1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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
    Yes, really. Just because a corporation has money coming out the wazoo doesn't mean every employee in the company has unlimited access to all of it. That "French fellow" (I assume you mean Lucian Grainge, CEO of UMG, but perhaps you meant Vincent Bolloré, CEO of Vivendi) doesn't allow everyone who works for any of the company's many divisions to throw money around like drunken sailors. The suits who work for UMG (which is in turned owned by Vivendi, a French publicly traded corporation) have to stay within budget, and can and do get fired if they don't make good, profitable decisions.

    If anyone needs to do research, it would be someone who didn't even state that UMG is a subsidiary of another company, and that $22,000,000,000 figure (which you apparently pulled out of thin air) must refer to their current stock price if they company was sold at its current trading price. Their annual revenue is more like 1.5 to 2 billion dollars.
     
  2. Magic

    Magic Woman of the World

    Age:
    58
    Posts:
    22,613
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location:
    Ohio, USA

    I'm not going to get into a contest for smartest person with you. Those type pissing contests can get ugly and unnecessarily so.

    https://in.reuters.com/article/us-v...llion-by-banks-pitching-for-ipo-idINKBN17R2B6

    I'm not going to debate or argue with you these music companies owners, CEO's, etc. it's irrelevant. However, if you google the wealthiest man in Britain then google that man's assets and businesses, you might make some interesting discoveries.......

    FACT: The music label provides all the risks behind an artist. An artist has to live up to the contract. An artist has to make the record label money or the contract will dissolve into thin air.


    What does all this have to do with music genres?

    Are you still creating an argument that the music executives assign genre? Genres for exploitation?
     
    Riff Raff likes this.
  3. Old Dude

    Old Dude I do not suffer fools gladly.

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    314
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2018
    Location:
    Georgia
    I am not saying that suits assign genres, but that they do pigeonhole artists and songs into tiny little niches as one of the many, many techniques they use to exploit and control artists in order to squeeze profits out of them, often at the expense of both the artists and music fans.
     
  4. Magic

    Magic Woman of the World

    Age:
    58
    Posts:
    22,613
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    What kind of niches?

    I'm not sure I'm understanding the control tactics.
     
  5. Old Dude

    Old Dude I do not suffer fools gladly.

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    314
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2018
    Location:
    Georgia
    A niche is a small space where things are placed. A genre is a type of a niche. It's a metaphorical synonym.

    The control tactics include, among many other things, ordering a band that had a hit recording that sold lots of copies or lots of digital downloads to crank out more of the same genre to milk public demand for that sound. Even if the band wants to move on and grow in their style, the suits demand that they keep making the same hits or there will be dire consequences. Of course, if the new re-hash of the old music doesn't sell, then the band gets dropped because the market doesn't want that sound any more, even though the band wanted to change but the suits wouldn't let them.

    Or, a band does change it's signature sound and crosses into a new genre. The suits who run radio stations (and who call the genres "formats") will claim that the new stuff doesn't "fit the format" so they won't play the new stuff on the stations that used to play their music. But, the same suits who also run stations with formats the new music fits won't play the new music because the artists are considered part of their former genre.

    This is why great classic rock bands or artists like Springsteen, McCartney, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, and many others couldn't get their newer music on the radio. "Classic Rock" stations refused to play anything that wasn't a hit in the 60's, 70's, or 80's, but stations with modern music formats wouldn't play songs by "classic" artists. That's what I'm kvetching about in my signature line. There are alternate means for artists to get their music heard and promoted so that fans will pay to buy hard copies or digital downloads, but a hit song on the radio is still a good path to recording sales.

    That's only two examples. For more, do some research on your own or use your imagination.
     
    Magic likes this.
  6. Magic

    Magic Woman of the World

    Age:
    58
    Posts:
    22,613
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    @Old Dude

    What you're saying above makes sense. However, I'm not so sure it's a genre classification that is hurting the artists. It looks to me like it's the music business in general. (Which is why the indie labels began)

    When I think of genres, sub-genres, and so on, I think of plant classifications. For example, there are 7000+ different type of apples throughout the world. However, at the end of the day, they are all apples.

    My advice to anyone would be, find what you like and buy it without regards to the genre classification.
     
    Riff Raff likes this.
  7. Old Dude

    Old Dude I do not suffer fools gladly.

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    314
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2018
    Location:
    Georgia
    The problem with suits and genres is the total opposite of the problem with criminals and guns. Suits use genre classifications as a tool to do bad things to artists. Criminals use guns as a tool to do bad things to victims. Where they are total opposites is with criminals and guns, we cannot do anything about guns, but we can control criminals. But with suits and genres, we cannot do anything about the suits, but we can control the negative impact of excessive "genrefication".

