_1186348687.jpg)
_1186947878.jpg)
_1197917188.jpg)
| Post-Rock |
| by Ed Butler, Al Cottrill, Alex De Petro, Dan Osmolowski and Justin Pearsall | |
| Wed:12-Mar-08 | |
|
With the coincidental focus of this week’s edition being the legacy and legitimacy of Post-Rock, five of WB’s most inquisitive minds muse over the subject…
Is Post Rock dead?
Alex: Yes I think that Post-Rock is dead. It was definitely going to happen, and sooner rather than later with this self-indulgent, narrow and generally derivative genre. I think it's partly the fault of the individual bands and the overall aims and 'philosophies' of the artists. The idea that rock itself is dead is far more debatable, especially on the back of so many excellent rock acts playing in Melbourne over the last few months (RATM, Arcade Fire, Spoon and even BSS). Dan: Like any genre-of-the-week, post-rock attracted those wanting to cash in on a fad, just like the dozens that rode the success of the Strokes but had no longevity or actual talent in the first place. To call the likes of Mogwai, Slint, GS!YBE, Explosions In The Sky, and Sigur Ros "self-indulgent, narrow and derivative" is absurd and baseless. To give you an indication of the legendary artists that could fall into the aforementioned categories: Morrissey and Van Morrisson were/are "self-indulgent", Woody Guthrie was "narrow" and every fucking artist on the face of the planet is "derivative". Post-rock has passed the fad stage and as a result the pretenders have fallen by the wayside but it is certainly not dead. Al: Post rock is most certainly not dead. Instead, it has fragmented. A decade ago we had the 'behemoths' of post-rock in some sense, ones that had crossed over into the indie 'mainstream'. The thing to consider is, although no new bands have truly stepped up to the level of Mogwai, Sigur Ros, GS!YBE, those three are still operating in some format and have been joined by A Silver Mt Zion, Explosions in the Sky, This Will Destroy You, Because of Ghosts, Mono etc in the true sense of the post-rock term. But the genre has also expanded, now taking cues from metal and electronic music in both directions, so that we have things ranging from bands that walk the border line of electronic-rock, and those that are almost pure metal. Genres are inherently such poor descriptors, but they are also over-maligned, and post-rock as a cover all is, if anything, far more accurate than rock, pop or indie in that it has at least some intrinsic meaning. Ed: I think the big issue I have is how lazy a title 'post rock' is. It gets tossed around a lot, usually about groups like Mogwai, who have a lot of noise/art rock leanings but aren't zany enough to be labelled as 'prog'. The very notion of post rock suggests that rock itself is dead, which of course is patently rubbish. As far as the first question, no music ever dies; punk, metal, prog, art noise, electro, ambient, even classical, are still around in varying measures. The idea that a musical genre dies is more a reflection of whether it is currently in vogue. And fucked if I know what's cool right now. A few years back every band was trying to keep it real in ACDC T-shirts...totally not post rock. Today, fashions tend to ebb and flow so quickly that to label any music as dead is to condemn yourself to looking daft in a matter of months. Justin: I don’t think the genre is dead anymore than I think minimalism is dead. There are just patches that occur sometimes when new bands that are coming out sound far too derivative. This doesn’t mean that innovation won’t be made in the future, or that the genre itself is problematic. That said, like Alex, I’m not interested by the genre very much anymore. Thee Silver Mt Zion’s latest release was a near excruciating listening experience for me and I think a lot of the intelligence in the genre has been debased to heavy handedness.
Okay then. If it’s not dead. What makes it interesting and valid then?
