Best Ever Albums

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:01:54 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/13/2016 05:01

Pentagonal wrote:

Ad hominem attacks are the domain of simpering fools with no other leg to stand on but the pillar of bile that continuously emanates from their mouths, a testament to their decaying self-image and brittle psyche.

...and don't even get me started on hypocrites.

hehe

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

RoundTheBend — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 23:59:41 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 01/13/2016 04:59

Gowi wrote:

I’ve found it really useful to blind purchases albums more often in the alt/indie/punk section as those suit my taste far more actively.

Looks like I'll have to try this... I usually have checked it on the internet first, but I wonder if that's robbing me of an experience that allows me to truly appreciate the random find. Some random finds I actually like but don't revisit for whatever reason. Not sure if it is me not putting in enough effort or if the music itself isn't that memorable.

Glad we came to some crossroad.

Also now that I pay more attention to the list, I'd about 1/4 of them I remember from my Music 101 course, so it's totally possible that an actual student of music would know all of them.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

mickilennial — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:57:27 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 01/13/2016 02:57

I try my best not to act like I’m some academic professor (whilst I’ve done a lot of informal studying, it has never been in a classroom) because it is as pretentious as it is counter-productive towards having a dialogue. If I ever cross the line by your perception do let me know so I am aware I’m acting as such. With that said, no I don’t feel like you are a “complete idiot” though I was a bit frustrated with the conversation when I initially wrote that post and wasn’t sure how I could put it in proper wording. With that said, I don’t think genre simplification will really happen as long as we have music appreciation classes, music nerds who dive into all of the knowledge available to them, and books about music. When I first started learning and perceiving all of this mess of genre and style development I was thirteen years old but I was also an introvert. I get the impression you had a more lively social life at the same period and perhaps that plays a role as well. The librarian versus the social butterfly, maybe.

On the subject of record stores, I’ve walked in ones with simple systems (rock, metal, blues/folk/classical, alt/indie/punk, international, and pop; these are the sections of my favorite record store) and more advanced systems. I’ve found it really useful to blind purchases albums more often in the alt/indie/punk section as those suit my taste far more actively.

I took a public MA class once and the instructor actually did touch on a decent deal of these bits that you link, oddly enough, but they weren’t in fine detail as individuals who came in students were more interested in modern music developments. I imagine a university level course would go into greater detail but that’s me presuming. You’d have to ask someone who has taken such classes.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

RoundTheBend — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:52:24 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 01/13/2016 02:52

Satie wrote:

For the record I agree with you that the incredibly fine distinctions between sub-sub-genres in rock music is a tiresome epidemic. For the record, I know a handful of very prominent ethnomusicologists through my job, and I've never heard them expand on genre beyond general classification except in written work when put to a specific purpose. The music library for my job at a public radio show dedicated to American vernacular music is organized as you describe record stores. I feel that the vast majority of rock genres suffer not just from excessive founderism that makes people inflate the differences between sub-sub-genres but also excessive reliance on sociological rather than musicological data points to differentiate genre classifications.

All that said, I still think that there is a happy medium between a master list of blues and Baroque sub-sub-sub-genres that is obviously encyclopedic in nature and not grasped or even INTENDED to be grasped by a single individual or represented in formal organization or something and incredibly general "record store" organization or no organization at all as far as accessibility for intuitively finding music that sounds like whatever you like. But I can understand conflating a frustration with snobs and navel-gazers (even if some of these folks are made of straw 😉 ) with dismissing the whole system, as I've frequently had clashes on music forums over an iota of difference in opinion about how something should be classified. There is a level where genre classification, particularly in pop music, loses its utility. But there's also a level where it's for my money pound for pound (note for note?) the best way to find new music and understand music history in a quick but effective and accurate way.

Very well said. I also wish I could write as well. Maybe I should give the bolded statement above more of a shot ... my experience with it hasn't been good, so just like any classical conditioning, I stopped doing it.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:38:00 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/13/2016 02:38

For the record I agree with you that the incredibly fine distinctions between sub-sub-genres in rock music is a tiresome epidemic. For the record, I know a handful of very prominent ethnomusicologists through my job, and I've never heard them expand on genre beyond general classification except in written work when put to a specific purpose. The music library for my job at a public radio show dedicated to American vernacular music is organized as you describe record stores. I feel that the vast majority of rock genres suffer not just from excessive founderism that makes people inflate the differences between sub-sub-genres but also excessive reliance on sociological rather than musicological data points to differentiate genre classifications.

