• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Do genres kill music or do people kill music?

#22
I finally figured out the reason that there appear to be many divisions of the subdivisions of the subdivisions of the divisions of music genres...

It is to explain music on an individual level. That's why it sounds so ridiculous, because we're trying to make artificial groups out of songs that sound similar. But they sound similar to whom? Can we all agree about that similarity anyways?

And also, the fact that the "genre" seems individual means that it is, in fact, entirely subjective. Therefore, a genre (at least a subdivision of the subdivision of the division of a genre) doesn't really exist unless you believe it does.

Big genres, we all can agree they do group songs with similar sounds and structures. But they're usually pretty vague to actually explain anything. Therefore, each person tries to make sense of those big genres by cutting them in shreds.

So, if for instance, one believes that pop rock music geared towards teens is killing music, we might be inherently wrong since we don't know who called that "group of music" pop rock in the first place. Therefore, are those songs called "pop rock" really part of one identifiable group? Does that group even exist, collectively? So maybe, it's people who kill music when they're mediocre or when they only seek financial gain over creating art. Moreover, people kill music when they follow the fads (which are often mediocre and geared towards financial gain).

Am I making any sense? Maybe not in words, but I certainly have a clear idea in my head.
 
#23
Musiclogic said:
People who sub categorize everything to death so they can fit themselves into a pigeon hole kill music.

People who think it's all about showing off as a SOLO player, instead of being capable of writing a melody and a hook that people other than themselves and a few of their friends are killing music.

Beatbox and computerized garbage with some idiot talking over the beat are killing music because they are popular with the incapable and everyone thinks they can do it. This is killing music.

The reality, I went to the groomers with my dog, and was listening to Chic "Le Freak".....ladies walking by,(early 30's) started a little bounce dance as they walked by......something you never see with todays offerings.
Click to expand...

You explained it better in fewer words than me. That is what I meant with my essay above.
 
#25
Two things come to mind that didn't do music any favors are the MP3 and auto tune. Much less effort is put into production any more, because MP3s sound horrible, and all the subtleties seem to get lost.

Auto tune made talent obsolete, and outer appearance king. It is much easier to sell an attractive pop singer than an ugly talented one. It seems that people have become ok with lip syncing now days as well. They would rather watch someone dance around on stage than actually sing live. Anyone who has ever used an SM58 knows they aren't really singing.

That being said, truly great music somehow always finds an audience. There are a few modern bands out there that are as good as any that have come before them.
 
#26
Hopkins said:
Two things come to mind that didn't do music any favors are the MP3 and auto tune. Much less effort is put into production any more, because MP3s sound horrible, and all the subtleties seem to get lost.

Auto tune made talent obsolete, and outer appearance king. It is much easier to sell an attractive pop singer than an ugly talented one. It seems that people have become ok with lip syncing now days as well. They would rather watch someone dance around on stage than actually sing live. Anyone who has ever used an SM58 knows they aren't really singing.

That being said, truly great music somehow always finds an audience. There are a few modern bands out there that are as good as any that have come before them.
Click to expand...

Let's hope no one thinks of or tries to create some sort of program (for recorded stuff) or projection (for live stuff) that "fixes" people's looks. Think autotune for physical attractiveness.
 
#27
Music can only die if there's no one around to listen to and appreciate it and understand it.

So is music dead? Not yet, but I think it is in intensive care and not looking good.

Music started dying when songs started becoming more popular than instrumental compositions. It was easier for people to connect with poetry....even bad poetry was fine as long as there was a danceable beat!

But aren't songs music? Yes, I suppose they are if you consider a hallmark greeting card a work of fine art.

You see, music itself used to convey emotions and take the listener on a roller coaster ride of adventure in much the same ways that a movie would today. Fact is, movies still hire composers who understand the nuances and meaning of the chords and rhythms to enhance that effect. Well, certain movies... In certain specific genres of movies a producer just slaps a song in-between scenes as filler and calls it a day.

But I think we, as a people have largely forgotten how to correctly interpret music. You play Beethoven's 5th to a kid today and ask him what he thinks that song is about or what it reminds him of and you will probably just get a blank stare.
 
#28
You know what kills music? The top 10-20 most popular producers these days. Everything on the radio sounds like the same cheap, soulless, randomly generated electronic crap. Even some artists that used to sound fairly good sound awful these days. Someone should go tell Stargate (who have made me hate being a Norwegian), Timbaland and the other guys that they have no musical talents whatsoever. They should leave producing to people who actually try to let the production give something to the song, not drown it in anti-soul. I wouldn't mind if producers actually took the time to call some real musicians as well from time to time either, to get some fresh thoughts and licks.
 
#29
It's like I didn't just post this...
Tom_RCJ said:
Have any of you ever read the back jacket of the Bluesbreakers' "Crusade" album from 1967? Here's a direct quote (I'm holding an original vinyl cover in my hands as I write this):

"For a person who loves the blues, the world of music appears to be a disheartening one these days. Radio and television stations everywhere daily churn out synthetic sounds while the musical papers relay the fairy tales and extol the virtues of performers only fit for the screams of children. How often does real talent or truth get past this door?"

Sound familiar? That was 1967. Still had a few good memorable songs come out of that era, and after. You know what? I've met a few young, active bands that I adore in the past 5-6 years. They are out there. They always have been. Pessimism isn't accomplishing anything. Go out there and keep fighting the good fight. Play hard and support the music you love. Encourage others to do the same. We had music long before we had taxes, it ain't getting "killed" anytime soon.
Click to expand...

