Genre distinction as a falsehood.
 

I know that its a big thing to music lovers of all stripes to be able to say they appreciate or don't appreciate a particular musical genre. I've myself a history of doing such, having been an ardent metalhead in my teenage years and early adulthood.

But as I went through life and listened to more music, became enamoured with other genres, and ultimately became a more rounded music lover and musician, I ended up thanks in no small part to the development of my critical thinking as part of my degree, coming around to the following conclusion -

There is no real need to try and even define genre, let alone identify with it or espouse the virtues of it.

And the reason for that is this. Genre isn't a definition. It aims to be one. It isn't a boundary, it aims to be one. There are artists that are accepted as falling with the remit of one genre over another. There are even artists that aim specifically to be part of a given genre.

But thats only a central core to a nebulous and vaguely defined musical landscape that doesn't ultimately serve more than a purpose of convenience for fans and music retailers.

For every band that is unequivocally a part of a given genre, there are hundreds more that straddle the lines of multiple genres. In genres with longer histories, its hardly unusual to find examples of artists who to this day will reside in, say, the "Heavy Metal" section of a retailer, but whose music bears no resemblance to modern acts considered part of the same scene. Further than that, we have those artists whose music is considered to have coined the terms, yet is no longer even considered to be part of the genre, the genre's definition having been stretched and modified to such an extent that the artists music being considered in that scope seems simply alien.

The example above is one of the primary causes for concern, for me as a music fan. Many of you will know that the act I'm referring to is Jimi Hendrix, who enjoys status as being the first act on the planet to be referred to as "Heavy Metal". Except he wasn't.

In searching to confirm the source of that particular quote, I discovered something fairly remarkable. There is no defined source. The only reference to the review which apparently coined the term, comes from Hendrix's promotional man, "Chas" Chandler, mentioning some nondesdcript review secondhand in an interview in 1995. Hendrix's contribution to the origins of heavy metal is entirely suspect. The first DEFINITE use of the term is actually the lyric to the Steppenwolf song "Born To Be Wild".

On top of that, the Steppenwolf song was released in 1968, and Chandler gave the reply referring to Hendrix, in an interview regarding his time with Hendrix a year later, in 1969.

But modern metal sounds nothing like either of those acts. Modern metal has mutated and now, heavy metal refers both to the old and the new, as a broad term, and to the old specifically, in certain contexts, to certain fans.

And why?

Because genre isn't a term that ever defined itself. Genre is a collection of terms which save fans the laborious task of explaining in detail, the specific appeal of acts to each other, and enables quick and simple recommendation and sharing of music between fans. Rather than describing in detail the sound of an act in order to make a recommendation, fans can now simply point to the genre term which has sprung up around a loose collection of shared musical characteristics.

As a fan recommending to another fan, one doesn't recommend rythms biased to the offbeat with simplistic rythms and prominent basslines. One simply recommends Reggae. Its a functional term.

But with every artist that exemplifies a term, there is another that seeks, specifically, to blend two genres and styles, to bring in influences from the outside, and create something new with those.

The end result is often fine music but it leads the fan to a quandary, how do we describe this music?

The end result is almost always one of two specific approaches.

1 - Widen the definition of the genre to include the new band, if the audiences are very similar. Eventually this leads to widening of genre boundaries and a loss of focus as people seek different things from new and old bands. The term loses its usefulness as a way of advising others on music they may enjoy.

2 - Invent a new genre within which to place the resultant sound, and use that term to recommend to new listeners.

The problem with this is that the moment either of these things happens, we find ourselves looking at an ever growing list of different, but ever more similar genres, most of which have significant audience overlap and overlap of musical characteristics. Owing to the fuzzy nature of genre as as descriptor, this results in endless arguments about what is defined as what type of music, and the entire concept of genre for huge swathes of acts becomes entirely useless, as the number of genre terms vastly eclipses the number of different audiences the music might appeal to.

In the past, where musical sharing was limited to the bedroom, the concert, the magazine, genre terms were vitally important. They provided the means by which to imagine music without being able to immediately hear it, and make a more informed purchase.

But today, with little exception, hearing an audition of an artist is a matter of clicks and keypresses. The NEED for genre as a term by which to describe music is significantly less.

