|
|
|
|
|
by makmanalp
4534 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.