also guys lite is staight up math rock or whatever.
like post rock is mono. sgt. is acceptable too. even te ill go for. WEG rules too i guess.
And again, this is why the label is ridiculous. When I first heard the term in the 90's it was applied to anyone who used unconventional song structures, unconventional time signatures, and unconventional chord structures. In essence- bands that lacked the 4/4, barre chord, verse/chorus/verse/bridge/verse/chorus structure, but retained the tools of rock- guitar, bass, drums. As a result, bands like Shiner, Jawbox, and Hum frequently got put into the "Post Rock" category. At some point, someone decided all post-rock largely lacked vocals and was "atmospheric," and therefore bands like "Lite" don't apply, while bands like Mono do. And yet, no one knows what to do with Mogwai, which occassionally has vocals, or Russian Circles, which has no vocals or traditional song structure, but is rarely "atmospheric".
This is what Wittgenstein calls the "family problem," which makes labelling seriously difficult and eventually meaningless. It goes something like this- I have a band with charcteristics A + B that I call "post rock," a band with characteristics B + C that I call "post rock," and a band with characteristics C + D that I call "post rock". The first band and the second band are related by characteristic "B," so we easily call them both post-rock, and the second band and the last band are related by characteristic "C" so we easily call them post-rock. But, the last band and the first band don't have anything in common, other than their shared relationship to the second band. As a result, if my familiarity with the term "post rock" is only with the third band, I would deny that the label applies to the first band. If my familiarity is with the second band as post rock, I would be comfortable applying the label to all three bands, etc.
And so- labelling music, while somewhat helpful for finding reference points, isn't really "descriptive" in a definitive sense of anything.
