Red Mosquito

Heathen wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:all because I started a reggae thread...

yeah you're awful

this reads like a t2b text received.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Heathen wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:all because I started a reggae thread...

yeah you're awful

this reads like a t2b text received.

I should probably try to become his friend

BurtReynolds wrote:Mostly this thread is an excuse to talk about Kpop, something I'd never heard of before I moved to California.

*exits thread*

stip-level of close-mindedness

Heathen wrote:stip-level of close-mindedness

I like more bands than stip has even heard of, for crying out loud.

malice wrote:

Heathen wrote:stip-level of close-mindedness

I like more bands than stip has even heard of, for crying out loud.

music is not a pissing match, bro

Heathen wrote:

malice wrote:

Heathen wrote:stip-level of close-mindedness

I like more bands than stip has even heard of, for crying out loud.

music is not a pissing match, bro

wanna bet? this is RM.

Heathen wrote:It is quite the same thing, actually. Both "Red truck" and "doom metal" serve as descriptors only for people who know what these terms mean (duh). There just happens to be more people who know the meaning of "red truck" but that doesn't mean the principle is any different.

You're right--the fundamental principle of adjectives and nouns is not any different. I was going off your comment that:

Heathen wrote:If you're trying to describe a band's sound to someone else you're going to use words

As we've established, those words are going to be pointless if the person on the receiving end of that description has no framework for processing them, so to my mind the idea that certain terms (or combinations of terms) are going to be more widely recognizable to a general audience is not irrelevant or unreasonable to consider. To someone who has never heard doom metal, the term "doom metal" does not, as you say, "describe the sound"--it is an abstract combination of words that means nothing unless you are already familiar with what the metaphorical implications of the words are. Someone who has never seen a red truck, but who has seen other trucks and other red objects, can combine the two terms and come up with a reasonable idea of what a red truck looks like. In this regard I think most genre labels fail as expository tools, though they may or may not succeed as ID tags for people who already comprehend the exposition.

Kevin Davis wrote:

Heathen wrote:It is quite the same thing, actually. Both "Red truck" and "doom metal" serve as descriptors only for people who know what these terms mean (duh). There just happens to be more people who know the meaning of "red truck" but that doesn't mean the principle is any different.

You're right--the fundamental principle of adjectives and nouns is not any different. I was going off your comment that:

Heathen wrote:If you're trying to describe a band's sound to someone else you're going to use words

As we've established, those words are going to be pointless if the person on the receiving end of that description has no framework for processing them, so to my mind the idea that certain terms (or combinations of terms) are going to be more widely recognizable to a general audience is not irrelevant or unreasonable to consider. To someone who has never heard doom metal, the term "doom metal" does not, as you say, "describe the sound"--it is an abstract combination of words that means nothing unless you are already familiar with what the metaphorical implications of the words are. Someone who has never seen a red truck, but who has seen other trucks and other red objects, can combine the two terms and come up with a reasonable idea of what a red truck looks like. In this regard I think most genre labels fail as expository tools, though they may or may not succeed as ID tags for people who already comprehend the exposition.

Right, I see what you mean but I didn't realize some people would understand "describe the sound" as in "describe the sound just by looking at the word". Yes, you have to know the meaning of the word. I guess that's kind of the case with pretty much every word out there. That makes "doom metal" just as pointless as "sedan" or "coupé" for some. Or "jazz". Or "rock". And actually that's not really true for doom metal, if you have a vague idea metal and a vague idea of doom, then you have a vague idea of doom metal.

I'm horrible at car subgenres, btw.
I say things like - that blue car with four doors :/

malice wrote:I'm horrible at car subgenres, btw.
I say things like - that blue car with four doors :/

take it to the feminism thread

Heathen wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Heathen wrote:It is quite the same thing, actually. Both "Red truck" and "doom metal" serve as descriptors only for people who know what these terms mean (duh). There just happens to be more people who know the meaning of "red truck" but that doesn't mean the principle is any different.

You're right--the fundamental principle of adjectives and nouns is not any different. I was going off your comment that:

Heathen wrote:If you're trying to describe a band's sound to someone else you're going to use words

As we've established, those words are going to be pointless if the person on the receiving end of that description has no framework for processing them, so to my mind the idea that certain terms (or combinations of terms) are going to be more widely recognizable to a general audience is not irrelevant or unreasonable to consider. To someone who has never heard doom metal, the term "doom metal" does not, as you say, "describe the sound"--it is an abstract combination of words that means nothing unless you are already familiar with what the metaphorical implications of the words are. Someone who has never seen a red truck, but who has seen other trucks and other red objects, can combine the two terms and come up with a reasonable idea of what a red truck looks like. In this regard I think most genre labels fail as expository tools, though they may or may not succeed as ID tags for people who already comprehend the exposition.

