Gawwwwwd Genres: Stoner, Doom, Sludge, Grunge

[Matt Till]

I try to figure this whole genre business out because I think it would help me figure out the kind of bands I like.

I was listening to Soundgarden's first album which is called "Grunge" but the floaty elements mixed with the groove oriented rock is what I came to associate with "Stoner Rock"

Kyuss is reefered (pun) to as stoner rock. But they are heaiver/less melodic than lets say Monster Magnet. But the style reminds me of Doom metal... or what I thought was doom metal.

The Obsessed I thought were stoner metal... but they are doom metal...

The Melvins (Houdini era) is another grunge classic... which sounds like doom to me... but is often called "Sludge"

Eyehategod sounds like doom with awful vocals, but is "Sludge"

and My Dying Bride sounds goth to me... but is doom


WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!?!??!

[GobyWan]

I think it has something to do with their shoelace diameter, or how many calories the drummer consumes in a week, or whether or not one of their roadies has a grandmother who owned a badger between 1962 and 1967. These subgenres are ridiculous and arbitrary, and quite frankly cause more confusion than clarification as to what the heck kind of music these bands actually play.

That said, I would enjoy starting a neo-post-folk-punk-funk-emo-sludge-Renaissancecore-doom-death-ska-polka band.

[Gia]

ask against will

[Matt Till]

I'm weird with genres: I hate them, but I want to be able to understand them...

[bryan bailey]

Originally Posted by Matt Till

I'm weird with genres: I hate them, but I want to be able to understand them...

**** genres. Listen to what you like.

I could go on for hours trying to put the bands I listen to in genres.

[Adam Barkley]

I have heard Clutch labeled as stoner rock, but to me they are playing Rock and Roll, pure and simple.

As always the best bands cross multiple major (i.e. real) genres: Primus, Faith No More, the Beatles, Rasputina, Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, GSY!BE, etc.

The only genres I understand are Rock, Pop, Metal, R&B, Jazz, Classical, and Country/Bluegrass/Ethnic. No neo-classical acid grunge country for me, thank you.

I have been trying to get into Kyuss, Which album should I start with?

[floydbass]

Progressive is one of the main generes as well.

[Adam Barkley]

Originally Posted by floydbass

Progressive is one of the main generes as well.

Doh. But it could be argued that Prog could be under the umbrella of one or more of the other main genres listed.

Ex. King Crimson - Rock with jazz (among other) influences; Emerson Lake and Palmer - Rock with classical/jazz influences

[Cerb]

Musical genres are just one big faulty system. One genre could mean multiple things to different people and can only really be defined by the bands that play it. There can't be a written definition for the majority of genres. They are what people make them...

[Jazzbasslover]

Originally Posted by Cerb

Musical genres are just one big faulty system. One genre could mean multiple things to different people and can only really be defined by the bands that play it. There can't be a written definition for the majority of genres. They are what people make them...

I agree that musical genres are somewhat idiotic but they are by no means faulty. They do exactly what they are desinged to do; market and sell CD's and they do it well. Most people who bought a Poison cassete in the 80's picked it up in the "metal" section of their music store. In hindsight, Poison probably wasn't "metal". Yet, if their cassetes were in the pop section from the get go they probably wouldn't have sold very many records. Most people who bought an Alice in Chains or Soundgarden CD in the early 90's picked it up in the "alternative" section of their music store. Those 2 bands got tons of play on MTV'S 120minutes and Alternative Nation. In hindsight, those bands probably weren't "alternative". If those 2 bands CD's were in the metal or rock section they probably would not have sold well because metal wasn't considered cool at the time. It wasn't what the record labels or MTV wanted us to be spoonfed at the time. Genres, for better or worse, are marketing tools. Because of great marketing, there's a tool out there for every product that needs to sold. I'm no exception.

[Schwinn]

Originally Posted by abark000

The only genres I understand are Rock, Pop, Metal, R&B, Jazz, Classical, and Country/Bluegrass/Ethnic.

