How are bands/artists like The Residents, Zappa, Beefheart, early Floyd...

Muh post-modern aesthetic spork crap.

You have no clue what signal processing is, do you?

so what do you mean by post modernism?

Focus on image/aesthetics over actual music depth.

>Implying Zappa, Beefheart, and Pink Floyd didn't have any musical depth

okay, buddy

might be true
but what about Waters
that's literally the worst explanation of what post-modernism is
>Residents
>only Aesthetically focused
are you stupid or what
do you think anything satirical is shallow just because it's satire? even when The Residents were doing pretty fucking unique stuff you are just going to dismiss it as "pretentious spotk crap" because it has elements of satire or is "kind of quitky"?
fuck off

I'm processing your signals, and I get the impression you are stupid.

I don't think that's what post-modernism means

I think he was more implying that The Beatles are more in-depth than any of those artists and bands.

Just saying they didn't experiment as much as people give them credit for.

In the context of this topic that's exactly what it means. Sorry you guys are butthurt that The Residents weren't that experimental. If only they did actually experimental stuff instead of making sporkcore "look at how goofy this sounds, guys!" garbage.

ok please tell me how do you think
>Third Reich'n Roll
>Meet The Residents
>Eskimo
>Not Available
are not experimental.

>King Crimson
>Zappa
>not pretentious

I see this all the time on this site. The argument that "the experimental band that you think is experimental really isn't that experimental" is so adolescent. "Experimental" just means the artists are looking to progress past common boundaries. It's not a genre, and you're not cooler or more interesting for liking music that is more inaccessible than music someone else likes. "Experimental" is just a mindset, and you can't say any of the artists OP mentioned were not, if even for only a portion of their career.

They just put random shit together instead of actually making something new. The epitome of gimmick garbage over actual innovation. Hey look guys what if we took music ideas that have exists for a while now, put them in a blender, then have snippets of muh pop culture in there? This is the 70s version of dumb as fuck James Ferraro who thinks making derivative music and having some chick say Starbucks on top makes it experimental and innovative.

ok
they took ideas
they tried to do something different with them
and they achieved that
they have a unique sound
and thy didn't just put things in a blender but actually tried to do stuff with already existing ideas. If none of these hit you as experimental then i really don't know what experimental means to you

style is substance though. music as commodified today is a multi-media product and all of its aspects can or should be taken into account at least to a small extent
oh well, the fact you referred to them as "spork" tells me you have some kind of hangup about what image music is supposed or not supposed to portray in your mind

I don't even like the Residents, but I can certifiably say I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. If you put random shit together in unexpected ways, you're literally being experimental. I like the Beatles much, much more than the Residents, but the Residents are undeniably more experimental.

Putting stuff in a blender doesn't make it new. Nor very experimental. Metallica for example ain't no experimental genius just because they took Diamond Head's sound and put that shit together with punk.

Experimental means really going in directions where music hasn't gone before. George Martin's approach to signal processing on Sgt. Peppers forever changing how music's recorded, Stockhausen's Konktakte changing how electronic music is viewed, the Emily Howell program being somewhat of a composer variant on IBM's Watson. Stuff that legit changes the perspective on how music is made and what it means, not just taking what already exists and just putting it in a blender. Since it already exists, ultimately there's no new approach or perspective actually being capitalized on.

ELE

>the only unpretentious experimentation is when musicians put weird noises purely for the purpose of being experimental without actually experimenting at all
you are a retarded piece of shit

you're saying experimental but you're meaning influential. even by those standards, how can you say beefheart wasn't influential? his fingerprints are on half of all popular music released in the 80s.

That aside, your idea of experimental music is also overly grand. if an artist is trying things and seeing how they work in order to create something new to them, they're experimenting by definition.

>. If only they did actually experimental stuff instead of making sporkcore "look at how goofy this sounds, guys!" garbage.
How do you know they weren't experimenting?

>half of all popular music
No. That's not even close. Listen to more music.

>misconstruing my words
>being beyond autistic levels of retarded

>Experimental means really going in directions where music hasn't gone before
Incorrect.

But that would explain why you think specific experimental artists aren't experimental. If I didn't know what "blue" was I'd think the sky was purple or orange or something.

Then it's not really experimenting in a way to deserve some form of experimental label as everyone experiments with music regardless of who they are. But to be called experimental requires more than that, and none of the guys you mentioned do it.

