Register to remove these ads

The "Genrefication" of Music is a curse!

Discussion in 'Graveyard' started by Old Dude, Jan 22, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Old Dude

    Old Dude I do not suffer fools gladly.

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    314
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2018
    Location:
    Georgia
    Learned that word from Magic. I don't know if she coined it, or just used it. But it's a great word. Music is Music. It makes a little bit of sense to classify music to some degree. But slicing it and dicing it into a plethora of itty-bitty categories so that people can argue over what each category means, or whether a band belongs in this tiny little box or that other tiny little box is a fool's exercise.

    Why should the decade a band or song started in be important? Were the songs popular in 1961 all that different from the songs in 1959? Were the popular songs of 1969 all that similar to the popular songs of 1961? Do the decades run like normal numbers, 1 through 10, so that the 60's were 1961 through 1970, or did the 60's begin on January 1, 1960? Does anyone count to ten 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9? So why wouldn't the 70's be '71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80?

    Does something magical happen when the decade changes? Do all the recordings that were being worked on towards the end of the decade get erased instead of releasing them in the new decade? What about songs or albums that sold well for an entire year, from the Summer of the last year of one decade until the Summer of the first year of the next decade? Which decade does that album belong to? Why should anyone even care? Why is the decade of a piece of music even a thing that needs to be acknowledged?

    Why are Folk music and Celtic music mashed together? Folk music is any and all "music of the people" (aka "the folk"). Celtic music is the music of the Celts, a distinctive group of European people. Yes, since the Celts are "folk", Celtic music is, I suppose, a branch of folk music. So is Flamenco, polkas, Klezmer, zydeco and dozens of other kinds of music of specific "folk". And, modern folk music isn't really music of the folk, it's just a catch-all for anything and everything performed on acoustic instruments, except for the acoustic music that the suits pigeonhole as something else.

    What makes Jazz and Blues bedfellows? Jazz includes both BeBop and Dixieland. What does a bunch of hipsters playing atonal improvisations on pianos in smoky nightclubs have in common with sharecroppers relaxing after a hard day working in the fields?

    It gets worse!

    It's the evil overlords of the music industry that created the concept of genres, though they use weasel words like "formats" to hide their loathsomeness. I'm referring to the suits who run the recording industry, and their cohorts in crime, the suits who ran terrestrial radio into the ground. They are the leeches who suck the lifeblood from music and musicians. They declare which musical styles will get exposure and airplay on the radio, and who will get access to recording equipment and distribution channels. Granted, in modern times, a creator of music no longer needs access to multi-million dollar studios to make good quality recordings. Nor do they need access to expensive equipment to make hard copies of their music for sale. Despite that, the evil legacy of the suits survive.

    What sense does it make to force any musical act into a teeny, tiny little box? Can't a band or solo artist possibly make multiple recordings in multiple styles? So why is it that if a band gets a "hit" record, usually because the suits decided to make the recording a hit, henceforth and forever the band is classified as being in the genre that song fit into?

    Take action!

    Whether you are a maker of music, a listener of music, or both, refuse to play the game. Do not support any attempt to compel you to pigeonhole individual pieces of music, recorded albums of music, or makers of music. If you want to talk about music, talk about the music. Just don't talk about what genre it belongs in. It belongs in the genre "MUSIC".
     
    Libill likes this.
  2. Riff Raff

    Riff Raff The Kevin Owens Show Staff Member

    Posts:
    19,072
    Likes Received:
    6,503
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Location:
    The List of Jericho and the KO Show
    Interesting points but I say let people make their own decisions and do what they want on this matter. I for one enjoy talking about genres and bands in said genres/sub-genres and will make 0 apologies for that.
     
    diviv9, joe, Aero and 2 others like this.
  3. Needs More Cowbell

    Needs More Cowbell Banned

    Posts:
    1,798
    Likes Received:
    241
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2017
    I wonder why people who refer to "Classic Rock" do not include the music of the 1950's where it all began. What can be more classic than Chuck Berry, Little Richard, early Elvis etc. Possibly it's because they really mean 'the music from my childhood". In the late 60s/early 70's the Classic Rock term was not used. Rather it was called oldies or Golden Oldies.

