Best Ever Albums

Re: Genres

Robert Anton Wilson — Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:59:59 GMT

Author: Robert Anton Wilson

Posted: 04/04/2013 14:59

It`s only rock`n roll and I like it.

Re: Genres

jstreets — Thu, 4 Apr 2013 00:41:34 GMT

Author: jstreets

Posted: 04/04/2013 04:41

genres are marketing labels. Most of today's best music takes pieces of different styles dating back as far as the 50s, if not older. So what do we call it - indie. A label that has more to do with business than style.

Re: Genres

Anonymous — Thu, 4 Apr 2013 00:19:32 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/04/2013 04:19

420BongRitsu69 wrote:

Some of the artists hate being put under labels of music. For example Salem was super pissed when they were defined as witchhouse. Im sure they feel like it pigeon holes them.

From a listeners standpoint I have no problem with genres. I cant imagine what a mess the record stores would be without them.

With a name like Salem and the music they make how could you not be witch house

Re: Genres

Anonymous — Wed, 3 Apr 2013 23:45:07 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/04/2013 03:45

A new favorite genre, not top fave, but a fave: grunge. Favorite Grunge Band: Alice in Chains.

Re: Genres

RoundTheBend — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 15:59:40 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 03/08/2013 20:59

Noise Pollution wrote:

I was kinda thinking about this the other day. I was just looking at rock music. If you take it as just one single whole genre, you'd be grouping Buddy Holley, Bryan Adams, Led Zeppelin, and a bunch of other very different bands together. It just wouldn't make sense if that was the only classification there was. In some cases I feel like having a zillion sub-genres is necessary although after a point it just gets silly.

Every band should have their own label... haha

Re: Genres

Anonymous — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:47:48 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/08/2013 18:47

For indie music, I noticed that the production value seems to sound both cruddy and amazing at the same time. Could that be it? Or maybe it's because you can't exactly put it into soft rock or hard rock?

Re: Genres

Anonymous — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:21:13 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/08/2013 18:21

Cymro2011 wrote:

Indie shouldn't even be a genre. It says literally nothing about the sound of the band.

Neither does the word "Alternative" if we're talking about the literal meanings of the words. Of course, both "Indie" and "Alternative" have taken on certain connotations that DO indicate something about the sound, even if it's not explicitly defined anywhere.

Re: Genres

Anonymous — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 11:41:22 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/08/2013 16:41

Jasonconfused wrote:

I can't pinpoint it, but there is a certain quality to indie that you can recognize.

I think I noticed that quality in Hospice and Funeral.

Re: Genres

Jasonconfused — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 11:38:17 GMT

Author: Jasonconfused

Posted: 03/08/2013 16:38

Cymro2011 wrote:

Indie shouldn't even be a genre. It says literally nothing about the sound of the band.

I can't pinpoint it, but there is a certain quality to indie that you can recognize.

Re: Genres

Anonymous — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 11:29:27 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/08/2013 16:29

Cymro2011 wrote:

Indie shouldn't even be a genre. It says literally nothing about the sound of the band.

Yes, but it does have certain connotations. For me "indie" means C86 style indie-pop, the sort of twee stuff that you'll find Magenta and noWaxJim (in particular) are experts on. The fact that its literal definition is "something released on an independent record label" means next to nothing, and whilst "indie" has become a catch-all term for lots of different types of alternative guitar-based music that does not stop it from being a useful genre label. If a band sounds like The Smiths or Orange Juice or The Pastels or Belle & Seb or Saint Etienne or The Jesus and Mary Chain or even early R.E.M. then I think "indie" is the perfect genre label (see Veronica Falls' latest album for an example of what I would call "indie", or Melody's Echo Chamber's album from last year). Now, "experimental" on the other hand...

Re: Genres

Anonymous — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 11:27:07 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/08/2013 16:27

Jasonconfused wrote:

Plus, who are these labels hurting anyway?

Often the artists don't like them, e.g. shoegaze and post-rock. Some artists are even tenuous about being labelled music, e.g. John Cage and Markus Popp (at least his Oval project, I think he would call Microstoria music). The reason artists don't like them is because several genre names are derogatory, and most simplify the artists output to the point of devaluing their works. An obvious example of the former is brostep, but perhaps the most famous is shoegaze; an example of the latter would be umbrella terms like "indie" or post punk or post rock, the last of which has largely become a dry genre following the template of Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven, and thus devalues the totally different, diverse work of earlier recordings from Talk Talk, Tortoise, Slint, Labradford, and others included in that genre.

That being said, I still use the terms for convenience around you folks. However, when describing music to a friend that has never heard the album before, I'll use adjectives to try to describe the music (creepy, sad, dreamy, etc.) or describe what the album makes me think and feel, rather than throw around genre names. I might occasionally revert back to broad genres, like saying something is jazzy or funky, but I try to stay away from them.

