What the hell is avant garde

thank you sir
good one

kek

>Radiohead, Bowie, GY!BE
>avant-garde
is this bait? i honestly can't tell anymore

what is avant garde to you, sir

>Radiohead
>Bowie
>GY!BE
>avant-garde
Jesus Christ. Kill me now. I can't believe I share a board with these plebs.

>what is avant garde to you, sir

"Avant-garde in music can refer to any form of music working within traditional structures while seeking to breach boundaries in some manner."
Examples are futurism, Webern, Stockhausen
A pop musician, a pop version of Can and a band that makes "cinematic" rock in a symphonic form are not avant-garde

OP is just angry that everybody in his other thread called him a pleb and told him that all of the albums he posted were pop albums.

>it's only avant gard if no one listens to it. If other people like it then I can't wank to how superior it makes me feel.

would you say captain beefheart is avant garde?

I'm just genuinely curious

His work is derivative of free jazz and blues, so no

so to be avant garde you have to practically invent a genre?

...

sort of, genres aren't concrete anyway, so some deviations from tradition that haven't been replicated are not tagged as genres

so would you say loveless is avant garde?

>A pop musician, a pop version of Can and a band that makes "cinematic" rock in a symphonic form are not avant-garde
It can because you just defined it as "working within a tradition" (pop music) "while seeking to breach boundaries" (non-pop elements).

obviously not, distortion is not a novel concept

see

What about his groundbreaking use of equalization?

by tradition, I mean classical tradition, applying concepts that have already been done in classical to pop is not exactly noteworthy.
Can you elaborate?

>Can you elaborate?
You mean you don't know how the album was made?

Then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on the album then.
>applying concepts that have already been done in classical to pop is not exactly noteworthy.
Incorrect. Classical and pop are two different disciplines. If one borrows from the other, then that is breaking boundaries.

But it's breaking boundaries in both of those genres, it doesn't really sound exactly like blues (mostly) or free jazz

How is experimental different from avant-garde?

No, I wanted for you to explain how it's novel, but I guess you can't
>Incorrect. Classical and pop are two different disciplines. If one borrows from the other, then that is breaking boundaries.
We're talking about the oficial definition of avant-garde that's agreed on by academics. If you want you can use it any way you want so it wouldn't be wrong to use it for pop, toys or video games

>No, I wanted for you to explain how it's novel
I just did. See >We're talking about the oficial definition of avant-garde that's agreed on by academics
Right. And it applies, as seen here >If you want you can use it any way you want so it wouldn't be wrong to use it for pop, toys or video games
Then what's the problem if you agree with me?
Experimental denotes a method of making music. Just because something is avant-garde, doesn't make it experimental. Although one could perceive the outcome of experimental music as avant-garde.

all music grounded in tradition, i.e. "rock" is a form of pop and therefore not avant-garde

>all music grounded in tradition
Nice goalpost shifting

Saying that it's equalization is groundbreaking is a statement not an explanation
>Right. And it applies, as seen here
Not really, avant-garde is only applied to composers who challanged the status quo, basically this
>Then what's the problem if you agree with me?
The only reason I posted in this thread is to inform OP what avant-garde's official definition is

alan moulder was a fucking genius in those days

loveless didn't sound like anything else, apart maybe from mary chain, athough it was about a million times more lush sounding than their stuff, and that's mainly down to moulder

you can hear him in curve's stuff as well, he uses the eq the same way on that stuff

(i'm a different user than the other guy in here talking about eq but he's essentially correct)

this is Cred Forums, you're not gonna get an essay that describes the avant-garde, you'll get a generalization that sums it up.

if you make music that sounds like other music on purpose, then it's not avant-garde. nirvana and the beatles have more in common than captain beefheart and philip glass. just figure it out for yourself

Basically anything that breaks the boundaries of what defines music.