Right, I see what you mean but I didn't realize some people would understand "describe the sound" as in "describe the sound just by looking at the word". Yes, you have to know the meaning of the word. I guess that's kind of the case with pretty much every word out there. That makes "doom metal" just as pointless as "sedan" or "coupé" for some. Or "jazz". Or "rock". And actually that's not really true for doom metal, if you have a vague idea metal and a vague idea of doom, then you have a vague idea of doom metal.

I don't think the abstract noun 'doom' describes the particulars of the sound of doom at all, not in the same way as 'red truck' describes a truck which is red. In fact, literally, the term 'doom metal' more closely describes a piece of a material - metal - which inspires a feeling of doom in all who encounters it, possibly a sword.

harmless wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Heathen wrote:It is quite the same thing, actually. Both "Red truck" and "doom metal" serve as descriptors only for people who know what these terms mean (duh). There just happens to be more people who know the meaning of "red truck" but that doesn't mean the principle is any different.

You're right--the fundamental principle of adjectives and nouns is not any different. I was going off your comment that:

Heathen wrote:If you're trying to describe a band's sound to someone else you're going to use words

As we've established, those words are going to be pointless if the person on the receiving end of that description has no framework for processing them, so to my mind the idea that certain terms (or combinations of terms) are going to be more widely recognizable to a general audience is not irrelevant or unreasonable to consider. To someone who has never heard doom metal, the term "doom metal" does not, as you say, "describe the sound"--it is an abstract combination of words that means nothing unless you are already familiar with what the metaphorical implications of the words are. Someone who has never seen a red truck, but who has seen other trucks and other red objects, can combine the two terms and come up with a reasonable idea of what a red truck looks like. In this regard I think most genre labels fail as expository tools, though they may or may not succeed as ID tags for people who already comprehend the exposition.

Right, I see what you mean but I didn't realize some people would understand "describe the sound" as in "describe the sound just by looking at the word". Yes, you have to know the meaning of the word. I guess that's kind of the case with pretty much every word out there. That makes "doom metal" just as pointless as "sedan" or "coupé" for some. Or "jazz". Or "rock". And actually that's not really true for doom metal, if you have a vague idea metal and a vague idea of doom, then you have a vague idea of doom metal.

I don't think the abstract noun 'doom' describes the particulars of the sound of doom at all, not in the same way as 'red truck' describes a truck which is red. In fact, literally, the term 'doom metal' more closely describes a piece of a material - metal - which inspires a feeling of doom in all who encounters it, possibly a sword.

Yeah but you're a poet, meaning you're a weirdo.

Also, look at the first tag here:
http://www.last.fm/music/The+Sword

harmless wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Heathen wrote:It is quite the same thing, actually. Both "Red truck" and "doom metal" serve as descriptors only for people who know what these terms mean (duh). There just happens to be more people who know the meaning of "red truck" but that doesn't mean the principle is any different.

You're right--the fundamental principle of adjectives and nouns is not any different. I was going off your comment that:

Heathen wrote:If you're trying to describe a band's sound to someone else you're going to use words

As we've established, those words are going to be pointless if the person on the receiving end of that description has no framework for processing them, so to my mind the idea that certain terms (or combinations of terms) are going to be more widely recognizable to a general audience is not irrelevant or unreasonable to consider. To someone who has never heard doom metal, the term "doom metal" does not, as you say, "describe the sound"--it is an abstract combination of words that means nothing unless you are already familiar with what the metaphorical implications of the words are. Someone who has never seen a red truck, but who has seen other trucks and other red objects, can combine the two terms and come up with a reasonable idea of what a red truck looks like. In this regard I think most genre labels fail as expository tools, though they may or may not succeed as ID tags for people who already comprehend the exposition.

Right, I see what you mean but I didn't realize some people would understand "describe the sound" as in "describe the sound just by looking at the word". Yes, you have to know the meaning of the word. I guess that's kind of the case with pretty much every word out there. That makes "doom metal" just as pointless as "sedan" or "coupé" for some. Or "jazz". Or "rock". And actually that's not really true for doom metal, if you have a vague idea metal and a vague idea of doom, then you have a vague idea of doom metal.

