Pointless sub genres

Kedvesem · 11-26-2014, 07:14 PM

I think someone mentioned this already, but the sub-genre that I despise the most (having nothing to do with its content, just the name) is "indie".

"Indie" is short for "independent", yes? So it's what? Independently released? Not on a big label? But that tells me NOTHING about the sound, only the marketing. And what if it isn't on a little label? Is it literally impossible for big labels to release indie music? I've also heard that "indie" is supposed to refer to music that sounds as if it could have been released on a small label (whatever that means), but then what about the worst, most useless label of all "indie pop"? That seems then to be a contradiction in terms, yet I have seen it used to describe various artists.

Why? Why is this a thing?

Dylstew · 11-27-2014, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kedvesem

I think someone mentioned this already, but the sub-genre that I despise the most (having nothing to do with its content, just the name) is "indie".

"Indie" is short for "independent", yes? So it's what? Independently released? Not on a big label? But that tells me NOTHING about the sound, only the marketing. And what if it isn't on a little label? Is it literally impossible for big labels to release indie music? I've also heard that "indie" is supposed to refer to music that sounds as if it could have been released on a small label (whatever that means), but then what about the worst, most useless label of all "indie pop"? That seems then to be a contradiction in terms, yet I have seen it used to describe various artists.

Why? Why is this a thing?

100% this, I've never understood it either.

Dylstew · 11-27-2014, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotmagazine

I don't really try to categorize music

I've seen this comment come up so much when people talk about genres. Not sure if you're one of those type of people. People saying genres are ''just labels'' and a bad thing. People saying genres are unnecessary. People saying there's only good and bad music. Especially that last one ticks me off, because music that's not your cup of tea can still be good music. quality does not equal enjoyment.

Good luck easily finding out what music you have in common with people.
There's so much music out there, and even people who love all kinds of music have certain genre's they've just explored a lot more than others. It will especially be difficult around people who don't listen to a million artists like music fanatics do. Good luck easily describing a bands sound.
Good luck trying to find similar artists. Good luck easily exploring new kinds of music. Good luck finding info on certain types of music. And if you're in a band that makes their own songs, It would also help you find out what's already been done a lot in the genre, and expiriment with different sounds.

it annoys me when people are extremely and way too nitpicky/specific with subgenres, but It also annoys me when people act like genres as a whole are pointless.

Rexx Shredd · 11-27-2014, 03:14 AM

1970s -- Bands that really sounded different (Styx, ELO, Queen, Led Zeppelin, 10CC, Boston, Fleetwood Mac, etc) were all labeled "ROCK"

Present - Bands sound alike or similar to others both past and present (plus, many try to mold themselves into current trends and will add/omit things based on trendiness instead of artistic integrity) yet they all think that each own their own piece of real estate in the land of musical genres

Oh, the irony............

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylstew

People saying genres are ''just labels'' and a bad thing. People saying genres are unnecessary. People saying there's only good and bad music that last one really ticks me off

It may tick you off but there is a valid message: Simplicity...Keep it simple. Yeah, saying there is only "Good" and "Bad" music is being facetious, but keeping everything under generalized boxes (Rock, Funk, Pop, Country. Jazz, etc) works better for simple communication between all listeners

Its pointless to have 6178 different genres of heavy metal ( 5611 which end with the obligatory "-core") that only create confusion when trying to communicate with others......just call them all Heavy Metal...If that term is too light for some folks and they dont want to be in the same box as Judas Priest or Warrant, divide Heavy Metal down one layer (Pop Metal, Extreme Metal, etc) and STOP there: It doesnt need to be sub-divided into Grind Core, Doom Metal, Mathcore, I Pooped In Your Mouth Core, Check Out This Wart On My Scrotum Core, and all the other stupid-ass confusing nonsense,,,,,and bands are at fault because they all freaking have the same basic sound elements yet they try to convince everyone (especially themselves) just how "original" they are! I hate that sh*t --- Youre not original. Connect a kazoo to a Marshall halfstack, find a drummer that plays a kit made out of paintbuckets, a bass player that plays his dong, and an Italian opera singer and make music - that's original! What isnt original is a metal band in a studio and the singer passing gas in a vocal booth while recording and claiming that Extreme Fart-Core has just been invented

$.02

I dont understand why sh*t needs to be complicated

Kedvesem · 11-27-2014, 03:52 AM

I don't have much experience with categorizing music, but I have seen how it works in the literary world (as I am a professional editor), and really the categorization should serve the purpose of comparing and finding the pieces in question. One can define "novel" so as to include or exclude any given work, but then belonging to the category should bring neither praise nor censure. Equally, the category should be broad enough to be useful and narrow enough to be descriptive. More specificity than that is useless.

**Goofle** · 11-27-2014, 04:14 AM

Britpop.

