[kitsune_]

Ah, genres.

In the 90's, I was into Breakbeat Hardcore and then later Jungle, which transformed into Drum & Bass, which was subdivided over time into Ragga, Neurofunk, Tech Step, Hard Step, Jump-Up, Clown Step, Liquid Funk, Ambient Drum & Bass, Drumstep and so on.

Of course, what I understand under "Drum & Bass" is very different from a 18 year-old teenager who thinks late-period Pendulum is the greatest thing on earth.

Now, during the early 00's a lot of the old-schoolers were annoyed with the direction drum and bass took. The tracks became cheesier and cheesier, and a lot of the old vibe was gone.

They turned to Garage, Grime and Breaks and found a fertile playing ground in the fledgling Dubstep scene. Lo' and behold, there it was, the fat dubby bass of their youth.

Alas, again, an 18-year old teenager today has a very different picture of "Dubstep" compared to that of the people who originated the sound. No more dub, a lot of cheese. Somewhat similar to the entire drum and bass story. The genre has been appropriated by the masses.

And well, the circle goes on and on. The same thing applies to older genres such as "Electro", which in the 80's meant something entirely different from what it is now.

So in a sense, how useful are genres really?

[JonnieCache]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital

T'was ever thus.

Don't forget that acid/tekno/jungle was itself stepping on other peoples' shoes, namely the UKs established dancehall/ragga soundsystems:

http://www.uncarved.org/blog/2004/06/4/17/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-o_N9rCujM

EDIT: jungle was also briefly referred to as "future ragga"! imagine how many people that must have pissed off, even in '92:

http://www.djhistory.com/features/ragga-techno

That article reads exactly like one written today about dubstep or whatever, except with less pessimism. Which is understandable I guess, it must have been hard to be miserable writing about hardcore rave music in 1992.

[mturmon]

Makes me think of the Clash dissing Paul Weller and the Jam for not being punk ("they got Burton suits, they think it's funny, turning rebellion into money"). That tension between style and righteousness.

[sanoli]

This is on Wikipedia, but there's no source: "...a jibe at an unnamed group who wear Burton suits, taken by many to be The Jam (though in an NME article of the time, Strummer claimed the actual target was the power pop fad hyped by journalists as the next big thing in 1978) and the lyric concludes that the new groups are in it solely to be famous and for the money."

I also thought it was aimed at the Jam, as it was right after they (the Jam) announced they were voting conservative.

However, looking back... well, the Clash also turned rebellion into money. They of course kept themselves more real, and they were way less packaged, but still.

[mturmon]

About Weller voting Tory, I don't see it. He was just being irascible. None of the songs from In the City read as Tory, rather the opposite.

[untothebreach]

I see the same thing happening in metal. When I was in highschool, there were a few genres -- mostly 'thrash/speed', 'death', 'black', 'progressive' and maybe a couple more. In college I kind of got away from metal, and in my late 20's got back into it. After getting back into it, I thought "what the hell happened?!!?" There are now so many genres, I don't even know where to start. The hardcore punk of the 80's and 90's was now a legitimate "metal" genre, and every band that had even a hint of hardcore in it got "-core" added to their label. So now you have 'thrashcore' 'deathcore', and my favorite, 'metalcore'. Hardcore was originally supposed to designate a band that was a punk band that incorporated metal aspects into their songs. So it was already a mix of metal and punk, so what the hell is 'metalcore' supposed to be?? A metal band with aspects of punk, I suppose, but I still think the label sucks.

Then you have 'progressive' added to anything that isn't consistently in 4-4 time. Or the even dumber label, 'math metal'. There are even subgenres of prog now, including the dumbest sounding name ever, 'Djent,' which is supposed to be the sound that an extended range guitar makes when palm muting a low string through some shitty digital distortion.

I don't even want to get into the "post-" prefix either. The first time you see a redditor talk about the "post-hardcore progressive deathcore" band they love, you feel like shooting yourself in the face.

