[citation needed] [basic logic needed] [something more than neoliberal feelgoodery needed]
Also well put and funny.
But I think it was just an opinion and an opinion helps a person feel good about themselves. But that's just my opinion, hehe. I also appreciate this type of logic, in the sense that Applerill admitted to not knowing. If a person admits to know something, be wary.
Plus if you start something with "commandment", doesn't that immediately throw all logic out the window. You're not supposed to use logic, your supposed to simply obey .
I don't like limiting music to something as stupid as a genre. It's just a label.
For a record store, I'm happy to have it organized alphabetically and nothing more. Genre has never been a reason I listen to or purchase music.
Even as a fan of music as a whole I think that would be counter-intuitive and frankly shit. Yes, each genre/style/scene/etc has presumptions but only morons base their opinions on presumptions. If I want to listen to a record that sounds like Morton I should be able to find it and not be one hundred percent blind. It is anti-consumer and anti-listener and anybody who thinks otherwise doesn't have a great sense of perception or logic.
Oh, also, genres are great. They help people find so much more music to enjoy, and helps them figure out what makes it stand out. A music nerd like genres is a zoologist without Linnaeus.
They also make really fun buzzwords that make you look educated to outsiders even when you're not.
Seriously, though, if we make stupid judgements about music based on genres, it's our fault, not the classifier's. We can use distinctifying vocabulary without being judgemental.
There's actually a pretty big distinction between 90s post-grunge and 2000s post-grunge. The 90s brand of post-grunge, associated usually with Bush, Silverchair, and early Live more directly emulates the Seattle grunge bands than most of the 2000s groups, which are full-on radio rock and borrow only some of the basic instrumentation of regular grunge. The Nickelbacks, Hinders, and Creeds of the world garner more obvious backlash, due to essentially perverting the movement they were supposedly related to. Even 90s post-grunge retained plenty of the grittiness and rebellious tone of Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and the like, despite being generally more accessible. That's not to say Bush, Silverchair, and Alanis Morissette weren't criticized back when they first came out, but their music is still fairly timeless and not pandering to pop radio in quite the same way.
I don't understand what makes her musically "grunge" aside from her era of popularity. Jagged Little Pill and Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie were really just slightly-subversive dance-pop/singer-songwriter at their core, even when they occasionally had harsh guitars. And she's really kept that dance-style overtone from Under Rug Swept all the way to her newest album.
I don't like limiting music to something as stupid as a genre. It's just a label.
For a record store, I'm happy to have it organized alphabetically and nothing more. Genre has never been a reason I listen to or purchase music.
Even as a fan of music as a whole I think that would be counter-intuitive and frankly shit. Yes, each genre/style/scene/etc has presumptions but only morons base their opinions on presumptions. If I want to listen to a record that sounds like Morton I should be able to find it and not be one hundred percent blind. It is anti-consumer and anti-listener and anybody who thinks otherwise doesn't have a great sense of perception or logic.
You won the internets with the bolded statement. I'm pretty sure that was an Ad Hominem, ergo your perception and logic is failing you.
But really aren't we sharing opinions? I don't get this idea that somebody has to be "Right"... I believe in pluralism, not dogmatism.
So my opinion is as follows: There are zero bands/music that I have found because it was labeled a genre. I also don't buy shit music, it needs to gain my love before I buy it, so what that means is I don't go into a record store and just buy something random. Also, I never really like bands based solely on the fact that they sound like other bands... (The Monkees vs the Beatles for example... please, even The Beatles pop stuff is much better. I won't even listen to the Monkees) and then there's that thing where some people think bands sound similar... I dislike The Smiths for example, yet really dig U2. Some dipshit says, oh, U2 and The Smiths are a lot a like, you should check them out... and I hate it.
As a side note, I play music and I hate being asked what kind of music I play, so sometimes I make up a genre just because I don't care.
But hey, if I flip on the radio, yes... I go straight to the Alternative Rock stations, because that leaves Country, Pop, and Rap/Hip-hop. Sometimes I flip over to the Rap/Hop.
Also, these are two songs from R.E.M. off the same album... I wouldn't consider this to be even the same Genre... they just wrote what was and weren't thinking oh, how can I make this sound fit my "genre".