So you're saying the production means more than the actual music that is being played on the album

>as everyone experiments with music regardless of who they are
How so?
>But to be called experimental requires more than that
It only takes one thing and you haven't mentioned it yet

The production creates the actual music on the album.

Pretentious is such a misty line, were the Residents pretentious back when their music was rejected early in their career because it wasn't vindicated yet?

boi you sound dumb right now

>pretentious
Oh do you know them personally?

"experimental" is an adjective. why are you putting all these rules on when it's allowed to be used? this argument is entirely semantics, but i'm engaging you because your approach to music discussion is representative of one of the problems with this board. you're treating music and music taste like a competition in order to feel good about yourself. it just stunts discussion. put your pride away and just enjoy music you enjoy.

Crimson and Floyd pioneered ambient techniques. Just look at Frippertronics - they were literally building new instruments to play with.

>But to be called experimental requires more than that
stop thinking of the term as a badge of honor, the way most people would use it (which is what dictates the terminology here - genre labels aren't a science) is to slap it on whatever's "off-kilter" in some way, combining heterogenous styles that already exist would fall under that.

>"experimental" is an adjective. why are you putting all these rules on when it's allowed to be used? this argument is entirely semantics
Not him, but this is incorrect. Don't get pissy at him that you don't know what experimental means

no one knows what anything means any more
why are words

How the fuck is Fripp not pretentious? You're fucking retarded.

Only because they don't research it
>why are words
what are definitions

Who make music as the resident firts???

>How so?
>making music
>hmmm...lets see how this patch sounds like with this
>nah, it's aight
>lets try this one
>aight this sounds cool
Literally experimenting

>It only takes one thing and you haven't mentioned it yet
>being this oblivious

We are judging the art not the artists

The other guy beat me to it.

Nah that was Eno who mostly did that.

>>hmmm...lets see how this patch sounds like with this
That describes a vast minority of music. Not all music is electronic.

>We are judging the art not the artists
Except OP never mentioned the art, just the artists. Nice try though.

easy, pretentiousness is just a word haters use that really means nothing at all

I don't really think they were very pretentious as people. I think their stage show and the way they presented themselves as a band (not as people) became pretentious in the mid to late 70s.

This was mainly because of their lack of desire to make themselves the center of attention though so they built massive stage spectacles like floating pigs, teachers, building giant walls during the performance, over the top light shows etc...

>That describes a vast minority of music. Not all music is electronic.
Are you that dense? It was an example from one perspective. Another would be "what note do I play next?" or anything like that.

>Except OP never mentioned the art, just the artists. Nice try though.
OP had the misconception that these artists are actually experimental.

These artists represent the pinnacle of posturing on Cred Forums in that people here often like to have "unique" albums in their tastes but it's often just something very gimmicky instead of something actually unique or actually groundbreaking. Me easily BTFOing all you posturing losers makes that even more apparent.

Literally everyone they copied from? You can just listen to a Residents album and then go to wikipedia from there it's as simple as that.

>doesn't know what pretentious means

>It was an example from one perspective.
Sounds like your mistake since I was specifically replying to "as everyone experiments"
>OP had the misconception that these artists are actually experimental.
Why aren't they? I can't speak for The Residents or King Crimson, but Zappa, Beefheart and Pink Floyd were all experimental.
>These artists represent the pinnacle of posturing on Cred Forums
Not relevant.
>that people here often like to have "unique" albums in their tastes but it's often just something very gimmicky
People's taste is not relevant.
>something actually unique or actually groundbreaking
Not necessary for experimental music
>Me easily BTFOing all you
>being this oblivious

Eno is the one who pioneered ambient techniques, Fripp didn't do shit except noodle on guitar as he always does.

>Sounds like your mistake since I was specifically replying to "as everyone experiments"
>Couldn't make conclusions based on what he was given
>Below autism tier

>Why aren't they? I can't speak for The Residents or King Crimson, but Zappa, Beefheart and Pink Floyd were all experimental.
>still has no clue and is just shitposting like a child

>Not relevant.
>People's taste is not relevant.
>Getting called out, damage controls with muh not relevant

>Not necessary for experimental music
>Experimental music should be everyone and everything else

Grow up, kiddo.

