who did started a band, you get the sense that Can and ADII are perfect examples.
And Sister Ray as good as is the first krautrock song.
Edited by The Antique - August 19 2009 at 11:50
|
|
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case
|
|
Rank1
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 26 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 53
|
Posted: August 19 2009 at 12:59 |
The Antique wrote:
Yeah, when you hear the old saying that nobody heard VU's debut, but everyone who did started a band, you get the sense that Can and ADII are perfect examples.
And Sister Ray as good as is the first krautrock song. |
Maybe the Beatles beat them to the punch on this again. Funny it took Michael Karoli who loved "I Am the Walrus" intruduced the song to Holger Czukay who had little interest in rock music, as he studied under the German composer, Karlheinz Stockhausen, in the mid Sixties. On hearing The Beatles "I Am the Walrus", however, he was inspired to form Can This led him to to the Velvet Underground and Frank Zappa.
Similiar story about Robert Fripp when he heard Sgt Pepper "A Day in the Life" as that song got him into rock music.
|
|
Figglesnout
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1455
|
Posted: August 19 2009 at 13:10 |
|
Listen to Monster Movie again. It's basically a Velvet Underground album under a different name.
Czukay might've gotten into rock music through the Beatles, but listening to the music he and the rest of Can would make, they drew way more from The Velvet Underground.
|
|
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case
|
|
Rank1
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 26 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 53
|
Posted: August 19 2009 at 13:28 |
The Antique wrote:
Listen to Monster Movie again. It's basically a Velvet Underground album under a different name.
Czukay might've gotten into rock music through the Beatles, but listening to the music he and the rest of Can would make, they drew way more from The Velvet Underground. |
That's not the point I was making who Can was influenced by more. The facts are Can along with many Krautrock acts were influenced by the Beatles experimental songs. Michael Karoli said he thought the Beatles were more interesting than Stockhausen. The Beatles changed Czukay musical direction and that is what I am saying..
Can was into sampling and using tape loops. The Beatles were amongst the first rock related acts to use them prominently. "I Am The Walrus" by the way uses sampling at the fade out section. Nothing against the Velvet Underground as I like them but the Velvet Underground first record released in 1967. Psychedelic and Avant experimentation in rock music was pretty much established with songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and Frank Zappa Freak Out. The Velvet Underground main core influence on music was Punk rock and Alternative rock not really Progressive Rock or even pop music. That being said the Velvet Underground were one of the most influential rock bands ever who made 4 great albums.
|
|
Figglesnout
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1455
|
Posted: August 19 2009 at 13:40 |
|
As far as I am aware, there are no Beatles songs that sound like any of the songs on Monster Movie. On the other hand, every single song on Monster Movie sounds like it belongs on White Light White Heat. And even if Can were influenced more by the Beatles than the Velvet Underground, it's beside the point. They were undeniably influenced by the Velvet Underground, and they would have been a much different band without the pioneering work of VU before them.
The Velvet Underground had an aesthetic that they took to the extreme on WL,WH, and this was ahead of its time (as well as a big influence on Can). You mention correctly that they were more influential on punk and alternative than prog, but I don't see where you're going there. Can were also a huge influence on punk (John Lydon was a huge Can freak), and you can trace the history of punk from bands like The Sonic, The Monks, and The Velvet Underground through Can, The Stooges, and the Modern Lovers before ending up with The Sex Pistols and the rest of the initial wave. I associate Can far more strongly with alternative and punk than prog.
|
|
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case
|
|
Rank1
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 26 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 53
|
Posted: August 19 2009 at 14:20 |
The Antique wrote:
As far as I am aware, there are no Beatles songs that sound like any of the songs on Monster Movie. On the other hand, every single song on Monster Movie sounds like it belongs on White Light White Heat. And even if Can were influenced more by the Beatles than the Velvet Underground, it's beside the point. They were undeniably influenced by the Velvet Underground, and they would have been a much different band without the pioneering work of VU before them.
The Velvet Underground had an aesthetic that they took to the extreme on WL,WH, and this was ahead of its time (as well as a big influence on Can). You mention correctly that they were more influential on punk and alternative than prog, but I don't see where you're going there. Can were also a huge influence on punk (John Lydon was a huge Can freak), and you can trace the history of punk from bands like The Sonic, The Monks, and The Velvet Underground through Can, The Stooges, and the Modern Lovers before ending up with The Sex Pistols and the rest of the initial wave. I associate Can far more strongly with alternative and punk than prog. |
You don't have to sound like a band to show influence. It's very hard to be as melodic as the Beatles and they used some odd choices in chords for rock music at the time, But I agree Can were more influenced by the Velvet Underground. For example Paul McCartney was influenced by Brian Wilson but they sound different..
The arrangement of "Penny Lane" ( along with "Fool On The Hill") is a direct influence of Pet Sounds Beach Boys on McCartney. But, the way Paul thinks harmonically is radically different from Brian. I hear Gershwin in Brian- using all those color chords, major 7ths,9ths, 7 flat 5's, etc. With Paul I hear European Folk music...he uses ( mostly) natural chords...but in odd constructions ( for Rock music), especially his use of
parallel minor shifts...both of which are present in Penny and Fool on th Hill.
|
|
mystic fred
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252
|
Posted: August 22 2009 at 02:22 |
BaldFriede wrote:
I totally agree that the Velvet Underground were avant-garde. Their rather monotonous style was a big influence on bands like Can and Amon Düül 2. And those bands definitely were avant-garde, at least in their beginning. One member of Amon Düül 2 (I think it was Chris Karrer, but am not sure at the moment) said "Velvet Underground played their instruments like pigs, but the result was fantastic".
|
i agree this comment could refer to "Venus in Furs", but the rest of the album sounds like a poor amateur night and is hardly listenable.. 
|
 Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Experimental, Avant-Garde, Modern, Progressive????
