Quote:
Originally Posted by joy_circumcision
Disregarding your accusation that those bands are somehow industry assembly line productions,
|
That is pretty close to an Aunt Sally, because I didn't make such an accusation. What I said didn't mean they were " industry assembly line productions." I said '...got caught up in the Industry's epithet for that music.' Bands that were around the early 90s got labeled as Grunge, I know some bands did not identifies themselves with Grunge. Honestly I don't know how what those bands considered themselves as. I only know those two bands were making music before the term "Grunge" appeared. I doubt half way through their career they had an epiphany and said to each other "Hey, we're
Grunge band!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by joy_circumcision
Though I would make a point of distinction that British Invasion is a complete media hype label that really doesn't define a particular sound,
|
Media hype? Let's start with the fact that "British Invasion" is not a media myth, bands actually did come over to America from the UK during the 60s. I didn't say The Beatles had a British Invasion "sound." In fact I don't know too many people that use the term as a sound, as much as a label for the phenomenon that during a particular time in history were many bands from the UK that became popular in America. The particular sounds of bands that were part of the British Invasion would be "Tottenham Sound" or the "Mersey Beat." The reason I brought up British Invasion
not because that the label was genre or sound, but was to show how a band does not particularly agree with labels, like The Beatles dismissing being a part of the British Invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joy_circumcision
Well, the answer is that it doesn't - it was a good old fashioned ad hominem that really had nothing to do with the prevailing argument that you've now talked me into having, but it was essentially me letting off steam about the fact that mainly rock listeners are very into making label after label after label and then 1. not sticking to them the second someone in a different geographic area does the same thing and must then be given a new one 2. uses them mainly for hype instead of proper categorization 3. has silly petty arguments over them because they've refused forever to come to a consensus; meanwhile, jazz and "classical" are reduced to maybe five or so forms a generation and somehow can work without a hitch because people are less interested in compulsive labeling and media hyping (at least in that specific way) and more interested in tracking larger movements and stylistic syntheses, etc.
|
It is called "Art music." I only accept the term "classical" from those "who can't make heads or tails of the differences between Romantic and Baroque compositions." But in a nice and unsderstanding way.
I think you are not being forthright about Jazz and Art music. I am pretty sure Jazz has more than five subdivisions, not to mention all the different types of Jazz fusions. And Art music has a long history so I'm almost certain also has many different style of music. Even a single peice of muisc can be composed of different movements e.g. Gavotte, Bourree, Minuet, each with it own particular sound. So there are no dearth of labels in Jazz or Art music as you propose there is.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.
|
"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards