Slightly less connotations than 'progressive' but provides a little bit more than 'other' in myspaceland.

I think it is crap, because most people who describe their work as "experimental" are really not. One of my friends has this thing on his site about how he is so "experimental" and pushing the boundaries of music, and his stuff is all shoegaze. Of course, since he watches way too much MTV and has never heard a decent college radio station in his life, shoegaze seems experimental.

I hear "experimental" used to describe non-rock musical experiments, and I think that is OK. If the idea behind the music is to do something new and different, under the basis of seeing whether or not it makes for good music, then the label is worth being used so you know what you're getting into.

"Experimental rock" is not an OK label. I dont know what the fuck to expect when something gets called that. Usually it means some incorperation of faux-jazz drums, use of 3/4 and (gasp) 7/8 time signatures, and guitar interplay. I don't think real experimental "rockers" should or often do give their music that name, but then again, labelling your own music is an exercise in futility. I can't describe it, man, it's like nothing you've ever heard.

pick up a gastr del sol album.. steve albini recorded an ep with them called "mirror repair" - one of the best recordings in history.. gastr del sol was david grubbs and jim o'rourke.. perhaps yu've heard about these peeps?

this is stupid

Edit: Also I don't get it when someone uses the term "faux jazz drums" it's either jazz or it's not, it's pretty fucking simple. Just because it sounds sorta jazzy to mind does not mean it's trying to be or infact is "faux jazz". Look at the different styles of drum beats, I think you will find that a lot of it is Brazilian, freehand, Spanish, French etc.

Were you gasping because you think there is something wrong with using a 7/8 time signature or because it's over used in "math / pretend experimental" whatever rock?

yeah, it is

I like Gastr Del Sol

i would have thought the best use is for people who create music outside already established boundaries in the hope they'll create something new. by using the term 'experimental' artists are implicitly accepting that the end result may not be so good but it may be great.

in reality its just another cocklicking term used by musos to try and describe autechre's music. (no disrespect to them at all, not my cup of tea though)

(altogether now) just because you use a laptop, effects pedals, 'hauntingly etherreal' vocals and have a lazy eye doesn't make your music 'experimental'. it makes you radiohead.

AAAAAAAARGH wrote:I hear "experimental" used to describe non-rock musical experiments, and I think that is OK. If the idea behind the music is to do something new and different, under the basis of seeing whether or not it makes for good music, then the label is worth being used so you know what you're getting into.

"Experimental rock" is not an OK label. I dont know what the fuck to expect when something gets called that. Usually it means some incorperation of faux-jazz drums, use of 3/4 and (gasp) 7/8 time signatures, and guitar interplay. I don't think real experimental "rockers" should or often do give their music that name, but then again, labelling your own music is an exercise in futility. I can't describe it, man, it's like nothing you've ever heard.

We have called our band "experimental rock" for a while now. We write strange rock songs. We have no claims of changing music. We experiment with a bunch of different song ideas that sometimes don't make sense, hence we experiment with our songwriting in order to challenge ourselves to learn something that sounds wrong or out of order. We are not the only ones doing it. Some people call clicking on a mouse and making a bunch of noise experimental. Whatever.

yut wrote:I think it is crap, because most people who describe their work as "experimental" are really not. One of my friends has this thing on his site about how he is so "experimental" and pushing the boundaries of music, and his stuff is all shoegaze. Of course, since he watches way too much MTV and has never heard a decent college radio station in his life, shoegaze seems experimental.

"Experimental" is a perfectly fine description, but a completely subjective one, as your friend proves. For him, what he's doing probably truly is experimenting. For John Cage, not so much. Who cares?

AAAAAAAARGH wrote:...labelling your own music is an exercise in futility.

Worrying about someone else's self-labelling seems even more futile. Who cares?