He did give one, The Velvet Underground.

art pop is a term I confabulated out of my proverbial cobwebs on the spot. It's a term that for me describes more so an effect the artist/band has socially that constitutes a resulting clique mentality. It's a phenomenon that attaches and best lends itself to a commercial popularity drawn form a pseudo intellectual underground which is in reality neither.

I believe in identifying responsibility rather than the premise. The measure of anything is best taken from result rather than appearance.

art pop to me is not all bad either. For instance, Beck is Art Pop to me and I REALLY enjoy Beck. I just find Radiohead exceptionally boring, "safe", pedestrian, "correct". That sort of thing.

Bottom Line: ANY music that has a reputation that is popular enough to proceed it demands the sincerest of scrutiny from me as a listener and long time musical appreciator. Radiohead did not live up to that reputation for me. I just don't get it. It doesn't challenge me whatsoever. Just like certain people don't "get" Bob Dylan, I don't "get" Radiohead.


Radiohead is NOTHING like The Velvet Underground, I'll give you that. But the Velvets were most definitely the closest thing I can imagine to a pseudo intellectual garage/psych experimental pop group. The very essence actually.

Have you heard the Lou Reed E.A.P. thingamabob? I saw that the other day when I was picking up some new and used CDs. I was tempted to grab it but having been so disappointed with Lou's latter day solo cannon, I opted out.

Wtf was that? How are Radiohead safe/pedestrian? They certainly take risks, and they don't really sound like any other band ever...

...

Sorry. I assumed you were talking about art rock, which actually exists. But if you're the person defining the genre, you can claim whatever the fuck you want, huh? Not really much sense arguing.

Shenanigans.

I f*cking hate it when people argue over weither or not a band is part of a genre they just made up.

If that's the case you were REALLY off base via The Velvet Underground reference. :yikes:

Friend, lets bring this full circle to a common ground of intelligent conversation. I took the time to defined clearly what I was referring to via the jargon I used. Maybe that's a misconception on my behalf. I will give you that much. But if all you can do as a music appreciator is be short, sarcastic and withdrawn, how could I possibly see the matter through your ears so to speak?

I have been searching and searching for an enthusiastic and INTELLIGENT music appreciation community. You wanna know what the two biggest draw backs that have hindered that process so far are? <whether you do or don't> ;) Those two specific handicaps are comprised of age differences (most people under 18 live to insult themselves on message boards, not all though.) and cliques. Thankfully I haven't got a strong whiff of either here yet.

If you REALLY care about music AND communication, you'll avoid dismissive one sentence remarks that attempt to justify your brevity and take the time to honestly spell yourself out intelligently.

What the hell else is personal passion/special interest based discussion for?


Might try actually defending your position there boo boo.

No edge for me friend. Little groove and very minimal. Lame IMO. About as energetic as a boiled cabbage.

Radiohead shouldn't be pigeonholed into such a dumb term weither it's taken seriously as a real genre or not. Radiohead are their own band, hipsters and proggies argue all the time over weither or not they should be considered alternative rock or progressive rock or something else, they don't quite conform to anything. Theres very few well known bands that have that kinda ambiguity.

I don't know what art pop is, but it seems like a very limiting term for a band like Radiohead since I don't think of them as a pop group. I don't think something should be called pop just becauses there some pop structures being used, because just about anything could be called pop then.

Progressive Rock! rotflol....dooooooodd! That's the longest stretch for the term I have ever heard. Alternative pop rock maybe, "Progressive" No way. Incidentally "pigeonholed" comparison and my original thoughts are miles apart. By that definition you gave, ANY band that a person felt sincerely fanatical about is above personal classification. I don't buy that for a second. The term "deserve" is mighty subjective.

I would love to debate your definition of art pop , but it's trying so hard to be clever it just ends up being totally meaningless.

I mean let's look at your definition

In what way?

Any band could claim to have what could be considered 'a clique mentality' That's why you buy t shirts and sing along at gigs.

A band's image? it's message? it's politics? it's fashion? all of them? none of them?

You're being far to vague on this.

You could have just written 'commercial' and saved yourself some time here , assuming that's what is you meant. If it isn't then perhaps you can clarify this as well.

Pardon ?

Sorry but in this context this means absolutely nothing unless you are prepared to explain it.