I don't think the abstract noun 'doom' describes the particulars of the sound of doom at all, not in the same way as 'red truck' describes a truck which is red. In fact, literally, the term 'doom metal' more closely describes a piece of a material - metal - which inspires a feeling of doom in all who encounters it, possibly a sword.

Doom metal swords get +5 vs. angels.

Heathen wrote:Yes, you have to know the meaning of the word.

I'm obviously expressing myself very badly. My point is that you can still know the meanings of the words and still get not correctly process the combination of words. "Doom metal" is just one example, anyway--there are plenty of genres on the following lists that are basically just gibberish terms, unintelligible to even the most meticulous vocab junkie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rock_genres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_el ... sic_genres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trance_genres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_subgenres

Here's my favorite one--apparently there is actually a genre of trance music called "full on":

"Full on" or "Melodic psytrance" draws its main influences from more radio-friendly genres such as uplifting trance (Nitzhonot and vocal trance) and electro house, futuristic melodies, occasional electric guitar performances and usage of vocals.

What exactly makes a melody "futuristic," I wonder? And is this the type of music Dave Grohl was referencing when he described that last Foo Fighters album?

Here's another good one:

Pornogrind, also known as porno grind, porno-grind or porn grind, is a musical subgenre of grindcore and death metal, which lyrically deals with sexual themes. Natalie Purcell's book Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture, suggests that pornogrind is defined solely on the basis of its lyrical content and unique imagery, its focus on pornographic content. Purcell notes that bands like Gut include "simpler, slower, and more rock-like songs". The artwork for pornogrind bands' albums is noted for its extreme and potentially offensive nature, which "would keep them out of most stores."

The bolded part is one of the main reasons excessive classification systems are stupid to me--lyrical content is not in itself grounds for creating a distinct music genre. By this logic, I could replicate the identical backing track to "Mind Your Manners" only rewriting the lyrics to be about romantic heartbreak instead of religious oppression, and the two songs would belong to separate music genres. That doesn't make sense to me.

Heathen wrote:

harmless wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Heathen wrote:It is quite the same thing, actually. Both "Red truck" and "doom metal" serve as descriptors only for people who know what these terms mean (duh). There just happens to be more people who know the meaning of "red truck" but that doesn't mean the principle is any different.

You're right--the fundamental principle of adjectives and nouns is not any different. I was going off your comment that:

Heathen wrote:If you're trying to describe a band's sound to someone else you're going to use words

As we've established, those words are going to be pointless if the person on the receiving end of that description has no framework for processing them, so to my mind the idea that certain terms (or combinations of terms) are going to be more widely recognizable to a general audience is not irrelevant or unreasonable to consider. To someone who has never heard doom metal, the term "doom metal" does not, as you say, "describe the sound"--it is an abstract combination of words that means nothing unless you are already familiar with what the metaphorical implications of the words are. Someone who has never seen a red truck, but who has seen other trucks and other red objects, can combine the two terms and come up with a reasonable idea of what a red truck looks like. In this regard I think most genre labels fail as expository tools, though they may or may not succeed as ID tags for people who already comprehend the exposition.

Right, I see what you mean but I didn't realize some people would understand "describe the sound" as in "describe the sound just by looking at the word". Yes, you have to know the meaning of the word. I guess that's kind of the case with pretty much every word out there. That makes "doom metal" just as pointless as "sedan" or "coupé" for some. Or "jazz". Or "rock". And actually that's not really true for doom metal, if you have a vague idea metal and a vague idea of doom, then you have a vague idea of doom metal.

I don't think the abstract noun 'doom' describes the particulars of the sound of doom at all, not in the same way as 'red truck' describes a truck which is red. In fact, literally, the term 'doom metal' more closely describes a piece of a material - metal - which inspires a feeling of doom in all who encounters it, possibly a sword.

Yeah but you're a poet, meaning you're a weirdo.

Yeah well your mum.

I'm obviously expressing myself very badly.

No you're not, I know what you're saying, but we're talking about different things. You're talking about the wordS that make up the name of the genre, I'm talking about the name of the genre as word (or expression, whatever). Anyway my disagreement with you is simply that I don't think a word (or a combination of words) is rendered pointless just because you can't deduce its meaning. Whether it's "flower" or "blackened atmospheric sludge metal" words are useless unless you know what they mean (feeling like captain obvious right). And yes some subgenres are silly, but the concept of subgenres or niche descriptors isn't per se.

Now for shit and giggles let's talk about 'indie'...

Team KD

zeb wrote:Team KD

yeah