[makmanalp]

No offense, but your comment reminds me all too much about the elitism that surrounds music criticism. I listen to a wide range of metal. I, for one, encourage the experimentation and the cross pollination with other genres.

Who really cares whether this, for example: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry0dHtwD4TU) is metal or not? Mostly people who care more about being "fucking metal" than music. Is it such a surprise that liking a kind of music can be about more than just social capital?

Yes, as genres get more complex, genre labels also become more complex. And sometimes the defining characteristics aren't clear. So what? This isn't a bad thing. If all "prog" was the same, then it'd be boring. There'd be no point in having yet another prog band. You'd be constrained by the label into doing a certain thing. People rightly chose not to do that. A genre gets you 80% there in terms of guessing what a band sounds like, and that's okay.

[pistle]

Seriously.. that's not metal. Just because a metal band once made a song that sounded a little like something on that album (when they crossed over to general acceptance) doesn't change the objective FACT that it is a sad version of some prog rock crap from the 70's.

Javascript is not strongly typed. Nothing can change that fact.

Genres in music aren't more complex now. They are becoming more meaningless. When the new set of kids come through and don't understand the historical context and meaning to the way the same term lumped music tone and song structure together, it puts on display how much "music" IS just fashion. Metal implies a certain set of social perceptions that the listener wants to evoke, but the correlation to the music is all gone.

Maybe someone wants to wear the metal coat of armor instead of being labelled a pansy light-alt-rock fan, but that link is more the latter than the former.

So many times, the genres' names sound more like how someone wants to present themselves philosophically vs. what is actually engendered in the production of the sound being labelled. Minimal house, neurofunk, metal, death metal, etc.

And there is no point in ever having another prog band or song. Same with jam bands and songs.

[untothebreach]

I'm sorry it came off as elitism, I definitely didn't mean it as such. I listen to bands from pretty much all the genres I mention, I mainly have a problem with the labelling itself.

[bitcrusher]

You are so right about this. I think the only thing worse is that through it all, whatever band you like is NOT METAL. Only the three sub-sub-sub-genres that I like are true metal.

Bah. Get off my lawn.

[Zweihander]

They're useful on a personal level but not on a broader level.

When you want to listen to some Drum & Bass, you already have a personal classification of the music style and artists that you're looking for. It's going to be different from someone getting into that genre right now but if you wanted to listen to what they wanted to listen to, I'm guessing you already have some personal term for it (Nu, progressive, modern vs classic, ect.).

When talking to other people and using music services, that all breaks down and you usually start going by similar artists or meaningful tags. Similar artists is an inefficient way to classify your music (both in your mind and in your folders) and meaningful tags works but requires significant effort to actually keep them 'correct' (and if they're not correct and just for personal use, you might as well use genre's).

[3pt14159]

Super fucking useful, especially with a chronological qualifier. I would pay $1000 to listen to "90s dance" versus "Contemporary Country", and I don't even love "90s dance".

[wiremine]

> So in a sense, how useful are genres really?

Philosophically, an answer is probably is above my pay grade. That said, time has always been a factor to how we understand and label music. Rock today is very different from Elvis, but that doesn't mean we need to throw out genres as a classification system.

Practically speaking, as paying a Spotify user, I really dislike their "browse new releases" tool. Browsing by genre, even some basic ones, would be a HUGE improvement. And, I'd love to follow a micro-genre or two.

[baddox]

I've noticed that electronic music seems to really embrace these extremely granular genres, compared to other types of music. Any idea why this is the case, or is my perception (as someone not really familiar with electronic music) inaccurate?

[pistle]

Not to mention the examples given for some old genres I used to know are horribly misrepresented here... genres are totally useless - then hindered a bit more by the newest wave of genre name factory music critics/writers.

Clownstep! DoA geezer!

[catshirt]

quite useful if you can keep up with their consensual definitions :)