Nice argument

I already made it. You tried poking holes in it with nonsense thus it didn't work. Bullshitting only works with posers not in reality.

>

>I already made it
Show me.

>if it disproves me, it's nonsense!
I asked why it's not experimental and you couldn't tell me. Then you made an ad hominem (and made the assumption I liked the artists OP mentions) because you couldn't think of a better argument.

Just admit you don't know what experimental is.

I would say Pink Floyd got pretentious with Dark Side of the Moon and superstardom success in 1974. But, fuck it man, if you make it big like that, you'd be pretentious as fuck too.
Agreed. In their early formative period in '66 to the '73 Dark Side Tour, they were probably the least pretentious rock band at that time. I mean, these guys literally shied away from the limelight.

I heard this one story that at one gig they were walking through the crowd and no one recognized them. Just how they liked it.
I agree. Nick Mason is very genuine as well, as was Syd Barrett. Read some of Syd's Melody Maker interviews. He's actually very insightful and, while obviously not comfortable being interviewed, still makes an attempt to very honestly answer the questions posed to him.
>what about Waters
He became literally what was wrong with art rock in the '80s and then acted surprised that no one showed up to his solo gigs when he only advertised himself as 'Roger Waters,' even though he spent the majority of the '70s trying to hide the fact that he was, in fact, Roger Waters.

>look at me guys I posted a pic of Thomas Pynchon I am so patrician, right?

It's...on this page. If you fail to find it, that ain't on me. Don't delude yourself as it's not only objectively on this page, unless you have disabilities it should be objectively possible for you to find it. If you have disabilities (which you probably do,) you shouldn't be here posturing it up in the first place.

>It's...on this page
If it was, you'd be able to quote the post instead of spreading "it's hear I swear, but I won't tell you!" over three superfluous sentences.

Try one more time.

I don't need to quote myself, you just need to read this thread.

the funny thing is I post this picture every single time the anti PoMo poster is here

And he replies
every single time

Yep read it. Not seeing it.

Prove me wrong by quoting your argument. If you can't, this is just misdirection and you have no argument.

Got no clue who you're talking about. Also I respect true masters of post-modernism; just not the trash it eventually became.

>muh delusional b8

>if i don't like it then it's not experimental!

Actual skill, talent and genius with means to innovate their art form, while making enjoyable and memorable music.

If your argument is "experimental = something new"
That is wrong, and not what experimental means

Read the thread. I have already responded to a similar thing.

>Nah that was Eno who mostly did that

Aumgn by Can predates any Eno album

this thread had the capacity to be good but it was ruined by, whaddya know, pretentious people. so, now i have cancer. thanks cunts

Their fans do that for them Op

Oh you mean when you thought all music was electronic, then got butthurt and wanted someone else to define the parameters of your won argument?

Nah, Popol Vuh did it even before that. That being said, it was all primitive stuff they were still working with. Eno's the one who took it to the next level.

Yeah, there's a guy who does this "where's the proof?" b8ing thing which always derails threads.

As is apparent here.

What's worse is people thinking something isn't experimental because they don't like it

I don't get this notion of pretension in music. As if making sounds has any inherent importance or significance. If an artist's art is "pretending" to be more important than it is, then it implies that there is some baseline importance that it truly is. If you try to look for objective importance in music, then I'm not sure there's much to go on. Objectively it's just sounds that make you feel feels, so is every work that goes on "deeper" themes than just raw emotion pretentious for it?

Using Floyd as an example, the lyrics to Piper are for the most part as unpretentious as can be, it's about gnomes and bikes and shit. But the music certainly suggests something more than raw emotions, some would say there are statements about consciousness in the music. Whether there really is isn't my point though. My point is that any defintion of pretension seems to cause a really low threshold for being pretentious, making most bands pretentious to some degree.

I personally place a pretty high importance on music and find that there aren't many pretentious artists, if any.

the only non-autistic post in this thread

My posts as well

If you're posting in this thread at all then you're autistic

Pretentious is a just a buzzword that gets thrown out at anything someone doesn't like. I don't see how music can be pretentious. The artist can be pretentious in regards to their music, but the music isn't pretentious.

Wow you are such a douche

Nowadays they seem conventional. At the time they were releasing their music they prolly came across as these pretentious weird asshats

>prog rock
>Pretentious

Pick two