Forum Home Forum Home > Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements > Help us improve the site
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - IMO Mars Volta should be put under fusion
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedIMO Mars Volta should be put under fusion

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Borealis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 06 2005
Location: Neutral Zone
Status: Offline
Points: 599
Direct Link To This Post Topic: IMO Mars Volta should be put under fusion
    Posted: August 22 2005 at 10:02

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.

Vive le Québec libre!...
Back to Top
Jimbo View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 28 2005
Location: Helsinki
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2005 at 09:42
Originally posted by frenchie frenchie wrote:

well they deserve to be in psychadelic/space rock mostly i guess. anywhere but post rock, them and radiohead have nothing in common with any other bands there.

Yep, certainly not post-rock. If you people had heard GYBE, Sigur Ros etc. you would know that TMV has nothing in common with these bands. I would probably place them in art-rock, although I'm not sure.
 
Back to Top
frenchie View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: July 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2005 at 09:37
well they deserve to be in psychadelic/space rock mostly i guess. anywhere but post rock, them and radiohead have nothing in common with any other bands there.
The Worthless Recluse
Back to Top
Dick Heath View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Jazz-Rock Specialist

Joined: April 19 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 12803
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2005 at 09:33

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.

 

 

Back to Top
DavidInsabella View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 317
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2005 at 11:18
Originally posted by frenchie frenchie wrote:

Originally posted by DavidInsabella DavidInsabella wrote:

Originally posted by frenchie frenchie wrote:

TMV and radiohead are art rock or psychadelia/space rock/ they both used to be in these genres i think.

they have absolutely nothing to do with post rock/experimental, and are nothing like the other bands in that section
Radohead is fine in the post rock section with those other bands. The Mars Volta shouldn't. I thought it was strange when they were under Art Rock. I think Avant prog would be best. And while we're at it, why not put Mr Bungle there too, they're listed under fusion as well.


have you noticed that radiohead has absolutely nothing to do with post rock?

if you have heard any of the other bands there which are true post rock you will notice radiohead and TMV dont write any sort of music similar to that.

When indie bands like radiohead get put into a prog site they are bound to end up in a section that doesnt suit them cos they arent prog in any way.

TMV cud go in avant garde i suppose but art rock or p/s sounds more appropriate. as for radiohead.
I've heard thier samples, they sound like Radiohead. Sue me.
Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.
Back to Top
Hangedman View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 03 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1261
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 05 2005 at 00:06

Originally posted by frenchie 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.

Back to Top
seabre View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: June 04 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 84
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 21:11
They're definitely not fusion. Do you actually listen to the fusion genre much?

I still don't agree with The Flock being in the fusion section, but I guess that's the closest sub-genre for them to be in.
Back to Top
alan_pfeifer View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: December 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 823
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 21:06

I still say they're Art Rock.

 

Back to Top
frenchie View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: July 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 19:01
Originally posted by Logos Logos wrote:

TMV is experimental prog. It isn't jazz rock although there are some jazzy sections here and there. Art rock is the worst place to put them, because it seems that all questionable and borderline bands are thrown in there.


just about all prog is experimental. They just dont belong there and nor does radiohead. what about p/s? any arguements there. they just dont seem like fusion. frances the mute displays a bit of jazz, the other 2 releases dont that much. Seems a lot more like p/s on an overall basis. I dont see why they aren't art rock bands though to be honest.
The Worthless Recluse
Back to Top
Logos View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: March 08 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 2383
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 18:28
TMV is experimental prog. It isn't jazz rock although there are some jazzy sections here and there. Art rock is the worst place to put them, because it seems that all questionable and borderline bands are thrown in there.
Back to Top
frenchie View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: July 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 18:09
Originally posted by DavidInsabella DavidInsabella wrote:

Originally posted by frenchie frenchie wrote:

TMV and radiohead are art rock or psychadelia/space rock/ they both used to be in these genres i think.

they have absolutely nothing to do with post rock/experimental, and are nothing like the other bands in that section
Radohead is fine in the post rock section with those other bands. The Mars Volta shouldn't. I thought it was strange when they were under Art Rock. I think Avant prog would be best. And while we're at it, why not put Mr Bungle there too, they're listed under fusion as well.


have you noticed that radiohead has absolutely nothing to do with post rock?

if you have heard any of the other bands there which are true post rock you will notice radiohead and TMV dont write any sort of music similar to that.

When indie bands like radiohead get put into a prog site they are bound to end up in a section that doesnt suit them cos they arent prog in any way.

TMV cud go in avant garde i suppose but art rock or p/s sounds more appropriate. as for radiohead.
The Worthless Recluse
Back to Top
Eetu Pellonpaa View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 17 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 4828
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 14:41
Why APHODITE'S CHILD is prog folk? 'cause of the elements of traditional greek music on some of their songs? I think it misleading, but luckily only a micro-small fault on a great archive!
Back to Top
DavidInsabella View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 317
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 14:27
Originally posted by frenchie frenchie wrote:

TMV and radiohead are art rock or psychadelia/space rock/ they both used to be in these genres i think.

they have absolutely nothing to do with post rock/experimental, and are nothing like the other bands in that section
Radohead is fine in the post rock section with those other bands. The Mars Volta shouldn't. I thought it was strange when they were under Art Rock. I think Avant prog would be best. And while we're at it, why not put Mr Bungle there too, they're listed under fusion as well.
Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.
Back to Top
frenchie View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: July 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 14:18
TMV and radiohead are art rock or psychadelia/space rock/ they both used to be in these genres i think.

they have absolutely nothing to do with post rock/experimental, and are nothing like the other bands in that section
The Worthless Recluse
Back to Top
DavidInsabella View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 317
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 12:34
Originally posted by Hangedman Hangedman wrote:

Originally posted by Trouserpress Trouserpress wrote:

Originally posted by DavidInsabella 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

Great idea!

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

Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.
Back to Top
DavidInsabella View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 317
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 12:33
Originally posted by Infinity Infinity wrote:

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

 

Then why not put them under Avant prog?
Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.
Back to Top
Hangedman View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 03 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1261
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 12:30

Originally posted by Trouserpress Trouserpress wrote:

Originally posted by DavidInsabella 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

Back to Top
Infinity View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 24 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 333
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 12:29

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

 

I can't remember what I said
I lost my head.

__________________________

Back to Top
DavidInsabella View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 317
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 12:21

Originally posted by xhamasaki xhamasaki wrote:

 but mars volta is experimental and not post rock
I guess, but I think experimental and progressive kind of go hand in hand.

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?

Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.
Back to Top
xhamasaki View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 13 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 128
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 04 2005 at 12:17
 but mars volta is experimental and not post rock
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.107 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.