    On the surface, "find what you like and buy it without regards to the genre classification" sounds good. But, how do you find "what you like" if the suits have everything sliced and diced into little genre niches, often incorrectly labeled, and placed out there in the marketplace where finding "what you like" has been made difficult to impossible? I've stumbled across huge amounts of music I really, really like that I would have never found in any venue that sells hard copy music or digital download music. The only venue I've found where the impact of the genres the suits exploit has been blunted is YouTube.

    The thing is, plants are what they are. Any given plant is identical to every other plant of the same genus, species, and variety. What a given plant is can be objectively and accurately described with no controversy or dissent. Music is a whole 'nother thing. For one thing, there's the issue of pigeonholing bands and artists, especially those who record songs with a wide range of different sounds. But even if they didn't try to jam a band's entire catalog of music into a tiny little box, there are no objective criteria for even classifying a song by genre. So far, the only decent definition of any genre of music came from Kris Kristofferson, who said, "If it sounds like a country song, it's a country song".
     
  8. Porch Monkey

    Porch Monkey Senior Member

    Posts:
    424
    Likes Received:
    721
    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2017
    Location:
    Carlisle, England
    The ways around the problem of finding the music you like, that I use anyway, is to read guitar magazines, rock music magazines, and try the suggestions on Amazon etc, which come up based on the music you have already bought or browsed. Then there are resources like Spotify, which also can be used to play music along the lines of stuff you have chosen yourself. And it's not as restrictive as that may sound, because some of the music that comes up will actually take you off in a different direction, which effect you can then compound as new stuff comes along. I'm sure I miss out on some artists I would like this way, but I have managed to keep my library updated with more music than I have time to listen to anyway, and had my musical direction expanded in the process. So I really don't feel I'm being sold short, even if, in fact, I am. Oh, and of course, there are always wonderful internet resources like this very forum to turn you onto that which you might otherwise miss. And remember that old method of chatting about music to your like-minded friends? ;)

    Can you actually give some examples from which you learned that you were being restricted in what you hear by these "suits"? - and how exactly did you "stumble across" them? Because, if there were any more music that I like out there, I'd need another lifetime to hear it all, and this is why I don't get the complaint you are making. Or maybe some of us are just more easy-going about life generally...
     
    Magic and Riff Raff like this.
  9. Big Ears

    Big Ears Music Lover

    Posts:
    5,223
    Likes Received:
    123
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Hampshire, England
    The problem with rock music genres is that they are imposed in hindsight, by those who do not remember, or did not see, the originals. For example, the heavy bands of old are now 'hard rock' to draw a distinction between them and the newer 'heavy metal' groups. The implication is that the newer bands are heavier, when they are not. Budgie, an original heavy band, were later lumped in with NWOBHM (two crimes in one), and became proto-metal or something, which is plain ridiculous. Jazz rock is now fusion, for reasons that escape me, but probably because it sounds 'better'. There is now heavy prog as if progressive rock bands cannot just be heavy (prog and metal are derogatory anyway), and terms like proto-prog make no sense.

    Speaking of confusing terms, some are bewildering. To what is alt. rock an alternative? Post-rock would imply that something comes after rock, but what is it and and at what point did it come after rock? Can anyone explain yacht rock? I suppose there is nothing new in all of this. Classical music is a collection of sub-genres and a sub-genre, and what is rock 'n' roll after about 1957? Pop is short for popular, but classical music is popular!

    The answer is to keep the list of sub-genres short and to not reassign them, but, especially with the internet, I do not see this happening anytime soon - especially with the internet rewriting history.

    Incidentally, I always thought of Johnny Cash as rockabilly, a mix of rock 'n' roll and country.
     
    Magic and Speed King like this.
  10. Magic

    Magic Woman of the World

    Age:
    58
    Posts:
    22,613
    Likes Received:
    1,550
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    The genre classifications are VERY confusing. Especially some of the metal sub-genres. A couple years back I stumbled across the genre "white metal". First thought I had was.....great, now the genres are going racial. Turns out white metal is Christian metal. So....I has to do some googling and started listening to Christian metal bands.


    @Big Ears yacht rock confused me, too, until I realized Loggins and Messina album "Full Sail" is yacht rock and so is Christopher Cross "Sailing". So, I kinda have a grasp on what it is.....but to me it's all soft rock.

    :dunno:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

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