Is the "Art Rock" genre/label extinct?

[joe]

Art rock is defined by being interchangeable and/or synonymous with progressive rock.a) implies rock with an exploratory tendency or b) music with a more mainstream compositional nature, tending to experiment within this framework.

"Prog. rock tends to be more melodic, more literary, and more oriented toward classically trained instrumental technique. Art rock is more likely to have an experimental or avant-garde influences, placing novel sonic texture above prog. rocks symphonic ambitions". All Music Guide

No question there are intersections and overlaps. For example, Yes is considered a symphonic prog. artist but also is placed in the art rock genre. Roxy Music is placed in the art rock category(also glam) but isn't recognized under the umbrella of Prog. rock.

Could it be that art rock has faded because of new genres(and sub-genres) that have developed over time(eclectic, cross-over, heavy prog., post rock/math rock, prog. tech. metal and even Indie and alternative).

Also it can be noted that the defination was some what different in the UK as to in the US, especially in the 70's and 80's, though it seems both interpretations did eventually become equable.

For the last 10-15 years, or even more, has the art rock genre/label been placed on a new artist? From what I can recall, I would have to say no.

Your thoughts.

 

[Drifter]

I don't know, Joe. I think there's plenty of bands around that are pursuing art rock and some like Radiohead are quite popular. A lot of the so-called indie bands like the Decemberists and Arcade Fire could fall under the art rock banner too. It might sound different from the art rock you're accustomed to but then again, most modern day prog sounds different from the older groups like Yes and ELP. The sound changed and the barriers may have been moved but the intent remains the same.

 

[LG]

It's been a long long time since I've heard the term "Art Rock" used to describe a band. Seems we have got so many sub-genres now it's more confusing than ever when trying to define a band.

I agree with what Drifter said.

 

[Vic2010]

In the 70s it was all art/rock. "Progressive" was used even earlier. "Prog" was invented (as a genre label) in the 80s I think. To me all are interchangeable. But on prog forums they're distinct.

 

[electric funeral]

On gepr.net The Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock states the following about Art Rock:

Another term often used interchangeably with progressive rock, art rock implies rock with an exploratory tendency. Another definition of "art rock" describes music of a more mainstream compositional nature, tending to experimentation within this framework. Early Roxy Music, David Bowie, Brian Eno's 70s rock music, and Be Bop Deluxe serve as examples of the latter definition.

Other sites place even Yes and Pink Floyd in that categorie. Different views,different definitions.


But is, what music falls under what genre, really important? Discussions about genrenames is one of the big reasons why I don't post anymore on a big progressive site. Many heated discussions and many tempers flared. Why? Just listen to the music and enjoy it.

To go back to your question, I've heard some music stations and magazines calling Muse Art Rock. Radiohead is already mentioned.

 

[LG]

^^I've seen some knock down drag out brawls in other forums myself over band classifications EF, I do like to kick them around once in a while, especially the "Overgenrefication" rampant in the metal arena...but I never get angry about it unlike some purists out there.

 

[AboutAGirl]

In my universe, which granted has few ferries available going to your world these days, art-rock and progressive rock are markedly seperate. In the most simplistic and bone-headed terms: art-rock is prog-rock without the technical proficiency. Art-rock would be something like Neil Young's Learning To Fly while prog-rock would be something more sprawling and instrumentally-focused like Pink Floyd's Atom Heart Mother. Art-rock would be the VU, prog-rock would be Yes. I think it's a very easy distinction, personally.

In a certain sense it could be considered akin to the difference between The Twilight Zone and Star Trek. Twilight Zone is far out as all heck but it's something based in permutations of the real world. Star Trek has a world all its own.

 

[electric funeral]

What the definition is of Art Rock is a bit off-topic. Joe asked if there are any bands that could fall under that banner for the last 10-15 years.

 

[Hepcat]

In the 70s it was all art/rock. "Progressive" was used even earlier. "Prog" was invented (as a genre label) in the 80s I think. To me all are interchangeable. But on prog forums they're distinct.

I really dislike the term "progressive rock" because it's applied now in a far more narrow sense than when it was first coined in 1967-68. Initially it was applied to releases by bands that aspired to anything beyond top forty hit singles. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Who, Cream, Kinks, Doors, Spirit, Byrds, Lovin' Spoonful, Buffalo Springfield, Fleetwood Mac, Savoy brown, Jefferson Airplane, Ten Years After, Jimi Hendrix Experience, Moody Blues, Simon & Garfunkel, Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Pink Floyd, Yardbirds, Santana, Electric Prunes and Led Zeppelin all qualified as progressive rock bands therefore. The Supremes, Four Seasons, Lesley Gore, Wilson Picket, Four Tops, Paul Anka, Stevie Wonder, Marty Robbins, James Brown, Bobby Vinton, Ohio Express, Archies, Gene Pitney, etc. did not. The Hollies, Dave Clark Five, Jay & the Americans, Turtles, Herman's Hermits, Paul Revere & the Raiders, Beach Boys, Searchers, Peter & Gordon, Gerry & the Pacemakers, Shadows of Knight, Troggs, etc. were all in a grey area.

But the term "progressive rock", and its derivative "prog", then came to be applied exclusively to the art rock bands such as Yes, Genesis, Electric Light Orchestra, King Crimson and Emerson, Lake & Palmer by the mid-seventies. This less inclusive definition has always annoyed me.

 

[joe]

It's been a long long time since I've heard the term "Art Rock" used to describe a band. Seems we have got so many sub-genres now it's more confusing than ever when trying to define a band.

I agree with what Drifter said.

I think you just answered my question. As rock music has evolved so has sub-genres that are a more specific desription to a band's music. Probably one of the last bands to be placed in the "art rock" genre was Radiohead though I think alternative/experimental rock would be be more appropriate. For me, I'd rather see an artist labeled with more (sub) genres to give me an idea of what type of music to expect.

"Art rock" encompasses such a broad range of music(Velvet Underground, King Crimson, 10cc, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Supertramp, and even the Talking Heads) but so does "progressive rock" though it has developed sub-genres along the way.

In summary I think the term "art rock" has fizzled out like many words and terms have throughout history.