Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneer
They're commonly classed as avant-prog, and as far as I was aware the RIO movement was based on progressive bands exploring progressive ideals?
Anyway, yeah, the first and second albums are excellent.
|
Wikipedia has them down as avant-rock. Progarchives have them down as avant-prog. Who's right and who's wrong?
In general I prefer to use the label prog rock about bands which were obviously rock bands using their ideas to expand on rock music. Rush, Yes and Hatfield and the North are good examples. I don't think RIO and prog rock are necessarily exclusive so I can possibly accept that Aksak Maboul occasionally plays prog, but I don't really think either of the songs we posted are prog rock songs. One is a humorous cover and the other sounds like some half-silly (yet awesome) theme from a strange television series. Progressive rock, no (imo). Avantgarde and humorous, yes.
There are many cases where I feel the "prog rock" label is not entirely suitable. If you have a band that is a reduced symphony orchestra that plays avantgarde chamber music, I just don't see where the "rock" part comes from. Another example, Robert Wyatts solo career is generally considered "prog", but I don't think he ever really tried to make a prog rock album. It's just that his music is avantgarde and so "prog rockers" (those who like prog) who represent the largest general group of consumers interested in alternative music apply the prog rock label to it, even when it's just a man in a wheelchair singing and playing mellow songs on the piano. I can see it's avantgarde, but what's so "rock" about that?