I am almost completely convinced that 90% of all genre-lization is bogus. It seems to me that if you just keep going with the mentality of the whole category/sub-category method of defining, you end up naming genres after individual bands (which just seems silly). I'm not trying to say that most bands don't have a unique sound, because they do, but I really don't think they'd mind if they were grouped more generally.
Am I wrong?
Genres are incredibly overblown.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'll say I'm a bit conflicted on this one. I think they are useful for some classification. For example, I don't like when metal bands are described as "rock." And the divisions in metal can be useful as well. I could post two "metal" songs that sound nothing alike; genres and subgenres can sometimes help clarify what the music sounds like.
Dave, let's say someone asked you what Wilco sounded like. You could say "rock" and then they'd say, "Oh you mean like Creed?" and you would want to punch them. So then you would say, "No, more like indie rock" and then they would say, "Oh, so you mean like Sufjan Stevens?" and then you would give up.
Basically my point in all of this mumblejumble is genres can be useful, but I've witnessed so many genre disputes on YouTube and Sputnikmusic that I'm ready to drop them as well.
Also, I was thinking of posting a series of "genre tutorials" which would just acquaint us all with different types of music and how that particular sound was started. But I don't think I'm going to do that now :) Plus it would take too long and take away from my schoolwork.
ReplyDeleteBrad, I like your Wilco/Creed/Sufjan example, and yes, that is exactly what I would do in that scenario.
ReplyDeleteIn that situation, I don't think the problem lies in the label "rock." People just have a misconception as to what that exactly means. They've associated the title "rock" with a certain sound. I would argue that "rock" is probably better described as primarily a cultural movement, and only secondly a particular kind of melody, beat, or vocal style.
Somewhere along the line people started labeling music based on what it sounded like, and not just associating it with a period of time, or broad cultural movement.
This isn't to say that music shouldn't be categorized by sound, but maybe it needs to be done in concordance with a cultural context.
In retrospect, this argument might not be very strong and definitely needs more thinking. I guess my overall-driving-idea is that I'm uncomfortable using an Aristotelean taxonomy to classify/organize something as vague and mysterious an music.
Dave, I agree with your comment on rock being a more cultural movement than a genre. My History of Rock and Roll is not pristine, but I believe that when the term was coined, the label "rock" music simply referred to a musical style that incorporated the electric guitar. Originally, there was not a multiplicity or diversity of styles that employed the electric guitar. Now, however, there most certainly is. Taken by itself, the "rock" label really no longer says a whole lot (as a descriptor) of the music to which it refers.
ReplyDeleteBrad, your scenario is a good illustration. The way you've described it is to try and persuade Dave that genre divisions can be useful or even necessary. This scenario, along with the "rock" ambiguity discussion, seems to describe how these ultrafine divisions come to be(which are, presumably, the ones that make Dave throw his hands in the air). So, I suppose the question is, if genre divisions are useful (even necessary), how can they be moderated such that they maintain their utility (i.e. don't get to the point where they describe individual bands)?
As a side note, when people ask me what type of music I listen to, I tell them "Classical." "Classical" in that scenario refers to an immense, broad range of sacred, symphonic, instrumental compositions, but it belies the differences that distinguish on major generational style from another. I don't mind referring to my musical tastes as "classical" to someone who doesn't listen to classical music, but in discussing the same matter with someone who has a more intimate knowledge of musical composition, perhaps a more nuanced description would be of more value.
Does it work to say that to all "outsiders" a general label will suffice, because the ultrafine divisions won't mean anything to them? But for those within the genre, subdivisions will mean more?
Nate, that's a really good observation.
ReplyDelete"I don't mind referring to my musical tastes as "classical" to someone who doesn't listen to classical music, but in discussing the same matter with someone who has a more intimate knowledge of musical composition, perhaps a more nuanced description would be of more value."
I think that is exactly my sentiment. Although sometimes I cringe when telling people I listen to "metal" because I can almost hear them labeling me :)