Musical Genres Are Stupid - General

Have you ever been on /mu/? Are you a heavy metal fan on FP? Then you've probably been privy to the endless bickering that surrounds deciding what genre of music each artist fits into. But argue no more, for musical genres are stupid and only stupid people discuss them. Let's get down to it: [b]Why Do Genres Exist?[/b] There are millions of musicians throughout history who have played, recorded, and released music for consumption by the general public and virtually every human being alive or who has ever lived has enjoyed music in some form. In fact most people enjoy music enough that they actively seek out more music to listen to so that they may gain more enjoyment. The difficulty that arises from this is that very few people, if any, enjoy music in all of its forms. Most people enjoy only a small subset of the huge collection that is music. There is such an overwhelming amount of recorded music in existence that it would be impractical and largely unrewarding to simply acquire and listen to new music randomly until one finds something enjoyable. Luckily not every piece of music, nor every musician, is completely unique. There are intricate threads of similarity tying the many varieties together. Indeed, most people are aware of this. When you listen to music that you like, you can intuitively understand why you like it. Similarly when you listen to music that you don't like, your intuition makes you strongly aware of it. These are feelings that are often difficult or impossible to put into words, but it doesn't matter because it [i]feels[/i] like it makes sense. People's feelings about music that they like/dislike are strong enough and the similarities between artists are present enough that it is desirable to group music together. These resulting groups are genres! [b]The Problem With Genres[/b] In short, there is no single, ultimate way to group music together. Our desire to group music into genres in the first place comes from the fact that we have an intuitive sense of the sort of music we like and wish to give that music a label. But different people can like the exact same music for completely different reasons. Suppose such a situation occurs; Person 1 and Person 2 both like the same group of bands, and they've both heard that this group of bands belong to Genre A. All is well... until New Band comes along and has not yet been classified into a genre! Now Person 1 likes New Band because they conform to the intuitive reason why Person 1 likes Genre A - therefore Person 1 claims that New Band also belongs to Genre A! But Person 2 doesn't like New Band. Person 2 likes Genre A for an entirely different intuitive reason from Person 1, so clearly New Band does not belong to Genre A. Cue internet flame war. One might think that the real problem here is that Genre A is too broad of a genre to be really useful. This line of thinking is what lead to the creation of the subgenre! Since the dispute of genres cannot be resolved (since each person has only their own unexplainable intuitive feeling for why they are right), the only solution is to split Genre A into Subgenre I and Subgenre II. Then we can say that New Band belongs to Subgenre I, and that Person 2 is really only a fan of Subgenre II. Problem solved, right? Not really. There is infinite variation within music, so no matter how finely you try to classify music into genres and subgenres and subsubgenres there's always going to be that new band that comes along and fucks up your system. The only way in which this can be avoided is if you make your subgenre [i]so[/i] specific that it only includes a single band. That is the only effective genre system because it is the only one that doesn't come down entirely to personal preference. But this is pointless! If each band gets its own genre, we might as well just drop the whole genre thing entirely (that's what band names are for, after all)! The fact that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_subgenres]this article[/url] exists at all shows the ridiculousness and ineffectiveness of the subgenre system. By now, the problem should be clear. If we make genres general, it is too difficult to classify music. If we make genres specific they become pointless. This problem is mirrored in your music library (if you've ever tried to fill in all of the genre information). Giving songs broad genres like "Rock" or "Heavy Metal" are useless since it's hard to separate stuff like The Beatles from The White Stripes, whereas giving specific genres like "Nu-metal" are just as useless since you end up with only one artist in your library with that genre. [b]What do we do about it?[/b] First of all, forget about genres. Rather than saying "I like Genre A", instead think of the bands that you feel exemplify the genre and say "I like artists similar to...". Then, even if someone doesn't agree with how you classify them, you can still have a good discussion about the bands without degenerating into name-calling. Or, if you feel like you have a good hold on what specific musical aspects you like about Genre A, you could go with "I like music that has...". What if you name a few bands and someone suggests another band that you don't think fits in at all? Well, if you can think of a reason why you don't like the other band's sound you can say "Well I like these bands because ____ but the band you mentioned is ____". If you can't think of a reason, but you just have that intuition of not liking the other band, just say so. If you forget about genres, there's nothing to get mad about since the other person just likes those bands for different reasons. It seems to me like that approach would get a lot more done than "I like Neo-classical death metal." "Really? Then I think you'll really like this other band." "FUCK YOU THEY'RE NOT NEO-CLASSICAL DEATH METAL." The failure of genres is why services like Pandora and iTunes' Genius exist. Both are the result of people realizing that in order to group music together in any sort of useful way it needs to be done based on each person's personal preferences and by using a much more nuanced, robust system than simple genre labels. Phew. [/rant]

