Talk:List of experimental musicians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject contemporary music, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary music subjects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Radiohead

I've removed Radiohead from the list. Although the list isn't defined, and one person's experimental music might be another's mainstream music, I feel Radiohead is stretching any possible definition, as opposed to Captain Beefheart (who is on the list) for example. Alchemagenta (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

-I removed Sigur Rós, they also by no stretch of the imagination make it into the category of Avant Garde. Please just look up someone like Captain Beefheart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxRt0rTCo7Q) to get an idea of the lower threshold of the Avant Garde class before you go and add whatever band you happen to find experimental for your tastes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.48.252 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Michael von Hausswolf

A recent edit moved Carl Michael von Hausswolf from an alphabetical order that placed him amongst the 'Vs' to the 'Hs'. I know he is referred and refers to himself simply as 'Hausswolf' but an online Swedish telephone directory (Bizbook) lists him as a 'von Hausswolf, Carl Michael'. Josef van Wissem is similarly listed in the 'Vs' in this article. Alchemagenta (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the change to Hausswolff based on usage in the Wikipedia article on him, and the norms of German name usage. Similarly, I left van Wissem where he was, based on the Wikipedia article on him. I do not know what the practice is in Sweden (or whether the telephone directory reflects normal usage there), but in English/American editorial practice the rule is to respect the usage preferred by the bearer of the name, where this can be determined. Despite the fact that Dutch practice would favor "Wissen, Jozef van", I take the two Wikipedia articles to indicate preferred form, until better evidence is offered. This is why I have reverted your edit.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on him is, regrettably, unreferenced. However, the External links lead to his own webpage where the header is "CMvonHausswolf". I think the usage of Hausswolf is casual in practice, responding to the emphasis placed by others on the more remarkable part of his name. I have known him to be referred to as Micki Hausswolf But in more formal circumstances, he always seems to use CM von Hausswolf or CMvH. Anyway, I'm not so hung up on it that I'm going to revert reverts; perhaps someone else can offer an opinion (?) Alchemagenta (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is experimental? (comment on User:RichLow edit 19 April 2008 (UTC))

That was quite a cull! Some observers of those who twist and bend the conceptual conventions of music to find new shapes and forms might be at variance with you. Howzabout a little discussion and reasoning (here) on why they should be expelled? I'm curious why you think the Boredoms should remain but Sunn o))) shouldn't, for example... In the meantime I feel I must revert your edit. Alchemagenta (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay: See avant-garde music. All the artists I removed don't abandon basic rules of popular music, defined as experimental music, but incorporate unusual elements like ever-changing metre, self-made instruments, music without beats, music slightly playing with dissonance or musique concrète. All this is defined as avant-garde music. EDIT: And for Sunn and the like: we need to examine their music to see if it 1. doesn't have any kind of rhythm and/or harmony and 2. incorporates a special concept. RichLow (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're constructing a definition (I'm not sure if that's what you were intending) for the article, then a parameter for inclusion in the list that requires no rhythm or harmony would knock out the vast majority of entries. A parameter that requires a "special concept" is an extremely subjective evaluation and there are plenty of undoubtedly experimental musicians, for example Evan Parker, whose special concept might be hard to identify. And Parker is no stranger to rhythm and harmony either. Perhaps the list should tend towards inclusiveness otherwise it could risk being a place for genre orientated elitism. Oops - just checked - Evan Parker isn't in the list, have to fix that... Alchemagenta (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that music is experimental if it experiments with what exactly music is, with the definition of it. So even though Maryanne Amacher uses several, clean sine waves, creating some kind of melody, she creates it with a special concept in mind that no other musician has tried to create musically. Björk for example just uses some samples and creates a ambient-like track here and there, but she still has in mind to create rhythms and harmonies that have a traditional kind of appeal. So even though a musician might sound very unusual, if his intention is to make music with rhythms and harmonies and doesn't have much else in mind, it's still not experimental music. Of course we can't see in the mind of every musician, but there are some musicians clearly stating their concepts, and we shouldn't just list every musician somebody wishes to be experimental here, but instead just the ones clearly having musical concepts disregarding the basic conventions of music. RichLow (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)