Burn wrote:
I know this is probably the wrong definition but I see postrock as music made from the typical rock instruments (drums, bass, guitars) but use to make something else than what you would call rock music... and mix with instrument which you don't find often in rock music (vibraphones, strings)
Yes, that is very interesting, because that Wikipedia article gave the same definition. But by that definition, shouldn't post-rock be a ridiculously broad genre? Take the example of 70's folkrock like Fairport Convention, Pentangle, Trees, Comus (
). These were all bands that used those typical rock instruments, together with more unusual instruments. The music they created was basically folk. Would that make them post-rock? We're talking late sixties, early seventies here, a time in which rock itself was hardly developed! Is that post-rock, or are you better off calling it folk-rock?
Another example: Virgin Black. Some of you know their latest effort, which is an amazing crossover between classical and metal. Rock instruments, together with an orchestra (unusual in rock), making classical music. Is that post-metal or is it something like classical metal?
I could go on about these examples. I'm not saying your definition is "wrong" or something, Burn, because it seems to be the official definition, but let's be honest: there is a huge amount of music that would be called post-rock this way, and it would not give you any information at all as to what kind of music is really being played.
Quote:
Now thinking of the "post" prefix, I remember Hans told me a few years ago about Agalloch and described it as post black metal... Well after listening to their album The Mantle, I could only agree without being able to really explain why that it was a good phrase to describe their music.
Agalloch is another interesting example. Their album The Mantle has metal/rock instrumentation and vocals, that's for sure. Also, there are several unusual instruments being used. But again according to the "official" definition, the music they eventually create should not be rock/metal if they are to be called post. But it is! You can't deny that Agalloch plays metal. Yes, there are many quiet (acoustic) interludes, unusual instrumentation, but the music is still metal. Metal with folk influences, I'd say.
Now, their more recent effort "Ashes against the Grain" is a different thing altogether. It's labeled post by almost everyone, and it has ambient or noise pieces, but there are no unusual instruments. Also, there are far less acoustic pieces, less folk influences. Then how can this be post?
I'm rambling, but my point is that I think post-rock is so loosely defined that you can't really see it as musical subgenre. Also, there's the constant danger of any difficult or intellectual music being labeled post because people think "what the hell, it's weird, so it must be post". That would define post-rock as being the kind of music that is more complicated or intellectual than other rock. But we already have a name for that: avant-garde.
@ Hoang: that's interesting. You say the label doesn't mean anything, but you're the one who frequently mentions post-rock bands in the "what band would you recommend topic". That must imply post really does mean something to you, right?
Yes, the word is clearly popularized. So much, in fact, that it doesn't say anything anymore. I think that's a pity because labels, as much as many people claim to hate them, are there to describe the music, right? And describing music is rather essential, I think.