I think that most people here would consider themselves something of that sort. I don't really see why it needs spelling out though, and it doesn't really tell us anything about what you are trying to define.

Until you define what you are talking about with something more concrete I don't really see what Boo Boo has to defend.

bummer, the way the board is set up it removes the thoughts you responded to. I PROMISE you a sincere response that I am certain you will appreciate as soon as I have time to open a second window and arrange the cut n pastes. I will say that by separating the linearity of the thoughts I presented, you are hacking the contextual meaning. I honestly think you know that though. Clever. I will be back soon.

edit: I think what I am going to do to show a sincere level of sincerity and appreciation for Radiohead is dig out my copy of Kid A and give it a spin. I remember going...OMG, this is terrible. Who knows, maybe I will re-orientate myself. I have done that with MANY groups. I will feedback along with a detailed response before the end of the day if I can find it readily. I have roughly 6000 CDs in the room I believe it's in so it may take a while to find it.

The Velvet Underground were one of the first to use music as an art form rather than a compositional arrangement. (Which is what Andy Warhol intended when he produced The Velvet Underground & Nico). If that doesn't qualify as art rock, "art pop," whatever, then you need to re-evaluate what you think it means.

I'm being sarcastic and withdrawn because you're not making any collective sense.

The people here on MusicBanter know what they're talking about. And they don't bullshit about it. Age-elitism isn't a great way to make friends, either. Although I'm only nineteen, Proggyman, one of the youngest members, is just as intelligent and cogent as most of the old farts here. I don't pretend to be the most musically knowledgable or intelligent, but I have enough sense to not make unwarranted and unsupported abjections.

Okay, let me spell it out, then. In NO way is Radiohead "art pop." Their music expresses a great discord from traditional methods of songwriting, but the music is lyrically, compositionally, and musically structured, like everything else out there. Furthermore, Radiohead has come a looooong way and continue to reinvent themselves on every album. They were built upon an alternative rock single and elected to diversify and produce different music each time they went into the studio. They are overrated by some people, but they are in no way a poor band, bland, tedious, what-fucking-ever.

Exactly. So don't take offense when we call you out on bullshit.

End Game.

It's not a stretch at all, theres more to prog that just the nerdy stuff like Rush and ELP. Radiohead are heavly influenced by krautrock, and yes that is considered progressive rock.

I'd certainly consider Kid A progressive rock to some extent. And it's very easy to draw comparisons between songs like Paranoid Android and 2 + 2 = 5 and the work of say John Wetton era King Crimson.

Wow, thats even a more retarded term than art pop, where in the hell are you getting these?

So now I know I'm arguing with a closedminded fool.

Thats a bunch of crap. If you think Radiohead are just a by the numbers pop band you're out of your mind.

dude first of all i havent agreed with anything youve posted yet....but this ones the worst. im only ****in' 13 and i can hold my own against all these guys without "insuting myself"


and thats just about message boards some of the things you've said about music are so obliviusly wrong that i cant believe someone actually has that opinion!

Ugh. Stop talking and say something.

Man, you talk about self contrived nonsense. Bull**** according to who? You have provided ZERO references to back up what you are contending. ZERO.

Incidentally Art Rock has NOTHING to do with your spouted nonsense about "art used in conjunction" with a music group. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Art Rock was a term used to denote the most elaborate of PROGRESSIVE ROCK groups like Yes & ELP.

Man, it's not me here that isn't making sense or spouting bull****. People NEED to stop being defensive and start making with the logic. I am still pretty awed by the Urban Hate person. Now that's some tricky logic but you'll understand me better when I reply.

Seriously, I hate people that just spit out condescending, pseudo intellectual bullsh*t out through an incoherent wall of text.

OK. Time to get real. I have some questions for your ass holiness if you would be kind enough to indulge me. Where did the term "Progressive Rock" come from? What does the term mean? It has an absolute definition and if you think for one second in your pea brained nonsensical mind that radiohead is progressive rock you are a bigger idiot than could be imagined.

Now, boy wonder, WTF does Progressive Rock mean?


Please give me an example specifically of something I said that was clinically and provably wrong. You're showing your age big time.

Ahhh, the glory of Wikipedia. And the fallacy of people that read it too quickly and skim too unthoroughly...

"The Golden Age of Rock lectures define art rock as 'a piece of music in the rock idiom that is appealing more intellectually or musically, that is, not formulated along pop lines for mass consumption.'"

