Protopunk version of KISS? :p

Art rock is just arty rock from the late sixties/seventies. It has no real definition other than being made by arty farty ****s. Alternative is basically that, but given more direction by punk. So it's basically 70s art rock post... punk... you know what I mean. Post-Sex Pistols, post-Clash, post-Ramones... and ****.

Hey! I love arty farty ****s.
Alternative on the other hand seems completely generic and devoid of any real innovation.

Art Rock is rock that experiment with the sound, buit not in the same unconventional way as experimental rock. It's an attempt to break away from rock restraints as much as possible while keeping rock in the mix. Greats of this kind of rock are Radiohead, David Bowie, and Pink Floyd.

Are they really art rock? Radiohead always felt like the band that Nirvana could've become. Nothing to spectacular. David Bowie... I could agree with that. Pink Floyd though was just one of the original prog bands. Not sure about them being art rock.

Then again, I'm still not a hundred percent sure on what art rock is.

Pink Floyd are not prog and I'm so tired of people saying this. Prog is supposed to be complex.

When you consider that alternative contains everything from the Replacements, to My Bloody Valentine, to Jesus and the Mary Chain, to Radiohead, I think it's still innovative, but I definitely think that its connection to punk stunted its artistic growth.

Without punk I think alternative would never have gained as much mainstream traction as it ever did, but it probably would have been more experimental.

I guess you might say that punk was the worst thing to ever happen to purely experimental rock.

edge

And BTW, I'm ignoring anything about JGuy's post, cause I always do.

This x 50,000,000,000,000,234,324,10,512,398,572,315,828, 838,388,342,794,238,712,304,982,173,546,563,218,72 3,049,712,340,198,234,712,346,666.2371