Bottom line is, would you like to see your music distilled to one or two words that are glued to it forever? This doesn't just go for genre names, but good/bad, underrated/overrated, etc. Talking about what music is and sounds like ought to be a conversation, not grunting incomplete and inaccurate phrases.

EDIT: As I've mentioned briefly before as well, a certain group of people who think about music much more than any of us believe music can be divided into three fundamental genres: classical, jazz, and rock. These fundamental genres are based on how the music is made, intended to be listened to, and intended to be performed, rather than some topical evaluation of how the music sounds. Their names simply reflect what western society called these kinds of music when the field of philosophy of music began forming.

Re: Genres

Cymro2011 — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 11:18:28 GMT

Author: Cymro2011

Posted: 03/08/2013 16:18

MrFrogger wrote:

It helps, especially with super broad genres, like "indie"

Indie shouldn't even be a genre. It says literally nothing about the sound of the band.

Re: Genres

Anonymous — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:12:23 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/08/2013 15:12

I don't think it's excessive, as long as we preserve the base genres. For instance, sometimes I just wanna listen to progressive rock and don't want to have to worry about sifting through the 20799 subgenres to find something I want to listen to. However, it's also good to have those divisions as, when we find an artist or album we really like, it's easier to find other music that is similar.

Also, on a related note, who thinks that iTunes genre classification system is hilarious?

Re: Genres

Anonymous — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 09:57:04 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/08/2013 14:57

Genre labels are a necessary evil. Even if the more specific labels may seem ridiculous, they give you a good idea of what the music is going to sound like. I often enjoy going into music blind, but even I'd be lost without genre labels. And I don't see why extremely specific, unwieldy genre labels annoy people; for me they're either absolutely hilarious or (occasionally) quite helpful. You can always change your id3 tags if it annoys you that much.

Re: Genres

Noise Pollution — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 09:38:05 GMT

Author: Noise Pollution

Posted: 03/08/2013 14:38

I was kinda thinking about this the other day. I was just looking at rock music. If you take it as just one single whole genre, you'd be grouping Buddy Holley, Bryan Adams, Led Zeppelin, and a bunch of other very different bands together. It just wouldn't make sense if that was the only classification there was. In some cases I feel like having a zillion sub-genres is necessary although after a point it just gets silly.

Re: Genres

sheep21 — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 04:58:37 GMT

Author: sheep21

Posted: 03/08/2013 09:58

I love having diverse genres, and my music on my computer is organised this way but I admit there comes a limit eventually. I was overwhelmed when in a local paper had a music article describing a guys music as post-folk reggae pop or something like that.

Re: Genres

RoundTheBend — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 04:55:36 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 03/08/2013 09:55

dividesbyzero wrote:

It has recently occurred to me, there are a lot of different musical genres. Like a shit-ton of different genres. Now I can see how this makes sense for organizational purposes, but I feel like at a certain point, it just becomes too much. Is there really any purpose in classifying something as experimental neo-techno folk-hop, or acid anti-folk or whatever? Especially today, where more often than not, traditional "genres" are heavily diluted with many different styles of music. What do you think, have we gone a little overboard with our obsession with labeling everything? Can't music just be music?

Definitely, as I already argued in the other Genre thread.

Re: Genres

videoheadcleaner — Fri, 8 Mar 2013 03:24:24 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 03/08/2013 08:24

I had to add a genre to my library the other day: Experimental. It was too hard trying to put some of the weird and twisted stuff into rock, pop, industrial, ambient, electronic and soul at the same time.

Re: Genres

Jasonconfused — Thu, 7 Mar 2013 20:13:12 GMT

Author: Jasonconfused

Posted: 03/08/2013 01:13

420BongRitsu69 wrote:

Some of the artists hate being put under labels of music. For example Salem was super pissed when they were defined as witchhouse. Im sure they feel like it pigeon holes them.

From i listeners standpoint i have no problem with genres. I cant imagine what a mess the record stores would be without them.

Fair point. Although sometimes the listener is right and the artist just has their own bias toward labels. Right off the top of my head I can think of Motorhead. They hate being labeled heavy metal and insist that they are nothing more than a Rock N Roll band. Hate to break it to them, but they are heavy metal, through and through.

Re: Genres

bongritsu — Thu, 7 Mar 2013 20:08:46 GMT

Author: bongritsu

Posted: 03/08/2013 01:08

Jasonconfused wrote:

Labels help. We aren't going to like every type of music and genres just help us find what we like. Take metal for example. The sounds within metal vary a lot. There are subgenres of metal I like more than others, and there are even subgenres of metal that I can't stand. Plus, who are these labels hurting anyway?