>Saying that it's equalization is groundbreaking is a statement not an explanation
See >Not really, avant-garde is only applied to composers who challanged the status quo
Correct. Pop composers can do the same thing, be challenging the status quo of their hemisphere by drawing from others.
>basically this
Already refuted here. >The only reason I posted in this thread is to inform OP what avant-garde's official definition is
That's fine. The only reason I posted in this thread is to inform you that pop music can be avant-gard, since it fits into the official definition.
>if you make music that sounds like other music
*in your hemisphere
>nirvana and the beatles have more in common than captain beefheart and philip glass. just figure it out for yourself
Sounds like you need to listen to more music.

you're putting in way too much effort to be baiting at this point, so i'll just tell you that this entire thread and the argument between defining pop and the avant garde is basically retarded.

globalist traditions have been around since the roman empire, which existed in italy and egypt at the same time. cultural relativism has no place in this debate, you sound like a college freshman

gtfo

...

Talking to you is to you is like talking to a wall, especially because of your inability to produce an argument explaining how Loveless is avant-garde. I know you are taking the piss and I'm bored and tired of this back and forth so I'll just post this link if somebody is still interested
quora.com/What-is-avant-garde-music-What-are-some-examples

Something Lady Gaga invented in 2009.

Pls explain to a non-english man here.

Like most terms and tags referring to an artform it's largely subjective what is and isn't avant-garde.

>globalist traditions have been around since the roman empire
Not relevant. Avant-garde was a 20th century concept. It is completely grounded in cultural relativism.
>Talking to you is to you is like talking to a wall
It's really not my fault you selective reasoning of what is or is not avant-garde to suit your agenda
>inability to produce an argument explaining how Loveless is avant-garde
I already told you-- his forward thinking approach to EQ
If you don't know what that means, it's on you to research a topic before discussing it.

what specific artists would you point to as beginning the avant-garde movement in the western hemisphere, and how would you describe their contributions as either influenced by or comparatively valuable to other artists worldwide at the time

>influenced by or comparatively valuable to other artists worldwide at the time
Irrelevant goalpost

Not him, but Beefheart influenced a ton of people to implement freak music and free jazz into their sound. John Zorn basically revamped free jazz and brought it to places never seen before, and Mike Patton was at the forefront of avant garde and freakier metal, influencing bands from the dillenger escape plan to (ugh) Slipknot

yeah but the guy i responded to was devaluing avant-garde in relation to pop because of its perceived roots in world music. while simultaneously defending MBV as avant-garde. he's a fucking clown

if everything's so irrelevant to you, maybe there's some nuance to an argument you mentally cannot grasp

>devaluing avant-garde
I wasn't. I was simply stating the parameters of the official definition of avant-garde, as defined by your ilk.

Sound like you have some sort of problem with pop music. What's your problem? Did pop music rape your mother?
>while simultaneously defending MBV as avant-garde.
What do you even know of the album?
Feel free to state it. be sure to use citations though, as any pretend goalpost shifting so you can discount pop music will be ignored as
>not relevant

...

"I haven't got a clue" is a phrase used to show that you are unsure about the reason for something. "Avant-garde" sounds a bit like "haven't got"

Pop isn't grounded in tradition. That is folk.

Nice goalpost shifting though.

so in your opinion, anything new applied to anything old is avant-garde

Thanks

In my opinion, avant-garde in music can refer to any form of music working within traditional structures while seeking to breach boundaries in some manner.

Your strawman attempt won't work.

Does that answer your question?

>can refer to

that's where you go wrong. every time you make a vague claim and someone demands more evidence to support that claim, it is not "shifting the goalposts." it almost seems like i'm falling for really good b8 but it doesn't feel like it. so good for you i guess

Non sequitur

you have clearly admitted to thinking pop can be avant-garde without providing any example as to a valid definition of either. if the debate were grounded in opinion then you'd be fine but the only parameters of avant-garde are to break parameters, not work within them. if you want to debate the post-modernist or dada then that's different, but do not just label things as you see appropriate to fit some half-baked theory

>you have clearly admitted to thinking pop can be avant-garde without providing any example as to a valid definition of either
Are you saying this is not a valid definition?
>only parameters of avant-garde are to break parameters, not work within them
Right. So a pop musician using classical concepts in their music would be breaking parameters, right?
>but do not just label things as you see appropriate to fit some half-baked theory
You mean like "Pop music can't be avant-garde!"