    But classic is defined as belonging to a certain period of time or being similar to a certain period's style. And since time is fluid, the meaning of classic will continue to change
     
    Libill, Magic and SanguineRemedy like this.
  4. Old Dude

    Old Dude I do not suffer fools gladly.

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    314
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2018
    Location:
    Georgia
    I see. You are an advocate of chaos. I can relate to that. The world needs chaos, as long as it is done in good order.
     
    Libill likes this.
  5. Old Dude

    Old Dude I do not suffer fools gladly.

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    314
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2018
    Location:
    Georgia
    I fear you are conflating "classic rock", which are two simple words of English that mean what they mean, and are as you have described, and "Classic Rock", a figure of speech not intended to be taken literally. Due to the woeful lack of even the barest level of literacy of most of my generational peers, the rock of the era starting with Revolver and never really ending with any degree of finality was called "Classic Rock". That's more a sign of our hubris and self-centered perspective than anything else. We Baby Boomers were, after all, the children of the Greatest Generation, and therefore the be all and end all of the universe. Since we were destined to rule the universe, our music couldn't be anything less than "Classic" with a capital C. Now that we are turning into a bunch of doddering old farts, we cling to the past with even more determination than we clung to it back when it was the present.

    I suspect the fact that many of us were as lackadaisical about words actually having meanings, as Riff Raff pointed out, also had a lot to do with it. We tended to be, as a group, incredibly lazy about accuracy. But when one is lazy, it's better to contend that what one is lazy about doesn't really matter anyway. That way, one doesn't seem as lazy.
     
    Libill likes this.
  6. Vader

    Vader Veteran Of A Thousand Psychic Wars

    Posts:
    8,482
    Likes Received:
    10,150
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Location:
    Mother Gaia
    What is worse, music genres with many sub genres or the endless ranting against said sub genres to the point of many paragraphs of self indulgent prattle ?
    Personally, I would much rather spend my time reading about music , musical descriptions, musical classification etc., after all, that is what genres actually are, a term used to describe a musical style, than read an endlessly, babbling , self absorbed, anti genre diatribe.

    BTW, I got about 3 sentences into the beginning of the very first argument before becoming bored to the point of skipping the rest altogether.
    So, in short, I will continue on with my interests in musical sub genres and discontinue reading anymore ranting dietribes of a long winded , self indulgence nature.
     
    joe, SanguineRemedy and Riff Raff like this.
  7. Riff Raff

    Riff Raff The Kevin Owens Show Staff Member

    Posts:
    19,072
    Likes Received:
    6,503
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Location:
    The List of Jericho and the KO Show
    Chaos on this issue, yes. No conditions required. People can do what they want.
     
    Libill and SanguineRemedy like this.
  8. bbif

    bbif Senior Member

    Posts:
    391
    Likes Received:
    750
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Location:
    Australia
    is this, like, part of a thesis or something?
     
    Riff Raff, SanguineRemedy and Vader like this.
  9. Aero

    Aero Senior Member

    Posts:
    2,308
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    I don't understand why classifying music as being part of a certain genre is a bad thing. How else would you describe to someone else what a band sounds like if you can't relate it to a category of some sort?
     
    Riff Raff and SanguineRemedy like this.
  10. BikerDude

    BikerDude Dude

    Age:
    57
    Posts:
    2,015
    Likes Received:
    1,718
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Location:
    East bum flunk. Upstate NY
    It's an arcane concept anyway.
    It used to conform to where the records were on the racks in music stores.
    Now?

    And beyond that the categories have become meaningless.
    The very idea of storing Hank Sr. or Johnny Cash in the same bin as what is called country music today seems arbitrary.
    Americana has become a bucket for all kinds of stuff.
    It's like "none of the above but with a bit of country feel".
    And someone like Jason Isbell who is generally more associated with Americana than Country actually debuted his album at the top of the country charts.
    Eventually the whole genre thing seems a bit silly.
    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jul/28/jason-isbell-country-music-radio
     
    Libill likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

defer="defer" charset="utf-8">