the differences between Avant and RIO

Geck0 wrote: Oh, I have some of his albums, I just haven't heard them yet.  All in good time! Claire (listennow801) knows more, I believe.

Oh, that's right.  I forgot that you were in the unfortunate position of having piles and piles of albums you haven't listened to yet. 

Damn, there seems to be almost no information on the guy whatsoever on the internet.  None in english, anyways.  Perhaps the RIO Drop-In guys will be able to help....

I'm not familiar with his work.  What does he sound like?  

SolariS wrote: I've heard of bands today that consider themselves "Rock against rock". Sleepytime Gorilla Museum is one for example. Sorta complicates things huh?

"Rock-against-rock", Thats actually a new movement formed by them(its proven now). I just got their new album a couple a days ago and there is a sticker that says "Rock-against-Rock Pioneers" on it(not really proof but what the hey).

Geck0 wrote: The ZART has been around for a while now, but only now are we really concerned about sorting the whole thing out.  We feel the definition needs rewriting and that is what we plan to do.  It's a slow process, but hopefully we'll have it done sometime soon.  We're still discussing everything as a team, especially which bands come under which category of Avant-Prog (which RIO is). We of course are still adding bands too, despite the lack of a proper definition.  The members of the ZART, are all pretty much in agreement with each other, so that helps us decide which bands are Avant-Prog and which are not. To answer the initial question, however, my belief is that Rock In Opposition should only incorporate 8 bands (the original 5, plus the 3 that joined later).  There are other related RIO bands, like Present and the offshoots of Samla Mammas Manna, but I am still undecided as to if they're RIO or not.  This is what we need to decide on as a team. I hope this helps!

The Samla offshoots are undoubtedly RIO; Samla had evolved to Zamla about a year before the first RIO festival, so technically it's SAMLA, not Zamla, that is arguably not RIO. 

The ZART has been around for a while now, but only now are we really concerned about sorting the whole thing out.  We feel the definition needs rewriting and that is what we plan to do.  It's a slow process, but hopefully we'll have it done sometime soon.  We're still discussing everything as a team, especially which bands come under which category of Avant-Prog (which RIO is).

We of course are still adding bands too, despite the lack of a proper definition.  The members of the ZART, are all pretty much in agreement with each other, so that helps us decide which bands are Avant-Prog and which are not.

To answer the initial question, however, my belief is that Rock In Opposition should only incorporate 8 bands (the original 5, plus the 3 that joined later).  There are other related RIO bands, like Present and the offshoots of Samla Mammas Manna, but I am still undecided as to if they're RIO or not.  This is what we need to decide on as a team.

I hope this helps!

tremulant wrote: Fassbinder wrote: tremulant wrote: avestin wrote: This exact question will, among others, be adressed in the new definition the ZART is working on. Thanks for bringing it up. What the hell is ZART!?   Zeuhl / Avant-Prog / RIO Team? Ah, okay... and what do they do?

im going to have to agree with the Sleeptytime Gorilla Museum comment as it seems to me that, although you can dissect the terms into their respective historical contexts (a bear for avant-), it seems more helpful to think about the nuances of the terms.
RIO, aka, "Rock In Opposition", must mean anything that ridicules the mainstream or the accepted musical styles. Avant-garde, besides sounding cooler, just designates anything that pushes the boundaries. Its a difference of nuance and intent, but i think it is clear, even if RIO ussually necessitates an avant- style.
examples:
RIO: Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, Mr. Bungle, Fantomas, Peeping Tom, Frank Zappa
Avant-Garde: Kayo Dot, Maudlin of the Well, John Zorn (?), [avant is harder to judge, i think, because its hard to tell the artist's exact motivation, or rather, when the motivation is not reactionary]

but really, avant-garde is an almost empty term because it is impossible to create a clear standard by which to judge bands and see if they are "wierd enough" to qualify, even if their motivation isnt reactionary...

tremulant wrote: avestin wrote: This exact question will, among others, be adressed in the new definition the ZART is working on. Thanks for bringing it up. What the hell is ZART!?

SolariS wrote: I've heard of bands today that consider themselves "Rock against rock". Sleepytime Gorilla Museum is one for example. Sorta complicates things huh?

Yeah, I heard that too... I guess it makes sence... in this, crazy avant world