So I ask, what, if anything, is the benefit in continuing to use genre terms as anything more significant than a broad descriptor?

The need for specific and accurate information provided by genre descriptors is long past. A broad term is all that is needed to point people in the direction of the right archive of song samples or digital downloads. Anything more specific can now be handled more effectively by discussion than by genre.

I think genre has its uses. But ultimately, its showing a slow decline as a useful way of defining music in the wake of excellent recommendation sources such as forums and the way forward is to take note of its nebulousness, its ability to be broad and nonspecific while retaining a general function. When someoen tries to nail down a genre to a specific sound or style, the only possible result is that someone who doesn't fit the mould will necessitate either a moving of the goalposts or the creation of a new genre. Its a dead end.

We can't replace it entirely, but if we're aware of how and why and WHEN it doesn't work, we can avoid trying to force square pegs into round holes, and we can start, as people, moving towards discussion which doesn't get derailed into needless categorisation and definition of useless boundaries.

I think most people would agree.

Says the guy who made a thread about what is and isn't one genre vs another genre... I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic?

I don't know what you're referring to (or talking about), or why you're being snarky, but no - I'm being serious.

I've had this same conversation and debate about genres in literature.
I think that "labelling" music or whatever it is, stunts its growth.
Often, people get far too caught up in genres.
i.e. "I like everything EXCEPT COUNTRY."
i.e. "I only like indie music."
etc.

This causes them to close their minds to a lot of music. They won't listen to a genre of music rather than just listening to the music and judging it on the sound or the effect it has on them.

I think I disagree with Brennan, I really don't think a lot of people agree with this. I think most people, especially here, are focused on the genres and types and popularity of music over their sound. They'll listen to something based on what other people think or want rather than what they really would like or want to listen to.

Also, the original OP was far to long. I didn't read it all, so if I'm going off in the wrong direction, forgive me, but that was an essay.

Great post GB. The last few lines nail it for me. Genre distinctions are necessary in certain situations, but in terms of understanding the music, and the enjoyment of the listener, there is absolutely no need to taker genre into account.

Okay.

Ultimately, it's still useful to give or receive a general idea of what something sounds like, which you stated as its only valid application, so that leaves me going "So what?"

Its 1200~ words :laughing:

Fixed.
:P

Fixed.

Wow great thread GB, I really enjoyed reading through it. Was it soley for MB or school?

I agree with the points you made. At the end of the day, referring to a specific genre can help others understand what main sounds you like. But on the other hand it does limit your tastes if you don't branch out of genres to check out other artists. I started listening to music at 9 years old and stuck to only 60's and 90's pop, classic rock and trance. Luckily I joined a music form around 14 and realised there was more to check out beyond these genres.

I abhor genre classifications with Metal and Electronica being the worst culprits for endless sub genres BUT it is an easy way to describe a certain musical style by shorthand as it were to many people.

They will never go away and there will always be new genres being described every other week .

My latest favourite sub genre : jump step. WTF is that?

i get what your saying Gb and really for the most part agree 100%.....i try my hardest to look at it like this.....there are two types of music out there.....the music i like and the music i do not like.....and really for the most part when i'm trying to describe a new band to someone i try to compare them to other bands that are similar rather than sub insane dragged out sub sub sub genre.....

but at the end of the day i also feel that some form of classification and organization is needed and is helpful....but i agree some of these sub genre are just ridiculous

The human mind demands categorization and organization, so it's not really false for argument's sake.

Categorization is one thing, nitpicking is something else entirely.
The amount of genres of rock is ridiculous.
I mean I get Metal and **** like that but it gets to a point where people are just making genres up and you hope they don't catch on.

I meant overall genres, not the subsects of subgenres. Even so, as people become less committed and willing to devote focus to information, they demand quicker synopsis of types of music. For argument's sake.

Right, that makes sense.
I guess the other end of it is not saying it's not true or that people don't do it, but rather that some of us wish it didn't have to be done at all.

