Talk:List of experimental musicians

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps the title should be changed to 'avant garde'? Because most musicians/composers are continually 'experimenting' with new sounds and structure... It goes with the territory. They might be miffed at the suggestion they're not 'experimental'. For example, I agree that Radiohead is certainly as 'experimental' as Crimson when Jonny Greenwood has multiple racks of electronics onstage and is live-tweaking. Helio Sequence was/is certainly 'experimental' when they had a laptop sequencing several parts along with their playing. Another thought: the list (which is a decent collection of notable names) would gain from a short paragraph at the top that's a more rigorous with the criteria you folks are using. Are all of these people experimental? avant? notable? Charles Dodge has written several majorly important books on computer-music, as well as composed: is he 'notable'? avant? Certainly is to me. Twang (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the main article, Experimental music, is defined as "an experimental action, . . . the outcome of which is not foreseen" (John Cage) or, more broadly "any music that challenges the commonly accepted notions of what music is" (David Cope, similar view from Leonard B. Meyer). The problem is that for some authors (Michael Nyman and David Nicholls, for example), experimental music is opposed to avant-garde music. Clearly, Nyman and Nicholls accept Cage's definition, and reject Cope's. It should be pointed out also that none of these authors is considering popular music genres, within which it takes only a little deviation from very restrictive norms to be regarded as either "experimental" or "avant garde".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Zeuhl
I added the French experimental composer and drummer Christian Vander to this page a short time ago, but see that he's been removed.

Have you ever listened to Christian Vander, either his solo efforts or his work with Magma??? This is a man who created a new genre of music, combining elements of primitive chant, modern chorales ala Bartok and Stravinsky, and Jazz/fusion inspired by late Coltrane (who also is not on your list, but should be, for his late work). Vander's work far better fits your definition of experimental than many of the artists on this list. Listen to his "Offering" records, Kohntarkosz, M.D.K, K.A. I-III. If these don't break the old definitions (in which I think you are trapped) and take music in new directions, I don't know what does.

Laurie Anderson is experimental, but Vander not?! Henry Cow gets a thumbs up, but Magma down?! Sonic Youth's derivitive sound experiments belong here, but not Kobaian chant?! Ruins (who some count as a Magma spin-off) gets on, but their inspiration doesn't?!

It strikes me that you need sharper definitions, and a clearer sense of what you're doing. You put too much faith in these moronic subcategories (minimalism, noise, blah blah) and too little in the larger meaning of experimental.

It also seems that you have a clear Anglo-American bias in your choices, and seem to avoid true jazz experimenters / improvisors (like Coltrane, Vander, Anthony Braxton) while including the John Zorn circle just because they're hip. (I like John Zorn, but if he and Fred Frith get on, why not Coltrane???? Have you ever listened to Ascension?)

Please go find yourself a copy of Mekanik Destruktiw Commandoh or Vander's Offering CDs and see if you can bring yourself reconsider.

128.253.220.232 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you would be so kind as to explain how any of these composers assured that the outcome of their musical actions were unforeseen (see the lead and main definition of the article Experimental music), then I will reconsider. If on the other hand all that you mean is "slightly deviating from the norm of their chosen genre", by (for example) "combining elements of primitive chant, modern chorales ala Bartok and Stravinsky, and Jazz", etc., then, don't make me laugh.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

128.253.220.232 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"....how any of these composers assured that the outcome of their musical actions were unforeseen..."

Yes, that's John Cage's definition of his works, but I think 1) your application is far too literal, taking a statement on method as a definition of a genre, and 2) By your own criteria, a large part of your list is suspicious (Can?? The Residents??  Velvet Underground????  Zappa??  All interesting and progressive composers, I agree, but would you be so kind as to explain to me how the outcomes of any of their musical actions were unforeseen???)

I am glad to see Anthony Braxton made the list, yet I have no idea how he qualifies under this limited criteria. You might as well put on Keith Jarrett for his improvisational works and sound experiments (Invocation), which fit your criteria better than the artists listed above (though I would not particularly count him as experimental.)