I.e. British people making rock music that got popular, leading to a few magazines coining a term to describe a trend in the charts.

Dylstew · 11-27-2014, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexx Shredd

1970s -- Bands that really sounded different (Styx, ELO, Queen, Led Zeppelin, 10CC, Boston, Fleetwood Mac, etc) were all labeled "ROCK"

Present - Bands sound alike or similar to others both past and present (plus, many try to mold themselves into current trends and will add/omit things based on trendiness instead of artistic integrity) yet they all think that each own their own piece of real estate in the land of musical genres

Oh, the irony............

It may tick you off but there is a valid message: Simplicity...Keep it simple. Yeah, saying there is only "Good" and "Bad" music is being facetious, but keeping everything under generalized boxes (Rock, Funk, Pop, Country. Jazz, etc) works better for simple communication between all listeners

Its pointless to have 6178 different genres of heavy metal ( 5611 which end with the obligatory "-core") that only create confusion when trying to communicate with others......just call them all Heavy Metal...If that term is too light for some folks and they dont want to be in the same box as Judas Priest or Warrant, divide Heavy Metal down one layer (Pop Metal, Extreme Metal, etc) and STOP there: It doesnt need to be sub-divided into Grind Core, Doom Metal, Mathcore, I Pooped In Your Mouth Core, Check Out This Wart On My Scrotum Core, and all the other stupid-ass confusing nonsense,,,,,and bands are at fault because they all freaking have the same basic sound elements yet they try to convince everyone (especially themselves) just how "original" they are! I hate that sh*t --- Youre not original. Connect a kazoo to a Marshall halfstack, find a drummer that plays a kit made out of paintbuckets, a bass player that plays his dong, and an Italian opera singer and make music - that's original! What isnt original is a metal band in a studio and the singer passing gas in a vocal booth while recording and claiming that Extreme Fart-Core has just been invented

$.02

I dont understand why sh*t needs to be complicated

About the second paragraph I said: ''it annoys me when people are extremely and way too nitpicky/specific with subgenres''. It's the opposite extreme.
The most useful genres are the main genres(Rock, Jazz, Blues) and the really big sub genres( Punk, Metal, both sub genres of rock.).

But bands even in sub genres should be able to sound different.

Rexx Shredd · 11-27-2014, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylstew

About the second paragraph I said: ''it annoys me when people are extremely and way too nitpicky/specific with subgenres''. It's the opposite extreme.
The most useful genres are the main genres(Rock, Jazz, Blues) and the really big sub genres( Punk, Metal, both sub genres of rock.).

But bands even in sub genres should be able to sound different.

Sounding different doesnt mean that they invented a new sub-genre - thats my point

Dylstew · 11-27-2014, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexx Shredd

Sounding different doesnt mean that they invented a new sub-genre - thats my point

Yeah, I was saying I agree on that.

Carpe Mortem · 11-27-2014, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kedvesem

I think someone mentioned this already, but the sub-genre that I despise the most (having nothing to do with its content, just the name) is "indie".

"Indie" is short for "independent", yes? So it's what? Independently released? Not on a big label? But that tells me NOTHING about the sound, only the marketing. And what if it isn't on a little label? Is it literally impossible for big labels to release indie music? I've also heard that "indie" is supposed to refer to music that sounds as if it could have been released on a small label (whatever that means), but then what about the worst, most useless label of all "indie pop"? That seems then to be a contradiction in terms, yet I have seen it used to describe various artists.

Why? Why is this a thing?

While I agree with you, the term has definitely come to relate in my mind, and many others' I've talked to, with bands you hear in quirky car insurance commercials where its basically simple acoustic with some super young sounding chick singing.

11-26-2014, 07:14 PM	#41 (permalink)
Kedvesem I like what I like Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 303	I think someone mentioned this already, but the sub-genre that I despise the most (having nothing to do with its content, just the name) is "indie". "Indie" is short for "independent", yes? So it's what? Independently released? Not on a big label? But that tells me NOTHING about the sound, only the marketing. And what if it isn't on a little label? Is it literally impossible for big labels to release indie music? I've also heard that "indie" is supposed to refer to music that sounds as if it could have been released on a small label (whatever that means), but then what about the worst, most useless label of all "indie pop"? That seems then to be a contradiction in terms, yet I have seen it used to describe various artists. Why? Why is this a thing?

11-27-2014, 03:52 AM	#45 (permalink)
Kedvesem I like what I like Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 303	I don't have much experience with categorizing music, but I have seen how it works in the literary world (as I am a professional editor), and really the categorization should serve the purpose of comparing and finding the pieces in question. One can define "novel" so as to include or exclude any given work, but then belonging to the category should bring neither praise nor censure. Equally, the category should be broad enough to be useful and narrow enough to be descriptive. More specificity than that is useless.