Talk Talk for post rock!

Sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but I read the last post and felt like it was a somewhat inadequate stopping point.

I think it's pretty much accepted that Talk Talk was a precursor and possibly the progenitor of modern post-rock. The question, perhaps, is whether the band's music bares enough resemblance to the modern post-rock genre to merit it being included in the genre on this web site.

Here's a list of sources that consider Talk Talk to be a post-rock outfit:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gifoxqr5ldae - Talk Talk's allmusic page lists them as post-rock, as does both of the reviews for their final two albums.

http://www.last.fm/music/Talk+Talk - post-rock is the third most popular tag for Talk Talk on last.fm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_Talk - Talk Talk's later work is listed as post-rock on Wikipedia.

http://www.amazon.com/Laughing-Stock-Talk/dp/B000001FZK - Talk Talk's later albums are often cited as post-rock by Amazon.com reviewers.

http://silverdragonrecords.com/post_rock.htm -- This web site, describing the roots of post-rock, lists Talk Talk as one of the genre's founders.

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=2569 -- In this Sputnikmusic review, it is described why the band was considered a post-rock band.

You can find many more sources by googling: "Talk Talk" "post rock".

I'm not sure what you would consider an "independent thought" on the subject, but of the many reputable music review sites out there that I cited, along with the significant chunk of fans represented by the last.fm statistics, some of those must be worth noting.

True, post-rock has drifted significantly from its roots since its inception in the late eighties or early nineties. If you consider Spitit of Eden to be the genre's first album, the genre's 20th anniversary will be coming up on September 16.

Bands have had a lot of time to develop their sound and expand upon Talk Talk's original vision. Saying Talk Talk isn't a post-rock band because they have stylistic differences with Explosions in the Sky, Sigur Ros and Godspeed is like saying King Crimson, Yes, and Genesis aren't progressive rock bands because they don't sound like The Mars Volta, Dream Theater and Kayo Dot. The evolution of progressive rock is even more profound as the genre itself is more varied and hard-to-define (according to this site, it encompasses post-rock, after all). And progressive rock has had 40 years to evolve, rather than 20.

I could go into a somewhat in-depth analysis of the evolution (or devolution) from Talk Talk's later records to what is now considered post-rock, but this post is already getting overlong!

At any rate, since the band is on this site primarily in consideration of its last two records, they should probably be categorized of post-rock, IMHO


Edited by auralsun - August 31 2008 at 09:10

With all due respect, this is very frustrating collabs. Only Bob has held forth an argument with substance, no one has supported an argument except that they're content.

micky wrote: schizoid_man77 wrote: While some general statements are made, there really has been little argument against them being in post rock. then I will I guess .. they were added in Xover because we believe they fit best in Xover... not Post Rock

How is that an argument against them being in post-rock?

schizoid_man77 wrote: While some general statements are made, there really has been little argument against them being in post rock.

then I will I guess .. they were added in Xover because we believe they fit best in Xover... not Post Rock

First of all it's nice to see a bunch of proggers giving some love to Talk Talk early work.  It's my Life may be synth pop but I love it and have for years.  While I understand the argument for puting them in Post Rock, I'm fine with them in Crossover.  Also I don't know enough about the definitons to make a judgement, I have Sigur Ros and The Gathering from Post Rock only, lots of Crossover.  Like someone said, I'm a fan whatever subgenre they're in.

I don't know/care whether they are prog or not, but their last two albums are amazing.

Easy Livin wrote: I think we probably generally agree that their genre should be determined by their final 2 albums.   I have misgivings about post rock for 2 reasons.   - I feel it is a modern genre, Talk Talk have simply been around too long to fit in. It's a bit like neo-prog, their is a sort of starting point for it, before which it did not exist. - I think Talk Talk's music is more sophisticated than Post rock. To me, Post rock is a comparatively basic style (personally I don't consider it prog, but that's another debate!). Talk Talk put a lot of thought and creativity into every individual note on their later albums. Post Rock bands take basic phonetic drum rhythms add very repetitive melodies.   I hope I don't sound too degrading towards Post rock, I actually enjoy it, but I don't think TT fit there.

Edited by tszirmay - May 20 2008 at 22:05

tszirmay wrote: schizoid_man77 wrote: ^What did that have to do with our argument?   Anyways, Folly is right, Talk Talk is post rock by definition. Their three most popular tags on last fm are synth pop, 80's, and Post rock. So apparently even the fans not here think this.    I forgot to argue!  talk talk, doesn't any one argue anymore! I was hinting that Talk Talk should be, IMHO, Prog-Related . Post-Rock is historically not applicable to categorize them. They belong with the Beatles, Roxy Music etc...

schizoid_man77 wrote: ^What did that have to do with our argument?   Anyways, Folly is right, Talk Talk is post rock by definition. Their three most popular tags on last fm are synth pop, 80's, and Post rock. So apparently even the fans not here think this.

The pigeon cooed for its hole!