Also in memory of David Bowie, WTF Genre would really encompass him?
it's almost as if artists can produce music in more than one genre.
and just because you have other means of hearing about artists (i honestly can't figure out what your method would be besides 1001 Albums books and Rolling Stone, which doesn't indicate a lot of personal exploration) doesn't mean that people don't benefit greatly from genre classifications. no, it is not useful at all to stick dogmatically to any umbrella genre, say hip hop, just because you've decided that's the genre for you, but that's also a classification approach i've only seen taken by high schoolers who evaluate genre only at the surface level, i.e. what radio station(s) to tune into. if someone likes Dr. Dre, who's only released now three albums of his own material, it would make sense for them to dig deeper into G-Funk. for people who like Three 6 Mafia, pursuing the Memphis Rap scene beyond their affiliated solo projects' tapes first required classification. especially with the Internet now coming up and genre transcending a geographic locale, genre classifications can be crucial ways of picking apart the influences that go into new music and finding a variety of artists who impress upon what you enjoy. it seems juvenile and reactionary to poo-poo the concept of genre just because you yourself stick largely to radio rock and have a preconceived notion that genre doesn't "work" for you, thus leading to a confirmation bias when you "bravely' explore by just exploring canon rock artists' discographies.
it's almost as if artists can produce music in more than one genre.
and just because you have other means of hearing about artists (i honestly can't figure out what your method would be besides 1001 Albums books and Rolling Stone, which doesn't indicate a lot of personal exploration) doesn't mean that people don't benefit greatly from genre classifications. no, it is not useful at all to stick dogmatically to any umbrella genre, say hip hop, just because you've decided that's the genre for you, but that's also a classification approach i've only seen taken by high schoolers who evaluate genre only at the surface level, i.e. what radio station(s) to tune into. if someone likes Dr. Dre, who's only released now three albums of his own material, it would make sense for them to dig deeper into G-Funk. for people who like Three 6 Mafia, pursuing the Memphis Rap scene beyond their affiliated solo projects' tapes first required classification. especially with the Internet now coming up and genre transcending a geographic locale, genre classifications can be crucial ways of picking apart the influences that go into new music and finding a variety of artists who impress upon what you enjoy. it seems juvenile and reactionary to poo-poo the concept of genre just because you yourself stick largely to radio rock and have a preconceived notion that genre doesn't "work" for you, thus leading to a confirmation bias when you "bravely' explore by just exploring canon rock artists' discographies.
You are making a lot of assumptions.
All I'm saying is that music, for me, comes before musicology. Paul McCartney, for example, paid someone to teach him how to read music shortly after the release of Sgt. Peppers. Does Paul McCartney get music, hell yes... did Paul McCartney shortly fire his teacher realizing he experiences music in a different way, also a resounding hell yes. Music existed way before classifications of it did. I experience music more like an early jazz musician (by feel and generalities) and not like a trained classical musician (well that's not hip-hop, that's New Orleans jazz funk rap of the southern quarter circa 1998).
What's so wrong with not placing any value into a genre? The genre and classification in of itself means nothing to me. The ad hominem attacks are great, keep them coming.
The difference between a boa constrictor and a boa has no baring on my world. Same goes for music.
No, it wasn’t an ad hominem. But it seems you are using that as an excuse to ignore the points within the dialogue.
You are nitpicking and not truly understanding the points, even if ad hominems or other improper debate techniques are used or not.
Look, there’s a difference from understanding the utility of genre and subjectively not using them. If you read back into your posts you completely dismiss them because you perceive them as “stupid” — which just seems an infantile way to enter into a conversation about genre. Music Development and Music Journalism go hand-in-hand and has been such since long before the twentieth century. Just because you dislike them due to your own preferences, misunderstandings, or perceptions doesn’t give you the right to dismiss them in such a “dogmatic” way. What is wrong about not placing any value goes into this, of course. Putting no value leads to a complete lack of regard for the developmental and observational history of modern music (and going beyond that). It’s one thing to prefer not to use genre in conversation or for personal use and another to dismiss it as stupid and pointless. As aforementioned it lacks historical awareness; creating a bubble of ignorance because it is comfortable and I’m not a fan. Just because you don’t care doesn’t give you right to rewrite or outright ignore history to your own person comfort. Now, that’s stupid.
As for the inane “aren’t we just sharing opinions?” inquiry; let me put this out here. Opinions can be wrong and not everything in life is subjective. This may not be the case in application to a conversation about genre but it is true. Every time somebody tries to switch gears with a “Isn’t this just opinion?” it feels like an infantile way to get their own opinion in being seen as correct when it has been challenged or disproven. Of course the majority of forum discussions are opinion (unless stated otherwise), that’s a damned fact. We don’t have to have “in my opinion” at the end of every post to symbolize this.
As for Bowie: as mentioned before this post, artists are not limited to one genre. Genre is not so static and overwhelming that it is used as such. David Bowie was an artist who made various styles of music which is often the case that people refer to him as a “art rock” or “art pop” musician in historical context since he goes far beyond his early trappings of glam rock and such.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
.
