|
I would say that the terms "avant-garde" and "experimental" should not be used to describe genres in a traditional sense like prog rock, jazz fusion, ambient or black metal.
Avant-garde can at the same time be Frank Zappa, Univers Zero, Igor Stravinsky's late works, The Residents, Ornette Coleman, Terry Riley, La Monte Young or even John Cage...
Experimental can be at the same time say... Cluster, still John Cage, Bjork, Laurie Anderson, but also Velvet Underground and The Residents... Even Ummagumma-era Pink Floyd!
And consider that terms "avant-garde" and "experimental" could be used interchangably to describe some bands' styles!
Edited by ALotOfBottle - July 30 2016 at 02:50
|
 Atavachron wrote:
Yeah it's a excellent question. Progressive tends to be technical which tends to involve fusion and sometimes experimental. And 'different' from normal popular music it is. ... |
I have always thought that the definition of the term "progressive" is the problem. It is not defined by someone that knows music, and is spread out by rock fanboys who do not listen to other musics, enough to know and understand what it is they just said.
It's just like the worst term used in advertising of computer programs ... it's "intuitive", when it would be impossible for it to be so, by proper definition, since nothing on any program, including menus, is "intuitive". Didatic and Logical, I'm OK with that, but "intuitive" is a terrible corruption of the term, and its definition.
In general, the 20th century was too much of an "anti-music" thing for over 60 to 70 years, and the ability to define a lot of that stuff got really difficult, and I think that we will not see proper definitions for a lot of that music for another 30 to 40 or 50 years, to see which/what survives and then compile a proper definition that will help solidify it all.
With one problem. Most of the stuff mentioned here is "top ten" and continually so. This is an issue, because no one cares, which song was number 1 in 1966, 1970 or 1973 ... and no one will remember it in 2025 either, and only the music itself will be remembered. You and I do not give a cahoot or a poop about the number one song in 1921, either!
I think that the main two things to be remembered from the middle of the century, will be ROCK and JAZZ as a generic definition, and a lot of the smaller definitions will fall by wayside. I also think that the least educated definition (symphonic!), is also on the endengered species because its definition does not make sense and is defined by one album, not the artist! We MUST re-center the definitions about the artists, not the album, and stop the top ten attitude to help define and explain the music better.
Right now, it's impossible to explain "progressive music", because you have nothing to fall back on except some fame and sales. And this is the complete anti-thesis of what the whole thing was about. PERIOD!
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Prog, tech, jazz fusion confusion
Topic Options
