When "going experimental" itself seems a conventional, played-out move...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Looking back, it now seems inevitable that Radiohead would follow the mega-success of OK Computer with a left-field "experimental" album. Followed later by a (partial) return to rock values with Hail To The Thief. It's a cycle so many bands have done. It's what the Beatles did, it's what Bowie did, U2 have probably done it several times. Establish your sound, fuck with your sound, return to your sound. So having now identified 'experimentalism' as in itself part of the pop/rock convention, have we reached some kind of post-modern point of no return?

― Benjamin X., Friday, 18 November 2005 14:50 (twenty years ago)

Captain Beefheart started out experimenting, briefly became more traditional, and then went experimental again.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 18 November 2005 14:57 (twenty years ago)

Well, I'm not saying everybody follows the path I outlined. Just that it has become one of no doubt many conventional paths to take. To the point that when you hear that someone's new album is 'radical' or 'experimental' one's eyes tend to roll. But if 'experimental' now slots in to some sort of convention, is really possible to be truly experimental any more? Or is that one of the things that has died in our brave new postmodern age?

― Benjamin X., Friday, 18 November 2005 15:04 (twenty years ago)

'kid a' was a clear continuation of radiohead's trajectory.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:06 (twenty years ago)

his earliest stuff was pretty standard garage stuff though, right? Safe as Milk and all? he did get more accessible than Trout Mask Replica later, its true...

― petesmith (plsmith), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:06 (twenty years ago)

Captain Beefheart started out experimenting, briefly became more traditional, and then went experimental again.

No he didn't

― Oh No, It's Dadaismus (and His Endless Stupid Jokes) (Dada), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:07 (twenty years ago)

it seems to me that the good experimental albums will still sift through, regardless of the glut of shitty experimental albums.

― petesmith (plsmith), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:07 (twenty years ago)

Oh it's Geir, what does he know about Captain Beefheart?

― Oh No, It's Dadaismus (and His Endless Stupid Jokes) (Dada), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:08 (twenty years ago)

'kid a' was a clear continuation of radiohead's trajectory.

That's kind of what I was saying, wasn't it?

― Benjamin X., Friday, 18 November 2005 15:10 (twenty years ago)

well, it was no more experimental, compared to 'ok computer' than 'ok computer' was to 'the bends'.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:12 (twenty years ago)

Oh it's Geir, what does he know about Captain Beefheart?

What I know is that it's all crap, and that he has never ever released anything worth listening to. But on "Bluejeans And Moonbeams" he did at least try to make proper music.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:12 (twenty years ago)

Yes, what was once experimental eventually becomes a convention. That's how things have been for at least 200 years, ever since Romanticism. It's not new.

― jz, Friday, 18 November 2005 15:13 (twenty years ago)

"The conventional is now experimental
The experimental is now conventional"

Mark E. Smith, 1979.

― Oh No, It's Dadaismus (and His Endless Stupid Jokes) (Dada), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:19 (twenty years ago)

worst thread ever

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:21 (twenty years ago)

i mean, EVERY beatles alb was to some extent 'experimental', i don't see 'experimentalism' as somehow being at odds w/ 'rock values' (or need to be returned to), it's just as easy to name 'experimental' groups that became more populist over time, what does 'post-modern point of no return' MEAN????

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:24 (twenty years ago)

TS: albums/songs that the band/musician/creator says are 'experimental' vs. albums/songs that the press/PR/fanbase says are 'experimental'

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:27 (twenty years ago)

what does 'post-modern point of no return' MEAN????

In the broader picture, it means that back in the days of romanticism/modernism, it was a given that artists should be breaking conventions and seeking new forms, but when that in itself becomes a meta-convention, then there doesn't seem to be any way further way forward for that strategy.

― Benjamin X., Friday, 18 November 2005 15:30 (twenty years ago)

when "threads like this make me see how people get bored of listening to music"

― Dominique (dleone), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:31 (twenty years ago)

Momus's new album: classic or dud?

― Jdubz (ex machina), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:31 (twenty years ago)

or, "when bands change their sound, it's because they find it more interesting that what they were doing before", and how it can be "played out"

― Dominique (dleone), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:33 (twenty years ago)

xpost

Well precisely - Momus goes from (would-be) pop artist to (would-be) indie artist to (would-be) John Cage-like experimental artist. His career path is the model of the convention I was talking about.

― Benjamin X., Friday, 18 November 2005 15:34 (twenty years ago)

And you can be certain that his next album will be a return to pop values...

― Benjamin X., Friday, 18 November 2005 15:35 (twenty years ago)

... and still no-one will buy it

― Oh No, It's Dadaismus (and His Endless Stupid Jokes) (Dada), Friday, 18 November 2005 15:36 (twenty years ago)

Aren't there simple economic reasons for this phenomenon? I.e., if your albums keep getting progressively more and more "experimental" then fewer and fewer people will buy them. UNLESS you experiment in a way that people actually like better than your old style (as seems to have happened with Radiohead - definitely with "OK Computer," more arguably with "The Bends"; and which notably did NOT happen with U2), in which case you stick with it. This definition would make "experimenting" something closer to true, scientific experimentation, and less of a synonym for "rock musicians fucking around."

― goodoldneon (goodoldneon), Friday, 18 November 2005 17:21 (twenty years ago)

(Sorry, not "The Bends." I meant "Kid A.")

― goodoldneon (goodoldneon), Friday, 18 November 2005 17:42 (twenty years ago)

MESOTM...

(Mark E. Smith OTM)

― Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 18 November 2005 18:27 (twenty years ago)

I look forward to Kelly Osbourne's experimental makeover.

― acb (acb), Friday, 18 November 2005 21:25 (twenty years ago)

Yes, what was once experimental eventually becomes a convention. That's how things have been for at least 200 years, ever since Romanticism. It's not new.

-- jz (j...), November 18th, 2005 10:13 AM.

er, I'm pretty sure this tendency predated Romanticism.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 18 November 2005 21:34 (twenty years ago)

(I see jz has made the same point as I'm about to make, but anyway...)

This is maybe the thread to point out that being experimental is not the same thing as adding a few sound effects to the mix - or imitating early synthesiser techniques and musique concrete. Nothing in the Wire, for example, is experimental, except in the historical sense. We speak of futurism as either a historical movement or a forward looking movement, but only the former use is realistic: futurism has a set of discrete, finite attitudes, values and approaches that are almost a hundred years old now and are still being played out by people who think they are 'experimenting'. They could not possibly be less interested in the future.

― moley, Friday, 18 November 2005 21:52 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, it's a good pattern. I think people have similiar musical taste patterns, too, throughout their lives. Natural cycles of life and shit.

― FTATRWSY, Friday, 18 November 2005 22:32 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.