It seems to me that the limited definition you are using better fits the category "sound experiments," not experimental music. Experimental music (in my take) is simply any music that leaves the conventions of composition behind and creates its own rules and standards, gives rise to fresh, shocking and/or unworldly experience for the listener.

And that's why, since you have "Can: founders of Krautrock" on your list, it seemed short-sighted not to have Vander/Magma: founders of Zeuhl."

As for the "genre" that Magma "slightly deviates from" (what are you talking about by the way?), I think, first of all, you'd have a hard time defining the genre of the major 30-minute+ compositions like Kohntarkosz Anteria, Wurdah Itah, Mekanik Destructiw Kommandoh or Kohntarkosz. It's sometimes lumped with prog rock, sometimes jazz fusion, but it fits neither category at all. That to me is the very point of experimental, not being of a genre, which is shy I am suspicious of fairly "standard," derivative minimalists, sound artists and punk inspired musicians being counted as experimental on your list. Copying the avant garde doesn't make one so. The true experiment goes into territory where no one has gone before.

As for Magma, chants in an invented language, tongue trills, grunts, non-verbal outbursts, and other unusual verbalizations, the dominant, growling bass lines that Ruins borrowed, trance-inducing repetitions mixed with semi-operatic vocals and droning wails, and the eerie, unworldly, like-nothing-you-have-ever-heard mood of many of their pieces qualify them as experimenters in my mind.

I'll certainly grant you that all of this IS mixed in with more conventionally "musical" moments, so hovers on the brink of acceptability to conventional tastes, and by your limited definition, although the result takes one out into strange territory, these are controlled compositions with a calculated effect, so by your definition, I'd not count it on this page.

But then, be true to what you state, and analyze the other artists listed in the same manner. And then perhaps you will need to call your page something else, since you're really talking about sound experiments, not experimental music. 128.253.220.232 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the thoughtful input. Let me clarify a couple of things, though. First of all, this is not my list, and I think you are correct that many of the people and groups listed do not really belong here—particularly Can. Secondly, "Experimental music" is not a genre. In fact, by definition, it is outside the bounds of any genre. We have been around the block many time on this point. There are certainly things called "experimental rock", and perhaps "experimental jazz" (though jazz musicians tend to shy away from this term), which experiment with what those genres normally mean, often by blending in things found from other genres. That is what I mean by "slightly deviates from" the norms of that genre—the word you have used is "unconventional", and I like that better. But "experimental music" is on a different plane entirely, even outside of Cage's meaning, as in the writings of Nyman, Cope, Nicholls, and Vignall cited in the article. Meyer perhaps opens the door a bit wider, though he is also less precise. I should reiterate here what I said some time ago in the discussion further up this page, and that is that lack of "acceptability to conventional tastes" is not relevant to Experimental music, precisely because it is not a genre, and conventions are based on genre criteria.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops! Sorry, I should have made it clear that "the article" means "Experimental music", where the various definitions are given.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with Jerome. Magma fan, you are right to point out that there were some entries on the list that shouldn't have been there. I removed some of them just now. I imagine we'll continue to debate particular cases, but I really don't think Christian Vander is close to fitting on this list. Music can be experimental in many senses without being what is called "experimental music", which has a more specific meaning, which is admittedly difficult to nail down, though the article makes a good try. Yes, I have heard Magma. (Did they ever record something like Can's "Aumgn"?) SethTisue (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be late in the reply....not ungrateful for your explanations, just been traveling....

Just want to say that I do agree with you, Vander/Magma, although under-appreciated progressives, do not belong on this list, as defined in the article. I would consider them squarely avant-garde (at the extreme of convention; pushing convention and broaching the level of the experimental now and again--give 60 seconds to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XozpHtFIz20&feature=PlayList&p=3FEFD63A71324FF4&playnext=1&index=4 (try minute 4-5) or the minimalist/mechanistic vocal opening of the album's first track if you doubt that), but not in the main experimental (outside of conventional rules of what music is). I came to your page, as you suggested, backwards, from the list. And the list alone really leads one to think that you are surveying the avant-garde.