Okay without reading the op I want to say that GENRES are not stereotyping music. It is simply a way to define the style of it, sort of the nature and feel of how it is made. Now that I will read it I hope it's not worse than originally percieved. Edit: having read a quarter... I sense you are complaining that people are closed minded. I'm with you dude, however... Why bother? Liking all forms of music is the glory of truly appreciating what it has to offer. Let those people enjoy themselves, why moan? I try to see how music types thrill you in specific ways. Metal in general thrills me in one specific way, except for Stoner and Sludge.

Genres are very useful for getting the idea of how a band will sound or who they will sound like. Nothing wrong with them at all. People who disregard a band because of their genre are dumb anyway. I mean I listen to death metal, 70s rock and some pop. Pretty much anything really. Genres are not a boundary for me. If anything I consider them a door, a way to explore new music.

I listen to death metal, black metal, viking metal jesus christ, who gives a shit, the only thing that matters is that the music is different than pop. But I have to admit that I'm endlessly annoyed when people say that techno equals trance.

snip

Genres create different worlds of character for me. Why should I care about fools who bitch and moan? I started a "Do you like the song above" thread in Fast Threads. 95% of the replies are "Not my style/type" [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] Why not enter the music forum by Recommending and discussing the forms you enjoy rather than boasting open mindedness. I don't think many in this section are closed minded. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Larikang;27569189] "I like Neo-classical death metal." "Really? Then I think you'll really like this other band." "FUCK YOU THEY'RE NOT NEO-CLASSICAL DEATH METAL." [/QUOTE] Yeah, nobody is like that in this section.

The only people who are like that are closeminded douchebags who aren't worth anybody's time really. (When it comes to music at least) And in response to the fast threads thing- I really think people shouldn't dismiss something just because it's not like what they normally listen to. I've discovered lots of great musicians/bands who aren't my normal thing because I'm very openminded and try to keep all doors open. It's great finding new artists of a different style, I'm constantly exploring new genres and changing my musical taste.

Don't blame genres for closed mindedness, blame stereotypes. I remember as a kid having to listen to Hip Hop/R&B to fit into the "black" crowd then going to the rock genres to fit into the "white" crowd. The methods worked, but to be perfectly honest I know now that it may not have been necessary to do so. But at least it branched out my listening.

[QUOTE=AK'z;27569253]Edit: having read a quarter... I sense you are complaining that people are closed minded. I'm with you dude, however... Why bother? Liking all forms of music is the glory of truly appreciating what it has to offer.[/QUOTE] I think you completely missed the point. I'm not saying that people should be more open-minded and like more kinds of music. I'm not talking about any specific genres of music either. My point is that by thinking about genres at all people create a big issue - arguing about which music belongs to which genre - when it should just be "I like this, you like that, whatever." People argue about genres like they're well-defined, absolutely determined things. My whole point was that they're not and if you realize that you soon realize that they're also pointless.

In my recent years, I tend to figure out the appeal for the music I listen to. Someone recommends me a genre, I start off by getting a feel for what it's about. More and more genres have moved me that I feel I am just on a road to discover more. That's what its about. I posted a thread to try and get people to find music that I could hate, it didn't work. And I'm happy it didn't. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Larikang;27569890]I think you completely missed the point. I'm not saying that people should be more open-minded and like more kinds of music. I'm not talking about any specific genres of music either. My point is that by thinking about genres at all people create a big issue - arguing about which music belongs to which genre - when it should just be "I like this, you like that, whatever." People argue about genres like they're well-defined, absolutely determined things. My whole point was that they're not and if you realize that you soon realize that they're also pointless.[/QUOTE] Talk in specifics. I don't get much of what you're trying to say there. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] Music is already grouped for me, why try and put my own spin on it? A band acknowledge that they are a certain type of music then so be it, but it should be obvious to them anyway.