From a bystander's perspective, you are the bigger idiot. However, both parties in this argument are stupid for spending so much time arguing over what avant garde means. I feel that reading the whole discussion has costed me brain cells. This thread belongs in the trash.

Why?

by your logic, every innovation in music is avant-garde. a pop musician using classical elements can be making modern classical or ambient or post-rock or hip hop, or a variation of everything. it's still pop music unless it's avant-garde. they're different things.

>by your logic, every innovation in music is avant-garde. a pop musician using classical elements can be making modern classical or ambient or post-rock or hip hop, or a variation of everything
So?
>they're different things.
Pop music is a noun, while avant-garde is an adjective.

J dilla used alot avant-garde production techniques. For example, he would use equalizers in studio to bend the contour of a sample to change into sounding like a completely different.
>sampled this song "claire" by the unlimited singers
m.youtube.com/watch?v=mIHGb8Qm0IY
>turned into this loop used in slum village's players
youtu.be/xqylSGpyhOI

Truly incredible.

Completely different word**
Sorry fellaz

music is a noun

pop describes music the same way avant-garde does

Avant Garde is when you make experimental music but you are a stuffy hauty professor.

In a sense that folk and classical describes music as well.
Already been done by The Beatles. Not avant-garde

What john lennon did was splice different samples together to create new words. Not the same thing.

I am referencing reEQing guitars to sound like pianos, and vice versa

Nice try though.

"ahead of its time" in french

He's right though. In visual arts, avant-garde is iconoclastic stuff like dadaism, surrealism, abstract and so on.
By this logic avant-garde music should be 2deep2artsy stuff like musique concrete and field recordings.

Go back to redd-it, fag

so beefheart, patton, mbv, and the velvet underground are avant garde

Thats still not the same thing as using eq to bend the contour of a human voice to produce a different word.
Both are avant garde but they are different musical techniques.

>Thats still not the same thing as using eq to
Whatever is stated after this is irrelevant, since the concept is the same
>Both are avant garde but they are different musical techniques.
Since they are the same technique, only one is avant-garde

...

You're essentially correct, yeah. It's pushing something in a new direction. Technically Evangelion was avant-garde. Death Grips are avant-garde. It's not a term that defines value and the man children here will use it as some sort of label meaning 'good'. Avant-garde has also been used as a derogatory term to laugh off outsiders. There's very little reason to ever use the term, though.

>avant-garde movement
Erm... It's more a descriptor than a movement.
Go look at futurism and Dada, the beginnings of post-modern thought and creative practice and trace forward since contemporary recorded music has it's roots planted therein.

It's not.
Changing a word while keeping the original sample whole in one piece is different from recording an instrument then eqing it to sound like a different instrument. One is a occupies a linguistic space while the other strictly occupies a musical space.
Changing the word changes the entire emotional connotation the word gives the listener, while changing the instrument is a strict aesthetic change.

>Changing a word while keeping the original sample whole in one piece
How did they do that!?
Careful: if your answer is EQ then yes, it's been done
>One is a occupies a linguistic space while the other strictly occupies a musical space
Oh is this artist a spoken word artist?
>Changing the word changes the entire emotional connotation the word gives the listener, while changing the instrument is a strict aesthetic change.
Except music can inspire emotion, and lyrics can follow an aesthetic.

How many albums have you produced btw?

I'm not sure about the Velvet Underground, but the others are, yeah. Don't mind those autismos arguing incomprehensibly over a simple term.
Avant-garde just means progressive and is just a haughty adjective because it comes from the Paris art scene.

It's born from the period where middle-class people wanted to look like upper class people who owned 'art' so they started buying shit paintings and Duchamp turned a urinal upside-down to mock them. There were two factions; the petite bourgeois (analogous of normies or people who call drawings 'art' today) and the avant-garde (people pushing and supporting progression in their media which included actual art-makers - analogous of people who know that 'artstyle' isn't a real word today).

That's pretty much it. Ariel Pink is avant-garde too.