In fact, if I can offer one piece of constructive criticism in parting, I think that this list page should be cut extremely. or just jettisoned altogether. Some of the artists (Brian Eno, Captain Beefheart, Frank Zappa, for example, all of whom I quite love, so mean this as no criticism of their music) are downright edge-of-mainstream in much of their work, avant-garde and--perhaps--even experimental in others. After all, it's the work that's experimental, not the name brand. Emphasis on names also leads to just the kind of genealogical problems I had ("yeah, but Ruins and Koenji Hyakkei are Magma descendants, Henry Cow and Magma actually fused for a while in a band called Universal Sporadic Orchestra in the late 70s, and are the growls, shrill vocals and soul-bursting-body screams of Kobaian scat (see above) not precedents for John Zorn/Mike Patton's extreme vocal effects?" and so on...)

Especially a list of names without works leads to confusion. It's why people scoff when I say John Coltrane was way out there (at the end of his life)--then I play them Ascension and they quiet down (have a listen, I still think that qualifies as much as any of the "Jazz" artists on the list as being experimental--here's more tuneful bit of its 40 minutes of non-stop extremity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtEsuHuqNLo).

Crudely put (but to the essence), I think the criteria for a list (if there absolutely must be one) has to be: does the average person, when played this music, say not "ugh, what weird music!" but rather "you call that music? That's not music." That would cut the fat from your list and divide the avant-garde from the experimental. As it is, the list is way, way too loaded towards the avant-garde. (I don't only mean a few select artists like Can either.)

Besides, the article page already lists many of the main composers who fit the experimental genre (not to be cantankerous, but of course "experimental" is a genre (generic type) otherwise you could not use it as a term to generalize these musicians into the category; though I fully understand that by this you mean that exp. music cannot have a set type or rules (other than--as the rule that defines the genre--being outside of accepted rules)).

I understand that you want to blur the boundaries and count experimenters who are included in jazz/rock along with those typically counted as "classical" (now there's a poor genre name if there ever was one), as well as to give the nod to contemporary experimenters who could use the attention. But isn't there a way to do that in the article?

