Red Mosquito

Please list your bands that are experimental and actually listenable. I so often read that bands that I think are somewhat experimental aren't at all from "the experts". So list 'em, and please elaborate why they're experimental, or tell me what can quantify an experimental band:

Going in and out of genres, time signatures, lyrics?, song structures??

All right, tell me if I'm wrong.

Elvis Costello, Talking Heads, Tom Waits, Kanye West, Beatles, Bowie, Radiohead, Sonic Youth?.

Those that I think of that I haven't listened to much of: Bjork, Brian Eno?, Can, Captain Beefheart, Frank Zappa, Kraftwerk, Primus?, Jim O'Rourke?, Miles Davis, Ween.

Is fusing together aspects that no one had thought of before, using the studio in ways that no one had thought of before, bouncing wildly from genre to genre, using odd time structures or instruments a good way to define what can make a band experimental? Or making a lot of different noises come from more traditional instruments?

I think it's probably all a matter of perspective. I think people who are deeply into "experimental music" as a fundamental concept would probably tell you that few if any of the artists you've listed would qualify as "experimental," but I think you're right that all of those artists were interested in pushing against the limits of their respective forms, and challenging their audience to consider familiar ideas in ways that were just different enough from what they were used to that they still had to put in a little effort to unravel it. Typically I prefer to think of experimentation in those terms than in the stricter, academic sense, allowing it to take many forms and affording the artist credit for it when he or she tries something that may or may not work within his or her own unique circumstances, regardless of whether or not the larger idea has been "done before," which it surely all has.

i think kd makes a good point.

my nominations would be terry riley and robert ashley and philip glass.

Kevin Davis wrote:I think it's probably all a matter of perspective. I think people who are deeply into "experimental music" as a fundamental concept would probably tell you that few if any of the artists you've listed would qualify as "experimental," but I think you're right that all of those artists were interested in pushing against the limits of their respective forms, and challenging their audience to consider familiar ideas in ways that were just different enough from what they were used to that they still had to put in a little effort to unravel it. Typically I prefer to think of experimentation in those terms than in the stricter, academic sense, allowing it to take many forms and affording the artist credit for it when he or she tries something that may or may not work within his or her own unique circumstances, regardless of whether or not the larger idea has been "done before," which it surely all has.

Thanks...really interesting insight. The looser definition you speak of is what I tend to employ. And that's why it's frustrating to hear people say bands (that I enjoy) that are experimenting with their template aren't experimenting at all. It always makes me think that there's no such thing as a truly experimental band that is even tolerable to listen to.

It's as if to be experimental a band has to invent their own instruments in a junk yard and play in frequencies inaudible to the human ear. Or else it's just the same guitar rock, verse chorus verse, yawn.

Kd, Any artists you think fit into this thread?

I've always felt Grails really do their own thing yet remain very listenable

Dawn of Midi

Gods' Die wrote:It's as if to be experimental a band has to invent their own instruments in a junk yard and play in frequencies inaudible to the human ear.

And really, the fact that you're so easily able to envision this scenario in your own mind should call into question how truly inventive even it is. I think we live in an era where, artistically speaking, there truly is nothing shocking; we have seen artists pass so many ridiculous things off as art that the sense of taboo surrounding the violation of conventional artistic norms is no longer there to prevent our minds from simply accounting en masse for every artistic oddity that has the potential to exist. I think there will always be people who simply conflate experimentalism with characteristics that are counterintuitive to music they're familiar with--for some people it may be atonality, or the absence of rhythm, or the presence of electronic instruments, all traits which have in themselves at one time or another solicited the label of "experimental." For me it's sufficient simply that an artist is willing to lay something on table and live with not knowing how it will turn out--I think that's an intangible feeling I get from a lot of my favorite music, even when the end result isn't necessarily something that's particularly difficult or inaccessible, and oftentimes I feel like that brings with it a sense of freedom and openness that something which is very meticulously and deliberately trying to be "different" rarely does.

I also think it's probably worth noting the difference between conceptual experimentation and musical/theoretical experimentation, which could be something as simple as a folksinger trying to write a song out of two chords that don't normally go together. Two very different animals but neither one necessarily more or less inventive.

gardenparty wrote:Kd, Any artists you think fit into this thread?

Pulling from my most recent playlists I would say the Nels Cline Singers fit this bill quite nicely. And I've pretty much always felt this way about Miles Davis's 1970's work--pretty viciously experimental, but Lord, that groove.

'Experimental' is a word that has lost all meaning to me, kinda like 'indie'. Seems like everything is experimental now. At worst it's just another way to pretend you're cool, at best it's a very lazy and pointless descriptor. Plenty of stuff I listen to gets labeled as experimental, but I don't feel like any of it really is.

Listenable seems like a vague concept too but one's enough for now.

Primus are experimental are in that they experimented until they found their incredibly unique sound and proceeded to hammer it into the fucking ground. They didn't mess around overly much therein, though. I wouldn't put them up with the greats in terms of experimentation. With that said, I love all of their albums.

Ween, anyone?

probabliy a tad too predictable coming from me but here it is anyway:

not only it is listenable but it is also pretty entertaining to watch. Waters and Mason wrote this song as diagrams. in fact, they drawn this song.


this song has had a major influence on modern music probably due to the manic drum track and the way it was mixed. oh, and also because it's fucking badass.


a track like this needs no introduction but the experimental facet of this utter pop nugget is often overlooked.

Mr bungle - California is probably my favorite "experimental" album. It's all over the place yet cohesive and even catchy at times.

Man, I haven't listened to that in years.

kreng wrote:Mr bungle - California is probably my favorite "experimental" album. It's all over the place yet cohesive and even catchy at times.

I gave FNM a chance. It was too nu-metally for me. I could see easily where all their spawn came from, and it bugged me enough that I couldn't get passed it. Ironic that I'm a PJ fan, but I wasn't digging it. Though he can sing like a mother fucker.

Battles?

yeah california rules

Dev wrote:yeah california rules

BurtReynolds wrote:Battles?

Oh, yes. Very clever band. Whatever happened to those guys?

Soma. wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Battles?

Oh, yes. Very clever band. Whatever happened to those guys?

They most recently released an album called Gloss Drop in 2011, and followed it with a compilation of remixes called, appropriately, Dross Glop last year.