Since I'll be dead I'm going to leave bumping this thread 40 years on to you.

I've mentioned some already and you've probably heard them all but

Zu (technically 90s because they started in 99 but ja)
Richard Dawson
Deathspell Omega
Colin Stetson
Matana Roberts
Oneohtrix Point Never
Conjuring
Kreng
Resurrectionists
Strobes

Will do. Come to think of it, my point about the internet might be what proves me wrong on this one with increased access to info and such.

First off, triple **** yes. I think anything you mention is worth examining but this name jumped out at me. I believe I can make the case that all free jazz is really a reworking of Coltrane. I'm sure there are actually other examples but so far, to me, Stetson is the most important exception. I'm not saying he's without pre 21st C influence but his sound is tremendously unique and innovative and it's hard for me to imagine that he's not pioneering a new path of musical experimentation. Then on the other hand, his side work is often with musicians who are great but seemingly uninterested in challenging the status quo. He's such a great musician! Maybe the lesson to learn from him is that it has become passé to have an axe to grind.

We've talked about the Coltrane concept before, and how I think that it's easy to view jazz innovation as extrapolating on Coltrane because of the extent that he established the genre, which makes it hard to make new forms of music while still staying a jazz band.

Supersilent is one exception to your theory imo, although you could point to AMM as the origins of their sound. There's also what I call free rock (I guess the correct term is brutal prog but that has too much crossover with punky zeuhl so I think there needs to be a new term for this branch), the new form of heavy jazz fusion that I'm seeing become more common through artists like Ultralyd, Zu, Flying Luttenbachers, The Thing, and Sanhedolin, although the Coltrane influence is still heavy.

An interesting side note, I can hear Coltrane's influence loud and clear in a lot of the artists that are driving metal forward (there are a lot of them right now). A couple that I mentioned earlier like Deathspell Omega and Conjuring are good examples of that.

Actually, from a melodic perspective, 2000 could have been more like 1983. On the other hand, the production of most stuff was probably more like 2017.

Please give examples. I don't think anybody could just know what you mean.

Well let's look at alternative, indie and pop-rock stuff, which are the genres that I have the best musical knowledge of. Here are some examples of songs from c.1983 (add or deduct 3-4 years either way):

Chartered Trips by Husker Du
That's When I Reach For My Revolver by Mission of Burma
This Charming Man by The Smiths
Just Like Heaven by The Cure
Left of The Dial by The Replacements


Now c.2000:

Learn to Fly by Foo Fighters
Bliss by Muse
Untitled by Interpol
Warning by Green Day
Clocks by Coldplay

And c.2017:

Run by Foo Fighters
Thunder by Imagine Dragons
Parachute by Kaiser Chiefs
Toothbrush by DNCE

It feels like song structures have become more variable yet harder to remember (in my opinion negative) in the last 17 years. I love all of the c.2000 songs listed and like the c.1983 ones too, yet none of the c.2017 songs do anything for me.

I feel like letting time sort out the mess works heavily in your favor.

You got good stuff on that '83 list.

I also have a better idea of what you're saying with those examples.

What do you mean?

I mean it helps explain this statement