Just the two cents of an uninvolved outsider, so you're welcome to take it that way: if this is to be meaningful, rigor is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.220.232 (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Who goes, and who stays?
I see that User:SethTisue has restored several names I deleted from this list as inappropriate, namely Karlheinz Stockhausen, Luciano Berio, Pierre Boulez, Connie Bauer, Buckethead, and Zoviet France. In the edit summaries, I gave my reasons in each case, but in restoring them, SethTisue offers no reasons, merely saying "disagree with this omission". The sole exception is in restoring Stockhausen, when the titles of several works are named (Hymnen, Mikrophonie I, Aus den sieben Tagen, and Telemusik). I would much prefer to have a reasoned argument about this than merely to get into an edit war. To begin with those few specifics which have been offered, and with reference to the main article, "Experimental Music", I would like to point out that Hymnen and Telemusik are tape compositions, worked out in every detail—even if the former did once exist in a version with improvising soloists. How can these be construed as pieces "the outcome of which is unforeseen"? Mikrophonie I uses unconventional means of sound production, but is equally determinate in all but the order of its sections. There were experiments made prior to its composition, of course, but that does not make the composition itself in any way experimental. Aus den sieben Tagen makes perhaps the best case for including this composer, since the texts define only the general process of each piece, and different performances of one and the same text may be drastically different in outcome, thus challenging Nyman's claim (cited in the Experimental music article) that Stockhausen must be excluded because for him, Boulez, and Berio (all of whome Nyman cites by name), "The identity of a composition is of paramount importance". Boulez of course became at the end of the 1950s the most implacable foe of Cage's indeterminacy, which makes it impossible to categorize these two composers side by side. The floor is open.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I only meant to reinstate Stockhausen and Zoviet France — the rest were a mistake which I have now fixed. "Hymnen" sure sounds like experimental music to me, as the term is generally used. I just don't see how there's any serious question about tht. I can see there's at least one narrower definition by which it might not qualify, but I don't accept that definition as being THE definition and neither do most other people. That just isn't how the phrase "experimental music" is generally used. That seems to bother you, and you have a more “correct” definition in mind that you want to promote, but that's really not what Wikipedia is for. SethTisue (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow that. Why on earth would you think that a carefully crafted, precisely realized composition like Hymnen could be construed as a work "the outcome of which is unforeseen"???—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't accept your premise that this quote you've singled out, "the outcome of which is unforeseen”, is THE definition of experimental music, as the phrase "experimental music" is generally used. If I had to put a concise definition forward — and let's not forget that the full meanings of words aren't completely captured by short definitions — I think "any music that challenges the commonly accepted notions of what music is", also taken from the Experimental music article, would be a better one. SethTisue (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You may care to observe that this broad definition is currently challenged as potentially OR. Even accepting this, I have three questions: (1) in what way does a work made up almost entirely of familiar national anthems "challenge the commonly accepted notion of what music is", (2) if Hymnen should be acknowledged to do so, why should not the entire European, American, Australian, etc. avant-garde be included also, and even merely "progressive" composers like, say, Peter Sculthorpe, Carlos Chávez, or Igor Stravinsky? (3) Can you justify inclusion of any composer on this list on the basis of a single composition? If so, then I have a few thousand names waiting in the wings.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) seems pretty obvious to me. Collaging songs together like that is not traditional practice and if you listen to the resulting piece it does not sound like a mere medley of national anthems and does not resemble normal music. (2) is a straw man argument I won't bother to address in detail; I did not suggest including the composers you name. As for (3), I already named several other 60's Stockhausen works (and I could name others, too, like "Prozession" and "Kurzwellen"; this is a substantial body of experimental work we're talking about, not just a piece or two); I'm not hinging this solely on "Hymnen". SethTisue (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So, (1) we should include Charles Ives and Mateo Flecha? Only trouble is, Hymnen does not use collage techniques, as the composer was first to point out. Still, that wasn't my point, but rather the material used. It was the main focus of criticism when Hymnen first came out: that the material was "too traditional". (2) No, you did not name any of those composers, I did. Let me restate my question: If you admit Stockhausen on grounds that it "challenges the commonly accepted notion of what music is", then why is the same challenge not to be found in Sculthorpe's synthesis of the Darmstadt School with Australian-aboriginal, Japanese, and Indonesian music, or in Chávez's concept of "spiral form" (e.g., his series of Invenciones), or in Stravinsky's harmonic language, from Firebird to the Requiem Canticles? As for (3), Stockhausen's "process compositions" are explicitly rejected by Nyman on the grounds that the integrity of the work is still insisted upon. (I have already agreed with you that Aus den sieben Tagen is the best refutation of Nyman.) But even if you can successfully maintain that five or six of Stockhausen's compositions may fit the description, is this enough to declare him an "experimentalist". The real point, however, is not what your opinion or my opinion might be (which is "original research"), but rather, what reliable source supports inclusion of Stockhausen in this list?