The Butt's Friendly Debate Hour: Is Music Just Sound? Or Is It Also Ideology?

[Einherjar86]

So, I actually just read the thread for the first time, and your opponent writes:

As I already said: Saying that genres don't exist in a strict sense does not imply that one can't distinguish between different works. The point is that genre distinctions have a pragmatic sense, not an ontological one.

That is actually entirely correct.

EDIT: I actually think you're misinterpreting him... he's correct in stating that genres have politico-economic origins. Genres are basically contracts with a specific viewership/audience that guarantee they can expect certain artistic qualities. People who buy "erotic fiction" know what they're getting themselves into.

"Black metal" might not be as marketable as "erotic fiction" or "fantasy" or "supernatural young adult gothic" (I have seen this at Barnes & Noble); but it is still only really useful as a category within which to identify specific bands. And this has undeniable economic applicability.

 

[Zephyrus]

Liturgy is the only ontological black metal band.

 

[Carpe Mortem]

So, I actually just read the thread for the first time, and your opponent writes:



That is actually entirely correct.

EDIT: I actually think you're misinterpreting him... he's correct in stating that genres have politico-economic origins. Genres are basically contracts with a specific viewership/audience that guarantee they can expect certain artistic qualities. People who buy "erotic fiction" know what they're getting themselves into.

"Black metal" might not be as marketable as "erotic fiction" or "fantasy" or "supernatural young adult gothic" (I have seen this at Barnes & Noble); but it is still only really useful as a category within which to identify specific bands. And this has undeniable economic applicability.

Well said. Every time someone gets snotty with my use of genres to describe music, I remind them it's the most convenient way of explaining things. I'd actually dare venture to say that it's more pretentious to dislike naming genres, than it is to use them. It implies this system that has worked so well, that most people into music can comprehend, isn't cool enough.

 

[Satanstoenail]

His argument level = Einherjar

Your argument level = JGMetalhead

Pretty much.


MUSIC IS NOT JUST SOUND
MUSIC IS ALSO IDEOLOGY, DEAL WIH IT

DEAL WIH IT

 

[blacktape]

Well said. Every time someone gets snotty with my use of genres to describe music, I remind them it's the most convenient way of explaining things. I'd actually dare venture to say that it's more pretentious to dislike naming genres, than it is to use them. It implies this system that has worked so well, that most people into music can comprehend, isn't cool enough.

It is not about 'being cool,' in the first place. I believe the opposite; there is a certain level of snobbery that goes with differentiating between genres; and the quote:

As I already said: Saying that genres don't exist in a strict sense does not imply that one can't distinguish between different works. The point is that genre distinctions have a pragmatic sense, not an ontological one.

sums it up well.

However, the opposing argument that reads:

Genres are basically contracts with a specific viewership/audience that guarantee they can expect certain artistic qualities. People who buy "erotic fiction" know what they're getting themselves into.

Definition:

on·tol·o·gy
/änˈtäləjē/
noun
noun: ontology; plural noun: ontologies
1.
the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

The difference here is that the definition of 'erotic fiction' is an ontological one. Erotic fiction is in fact, simply that, so to compare it to the genre differentiation found in metal is not an adequate comparison because of the pragmatic nature of metal genres in the first place. It certainly does make it easier for the listener to 'expect certain artistic qualities' with looking at things through certain genres, and this isn't saying that labels aren't necessary, but that the amount of 'sub genres' that people intend to have these days gets ridiculous. For example, who came up with the the 'core' idea, and since when is it not metal? And since when does one genre of metal own the color black? Why does a certain sound have to be called death metal? Does something have to have death-oriented lyrics to be death metal? The only genre labels that makes sense to me is slam and brutal metal, because it actually describes the nature of the music, it slams, and sometimes it's brutal, in lyric form and in artistic expression.

So my point is there shouldn't be all of these genre classes when it can be summed into a certain few, or none at all, or just Metal, because Metal is music, and music has certain types. So I'd say it's more accurate to call jazz-influenced metal like Atheist, jazz-influenced instead of death metal, or call avant-guard metal like Hella or Core of a Virus avant-guard metal, is accurate. But things like 'core bands' and death metal/black metal doesn't make much sense. As the person who called it from pragmatism, it really is only called that due to tradition and nothing more. In short, there are types of metal, not metal genres.

 

[ProphetofHatred]

In short, there are types of metal, not metal genres.

Sub-genres, buddy.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

As I already said: Saying that genres don't exist in a strict sense does not imply that one can't distinguish between different works. The point is that genre distinctions have a pragmatic sense, not an ontological one.

Not sure I agree with this. I would argue that music, as a human creation, is fundamentally tied to the human activities through which it manifests: people listening to, creating, and performing that music. I would argue that with this in mind, a Romantic symphony for example, has a very different ontological status than that of a bubble gum pop album. Heck, there are some genres (i.e. rap, folk) where the story is everything and there are others where language is basically irrelevant (i.e. much jazz, noise and ambient).

 

[Addo_Of_Nex]

A wise man once put my exact thoughts on this matter into words, years ago.

You also have to understand considerations and so forth.

In long term...

Theres those who are ignorant and those with an open mind for what they like.

