What kind of weird way of defining genres is that?

It's... broader, and maybe a little more objective considering the basis in chronology, although considering the overlap between periods and styles (Classical and Romantic music were being written simultaneously for a big chunk of the 19th century), it still leaves a heavy amount of interpretation to whoever is organizing the library. Not to mention, the vast majority of music that most people listen to would fall under that nebulous "Modern/contemporary" category.

Pardon Dylstew - I was being an a** while simultaneously demonstrating the subjective nature of genre tagging.

The oversimplified 3-category system I cited might be well-suited to a listener with a large classical library, it is quite obviously useless for someone who collects punk or new wave music.

At this point i think ppl know tagging a genre is just a vague reference.

It's helpful if you dislike or a searching for a specific genre.

the thing is some ppl get too hung up on them. there's a difference between correcting ppl and looking down on them, that is to say, just cause you know in detail how to label certain genres that doesn't give you the privilege on looking down of those who don't.

Sometimes this *****n need to be the most original or informed goes to ppl's head, ive seen pages of ppl arguing that just because of a little technical difference sh*t is another genre all together.

usually a new one, an obscure one that would make them feel ahead of the curb.