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't suggest including Ives or Stravinsky, no. I'm not familiar with Flecha, Sculthorpe, or Chávez. Unless you are seriously proposing including them, then discussing them here doesn't seem fruitful to me. Yes, ultimately we should justify everything with recourse to published sources. In the meantime, a few minutes with Google should be enough to convince you it is commonplace to include Stockhausen in discussions of experimental music, so it seems to me that if you want to remove him, most of the burden of proof is on you. I'm happy to go along with whatever consensus develops among other editors, though for now no one else seems to be chiming in on this. SethTisue (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling isn't the issue, since there is a lot of misinformation on the web. Rigor (and Wikipedia policy) requires reliable sources, and there are at least three careful discussions of Experimental music that consider and reject Stockhausen from this category, and explain their reasons. Nyman I hae already mentioned. In addition, I suggest you read Morag Josephine Grant, "Experimental Music Semiotics", International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music 34, no. 2 (December 2003): 173–91, and Christopher Ballantine, "Towards an Aesthetic of Experimental Music", The Musical Quarterly 63, no. 2 (April 1977): 224–46. This should be sufficient "burden of proof", but I will give you a few days to read these articles and respond, before I remove Stockhausen again. BTW, just in order that there is no misunderstanding about this: It is not a question of the stature of Stockhausen's work, either in general or of Hymnen in particular. I regard Hymnen as one of the greatest compositions of the twentieth century, but it is really precisely for this reason (that it can be regarded as "a composition") that it cannot qualify as an "experimental" work. (We have already spoken of the "process-plan" works.) For Flecha, Sculthorpe, and Chávez, I suggest you start with the Wikipedia articles linked above (though the one on Chávez badly needs expanding). On Ives (as well as Henry Cowell, Charles and Ruth Crawford Seeger, and Carl Ruggles) as experimentalists, there is an entire book on the subject, David Nicholls, American Experimental Music, 1890–1940 (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990), ISBN 0521345782.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think general usage is more important than what Nyman or a few academics thought, but I can see that's not an argument I'm going to win, particularly since it's just the two of us. I've had my say, so if you want to remove Stockhausen I won't revert the change. Cheers, SethTisue (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you give up that early? What about e.g. Klavierstück XI? Spiel für Orchester (1952) is commonly regarded as exerimental, too. (Christoph von Blumröder, Terminologie der Musik im 20. Jahrhundert, 1995, s. 126-133; also see Christoph von Blumröder, Die Grundlegung der Musik Karlheinz Stockhausens, 1998) There should be no doubt about the experimental character of "Etude" (also 1952) (Thomas B. Holmes, Electronic and Experimental Music, 2002, s. 134) Then there's Leigh Landy's book What's the Matter with Today's Experimental Music? (1991) which deals heavily with Stockhausen. In fact there's some discussion to what extend aleatoric music is experimental or vice versa. (Wolf Frobenius, Terminologie der Musik im 20. Jahrhundert, 1995, s. 35f.; also see Karl Heinrich Wörner, Wolfgang Gratzer, Lenz Meierott, Geschichte der Musik, 1993, s. 536) Of course Nyman's writings are against Stockhausen and Boulez, and the whole European avant-garde (Pwyll ap Siôn, The Music of Michael Nyman, 2007, s. 31) - which our Jerome Kohl might point to - but still there are Stockhausen's sine wave experiments of "Studie I" and "Studie II", even though the latter has a written score. (Thom Holmes, Electronic and Experimental Music, 2008, s. 64) Enough experimental material for me and enough to have him in this list. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  02:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave up so early because no one had my back! :-) Thanks for the agreement, and even more importantly, for the references. SethTisue (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It does depend on definition, of course, and this is crucial. You have cited a number of German sources, and the expression experimentelle Musik has a very different history in that language than it does in English where, as the article Experimental music now clearly states, the term "refers, in the English-language literature, to a compositional tradition which arose in the mid-twentieth century, particularly in North America, and whose most famous and influential exponent was John Cage". In German (as well as in French) it referred in the 1950s specifically to electronic music and musique concrète, and had nothing at all to do with Cage or the kinds of musical procedures that define experimental music in America and England. This needs to be developed in the article, particularly with respect to Pierre Schaeffer's career which, in his own terminology left expanded in 1953 from simply musique concrète to the wider field of "musique experimentale". The difference here, as argued by Nyman, Grant, and especially Christopher Ballantine (in "Towards an Aesthetic of Experimental Music", The Musical Quarterly 63, no. 2 (April 1977): 224–46), is that in electronic music (in those days, at least), the experiments were made first, and then a piece was composed based on the findings. In the English-language sense, the performance itself is an experiment with an unforeseen result, and so a piece recorded on tape is the furthest possible opposite extreme. There is yet a third field, even less related to the preceding two than they are to each other, which is the one discussed in the "Experimental music" article under the heading "Transethnicism" (though a better term might be found), which is simply the mixture of different recognizable genres. This is more or less the same thing that Alfred Schnittke described under the term "polystylism". Then there are the various genre-bending movements found in popular music forms, which depend for their use of the word "experimental" on the norms of these genres. If we lump together all the musicians working under all these disparate definitions, we will end up listing a huge number of names but, worst of all, there will be no basis for discriminating among different musics which have nothing at all in common and, in many instances, are diametrically opposed. In other words, it would be a useless list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You really should stop using your American POV here. The English Wikipedia is internationally used, not only in the States. Of course I used German sources too (but not only!), after all we're talking 'bout a German guy here. What about the English sources I mentioned, what about aleatoric music, what about "Studie I"? You can, of course, bring up new pamphlets written by Nyman in the 1970s when he mainly worked as a critic but we hardly can base this list on his writings alone. Or do you want to have only Nyman and Cage in this list? That would be about the same as Stockhausen saying there's only his music. (Can't remember the exact source for this statement, it was an interview in some German underground magazine - either Orkus, Gothic or Sonic Seducer - around the year 2000)-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  15:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you on about? "American POV"?? The English language is the dominant language in a number of countries worldwide, including, amazingly enough, England. Michael Nyman is an