This is basically how I feel about it too. You got rock, metal, blues, jazz, country, classical, and so on. When you subdivide things into subgenres it gets confusing because of all the overlap. Also there are some bands like Amorphis or Paradise Lost that started in one "genre" but changed their style to another an album or two later.

I think its usually better just to list a few representative bands that you like when talking to people instead of using artificial labels that the bands themselves wouldn't even use to describe their music.

[IvanMike]

i belive it was alain caron who said a few years back that today everything is fusion. fusion used to mean jazz/rock fusion when it 1st came out. now, "new" styles incorporate bits and peices from a variety of existing styles and "fuse" them. It's all soup now.

[Matt Till]

Originally Posted by abark000

I have been trying to get into Kyuss, Which album should I start with?

I don't have it, but I hear "blues for the red sun" is fantastic. I only have "And the circus leaves town" and I've heard a couple others... circus has been reviewed as their worst album... and I love it! So, I need to get more of their stuff.

[geoffkhan]

Originally Posted by Cerb

Musical genres are just one big faulty system. One genre could mean multiple things to different people and can only really be defined by the bands that play it. There can't be a written definition for the majority of genres. They are what people make them...

Only two kinds of music: good music and bad music. But I'm sure you've heard that Duke Ellington quote so, so many times.

[secretdonkey]

Anyone want to put together an industrial-post-speed-indie-death-funeral-grind-Texas Country-goth-emo-Americana-smooth jazz-core project?

[Wrong Robot]

I'm all for sweeping genre generalizations, my iTunes consists of a handful of genres, but I never delve into sub genres(with a couple meager exceptions) I don't really like sub genres and sub sub genres. Because I think everyone classifies music by how it relates to other bands they know, not by how it relates to a fairly arbitrary name/guidelines.

[Wrong Robot]

Originally Posted by IvanMike

i belive it was alain caron who said a few years back that today everything is fusion. fusion used to mean jazz/rock fusion when it 1st came out. now, "new" styles incorporate bits and peices from a variety of existing styles and "fuse" them. It's all soup now.

Tell that to the 2 hours of gregorian chants I have in my iTunes

[Wrong Robot]

Originally Posted by abark000

I have heard Clutch labeled as stoner rock, but to me they are playing Rock and Roll, pure and simple.

Now, this is an interesting layer to the whole genre brouhaha. How the definition of a genre can change so much, to the point where when a band that solidly fits in what should be the definition emerges, they are labeled as some obscure sub genre!

The presidents of the united states of america is another band I can think of, they are generally labeled as like post grunge rock or something silly like that, but really, they are just pure rock and roll, in every sense of the word.

[Wrong Robot]

Originally Posted by Jazzbasslover

I agree that musical genres are somewhat idiotic but they are by no means faulty. They do exactly what they are desinged to do; market and sell CD's and they do it well. Most people who bought a Poison cassete in the 80's picked it up in the "metal" section of their music store. In hindsight, Poison probably wasn't "metal". Yet, if their cassetes were in the pop section from the get go they probably wouldn't have sold very many records. Most people who bought an Alice in Chains or Soundgarden CD in the early 90's picked it up in the "alternative" section of their music store. Those 2 bands got tons of play on MTV'S 120minutes and Alternative Nation. In hindsight, those bands probably weren't "alternative". If those 2 bands CD's were in the metal or rock section they probably would not have sold well because metal wasn't considered cool at the time. It wasn't what the record labels or MTV wanted us to be spoonfed at the time. Genres, for better or worse, are marketing tools. Because of great marketing, there's a tool out there for every product that needs to sold. I'm no exception.

Very good points, but, regarding the hindsight, is it that, we've realized our folly, or the genres themselves have evolved.(see abark000's post about this)

[Jazzbasslover]

Originally Posted by Wrong Robot

Very good points, but, regarding the hindsight, is it that, we've realized our folly, or the genres themselves have evolved.(see abark000's post about this)

Those are good points as well. I think it's both. That is also one of the reasons that the genres seem idiotic at times, because music is always changing. Do you think that we'll be laughing at or even embarassed at ourselves 10 to 15 years from now for calling Korn or Limp Bizkit "metal"?