Genres.

[Zephos]

I'm sick of them, seriously.

Classifying band A into rock and band B into say electronica is fair enough, but there's far too many 'sub-genres' and sub-sub genres (including the elusive triple sub genre supreme) that I really can't be arsed trying to determine what band belongs to what 'style' when someone asks me. There are far too many bands are out there that have styles of their own and it's irritating (at least for me) for people to continue bickering over what they "should" belong to.

Feel free to disregard this rant.

 

[soulslicer]

Even bands themselves bicker about this. They bicker just like you bicker, bigger bickers.

ExplosionsInTheSky

Although the band's music deviates from pop, Hrasky said that they have similar goals "like immediately grabbing your attention and getting to your emotions."[11] Rayani said, "We don't consider ourselves post-rock at all; we consider ourselves a rock band."[12]

Porcupine tree

Porcupine Tree is often categorized as a "progressive rock" band. Many listeners familiar with the group label them as such. However, Steven Wilson has been noted in the past to express a certain dislike for this tendency.

Wilson: "Porcupine Tree music is very very simple. There's nothing complex about it at all. The complexity is in the production. The complexity is in the way the albums are constructed. All of the work goes into creating the texture and the sound, and making it sound right. There's nothing complicated about the music at all. And that's really why I have to take issue when people describe us as progressive rock. I don't think we are a progressive rock band. I think we're just a rock band. I think what leads people to give it that kind of progressive tag is the way the songs are produced."[6]

and many more bands bicker on..

accepts rant

 

[knut]

Not a problem to me. If anything, it makes thing easier when talking about bands and music on the fly. After all, it's just a few words and opinions on what should be lumped where. I use them all the time whilst describing something to someone, simply because if they have an interest in, say, post-hardcore bands like At the Drive-In, Thursday, etc, if I say ''this is a post-hardcore band...'' they'll usually catch on to it and take it up with eager opputunity, as would I.

 

[Vegeta897]

Genres are fine, though it's best to go by-song instead of by-band when trying to classify genre.

The only thing I don't like about genres is when I have to tell the less-informed people that I like "electronic music" because they don't understand how much variety is in it or what "breakcore" is.

 

[Cormeh]

I think music genres kind of died with the "Nu-" era. :|

 

[soulslicer]

Nu rock, nu metal. All those mean rap with rock music right, the whole nu thing?

 

[Vegeta897]

I thought it meant electronica influence, such as synthesizers.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Nu Rave owes more to New Wave than Rave.. :|

 

[knut]

Yeah, but the term 'nu rave' is thrown around way too much as a source of attention to be actually taken seriously Not to mention it's become more of a fashion beacon than a genre of music.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Eh, to me genres are just an easy way of summing up a band's style on the fly. People take issue with it sometimes, like it's an unnecessary tag that trivialises the nuances of a band's style, or that the band are so original they transcend genre somehow. But no matter how unique I don't think there's too many bands that can't be loosely ascribed to one genre or another, if only for their similarity to other such bands, for the sake of convenience. Hell, 95% of the stuff I listen to could easily just be lumped into "rock" if I wanted to be lazy, and I like to think I have somewhat broad tastes (just with a heavy preference for rock :|).

On the flip-side of that, genre nazism can be a little frustrating at times, but hilarious at others. I was chatting to someone about this recently and we got a laugh out of this on Isis' wiki page -

Genre(s):
Post-metal
Post-rock
Progressive metal
Atmospheric sludge
Avant-garde doom

I don't think I even want to know what the last two are.

Not to mention it's become more of a fashion beacon than a genre of music.

Mmmm, fish and bacon.

(I'm good at reading at 3 in the morning)

 

[Pulse]

Basic genres are fine, it's only the concept of 'sub-genres' that promote elitism and piss off a lot of bands with further needless labelling and categorising. A perfect example of this is Queens of the Stone Age being dubbed as 'stoner rock' all of the time;

Originally formed under the name Gamma Ray by guitarist Josh Homme, Queens of the Stone Age developed a style of riff-oriented, heavy music which Homme described as 'robot rock', saying that he "wanted to create a heavy sound based on a solid jam, and just pound it into your head". The band is frequently described as stoner rock, although they reject the term.[1][2]
“ The term sucks. The only element of the audience I want to get rid of is the shirtless, sweaty, maxi-mullet jock dudes. We want sex to bleed into the music. At our shows, we want to see half boys and half girls in a utopian world, dancing and drinking. ”

Their sound has since evolved to incorporate a variety of different styles and influences.