English composer, not an American one. Scotland is also an English-speaking country, from which Morag Grant hails (the very first citation in the Experimental music article, the one establishing the normal English-language usage, is to an article by Grant). It is true that Australia, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand are not as yet represented in the article (though if you look in the "Further reading" list you will find an item by Warren Burt that I mean to use to correct that shortcoming so far as Australia is concerned). South Africa is already represented in the "Transethnicism" section, as well as under the main sense by the Ballantine article, though you would have to actually read the cited sources to know that. Perhaps this should be made more specific, and some composers named (Kevin Volans is perhaps the most prominent, and bringing him into the conversation would also cover Ireland). As to aleatoric music, you really do need to read Nyman and Ballantine, both of whom explain the difference between aleatory and indeterminacy. As for Stockhausen's Studie I, the last time I looked it was a piece of electronic music so, under the 1950s German definition, would qualify as "experimentelle Musik". So your point is exactly what? I have not consulted Landy recently, and only dimly recall the thrust of his discussion, but I believe he used the term more or less as it was described by Metzger, as a catch-all for electronic and avant-garde music, as well as for experimental music in the narrower sense. As was confirmed more recently by Frank Mauceri, this usage is actually so vague as to be meaningless (or, to use Metzger's term, "abortive"). Landy is of course British, but this doesn't help very much with your complaint of English/American bias in the article. I haven't seen the Thom Holmes book, so I can't comment on its content, but the author is an American so, once again, this doesn't help much with the localised POV. However, none of this addresses my main question, which is "How do we avoid making this list indiscriminate?". If you include Stockhausen, then why not Boulez, Berio, Nono, Maderna, Zimmermann, Kotoński, Boehmer, Kagel, Koenig, Schnebel, Penderecki (in his earlier works), Goeyvaerts, Eötvös, Höller, Maigushca, Fritsch, McGuire and a host of others? (Pousseur of course already belongs, if for no better reason than he has described himself as an "experimental composer".) If the "genre-mixing" secondary sense is to be included, then shouldn't composers like Schnittke, Gubaidulina, and Sculthorpe be included?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about your very own American POV not the article or the sources. You got me completely wrong in this. I think you see it too much from an American side of the table and should move to a more global view. (See the tag on top of the list!) Of course we can't include every musician who's experimnted for a short time, but we should cover the most notable, which includes some works of Stockhausen from the early 1950s to the late 1960s at least (as described in the sources above). For "Studie I": It was pure experiment. A score was written for "Studie II", after the experiments with sine waves had finished. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Stockhausen much at all and don't have his works on record, except for "Kontakte" on a compilation. I also mentioned Boulez earlier, and why not Nono, too? I can throw in Alois Haba for good measure (see Landy or as well as ).-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  17:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean my personal POV, it is not particularly American, as I was once constrained to point out when asked to speak at a German conference about the American reception of Stockhausen's music. I only just live in the US. I am much more familiar with the European new-music milieu than the American. I hope I know better than to use my own POV on Wikipedia. If there is a POV in the "Experimental music" article, it is the one published by the (English) Nyman, the (Scots/German) Grant, the (Americans) Mauceri and Cage, and a dozen or so others, not quoted directly but found in the "Further reading" section. The issue is not really so much whether this article needs to be made more global—I happen to agree with you about this—but that we should not make the mistake of assuming that application of a particular term under often wildly diverging senses somehow makes equivalent everything that label gets attached to. Getting back to Stockhausen, you seem to think that there was no score for Studie I. This is simply not the case, though it has never been published, as the Studie II score has (one page from the manuscript score of Studie I is reproduced in the second volume of the composer's Texte). In fact, it is structurally very similar to the second Studie, though the latter refines the techniques used in the slightly earlier work. Neither one is an experiment at all, though they were preceded by a large number of experiments in the studio, to discover the sine-wave and other techniques which were eventually used in their creation. It is in this sense only that the German term "experimentelle Musik" (which Stockhausen objected to, by the way, as a description of his actual compositions) might be applied to his early electronic works. FWIW, the main article still lacks a section on a very closely related American import of the German term, and this has to do with the Center for Experimental Music at the University of Illinois, the naming of which may have had something to do with the fact that one of its founders, Herbert Brün, was of German origin.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Buckethead
Buckethead was included to the list in February 2007 and has been there ever since. User:Jerome Kohl threw him out in February 2009. I put him back because I think his work with Praxis, Company as well as his releases as Death Cube K (partly with fellow Bill Laswell - wait, why is he not in the list? Put him in, too.) and his albums I Need 5 Minutes Alone, Kaleidoscalp and Kevin's Noodle House are proof enough of him being an experimental musician.-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  23:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What you think and what I think doesn't really matter, since this constitutes original research. Reliable sources are all that matters, and an admittedly very superficial look revealed no indication to me that Buckethead is regarded as an "experimental musician". I see you have provided some sources, which I will consider in due course.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We can split hairs of course, but out of all the experimental releases Buckethead has contributed to, I think the given examples are the most obvious. I can name some more if you want. That was my point, nothing more or less.-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  22:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Value of this list
I've found this an interesting discussion to read through. It makes me wonder whether this article has any value in the encyclopedia.

