Dotoar

Art rock, wow! That's something for the linguists to chew on! As is the case of indie, art rock itself won't give much clue of the actual sound (and I've already put forth a proposition that indie is the modern day extension of art rock), but rather the approach to music altogether. One could argue for instance that all progressive rock is art rock, but not all art rock is progressive rock. I'd even go as far as claiming that art rock has been around even way before what seems to be the common notion of its birth with the more ambitious glam rock acts like Roxy Music and Bowie, i.e. the 60's with psychedelia, baroque pop, folk rock and so on.

I'd say that if anything, art rock is 'music for the mind' as opposed to classic rock'n roll being 'music for the body', which is to say it's more profound and self-sufficient and carries a grander message than just rock'n roll all nite and party every day and in the process getting laid. It aims at being, well, art in its own rights and calls for artistic ambition to push the envelope, with little care for chart success and critical acclaim. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but the first true example of a band that stuck to this approach from the very beginning was The Who, not least because their debut consisted almost entirely of self-penned songs (bar the two James Brown covers) which for 1965 was something revolutionary and itself speaks tons of The Who's (read: Townsend's) artistic ideal. Even the Beatles' first albums couldn't boast that. And the artsy ambitions didn't exactly cease thereafter either; In albums like "The Who sell out", "Tommy", "Who's next" and "Quadrophenia" you will find some of the finest and most ambitious yet perfectly adequate art rock ever recorded.

So, even if I had other more obvious bands in mind, I just have to practice what I preach and prove my point:

__________________