|
TheForgotton posted:As a prog-head, I'm failing to see the distinction that makes something "math". Is it just because "progressive" is seen as a dirty word in today's music industry? The "math" label isn't like some scientific term used to catagorize genres like one would animal species. Trends in music give birth to other sub-trends, yes, but often the new sub-trend/genre looks to the past or to other contemporary influences to define itself. So math rock bands were inspired by the prog bands of the 70s who were in turn inspired (in part) by the primitivists of the early twentieth century; some of whom were specifically trying to invoke ancient and/or foreign musical traditions. Then radiohead hears one of those traditional rhythms clapped in time to Morning Bell and that became the beat to 15 step and we've come full circle. P.S. Love that Gentle Giant video! Jesus of Nazareth on keyboards, ladies and gentlemen.
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
There's a lot more of these bands than I thought. Maybe we need separate Math Rock and Mathcore/Math metal threads? More people would post if the topic was refined a bit maybe...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2010 04:14
|
|
|
Yeah you're right. The problem is defining what makes a band "mathy" as opposed to just "having progressive elements". If it's just a matter of having non-standard rhythms, we'd have to throw a couple of Dave Matthews Band and Metallica songs on there. And no one in their right mind would consider those bands math rock.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2010 16:17
|
|
|
Dyna Soar posted:Here we go, goons analyze things to death. No, no, no. If you want to see people analyze music to death, go read a musicology journal. They got poo poo in there like "Goliardic Chant and it's affect on 12th century Trouvere songs." If they were to post in this thread, you'd see stuff like "We should explore the notion of poly-rhythm juxstaposed over 4/4 and its relevancy to the 'math' label. Perhaps a compare/contrast of 'New Millenium Cyanide Christ' and certain arrangements of 'Sacre du Printemps' are in order?  "The craziest part is I would read the poo poo out of that Sophian fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Jan 22, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2010 04:22
|
|
|
TheCircus posted:Sup this is my first post so YOU CAN START BEING MY FRIENDS STARTING NOW. Constructive criticism: you should've left out this one sentence and your post would've been fine. It's not funny and nobody cares that one more sheep has joined our 100,000+ member fold. Posting valuable, interesting, and funny content will get your much farther than being "random" or "ironic". If you must get it out of your system, go post in BYOB then come back. And welcome... I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2010 04:28
|
|
|
TheCircus posted:Can I interest you in a thesis on Meshuggah's usage of rhythm and meter on the I EP and Catch 33? It's pretty dense but nonetheless a relatively interesting read if you have any interest in theory and stuff. gently caress yes! I tried so many times to get my teachers to let me do assignments on so-called "non-erudite" bands and they pretty much laughed in my face. It's nice to see other people doing this stuff. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2010 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
Early Cuyler posted:YESSSSS. I'm a musicologist who studies metal, primarily, so I'm actually probably the guy that Sophian was talking about earlier who is prone to making GBS threads up threads with musicology. Regarding this paper, Pieslak's theory work is great, but his transcriptions aren't all, umm, correct. Take what you will from it. Holy crap there's more than one of you studying metal? When I was in school a few years ago I had a hard time finding serious papers on any pop music except for maybe Frank Zappa or The Beatles. Is there a push these days toward serious analysis of the more "progressive" pop artists or was I not looking hard enough?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2010 01:08
|
|