None of this is new. There has ALWAYS been something to complain about regarding "modern" music. They probably did it centuries ago. Instead, focus on the abundance of good music. If you like music, I'm sure turning on the radio isn't the maximum amount of effort you're willing to put into hearing a good tune. If you don't like what's on the radio then go look for the good stuff. It's out there. When you find it, tell a friend so he/she can buy an album and put it on his/her iPod or something.
 
#33
It's interesting.....so far there's a whole batch of opinion.
1. "It's all poop!!"
2. "It's only poopy if you let it be."
3. "There is no poop. You can find what you want."
4. "There's poop for now, but if you keep digging, you'll reach the gold."

But I guess the real question I'm asking is....why do we gravitate towards familiar ground in art?
 
#34
Music and art have always been reactionary. The Romantic period was a reaction to the rigid forms of the Classical period. Punk was a reaction to grandiose art/prog rock. Hair Metal was a reaction to New Wave, and Grunge was a reaction to Hair Metal. And it goes on and on.

But to me the issue is the music industry pundits attempting to cram all music into a box with a label. It's about their business model, and they have to make music easier for the general public's consumption. Unfortunately, Average Joe doesn't know sqaut about music and will consume whatever is put on the plate in front of him (read: FM radio). The moral is: Listen to what you like, regardless of its popularity. Make music that reflects who you are, and never mind what critics say. In the end, their opinions don't matter.
 
#35
scorpionldr said:
Lately to me it seems like genre and music lately seem to get along less in an ever changing world. I always hear people complain about how this sucks or that sucks in music, online or in public.

For a while I thought it was just competitive, you know, people ramping up this against that, but now it just seems negative. People talking about how vinyl electro was so much better than dubstep or how this was better than that or what. Or how this has so much less quality than xyz ever did. After a while its sickening.

For me, here's how I see it. People get tired of the new sound. Then somebody makes something truly new. Then another person goes "this is total ****!!". Then another person takes a piece of it, but modifies it so its closer to x. Then everybody shuts up for a while, and then the hating begins.

I guess the thing is, why do people seem to get so angry cuz they've trapped themselves by criticizing something to the point where it becomes a soundalike of the last hits, and yet we brush new music at a time when it's in demand under the rug?

That's my hipster rant for today. Damn I feel old.
Click to expand...

Write your senator and ask him to pass "Genre control" legislation

:hiding:
 
#36
MonetBass said:
Music and art have always been reactionary. The Romantic period was a reaction to the rigid forms of the Classical period. Punk was a reaction to grandiose art/prog rock. Hair Metal was a reaction to New Wave, and Grunge was a reaction to Hair Metal. And it goes on and on.

But to me the issue is the music industry pundits attempting to cram all music into a box with a label. It's about their business model, and they have to make music easier for the general public's consumption. Unfortunately, Average Joe doesn't know sqaut about music and will consume whatever is put on the plate in front of him (read: FM radio). The moral is: Listen to what you like, regardless of its popularity. Make music that reflects who you are, and never mind what critics say. In the end, their opinions don't matter.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree that the music industry tends to be the final dagger. Within any genre, there are the original and underground acts. Some might become mainstream. Once it starts making money, it's only a matter of time before the industry starts assembling bands and tunes. Eventually you have 3rd rate copies of the "real thing" and people get bored until the next thing comes around.
 
#38
I always hated all these genres and sub-genres, and sub-sub-genres. When people ask me what I play, I just say "Rock & Roll" - that's a good enough description for most types of popular music, I reckon. I think people can be put off by certain "genres", simply because they don't understand that most of them can cover a lot of musical territory, so in the end they miss out on hearing music they might really love because of they way it's labelled. In that sense, it's quite counter-productive for the most part. Think of "metal" or "punk" - those terms cover a huge range of music, but many people have a pigeon-holed idea of what those terms mean, so they don't listen to it.
 
#39
MarkMgibson said:
I always hated all these genres and sub-genres, and sub-sub-genres. When people ask me what I play, I just say "Rock & Roll" - that's a good enough description for most types of popular music, I reckon. I think people can be put off by certain "genres", simply because they don't understand that most of them can cover a lot of musical territory, so in the end they miss out on hearing music they might really love because of they way it's labelled. In that sense, it's quite counter-productive for the most part. Think of "metal" or "punk" - those terms cover a huge range of music, but many people have a pigeon-holed idea of what those terms mean, so they don't listen to it.
Click to expand...

Musicians tend to hate to get labeled by society, yet label the heck out of music. I suppose the sub-sub-sub-genre categorization is a byproduct of the internet age of so much music. It's not like the old days when all ya knew was either on the local radio station or record shop.

It would seem that metal is the most subject to the extreme categorization, which is ok since I decided it wasn't for me when screaming/growling and detuning+mid-scooping became so prevalent.
 
#40
spade2you said:
Musicians tend to hate to get labeled by society, yet label the heck out of music. I suppose the sub-sub-sub-genre categorization is a byproduct of the internet age of so much music. It's not like the old days when all ya knew was either on the local radio station or record shop.

It would seem that metal is the most subject to the extreme categorization, which is ok since I decided it wasn't for me when screaming/growling and detuning+mid-scooping became so prevalent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Metal cops the most labels for sure, but that's the problem. Although much of it isn't my cup of tea either, I've heard stuff that's been labelled as "metal" which to me is just really good rock music. That's the problem with genres - who exactly is deciding what is what?

You're quite right though, musicians often label themselves, and often limit their potential audience in the process.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back