There is the wiki article on Experimental Music and it is correctly encyclopedic, i.e. it gives a summary of the most important variants in the definitions of what is experimental music.

It describes, roughly speaking, a range between a broad definition - basically anything wilfully out of the ordinary - and a narrow definition -  basically anything that's wilfully open-ended, i.e. that involves designing and setting up a situation in such a way that the outcome is undetermined. This could apply to composing and/or performance.

If consistency between articles is a value for Wikipedia, then a list of experimental musicians should accord with these criteria. But as both kinds of criteria are discussed (along with others), this means using them both (i.e. all). This would mean including a vast number of musicians. After all, a list aims to be comprehensive..

There is the fundamental question of whether a list has any place in an encyclopedia, or whether it isn't enough to have simply the individual musicians referenced in the Experimental Music article. However a list could be justified as a reference tool for using Wiki, which could mean restricting it to musicians who already have individual wiki entries in which they are described as 'experimental'. This would avoid the wiki community having to go through the process of deciding whether an individual musician was both 'noteable' and 'experimental' twice, i.e. once for the individual article and again for the list.

An alternative strategy, I think less satisfactory, would be to keep the list in its current independent form, but specify subdivisions of the 'experimental' category, so that experimentalists in the strict sense are grouped under one heading, innovators in different genres under others, improvisers under another, and so on.

So this boils down to 4 possibilites: 1) List as wiki reference tool. 2) List with subcategories. 3) Carry on as before. 4) Scrap list.

