what is art rock?

ivan_2068 wrote: As I know, Art Rock had different meanings acroos the years: In the late 60's very early 70's:  Art Rock was another word to call Progressive Rock, both terms could be used without aby problem to describe the same genre.

Since I first started listening to Prog Rock in the early 1970s I've used the term Art Rock interchangeably with Progressive Rock (especially symphonic).

I'm not sure about maani's explanation. I've always assumed the term Art Rock is a play on the term Art Music, viz. an attempt to label a type of rock music that has classical influences, classical pretensions or simply a complexity not inherent in other popular music (rock, pop).

art music

classical music: music composed in the classical tradition rather than in a folk or pop style

Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Edited by Fitzcarraldo

well, I see many answers; in my opinion art rock is a nonsense classification: if we consider Kansas an art rock band rather than a symphonic prog one probably we mean that Kansas sound is more hard, so where's the pointness of this classification? It will be necessary define them a hard prog band! I'm agree with The Minstrel: he says that art rock band are nexter to pop sound (in most of cases) and it is the case of Styx. Rush is a particular case, since they can't be defined in any way, they are a subgenre themselves!  

The most famous 'art rock' album has to be Dark Side Of The Moon.That is the best example for this sub genre as it is so well known.I take the term 'art rock' to be a less complex form of progressive rock that relies more on songs and lyrics than instrumentation.Its actually this very album that has muddied the waters and why there is so much confusion.Progressive rock (style wise) was and still is ELP,Yes and Genesis albums made 1970-1973.Again this is a simple and widely accepted benchmark for 'progressive rock' as we know it.All else are sub genres IMO.

JesusBetancourt wrote: Thats it Ive had enough of this foolishness......I have been listening to progressive music for quite sometime for some one of my young age. I stumbled upon this sight earleir this year and I really and truley enjoy all the great people on this sight that share my love of this art form. The one thing I cannot agree on is this whole sub-genre mess. Progressive music is progressive music period.(not prog rock, prog metal, rio, art rock, etc, etc ,etc) I was completly taken aback by this labling. I am very sorry for exploding like this but this really is a bit redicules...the worst part with all due respect is that people use the definitions on this website like a official rulebook on progressive music. Truth is that these defintions are only there to help describe a certain music not to lable them. Once again I apologise for this but I just need to get this of my chest.

I'm also listening Prog' since my young age, for about 27 years, and this subgenres thing is relatively new for me,  but I don't see things so simple.

Always asked myself  what's the connection between for example Foxtrot and Bboom?  between Relayer and Sheherezade and other Stories? or even worth between Thick as a Brick and Octavarium?

You can say it's all Progressive Rock, but the differences among them are as big as the similarities, all have different influences, sounds and structure, so it's necesary to put some order. to find what bands have something in common with others and which are completely different.

Rio Bands have as many differences with Symphonic bands as they have with Hip Hop, so the simple term Progressive Rock is to narrow to describe all this bands and sub-genres.

I believe sub-genres help a lot to understand the complexity of Progressive Rock. And don't believe this is the only place where sub-genres are mentioned, check for example: http://www.gepr.net/gepr_styles.html or http://www.progressor.net/articles/genres.html both well respected web sites and you can see the issue can be seen more complex or simple, but the sub-genres are always mentioned.

So don't accuse people of foolishness for talking about genres, because it's something that make more interesting the genre we love so much.

Iván

i was making me the seem question, what is art rock? i think that is a sub-division for groups that have many qualities of the prog-rock, but can't be qualified in nothing of the existent genres of prog. for ex: rush.

As I know, Art Rock had different meanings acroos the years:

In the late 60's very early 70's:  Art Rock was another word to call Progressive Rock, both terms could be used without aby problem to describe the same genre.

Since the 80's up to today: Art Rock is the simplest form of Progressive Rock, on other words the exact border that divides Prog from mainstream, mainly from POP, we can include bands like ASIA, Roxy Music, Styx, Be Bop de Luxe, etc, bands which are not 100% progressive but are more elaborated than POP.

This term was created to divide this bands from the Neo Proggers, who were much simpler than early Prog' but definetely part of the Progressive Rock Genre.

In many web sites: Art Rock is were people and critics luymp all the bands that can't be clearly in any sub-genre, I seen people calling Uriah Heep or Anglagard Art Rock which IMHO is wrong.

Iván

It is debatable as to what exactly art rock means just like theres much debate as to what prog is. The way I see it is that art rock is a looser more general definition of prog. You know how some people argue about whether or not a band is prog or not? Well there is argument there because those bands often have strong qualities of prog but some don't quite see them as being prog(think Strawbs, Supertramp, Moody Blues, Styx even often times people will claim Pink Floyd, RUsh and Kansas aren't prog). There is no denying these bands have strong prog elements regardless of whether you consider them prog or not. My point is art rock doesn't have the same high criterion as prog. As long as it sounds arty and not like regular rock n roll it could be considered art rock. Think of it this way. All prog is art rock but not all art rock is prog.

It is true that some people use the term art rock to mean glam rock groups like Bowie, Roxy Music and whoever else as well as 10 CC, BEbop Deluxe etc. But I think the point there is that groups who weren't as complex and did more song oriented material were labelled art rock.It just so happens that some glammish groups fit into that context.

 

Edited by Prog_Traveller

Maani made me totaly confused. If art rock is just a band that some of it's members went to art school then it is not a genre !

I have no idea what art rock is but in this site Rush, Kansas & Robert Wyatt are classified under that title. Rush & Kansas are very rocky bands and IMO are close to prog metal. Wyatt is close to Avant-garde and totally different than the other two mentioned. All 3 are definitely prog so art rock can not be rock bands that are close to prog (or those 3 does'nt belong to art rock).

Even though A.C.T tends towards shorter songs and has many catchy hooks, these characteristics aren't ultimate qualifiers for considering a type of music as art rock.  A.C.T. is more progressive than most, and labeling them art rock is a misunderstanding of the art rock label.  Art rock is just what it implies, rock done in an artistic way with fourishes of progressive elements.

Humanizzimo wrote: A.C.T. is considerated art rock??