Once upon a time it was just folk, rock, pop, country, blues.

[SumOne]

13 hours ago, Dan Dare said:

 

It'd be more accurate to say that b/s evolves. All this "genre" tripe is invented by music journo's who can't play but are desperate to carve out a career in music and make it appear that they know something. Judgemental? Dismissive? Me? You bet.

 

I'm not sure about that, it's what people like to say, along with 'I'm not into genres, just good music'. Yeah, everyone likes what they personally think is good music, that kind of goes without saying - but it's subjective and it's like saying  'I like good food', you'll still often want to know if you're going to get pizza or a curry  - and what type of curry, and you'll probably have some food you generally prefer over others. Catagorising food, or music, or films, or books, or styles of art etc. is useful to the consumer.

 

I don't thing it's generally b/s made up by music journo's for their own benefit, or even by artists/labels for thir own benefit.  Reggae (a name made up by an artist), has sub-genres and offshoot like 'lovers rock' (named after a record label), 'dub' (named after recording technique or dubplates), '2 tone' (record label) etc....I don't think they set out thinking 'I'll make up a new genre name' they were just making something slightly original/different and so it naturally gets called something different as a useful way to communicate the sound, it is just how music evolves.  

 

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by SumOne

[Rosie C]

22 hours ago, Supernaut said:

Music evolves. 

 

It does, though the mandolin player from our band is doing well on Spotify with 1,000,000 plays of his ancient Greek music! 

 

[MacDaddy]

23 hours ago, Supernaut said:

Music evolves. 

 

'Popular music' does not. It's actually the opposite. If you look at the development of western music upto the first half of the last century then compare the harmonies; tonalities; and rhythmic devices of popular music it's quite the regression.

[Shaggy]

10 hours ago, SumOne said:

Those genres have been around for most of your gigging years though!

 

You’ve surprised me, but I’m sure you’re right!    I suspect I’ve been in a parallel dimension the whole time, and kind of lost interest in genres anyway about the time NWOBHM became a thing..... 🤔

[ahpook]

Labellinq anything requires compromise, so it really is best not to get hung up on them. They're descriptions of similarity, not definitions.

Edited November 30, 2023 by ahpook

[neepheid]

[Dan Dare]

13 hours ago, SumOne said:

I'm not sure about that, it's what people like to say, along with 'I'm not into genres, just good music'. Yeah, everyone likes what they personally think is good music, that kind of goes without saying - but it's subjective and it's like saying  'I like good food', you'll still often want to know if you're going to get pizza or a curry  - and what type of curry, and you'll probably have some food you generally prefer over others. Categorising food, or music, or films, or books, or styles of art etc. is useful to the consumer.

 

I don't thing it's generally b/s made up by music journo's for their own benefit, or even by artists/labels for their own benefit.  Reggae (a name made up by an artist), has sub-genres and offshoot like 'lovers rock' (named after a record label), 'dub' (named after recording technique or dubplates), '2 tone' (record label) etc....I don't think they set out thinking 'I'll make up a new genre name' they were just making something slightly original/different and so it naturally gets called something different as a useful way to communicate the sound, it is just how music evolves.

 

Fair points and I admit to having a grumpy old git rant earlier. The endless labelling and naming does get irritating, though. Certainly, general terms are useful (as pointed out by the OP), but the sub-categorising and sub-sub-categorising is beyond silly. Whether it's useful to the consumer beyond general terms is moot. It's just word salad after a certain point

 

In the end, it's impossible to convey music or art (or any sensory experience) using words. Hence my dig at music  journo's, who make up a lot of froth to fill column inches and justify their existence. The nonsense isn't limited to music, of course. The same happens with visual art, food and wine (we all have a laugh at the b/s wine writers come up with - "herring and cranberry overtones, with a hint of burning tyres"), etc. In the end, you just have to experience something for yourself. Labels could even be limiting to the consumer, in that they may ignore something because it doesn't bear the right descriptor and miss out on something they could enjoy. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Dan Dare

[Cliff Edge]

5 hours ago, Dan Dare said:

 

 Labels could even be limiting to the consumer, in that they may ignore something because it doesn't bear the right descriptor and miss out on something they could enjoy. 

This. 
Some genre labels I’ve seen are frankly too stupid sounding to be taken seriously. Take Shoegaze as an example. Nothing to do with the music. 

[snorkie635]

On 29/11/2023 at 21:20, Supernaut said:

You feeling alright? 

I'm not feelin' too good myself.