I'd be interested to know if other readers have responses to these...Dungur (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, as a rough comparison I ran a search for the word 'experimental' within the articles on individual musicians on this list. Just down as far as Braxton, you understand. The result was that Laurie Anderson and Robert Ashley don't feature as experimental, but everyone after them, including Braxton, does! So I'd say the list does roughly correspond to the existing wiki articles. So I'd say any name could be added to the list that meeets this criterion. If someone objects to the inclusion of an artist, they should then have to go back to the individual article and edit that!Dungur (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Experimental music vs Experimental
I see that SethTisue disagrees with some deletions I have recently made from this list, and suggests we discuss them on this talk page. I am listening.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also listening, to see if anyone agrees with your excessively narrow definition of "experimental music". Judging from the talk page over at the Experimental music article, it's clear that other Wikipedia editors do not agree with you. In the absence of such agreement, I suggest that you refrain from making edits you know are contentious. Suggest removals on this talk page; wait to see if other editors support the changes you want to make. If no such editors surface, don't make them! SethTisue (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Stockhausen specifically, I have nothing to add that wasn't already said in the discussion above. In the absence of anyone else but you supporting removing entries which have long been included on the page, and therefore have the tacit approval of many editors and viewers, I think you should wait for a consensus for removing those entries. (I do think it's fine for both of us to quickly remove new entries which obviously don't fit. If any of those removals turn out to be contentious they can be discussed here.) SethTisue (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me, particularly with reference to Stockhausen but also to all the other members of the European avant-garde who are expressly excluded by Michael Nyman (the chief authority on the subject, together with Cage), that we may be dealing with one alternative definition from among the several listed in the later part of the Experimental music article, namely the "abortive critical concept", applicable to anything a critic may dislike so long as it can be shown not to adhere closely to tradition. I would be perfectly willing to re-admit Stockhausen, over Nyman's protestations, if it were made clear that it was in this category (i.e., recipient of mud-slinging) and not under the main Cage/Nyman definition that he belongs. (Under those circumstances, I would also insist that all of the other notable figures of the European avant-garde be listed as well, with the same caveat.) It might also be a good plan to annotate any other musicians in the list expressly excluded by Nyman. In fact, given that the main article makes it clear that the word "experimental" (though not necessarily the complete phrase "experimental music") is often applied in a variety of mutually exclusive contexts, it would seem advisable to divide this list into the same various categories as the article, so as not to confuse musicians who have nothing at all to do with one another. What do you think?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think creating subcategories would merely multiply our difficulties. SethTisue (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I must revert to my previous position, since blending all the possible construals of "experimental" into one undifferentiated whole would effectively mean including every musician who can plausibly be construed as composing/performing/improvising in a non-traditional way, as well as any entirely traditional composer who has written electronic music or musique concrète. In short, it would become the mother of all music lists: Indiscriminate with a capital I.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitions and categories are difficult to nail down. Nonetheless, people manage. I think this list is managing fine, considering. SethTisue (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree with you there: I think this list is a mess. But rather than get into generalities, can I ask on what grounds you regard Stockhausen (contrary to the opinions of Nyman and the composer himself) an "experimental musician", and how might those criteria apply (or not) to other composers identified (especially by Nyman) with the "European avant-garde"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think already we covered that adequately above — at least, to my own satisfaction, if not to yours. You may have noticed I didn't revert your removal of Xenakis. It's a judgment call for sure, but despite the majority of Stockhausen's work being on the avant-garde side of the avant-garde vs. experimental divide, I think he did enough work that is Cagean enough to qualify, while somebody like Xenakis didn't. SethTisue (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I recall vividly the discussion above. Nothing so far sounds like there is any reason to override Nyman and Stockhausen except for your own "judgment call". This sounds like original research to me, and all the reliable sources are against you. That really is not good enough.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Vague?
I notice that Joseph Haydn has just had the honour of being added to this list. I was under the impression that this is a list for composers from the 20th and 21st centuries, but apparently it is meant to include anybody who was experimental in their time.

Problems:


 * 1) Many sources can disagree on who is and isn't experimental.
 * 2) If a composer writes one experimental piece, is that good enough for inclusion?
 * 3) Which definition of "experimental music" is being used for this article? (The lead of the article Experimental music has four.)

All in all, this list appears to be vague in scope, just like the recently deleted Template:Music originated in Europe. What do others think of this? Toccata quarta (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's about time this was brought up again. Maybe this time something will be done about it. Just for the record, it was I who added Joseph Haydn, and I have an impeccable source in case anyone cares to challenge his addition to the list. But of course, Haydn was merely a composer, and there is absolutely nothing on or in this list to suggest it is restricted to composers. In fact, it seems to me that the word "experimental" is such a highly regarded cachet these days that every garage-band musician—oh, excuse me, they don't exist anymore, do they?—I mean, "rock legend" includes the word "experimental" in their CV, and in this context it has become entirely meaningless. On this basis, I propose that all musicians, of whatever style or area of activity, from all times and places, be admitted to this list (it actually makes the "Music originated in Europe" template pale by comparison). Unless, of course, someone can come up with a sensible suggestion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)