Quote:
Originally Posted by whogivesaflux
What have you proposed exactly? You have attempted to correct me and made an ass out of yourself. You contend that The Velvet Underground were Art Rock? That's NOT TRUE. Period. Look up the accepted definition instead of finding it necessary to paraphrase some off the beaten path eccentric scholar to make your point. Art Rock is SOLELY a term that pertains to certain Progressive Rock acts from the 70s. The notion that it refers to some avant or experimental pop bent is nonsense. More pseudo intellectual pushing on behalf of the corporate machine to get their mods in the loop so to speak. That's when the phrase was coined by the press and those are the bands it referred to. Which The Velvet Underground were in no way a part of despite your best attempts to make them seem as though they were.
|
You have to understand that art rock has a very different definition from what it was. Sure at one time it might have been used to refer to Yes and ELP etc... nowadays it is more likely to be used to describe 'avant or experimental pop'. It is often used as a bit of a blanket term to refer to bands which are experimental or progressive but don't fit the progressive rock mould... e.g. David Bowie.
Quote:
|
Just more pseudo intellectual pretend sophisticated pop (albeit many a great tune from some of these, not RADIOHEAD however) with a few new decorative twists. More the "in crowd" thing as it's constantly rehashed. Anything but progressive sir. Anything but.
|
So now I want to hear a case detailing why Radiohead couldn't be considered prog rock - it is more sensical to try to disprove something than prove it. And comparing Radiohead to ELP and using that comparison to superciliously dismiss the statement isn't an argument.