I would like to counter the argument that genres and subgenres are defined and categorized based on subjective opinion. While people may informally group music together in this fashion, formal genres and subgenres are objectively defined through measurable and precise musical traits. Bands are essentially put through a checklist of criteria when their genre is being decided. This allows for precise and accurate genre definition, though it also allows the possibility of cross-genre identification. [b]Single-Genre Identification[/b] On the most basic level, a band belongs to a single genre category. This must first be established before we can tackle the cross-genre and fusion-genre phenomena. Allow us to define, in example, these two sub-genres of heavy metal: death metal and power metal. Death metal is objectively categorized as medium-paced music (an exact range of tempos, literal or apparent, though I don't know said tempos) derived from the overarching genre of heavy metal. Characteristics that death metal possesses that differentiates from the rubric of heavy metal include a noted increase in the low-end of sound production, emphasis on the drum kick (in style, method of use, and/or placement in the master mix), and guitar riffs that are centric on low-tone progressions, heavy in the usage of chords and power chords, are generally emphasized-per-note, and focus on a chugging aesthetic. Power metal is categorized as being equally mid-paced, an increase in the mid-end (and possibly the high-end), emphasis on melodies and triplets, and guitar riffs that are centric on mid-tone chords, emphasize usage of chords only in places of tension and intensity (elsewise, single strumming is generally dominant), are less emphasized per-note, and tend to focus more on the "stream of notes" aesthetic. With these two objectively defined rubrics, a band can be assessed on each part of this rubric. If a band, for example, focuses more on the low-end, then they will be checked off as death metal in that regard. If a band fills out the death metal rubric with a clear majority, then that band is safely categorized as death metal. If the ending result isn't so unanimous, however, then we get the following phenomena: [b]Cross-Genre Identification[/b] Cross-genre identification is exactly what its name implies: the situation where a band is considered to belong to more than one genre. This situation will be far more common with subgenres than with genres, though genre-level cross-genre identification does exist (such as jazz metal or rap metal, in example). With the process of identification already explained, and with the criteria for power and death metal already defined, this phenomena is quite easy to express. It occurs when a band fits within two or more genres with general equality amongst the genres. For example, since we have two genres defined here, a band suffering from cross-genre identification between the two (power/death metal) would score about 50% death metal and about 50% power metal. Cross-genre identifications are quite literal. Some examples of cross-genre identifications within the metal scene would include Fear Factory (industrial/groove metal), Children of Bodom (power/death metal), Five Finger Death Punch (thrash/groove metal). Cross-genre identification can, in some rare cases, result in the next genre phenomena: [b]Genre Fusion[/b] While not, at the most basic level, a unique phenomena, people like myself consider it to be unique simply because of its rarity. Genre fusion is a result of a new, widely recognized genre to be defined directly as a result of a great number of bands playing the same cross-genre music. Not only do they play the same crossover, though; they more-or-less play the same crossover with the same genre-identification (IE their rubrics look pretty much the same). The most classic examples of genre fusion are black/death metal (recognized more commonly as "blackened death metal") and doom/death metal (more commonly recognized as simply "doom/death"). That's my counter to this thread's OP.

I tend to ignore other people's genre labels and categorise stuff as whatever I describe it as, which makes it easier for me to sort through my music collection

You're wrong, genres need to be there to provide border for similar music. They need to be there, they're not stupid at all. Genre elitism and being super picky about OH NO THAT BAND IS TECHNICAL DEATH METAL THAT ONE IS JUST REGULAR DEATH METAL HURRR that's fucking stupid

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND2at4dsBys[/media] pff who needs genres when we have gachimuchi

The problem with genres are people who try to claim one is better then the other when its just a different style. No better no worse.

I think sub genres are a lot more annoying.

[QUOTE=Pasalaqcua;27616424]I think sub genres are a lot more annoying.[/QUOTE] Depends. Blues for example; Bluesrock, delta blues, chicago blues, country blues etc are really helpful to me as I can kinda imagine the sound more easily then.