All that said, I still think that there is a happy medium between a master list of blues and Baroque sub-sub-sub-genres that is obviously encyclopedic in nature and not grasped or even INTENDED to be grasped by a single individual or represented in formal organization or something and incredibly general "record store" organization or no organization at all as far as accessibility for intuitively finding music that sounds like whatever you like. But I can understand conflating a frustration with snobs and navel-gazers (even if some of these folks are made of straw 😉 ) with dismissing the whole system, as I've frequently had clashes on music forums over an iota of difference in opinion about how something should be classified. There is a level where genre classification, particularly in pop music, loses its utility. But there's also a level where it's for my money pound for pound (note for note?) the best way to find new music and understand music history in a quick but effective and accurate way.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

RoundTheBend — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:23:22 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 01/13/2016 02:23

Pentagonal wrote:

Haha, I wish I could write this well :).

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

RoundTheBend — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:12:23 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 01/13/2016 02:12

Gowi wrote:

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.

Thanks, I actually really liked this reply. And thanks for not just saying you're dumb therefore I'm right.

I totally agree I was being one sided, looking back on it. I claimed that I believe in pluralism and yet declared genre "dumb" which is totally dogmatic. I should have said Genre doesn't do anything for me personally. I gain very little from Genre, not Genre has no place ever. Maybe if I learned the difference between this blues and that blues, it would change my music appreciation of the different types of blues, but I feel it won't.

Another thought I had though is that when I go into a record store I rarely if ever see deeper Genre organization than something like: Classical, Jazz, Rock, Hip/Hop and R&B, etc. I never see Delta Blues or Post-Hard Core. I mean I'm looking at bigger stores like Ameoba Music, Randy's Records, doesn't matter which shop, they didn't take the effort to label something very specific, except maybe their world section by country.

As for music-journalism or anything academic to do with music (where it sounds you are coming from), it makes perfect sense to catalog and define every bit of music types. I tend to think I love music history, but I don't care much past the classification of Baroque for example... I don't care if it is middle Baroque or early Baroque... it's just Baroque to me. But somebody might care, and I should respect that. But you'd have to be a professor of music to listen to Baroque music and really be able to identify well, this is early Baroque because they aren't using blah blah, and this is middle Baroque music because of this... just by listening to it. It's at that level that I feel Genre gets silly for me as I am not a professor of music. That's all I was getting at and used extreme statements that maybe didn't fully reflect how I feel. Maybe you and others get off on being able to listen to blues music and identifying this list when you listen to it... but I don't really. I feel it is a bit excessive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_blues_genres

On the note of early, middle and late baroque, I realize those aren't genre's but periods, but nobody really uses these Genre's/Styles in even a Music 101 class, and really I bet an average PhD student of music wouldn't know all of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_forms_by_era

I wonder if just like these terms our sub genre's in 200 years will be simplified into something easy to remember and most people won't even know what Delta Blues is... it kinda already is happening when people say 60s music for example.

I really appreciate your comments and feel we reached an understanding at some level at least. You may have more respect for me, or you may think I'm a complete idiot, but thanks for actually having a conversation.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:18:36 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/12/2016 20:18

Ad hominem attacks are the domain of simpering fools with no other leg to stand on but the pillar of bile that continuously emanates from their mouths, a testament to their decaying self-image and brittle psyche.

...and don't even get me started on hypocrites.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

mickilennial — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:14:00 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 01/12/2016 14:14

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.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

RoundTheBend — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:56:40 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 01/12/2016 05:56

Satie wrote:

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.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:41:29 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/12/2016 05:41

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.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

RoundTheBend — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:27:25 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 01/12/2016 05:27

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?

Pretty depressing country twang song:

Link

A pop song making fun of pop culture:

Link

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

RoundTheBend — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:06:01 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 01/12/2016 05:06

Gowi wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

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.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

Applerill — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:50:41 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 01/11/2016 12:50

Infinity183 wrote:

Alanis Morissette .

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.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

Infinity183 — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:35:29 GMT

Author: Infinity183

Posted: 01/11/2016 12:35

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.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

Applerill — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:25:31 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 01/11/2016 11:25

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.

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

mickilennial — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 04:35:53 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 01/11/2016 09:35

sethmadsen wrote:

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

RoundTheBend — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:40:29 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 01/11/2016 05:40

Satie wrote:

[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 :).

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:26:08 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/11/2016 05:26

Applerill wrote:

THE THIRD COMMANDMENT:
If there is such a thing as "good" and "bad" music, then every genre would have its share of both, whether it be post-punk or crunkcore.

It's okay to not like certain genres, but one of the first steps to musical maturity (not that I'm anywhere near there yet myself) is realizing that something isn't naturally "bad" because it's in a genre. It's okay to not be a fan of genres, though.

[citation needed] [basic logic needed] [something more than neoliberal feelgoodery needed]

Re: Why so much people attack-Post-Grunge?

RoundTheBend — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:24:33 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 01/11/2016 05:24

Applerill wrote:

hahaha, nice.