Well, I think you've (the OP) pretty much stated the reasons as to why I use genres - mostly for convenience sake and a short-form to describe the sound I'm listening to to another person. Of course, you've pointed out the shortcomings and how inaccurate it can be whilst doing so, and I'm more than delighted to elaborate if anyone so wishes (which rarely is the case with my friends for example).

Does it restrict what I listen to? I would like to think no, although this may not be the case on all occasions. Does it restrict the musicians themselves? Well, amongst the one's who are still making music, I've got a fairly high opinion of those whom I like to think so otherwise.

Also, I've rarely noticed Jimi Hendrix being labelled as heavy metal.

Whilst I find the seemingly ever-increasing need to invent genre names nothing short of ridiculous, I have to agree with this. A band and/or artist being tagged under a certain genre is the only way to describe their style to someone who previously hadn't heard them.

Genres are just an easy way for those not well-versed in a particular style to classify music.

Some are way into jazz. Well, there are tons of genres that fall around that, that don't quite encompass "jazz" as a whole. There's alternative jazz, free form jazz, avant-garde jazz, and any thousands of alternative genres.

I feel that it only serves (for me) to pigeonhole in what I feel like listening to.

E.g.: "I want to listen to free jazz with melody."

I'd find Eric Dolphy quite compelling.

There are bajillions of genre variants, but it really does help in some sense.

I don't think he was arguing against its convenience. Or did I miss something?

This quote has been attributed to plenty of people over the years, I've always heard it as being from Duke Ellington - "There are only two kinds of music out there, good and bad."

Years ago I always used to say genre distinctions only serve to increase the ease of commercial sales. At this point I think there's a bit more to it than just that. Especially where I now have to look through the R&B/Rap/Hip Hop section to find Boards of Canada or Air at my local HMV. :bonkhead:

I think large encompassing genres are somewhat necessary, especially for younger inexperienced musicians. The framework of the genre provides defined structure and stability within the group at a time when most of the individual members are still trying to figure out their own paths. It's like the confines of the genre absolve them from the responsibility of recreating the wheel. If you start a punk band then you know you don't need to worry about learning a bunch of slick chicken picking country guitar tricks. Though at the same time developing that ability makes it easy for the group to present itself to different markets based on how they blur the line between various genres.

It's a weird situation, like you need the structure of the defined genre to help prop you up at the start, so that you can eventually knock them down after having developed something special. Like the old saying - You need to know the rules so you can break the rules. If the structure of the genre is removed there's little opportunity for any group to feel like they've overcome any sort of real creative challenge or accomplished anything of real substance since their playing field would never change.



As for the Hendrix thing as being the first Heavy Metal guy that's not quite accurate, it was a reflection of the use of the term to describe music, Steppenwolf simply used it as a lyrical descriptor. Here's the deal with that quote (I don't have the liner notes anymore but...) It was in regards to the EXP, opening track for Axis: Bold as Love. The reviewer for I think Melody Maker struggled to define what he was hearing and described Hendrix's guitar as '...the sound of heavy metal falling from the sky'. Also Led Zep's Communication Breakdown also gets dropped as being the first song to actually sound like metal.

But I digress. In regards to genres I think the more popular ones of the last couple of decades are getting to the point of being messy. All the Post-genres vs. all the genre-Cores etc. It's inane distinctions that serve little purpose more than external validation for the bands who want to be able to monopolize the attention of the listener by forcing the facade of a distinct style rather than appealing to the wider tastes of the umbrella genre that really covers their twist on the default.

If anything I think it's going to go the way of Jazz. When I talk to my old man or uncles about jazz they can spot the distinctions between styles like that. Not unlike how I and my peers can spot the distinctions between rock styles. But for the most part, when my friends and I listen to jazz, we just call it jazz, yes we're aware of distinctions, but we don't care if it's Be-bop, bossa nova, fusion, proto-funk or whatever, it's just jazz. I have a feeling that my niece and her generation will be some of the first to approach rock music with the same attitude, where this idea of alternative, vs. indie, vs. grunge becomes a farce for old people and those kids will just like 'rock'.

Great post...GuitarBizarre .....people always try to peg me or understand my tastes based on "genre".....I can't even do that......my reply always has been..."I like good music"...(plain and simple)....and as far as program directors for FM stations that buy playlists....yikes