ITT: Bitching about bitching. It's a pointless debate. Genres aren't going to disappear. More will crop up, some will fall out of fashion, but at the end of the day, like everyone says, they provide a logical framework for anything. It'd be like walking into a movie theatre and going "I object to calling this film an action film, clearly it should just be called a film so everyone can enjoy it." It's idealistic bullshit, it wouldn't make people like anything outside of their taste, it would simply make taste harder to categorise.

genres are good sub genres are bad

[QUOTE=abcpea2;27618476]genres are good sub genres are bad[/QUOTE] Useless subgenres that don't need to be named: Neo-Soul, Glam Rock, Pop Rock, Screamo (screamed vocals is not a genre), Concious hip hop and post-rock(sorry but I've heard the style well before the term was coined) and space rock (doesn't make enough sense to me) Useful ones: psychadelic rock, symphonic rock and Polyrhythmic Pop But I'm not hating, I accept it for what it is and move on.

By the logic that screamed vocals doesn't constitute a genre, the existence of polyrhythms should not denote a genre either.

Screamo is a good genre because it helps me avoid that kind of music with screamed vocals :v: If you ask me there aren't that many useless genres. I mean the line between desert rock and stoner rock is pretty thin, as is the one between folk, viking and pirate metal. It doesn't bother me though, because it helps me find bands I enjoy. I know I enjoy 90% of thrash metal, so I can go and say with some confidence I will also enjoy a lot of speed metal and death metal, so I go check out bands in those subgenres, whilst still knowing the music is at least a bit different. At the same time, it helps me avoid bands I don't like. For example I absolutely love jazz rap and concious hip hop but most other genres of hip hop don't appeal to me.

Viking and Pirate metal are considered folk metal. They're not bona fide genres. And I completely agree with the genres that Akayz stated shouldn't be named. They are pointless genres. And then I've heard from a few electronic-music fans that a lot of electronic subgenres are worthless, because apparently a lot of them are duplicates with different names. Don't hold me to that, though.

[QUOTE=AK'z;27618728]Polyrhythmic Pop[/QUOTE] So pop rock (rock music with a brighter, more radio-friendly tone) is a useless sub-genre but polyrythmic pop (a genre based on one particular rhythm progression) isn't? I have tons of stuff in my library which I would call pop rock (collins-era genesis for example) which isn't quite "peppy" enough to be classed as pop, yet not heavy enough to be classed as rock

[QUOTE=CoolCorky;27630934]So pop rock (rock music with a brighter, more radio-friendly tone) is a useless sub-genre but polyrythmic pop (a genre based on one particular rhythm progression) isn't? I have tons of stuff in my library which I would call pop rock (collins-era genesis for example) which isn't quite "peppy" enough to be classed as pop, yet not heavy enough to be classed as rock[/QUOTE] Ahh so Pink Floyd's Momentary Lapse of Reason and Beatles' Revolver are pop rock? I personally would've said neither are but it isn't :3: But with my suggestion, [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVS10TFWf8g[/media] Distinct style :v:

OP just wasted a lot of time.

I don't like to use all these 20 billion genres.. I use just basic things to describe all my music. Rock, Metal, Heavy Metal, Nu Metal, Death Metal, Post Hardcore, Screamo, Alternative, Rap.

Thing is though Take death metal for example [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKjzDU7V7es[/media] This is death metal [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvU8j_Zsef0[/media] As is this [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfnP0D_Czvc[/media] And this [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd6dG4nnJFg[/media] None of it sounds the same, in fact some of them sound nothing alike.

[QUOTE=Skull2244;27631769]I don't like to use all these 20 billion genres.. I use just basic things to describe all my music. Rock, Metal, Heavy Metal, Nu Metal, Death Metal, Post Hardcore, Screamo, Alternative, Rap.[/QUOTE] If you think you can sum up a genre as expansive as Rock with one genre title, but feel the need to include Post-Hardcore in your list of "basic genres", then you're an idiot.

I'm just wondering if I'm alone in my really mean judgement of automatically assuming everyone who listenis to 'screamo', post-hardcore and nu metal as their primary genres as dumb? I know I shouldn't but honestly I've developed that opinion over time and it's proven to hold out pretty much all the time.