Dan: Post-rock played well is cathartic, emotive and powerful beyond the lack of lyricism that punctuates much of its form. I can't go past the experience that still accompanies ‘Mogwai Fear Satan’, ‘Svefn-G-Englar’, ‘Good Morning, Captain’, ‘Greet Death’, or ‘Slow Riot for New Zero Kanada’ even though I have moved well and truly past my post-rock geek phase of the late 90s. Ed: Assuming it is a true genre, I'm going to take Mogwai as the stereotypical post rock group, and as evidence that it remains stunningly interesting and relevant. As the inheritors of art rock and art pop, they are the artists that exist outside of fashion and commerciality, using unconventional means to make unconventional music with unconventional structure, yet manage to keep the listener intrigued. The ability to make sounds that are at first glance alien, but still thrilling is the heart of great post rockers. Al: I think it has always been interesting (Dirty Three, despite not carrying the moniker). It is only that it is far more difficult than other 'genres' that have the benefit of singing etc. It is far more difficult to create quality post-rock without being derivative or boring. But when it does succeed, it has as much, if not more power than most. Justin: I would say it’s all about finding unique ways to create contrast and dynamic variation. Since we seem to be defining Sigur Ros in this list (something I can see being challenged when compared to the other bands considered post-rock staples), it is their ability to start with the most minimalist creation and expand to something of beauty and power that makes post-rock a commanding genre.
Can we move to post-post rock? Has it happened?
Alex: We should move back to rock, rather than 'forwards' to the already dubious sounding 'post-post-rock'. Al: I don't think we can go to post-post-rock. That is how I would describe Battles, if anything, but the bands currently experimenting now are only expanding on the framework of krautrock and progrock, the styles of Slint, Mogwai (who created the quiet-loud crescendo signature of post-rock), GSBYE! and Sigur Ros, and taking it to its next logical step. Dan: I agree with Al on the Battles call. They are light-years ahead of the game at the moment. They present something that is fresh, exciting and edgy. "Intelligent Metal" the likes of Isis and Jesu is the next wave of cool. Ed: Post-post rock would mean that NME has won. What the fuck would it be? Probably a desperate search for a new label in an industry that has too many. It's all rock ‘n’ roll at the end of the day. Music's too varied these days to comfortably use tags like post rock that remain relevant for more than a year anyway. I mean, rock was originally defined by its 4/4 time signatures...now look. Justin: As soon as we start double hyphenating we (as music enthusiasts) will have officially become a useless resource.
What are the defining differences between rock and pop anyway?
Ed: For me, pop music is defined by its sunnier disposition. There is no clear cut barrier between rock and pop, but pop feels all major keys and lusher instrumentation, irrespective of subject matter. Gorrilaz are a prime example of this. Rock is a bit rawer, more sparse, more primal and visceral. Perhaps, now I think about it...post rock is possibly the beginning of the true marriage between pop and rock: dense instrumentation, wall of sound coupled with the primal nature of rock.... Al: The defining difference between rock and pop..... I mean, c'mon. It's the question with no answer. But since forced, Rock involves guitars. There, I said it. Of course there are exceptions, but not many. Want a spanner in the works: Indie-pop also has guitars. Pop is: boy bands, solo females without guitars, solo men without instruments, anything written by a writing team (Max Martin, Linda Perry, I'm looking at you... 'the matrix', you're no better), girl bands, rock bands that now use writing teams or consultants (new U2). That does not mean there isn't crossover, but I wouldn't describe Nickelback as pop. They are, however unfortunately, rock. As a genre term, not as a signifier of coolness/hardness/power. And that is half the problem, rock carries with it a burden of having a certain coolness, and no one wants to use it to describe crap bands. Justin: I agree with Al on the guitar front. To me The Stones are rock, The Beatles are pop. Yes, there are songs that completely screw this theory up (‘Back in the USSR’, ‘Yer Blues’, ‘Helter Skelter’ vs. ‘Angie’, ‘Wild Horses’ and ‘She’s a Rainbow’) but put basely The Beatles are more about melody whereas The Stones are more about riffs and attitude. In saying this, if rock is guitars, then pop is melody. Sometimes the two interlope, sometimes one of the elements is so affected that a distinction is hard to make (Animal Collective); but as a simple descriptor these are the factors that influence my labelling – and as much as we bitch about it, as music enthusiasts we need some form of labelling so that readers can gauge interest and even so they can process the information. But that’s another topic… |
Tags