I never said it was. In the case of VU, that's what they intended. However, art rock also defines a genre of a "more mainstream compositional nature, leading to experiemntation in this genre." This brings along Roxy Music, Brian Eno, David Bowie...and holy shit! The Velvet Underground.

Yes, he's a magnificent specimen, isn't he?

self hate is such a drag. You should write a book. You'd probably have tough time keeping the pages dry though wouldn't you?

The town whiner lives...poor little greenie.

Drop the personal insults please.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Now you have clumsily back tracked across your own words. Pathetic. Care to try and justify your ignorance anymore?


Sure my hypocritically acclaimed buffoon. Just as soon as you do. None have been flung at me, right? You are are a JOKE.

Tone it down please.

Now you're just trying to piss me off. I have no intention to start a flame war. I have expressed a valid argument (supported by real sources), and you haven't objectively refuted it yet. If you want to start a pissy skirmish, I suggest you seek a berth elsewhere.

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.

Now Art Pop as I see it is all about the pseudo intellectual college campus clique bands like Radiohead, Ween, Guided By Voices, Stereo Lab, Cornelius, Tricky, et infinitum as opposed to the their 70s counter parts like Glam Pop artists Bowie & Roxy.

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.

Ween? Pseudo-intellectual? We are talking about the same Ween that gave us "Boobs," "Pass the Bong" and "Booze Me Up And Get Me High" right?

I am not accusing them of being personally or lyrically pseudo intellectual, I am claiming that those that tend to make them popular tend to use pseudo intellectual logic to justify there perceived greatness. Same with radiohead.

That band (2 brothers?) is about as ridiculous as ridiculous can be. Holy bedroom DIY nonsense. There is just no intelligent justification for that kind of bull**** becoming popular yet people constantly claim they are the greatest. What do these types of musical appreciators do, get high for a living? You would HAVE to be stoned to appreciate that ****. It's a lame comedy of errors.

Radiohead on the other hand, and I will be doing my best this evening to convince myself differently, just strikes me as boring and limp.

You hate Ween? Do you hate fun too?

LOL! no. I wouldn't honestly say I "hate" them anymore than listening to DR. Demento. They just have no place next to Beck, the Boredoms or Cornelius.

They sure as he11 ain't no FZ!

I guess you deserve your stabz like everyone else, right?

What the ****. The whole point of rock and roll is supposed to be because they broke away from all the perfect classical music. What's wrong about making a joke out of music and having a blast with it?

People claim they are geniuses because they actually write great melodies lyrics, play off almost every genre, and they don't really put real emotion as a focus but they do it as a study to try every genre.

your not very good at making friends huh?:rofl:

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.

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. ;)

I made a whole goddamn thread explaining what progressive rock is you jackass, it's in the prog/classic rock section, look it up.

Instead of wasting your time being a snob who refuses to admit he dosen't know everything about music you should learn that everyone has the right to their own definition of music genres and that yours is not written in f*cking stone.

Now stop being a jerk to everyone or I'm banning you.

I don't see what my affinity for ganja has to do with this.

Stonerphobe.

That's a great point LS

Why do you feel compelled to be condesending to me all the time for no apparent reason?

i enjoy coldplay, and im pretty sure the stones and the doors are very good also.. sure they cant be compared to the beatles or zep, but they are still great... plus post-beatle Lennon, a few songs were good, but meh, i loathe Ono

Could be because you can't seem to ever admit that you're wrong, but I dunno.

you've been here a week.

i think you've proved to everyone here that you have no idea what prog rock is...so how can you even justify that?

ok just because you dont like something doesnt mean you have to taLk that much **** about it ok? a simple"i dont like ween" and a quick explanation would have done just fine for me

and you would know this how when you've only posted on one thread and been a part of one arguement?

edit: started one arguement

Bit late but, how the fudge are Radiohead NOT progressive? We're talking about a band who evolved from a typical 90's indie rock band to a band that fully took their influences and made a sound that was completely their own, a mesh of electro, rock, krautrock and all sorts. There's so many aspects to their music that it's impossible to judge them on just one album, just look at the trip-hop based Kid A or the (pretty impressive) mess of ideas that is Hail To The Thief.
You could probably get away with calling them a pop band if you look at their early big singles but dig deeper and you have a band that is striving to evolve and has genre-splitting songs coming out of their ears.