Genres and Subgenres in music

[SentinelSlain]

Is it just me or are they pretty stupid. I mean they just seem to exist so that crap bands can have more respect than they would normally for being average in that genre and copying the more important bands in it.

It makes the band sound like they are doing a set job rather than being creative if they give themself a really set genre.

Another thing about it that bothers me is people over do it. For example someone passed me a leaflet promoting the opening of some gay club (I am straight by the way) and it was advertised as having a room where 'cheese' music is played.



Hmmm, what next cheesecore, cheesegrind, melodic death cheese, viking cheese, post hardcore experimental cheese?

I guess I'm gonna get flammed for this. I do like the bands that have complicated genre names but I just don't see that it adds to it at all.

Please explain if you think I'm wrong.

Their are some big ones that are ok: classic metal, black metal, nu metal, death metal, power metal. Even those are a bit much though.

 

[IWP]

I find genres ike "death n roll" and "mathcore" to be pretty ridiculous, but the main ones such as thrash, death, black, power, traditional, NWOBHM, doom, glam, and groove are fine.

 

[mutantllama]

I find genres ike "death n roll" and "mathcore" to be pretty ridiculous, but the main ones such as thrash, death, black, power, traditional, NWOBHM, doom, glam, and groove are fine.

Agreed, mainly because of the big difference in style.

 

[panzerfaust666]

a genre such as black 'n roll merely tells the listener what to expect, in terms of listening experience.The bands that follow a particular band, with the goal of merely duplicating a certain band because its so "cool" to them, are the ones who never get famous. Music takes passion and inspiration, but with duplication you will get nowhere. this being said, it is not a bad thing to have so many genres, because some of the bands will abuse the label, and others will see it as a guideline, thus creating something new and fresh. If

 

[Tonka Time]

they basically help classify the sound so that people can find what they like easier, people get a little crazy from time to time tho

 

[panzerfaust666]

exactly

 

[thisisaformicatable]

It's the way the human brain functions - it's easier to think about and discuss broad and complicated subjects if we categorize the elements into more manageable groups.

 

[cookiecutter]

I'm going to go on a mini rant here.

I have never ever understood why people get so pissed off by people using genres and subgenres. Is it so heinous that some of us want to describe the music we listen to more accurately? Saying "death n roll" or "melodic thrashcore" or whatever is far more descriptive than saying "metal" or even "death metal". When I want to learn about a band, getting specific genre(s) is very helpful and I really don't see why people don't like descritpive genres.

 

[NinjaGeek]

My biggest problems with sub-genres and sub-sub-genres is that the rules for defining them are often inconsistent. People make new genres for all sorts of reasons, and it gets to be confusing when certain genres have very vague definitions.

 

[panzerfaust666]

I'm going to go on a mini rant here.

I have never ever understood why people get so pissed off by people using genres and subgenres. Is it so heinous that some of us want to describe the music we listen to more accurately? Saying "death n roll" or "melodic thrashcore" or whatever is far more descriptive than saying "metal" or even "death metal". When I want to learn about a band, getting specific genre(s) is very helpful and I really don't see why people don't like descritpive genres.

yeah you basically nailed it.


Also @ NinjaGeek, You also prove a good point

 

[skeptik]

cookiecutter addressed the first half of my post, so here is the second half:

Genres in themselves are highly useful tools for classifying, categorizing, exploring, interpreting, explaining, and analyzing music. On the other hand, it also has a detrimental effect to the music itself, in that these rigid categorizations create in the artist's mind a sense of rigidity and boundary, so that the artist is no longer writing heavy sounding guitar-based music or even "Metal" music, but rather a "Thrash Metal album" or a "Death Metal album," which pigeonholes and stagnates the creative process. It puts the artist in a frame of mind that stunts growth and creativity and evolution. Of course this is not universally true, but it is undeniable that this mentality has proliferated throughout music as a whole, let alone simply Metal.

 

[ShredHeadJHJ]

My biggest problems with sub-genres and sub-sub-genres is that the rules for defining them are often inconsistent. People make new genres for all sorts of reasons, and it gets to be confusing when certain genres have very vague definitions.

I agree with this. Sub-Genres can be fine, but sometimes they can be stupid, pretentious, or downright snobby. I think it would be better if some of those stupid genres were weeded out like "Melodic ThrashCore" or "Technical MathCore"

Metal is really the only genre that has all these sub-genres like this. I listen to Fusion as well & while artists can sound completely different in that genre they're still just classified as Fusion = nothing fancy. It's also a lot easier to write / put out a Metal album than a Fusion album too.

I was trying to find out the difference between "Technical Death Metal" & "Progressive Death Metal" & all I heard were basically the same descriptions. NinjaGeek made a great point.


On a side note I once heard "Rust in Peace" being referred to as a Power Metal album by some asshole & it rubbed me the wrong way

 

[cookiecutter]

Genres in themselves are highly useful tools for classifying, categorizing, exploring, interpreting, explaining, and analyzing music. On the other hand, it also has a detrimental effect to the music itself, in that these rigid categorizations create in the artist's mind a sense of rigidity and boundary, so that the artist is no longer writing heavy sounding guitar-based music or even "Metal" music, but rather a "Thrash Metal album" or a "Death Metal album," which pigeonholes and stagnates the creative process. It puts the artist in a frame of mind that stunts growth and creativity and evolution. Of course this is not universally true, but it is undeniable that this mentality has proliferated throughout music as a whole, let alone simply Metal.

This is a good observation. It is very safe to stay withing your genre boundaries and play decent, standard music. I'll admit I definitely enjoy genre staples, but often the best bands are the innovators or the bands who can fuse things together well.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

Metal is really the only genre that has all these sub-genres like this.

Try electronic for starters:
http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/

 

[Mort Divine]

Ishkur's guide is so fucking laughable.

 

[ShredHeadJHJ]

Try electronic for starters:
http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/

Ehhh, I know a lot of people who were into Electronic & Techno music & there is a lot of genres there, no doubt. In Metal you can make a genre out of anything & claim to be the inventor of it though. It's usually a play on words with about 40 words or so.

"Post-HardCore Experimental Technical Thrashened Black MetalCore w/ Clean vocals"

Blackened Symphonic Technical Speed/Power Metal w/ harsh vocals

 

[cookiecutter]

You are wrong

 

[ShredHeadJHJ]

About what?

I was joking with the genres, but they're not too far off from actual genres.

 

[Donnie Darko]

Genres describe a large group of bands, they shouldnt be too specific

 

[Satanstoenail]

About what?

This:

In Metal you can make a genre out of anything & claim to be the inventor of it though. It's usually a play on words with about 40 words or so.

Wrong. Just because someone describes a band using a bunch of genres put together doesn't mean that they've invented a new genre, it means the band they're trying to describe has a sound that crosses over between them or involves several styles.