Heathen wrote:malice wrote:Heathen wrote:malice wrote:also, I'm put off by the term subgenre. it's feels a little trite to me. is it necessary to create a name that appears to describe something very specifically yet if you're unfamiliar with it, it describes nothing about the music? that's pretentious to me.
I don't get that. No genre describes the music if you're unfamiliar with the term. Like no word describes shit if you don't know what it means.
specialization in classification begins to get bloated to me... is that any clearer?
I don't get the relevancy of hyper classification - but I think that's part of being older - no kidding. it's more intricate than what I've typically had to plug into when it came to liking music or not liking it. it's a heady way of appreciation- I'm not great at appreciating music in that way - I can't sit and take in a symphony orchestral performance with the same gusto that I'd take in an Elvis Costello concert - that's what I mean. it requires more brain investment - which that's fine if you're into it, but it doesn't kick me in the ass the way I want it to as a musical performance.
I never went out looking for specific genres to expose myself to - maybe other people did? - I just found a band I liked and was good with that- didn't know nor care what genre the fit into.
I don't think you're looking at this the right way.
what else is new? and I don't think it's a right or wrong way to look at it, it's just different. If I interpret it this way, how is it necessarily wrong?
bad music wrote:I don't think it has anything to do brain investment or with some other way of appreciation. It's just a descriptor. Like you can say it's a car or you can say it's a blue car or you can say it's a navy blue Toyota Corolla etc. We're talking about fucking words and nothing more. If you're trying to describe a band's sound to someone else you're going to use words, and if there's a already a word for what you're going to describe you might use it, and if there isn't you might try to create your own way to describe, and maybe that will result in a new word for this style of music. Genres and subgenres are nothing more than this. If you like that thing you just ate and someone tells you it's called ice cream you're going to find it easier to order another one now that you know the name.
right, genres and subgenres are ways of drawing connections, I get that bit - what I don't really get is the level of specificity and the obsession with it (as I see it, anyway).
I got into a discussion with someone here - forget who- about the idea of 'post-punk' - they named off all these bands who fell into that subgenre - to me it was just punk, and my argument was - I bet those bands didn't think of themselves as post punk either because the term didn't even exist when the music was put out - it was developed to give people (I guess I mean younger people) with the desire to further classify it a set of standards these bands conformed to in order to show how they were similar to each other but not similar enough to standard punk music (whatever that is) to fall under the same heading.
hell, it's tiring even typing that shit out, why in the world do I want to concern myself with categorization systems that restrict bands to one category? and every time something slightly different hits the scene, a new subgenre is created to define it.
following that to a ridiculous linear conclusion every band in the world will someday inhabit its own subgenre, and no other band will fit it just perfectly enough to belong - it's like comparing blades of grass after awhile.
I don't care what type of grass it is if it's green, smells nice after it's been cut, and feels good on barefeet. that's all I require of it.