Following... there is interchangeable varieties of thought. To understand, one must develop a passion. Interchangeability of thought occurs through the experience of listening thus formulating a change of discern.

Only through experience and an open mind filled with the passion to forgo understanding, will individuals improve their musical tastes. Improvement also fulfills acquired taste; the liking for other genres of music.

That is more of an overview of the long-term, but really thats as simple as I can break it down, shouldn't be hard to grasp. Not everybody gives a rats ass about music, remember that. In fact a fair amount of people look at it as the lowest form of entertainment and treat it as such.

 

[blacktape]

Sub-genres, buddy.

What I am saying is there is no need for sub-genres. A person shouldn't require that the entire identity of a piece of music be spelled out to them before listening to it. Each band's sound and the variations in it are just different types of metal. After a certain point it starts to be a form of segregation instead of being for the listener's sake.

 

[ProphetofHatred]

What if I want to find bands similar to a certain band I heard and enjoyed? How fucking hard would it be, to find music that I like if it's all called metal? There are genres of metal I literally don't like at all, I can't even imagine being forced to listen to a sea of nu-metal, just to find a good death metal album.

I don't see any point in arguing about genres of music, unless it your own band, it's already fucking labeled and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[blacktape]

What if I want to find bands similar to a certain band I heard and enjoyed? How fucking hard would it be, to find music that I like if it's all called metal? There are genres of metal I literally don't like at all, I can't even imagine being forced to listen to a sea of nu-metal, just to find a good death metal album.

I don't see any point in arguing about genres of music, unless it your own band, it's already fucking labeled and there's nothing you can do about it.

Because band names matter? Bands of similar types will be associated with one another, and I didn't say to do away with the categorization entirely, but that there's a limit to sub-genres that sometimes gets overly used for the sake of classification instead of the sake of making it easier for the listener to find certain types of bands. It makes it easier for metal heads to discern, but from the sheer music perspective, there are structural similarities that cross the boundaries of genre categorization so that claiming to look for one particular type of band via genre is limited in what you'll find. That is why some don't use genres because music is structurally and tonally related on deeper levels, hence why the person who called the use of genre labels a pragmatic instead of ontological one hit the nail on the head. By creating genre labels based on tone, riff structure, lyric content, or any other aspect of the instrumentation of the music has limited, you're basically categorizing differences that, in many instances, already has names. It just shows from what angle the music is approached from. I am not necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, either.

 

[Carpe Mortem]

What if I want to find bands similar to a certain band I heard and enjoyed? How fucking hard would it be, to find music that I like if it's all called metal? There are genres of metal I literally don't like at all, I can't even imagine being forced to listen to a sea of nu-metal, just to find a good death metal album.

I am also heavily in agreement with this statement.

 

[ProphetofHatred]

Because band names matter? Bands of similar types will be associated with one another, and I didn't say to do away with the categorization entirely, but that there's a limit to sub-genres that sometimes gets overly used for the sake of classification instead of the sake of making it easier for the listener to find certain types of bands. It makes it easier for metal heads to discern, but from the sheer music perspective, there are structural similarities that cross the boundaries of genre categorization so that claiming to look for one particular type of band via genre is limited in what you'll find. That is why some don't use genres because music is structurally and tonally related on deeper levels, hence why the person who called the use of genre labels a pragmatic instead of ontological one hit the nail on the head. By creating genre labels based on tone, riff structure, lyric content, or any other aspect of the instrumentation of the music has limited, you're basically categorizing differences that, in many instances, already has names. It just shows from what angle the music is approached from. I am not necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, either.

I'm not even going to bother reading that.

 

[blacktape]

I'm not even going to bother reading that.

I ask that you do. Have you any opinions on the structure of metal as music instead of its structure as what falls under genre labels? Because that's what I wrote about.

 

[Zephyrus]

From hereon I will delete any posts that use the word ontological, with the exception of those by Einherjar and Addo.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Because band names matter? Bands of similar types will be associated with one another, and I didn't say to do away with the categorization entirely, but that there's a limit to sub-genres that sometimes gets overly used for the sake of classification instead of the sake of making it easier for the listener to find certain types of bands. It makes it easier for metal heads to discern, but from the sheer music perspective, there are structural similarities that cross the boundaries of genre categorization so that claiming to look for one particular type of band via genre is limited in what you'll find. That is why some don't use genres because music is structurally and tonally related on deeper levels, hence why the person who called the use of genre labels a pragmatic instead of ontological one hit the nail on the head. By creating genre labels based on tone, riff structure, lyric content, or any other aspect of the instrumentation of the music has limited, you're basically categorizing differences that, in many instances, already has names. It just shows from what angle the music is approached from. I am not necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, either.

And you wonder why you have issues with cyber-bullying?

 

[Vimana]

Music is organized sound for entertainment. People can put ideology in it, but it doesn't inherently contain it.

What ideology is this?

 

[The Butt]

In some genres though ideology is inherent. Christian black metal cannot exist.

 

[Onder]

In some genres though ideology is inherent. Christian black metal cannot exist.

Then again, there are bands that claim to be just that. :Smug:

 

[The Butt]

It is an oxymoron.