Red Mosquito

Malloy wrote:my point is that all genres are limited by conventions.

i agree with that. I suppose that's the point of creating music that is defined by genre - it's not that I think it's bad, it might have more to do with my inability to be that intellectual in my musical tastes. or at least that type of intellectual
and all music can be defined by genre, so the reaction I have to the style is part of a desire to not classify it and say - I like music that's "X" (which I don't think that's what you do, or even what most people do who like good music in all forms) - some people are better at picking up on the intricacies of different genres or subgenres than others- I think I'm not so great at it as you guys are- so that probably influences my reaction as well.

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.

It gets pretty silly. I don't pay much attention to it really, except as a useful reference point for finding bands that are similar to one I like. What I hate is when people think that for a band to be any good, they have to fit rigidly into genre "X".

Metalheads condemning something for not being purely metal, punks condemning a punk band for not being strictly punk, etc. Its moronic.

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

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. 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.

Heathen wrote:It's not my fault if every music whose sole function is fun/partying/dancing is interchangeable.

theplatypus wrote:Heather is just stip-level close-minded, only about different music.

I see now this wasn't an exaggeration on your part, Jorge...

You know it's true.

I just hope that Stip finds something to love in this thread.

BurtReynolds wrote:I just hope that Stip finds something to love in this thread.

not enough veddercore

Heathen wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I just hope that Stip finds something to love in this thread.

not enough veddercore

Laneganwave.

We're halfway through his entire music collection

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.

You must fucking hate the Inuit

Heathen wrote:You must fucking hate the Inuit

a clever jerk is still a jerk

malice wrote:

Heathen wrote:You must fucking hate the Inuit

a clever jerk is still a jerk

I'm post-jerk

Heathen wrote: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.

Point taken, but I would contend that there are discrepancies in how useful these kinds of descriptors are when you're discussing something concrete like a car and when you're discussing something abstract like music. The base differences between "red truck" and "blue car" would be readily apparent to anyone with even a basic familiarity with the language, even though there are many shades of red and blue and many different types of cars and trucks. But the differences between "black metal" and "doom metal" are not apparent at all, despite the fact that most people know what the words "black" and "doom" mean linguistically (and also probably have a passing idea of what "metal" means in musical terms), because how the words "black" and "doom" translate into musical ideas is an abstract concept which is open to a far broader spectrum of interpretation than whether or not a vehicle is painted red or blue. Terms like "shoegaze" and "dubstep" provide even less description. At some point genre separations function less as descriptors for people unfamiliar with the genre and more as a sort of reference jargon for people who are already familiar with the genre--which is fine and good, but I don't think it's quite the same thing as differentiating between different colors of cars.

I personally am no fan of excessive classification, and find that more often than not the cause of it is people taking what should be recognized simply as individualistic differences between artists (or, perhaps more accurately, networks of artists) and running with it, or mistaking historical moments in culture or fashion for altogether new categories of music, even when the music itself exhibits no new ideas or even synthesis of ideas. As someone who favors creative dialogue over the rote recitation of terminologies, I much prefer hearing someone reflect back in their own language, with their own sensibilities, what they hear in a certain piece of music, rather than hear them try to pinpoint which neat little pre-formed package it already fits into, especially since no one can ever fucking agree on it anyway.

Heathen wrote:

malice wrote:

Heathen wrote:You must fucking hate the Inuit

a clever jerk is still a jerk

I'm post-jerk

*a
*ing

Kevin Davis wrote:

Heathen wrote: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.

Point taken, but I would contend that there are discrepancies in how useful these kinds of descriptors are when you're discussing something concrete like a car and when you're discussing something abstract like music. The base differences between "red truck" and "blue car" would be readily apparent to anyone with even a basic familiarity with the language, even though there are many shades of red and blue and many different types of cars and trucks. But the differences between "black metal" and "doom metal" are not apparent at all, despite the fact that most people know what the words "black" and "doom" mean linguistically (and also probably have a passing idea of what "metal" means in musical terms), because how the words "black" and "doom" translate into musical ideas is an abstract concept which is open to a far broader spectrum of interpretation than whether or not a vehicle is painted red or blue. Terms like "shoegaze" and "dubstep" provide even less description. At some point genre separations function less as descriptors for people unfamiliar with the genre and more as a sort of reference jargon for people who are already familiar with the genre--which is fine and good, but I don't think it's quite the same thing as differentiating between different colors of cars.

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. Some people don't care about the motorization of their blue car but we still have words and classifications for that as well and we use them and it serves a purpose.

I personally am no fan of excessive classification, and find that more often than not the cause of it is people taking what should be recognized simply as individualistic differences between artists (or, perhaps more accurately, networks of artists) and running with it, or mistaking historical moments in culture or fashion for altogether new categories of music, even when the music itself exhibits no new ideas or even synthesis of ideas. As someone who favors creative dialogue over the rote recitation of terminologies, I much prefer hearing someone reflect back in their own language, with their own sensibilities, what they hear in a certain piece of music, rather than hear them try to pinpoint which neat little pre-formed package it already fits into, especially since no one can ever fucking agree on it anyway.

This just seems very arbitrary. You might favor creative dialogue but maybe you'll still use 'jazz' or 'metal' instead of redefining these terms every time. Because these words are part of your vocabulary. Black metal is part of my vocabulary, I'm not going to redefine the term every time I'm talking about a black metal band. If someone doesn't know the term I'll explain. It's like with every other word, again. None of that prevents from adding your own twist and describing the work itself with other words anyway.

all because I started a reggae thread...

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

yeah you're awful