Genre Definitions, Miscategorization and the Future

karaokeman

I was wondering what are everyone's opinions on how definitions of music genres are always used out of context and warped by the media.

The obvious example in this forum would be the countless "The somethings" bands over the last decade who were known as indie for simply being guitar-dressed pop bands, and then you have alternative which seemingly is applied to pretty much anything by the press.

And then you have R&B, which nowadays is not so much rhythm and blues, but rhymes and bass to be more precise.

As far as I know, I've never heard say The Kooks declaring themselves as an Indie band, so that could only mean it is the media's fault.

But what is the point in labelling bands/artists within a false category? Is it all for promotional purposes, or did the media actually believe that there was a revolution at hand, whereby such bands would become "indie-style bands" and that this would broaden the genre out to artists on mainstream labels.

I would say the former more than likely, another interesting example being the fact Oasis, Blur, Suede etc never called themselves Britpop but were given that name by the press.

Will this keep up? All "scenes" come to an end, so why are people still calling Of Monsters and Men indie? Frank Ocean and The Weeknd are indie imo, indie hip hop as they are signed to underground labels, but they are too often labelled as R&B.

flyswatter

Frank Ocean isn't really a hip hop artist but contemporary RnB. I suppose you could put him in that bracket but he's known for his singing. The contemporary part in that is the distinction between the classic style of the past. The confusion is from the fact that nowadays it is simply called RnB and taken to represent todays RnB style.

From what I've heard of the Weeknd, it doesn't strike me as hip-hop either. The guy is definitely a singer in the mould of D'Angelo with influence from the classic soul singers of the past.

lordgoat

Moved to Music.

lordgoat

Genres are generally pointless bollocks. Bar Classical and the traditional ones like Jazz, Folk, Country music has evolved so much that nowadays it should all be just filed alphabetically.

im invisible

what is house?
what is techno?
what is trance?

I used to be with it, then they changed what “it” was now what im “with” isnt “it” and whats “it” seems weird and scary to me
...It'll happen to you!

kunst nugget

lordgoat wrote: »

Genres are generally pointless bollocks. Bar Classical and the traditional ones like Jazz, Folk, Country music has evolved so much that nowadays it should all be just filed alphabetically.

There are hundreds of thousands of artists out there, genres help you to locate the music that is more likely to appeal to you. You could say you like rock music but does that mean you like classic rock, soft rock, AOR, heavy metal or alternative? Do you just put all those genres, along with all pop, rap and dance, together into an alphabetised list and try figuring out you like based on pot luck? True you might uncover some gems you mightn't considered otherwise but the chances are you're going to buy a lot of sh¡te that holds no appeal to you. And you might like jazz but it is hardly all the one type of music: Free jazz, acid jazz, trad jazz, vocal jazz, gypsy jazz etc. Also someone who might call themselves fans of classical music might love Mozart but despise Stockhausen, both considered classical music but from very different movements and time periods.

I like some genres of dance music but equally I hate others. Do we just label it all dance music and I have to wade through all the trance, hardstyle and brostep in the vain hope of finding something I like? If someone labels something Bass, Detroit House or Dub Techno I'm more inclined to give it a spin to determine whether I like it or not.

Genres might be evil but they're a bit of a necessary evil imo.

As far as I know, I've never heard say The Kooks declaring themselves as an Indie band, so that could only mean it is the media's fault.

No it isn't. It's the fault of the record company, the band and their stylists. Everything about them screams middle of the road indie and their record company would have marketed them accordingly.

karaokeman

flyswatter wrote: »

Frank Ocean isn't really a hip hop artist but contemporary RnB. I suppose you could put him in that bracket but he's known for his singing. The contemporary part in that is the distinction between the classic style of the past. The confusion is from the fact that nowadays it is simply called RnB and taken to represent todays RnB style.

From what I've heard of the Weeknd, it doesn't strike me as hip-hop either. The guy is definitely a singer in the mould of D'Angelo with influence from the classic soul singers of the past.

I stand corrected, thanks for the heads up flyswatter.

For years I've had a tendency to associate the two seen as how both have African-American roots and the early figures of both sang a lot of social commentary, but I'm only learning of the differences between each now.

R&B would have more horns, whereas there would be more synthesizers and sampling in hip hop, likewise R&B vocals focus on clarity and virtuosity rather than complexity and fluidity in rap. I always confuse synthesizers with keyboards, and Frank Ocean uses a keyboard so thats probably where I got confused.

lordgoat

karaokeman wrote: »

I stand corrected, thanks for the heads up flyswatter.

For years I've had a tendency to associate the two seen as how both have African-American roots and the early figures of both sang a lot of social commentary, but I'm only learning of the differences between each now.

R&B would have more horns, whereas there would be more synthesizers and sampling in hip hop, likewise R&B vocals focus on clarity and virtuosity rather than complexity and fluidity in rap. I always confuse synthesizers with keyboards, and Frank Ocean uses a keyboard so thats probably where I got confused.

You can listen to Jimi. But you can't hear Jimi.

mathepac

Personally I think you are all in danger of vanishing up your own little botties. Music is either good or bad. If it's bad no-one cares about squeezing it into some esoteric box and if it's good people will listen to it and won't care about the labels or boxes either - IMHO of course.

Good musicians and good music tend to feed off each other and produce stuff that defies categorisation, it's just good. Cross-fertilisation happens quicker and is more widespread than the categorisers can categorise, so just chill bro an' listen to the sounds, pick up the vibe and float downstream.