It's no surprise a lot of bands are in opposition to genre nazism.

 

[Ennui]

It's pretty trendy to dislike genres nowadays. I don't mind them... they're descriptive, not necessarily categorical. Some of the more obscure electronica classifications get a bit ridiculous though.

 

[knut]

Atmospheric sludge
Avant-garde doom

I don't think I even want to know what the last two are.

Sludge is a term used to describe really slow, heavy, and often layered/textured elements of music, usually that of a distorted guitar or some such. Falls into place amongst names 'stoner rock' and others. Avant-garde is... well, hard to say really. I guess experimental is the best - and easist - way to describe it. Doom metal falls somewhere between sludge and all the other common 'stoner' terms as really slow, weighty and often darkened ways of playing instruments/music in general.

Christ I'm rambling haha. This is the type of thing I'm better talking to in person about. Either way, they sum up Isis pretty well, but I can understand the humour as some genres are named some silly things.

 

[Raziaar]

Here are the big daddy archetypal bases.

Country, Rap, Rock, Jazz, Classical, Punk, Pop, Folk.

At least, that's how I view them.

 

[Pulse]

Here are the big daddy archetypal bases.

Country, Rap, Rock, Jazz, Classical, Punk, Pop, Folk.

At least, that's how I view them.

Also Metal.

 

[Vegeta897]

Metal is probably a bit too specific to be included in Raz's list there, Pulse. I think his intention was to simplify it as much as possible.

I don't really know where electronic fits in there, though.

I'd say rap hip hop dance and any other electronically generated or produced sounds would be in electronic or something like called like that.

 

[Laivasse]

I like the concept of genres fine. No matter how obscure and ridiculous a sub-genre may sound to someone unfamiliar with a certain type of music, they will be useful as a descriptive overview for someone.

Example: I like death metal, I like atmospheric music, and I like a small clique of bands from Canada described as 'war' metal due to their lyrical content and imagery. Hypothetically, if someone were to categorise some random unknown band as 'epic/atmospheric death/war-metal' it would be meaningless and nonsensical to most of you. I, on the other hand, would have my attention grabbed by such a description and might resolve to check that band out. Therefore it's useful.

Where it gets stupid is when you get two people who know what a certain band sounds like arguing what genre it is. Usually they are disagreeing over whether they think that band deserves to be included as part of their favourite genre or not, rather than whether they think the genre description is appropriate for that band.

I also think it's stupid when a band themselves get annoyed by the genre people tag them with, and try to say that it's not what they are. Sorry, but if the majority of people say that you sound like a particular group of other bands then MAYBE YOU REALLY BLOODY DO. 'We're not pop, we're Post-Modern NeoClassical Minimalist Prog-Fusion, you idiots...!' Granted, some bands get pigeonholed unfairly because people don't bother to listen to them properly, but a lot of complaints by bands about how they are categorised are just pretentious posturing.

Metal is probably a bit too specific to be included in Raz's list there

On the contrary, 'Metal' is an almost uselessly broad umbrella term. Potentially moreso than 'Rock' and definitely moreso than 'Punk'.

 

[Zephos]

On the flip-side of that, genre nazism can be a little frustrating at times, but hilarious at others.

Genre(s):
Post-metal
Post-rock
Progressive metal
Atmospheric sludge
Avant-garde doom

Yeah, that's the sort of crap I'm talking about.

It's pretty trendy to dislike genres nowadays.

Never knew :/

 

[Bad^Hat]

Never knew :/

Lol, you just got categorised, bitch.

 

[Lucid]

I personally just think that there's far too many sub-genres out there... gets too crazy to catch up with them all.

 

[Zephos]

Lol, you just got categorised, bitch.

*Crawls sulking to the shame corner*