DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: The General Forum: I think genres suck

Forums > The General Forum

I think genres suck

mtbatol	Date: October 23, 2002 @ 8:47 PM Dammit, I had something really important to say!!! It was about.. ummmm.... ooh who cares, I forgot because of all the excitement of nabbing post #100
RandomToxy	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 7:50 PM Yes genres suck, but imagine an internet full of 'music' lists, and no clues as to what you're about to stream. I'd climb over a hundred country/rock tracks to get to one 'electronica' track if I had to. But I'd rather not. A lot of the genres that get us all so wound up are just filing really. God I hate my office job. I am truly sorry for this insight.
RandomToxy	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 7:52 PM http://random-toxy.dmusic.com/" id="24985">102 - my luck number. I do like my logo. check my sounds at http://random-toxy.dmusic.com/
icisnizz	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 3:20 AM I do think geners suck big time. 103 - the number of self promoters in the hip-hop dm picks thread. check out there stuff. (Random Toxy, think, if everyone did what your doing this place would me a madd house. Well it's close to that but not as crazy as it could be...)
FarmerBrowne	Date: November 6, 2002 @ 7:40 AM imagine how much time i'd waste looking for that fresh new joint, if i had to wade through a mass of sounds that do not appeal to the best of my senses!
milladrive	Date: November 6, 2002 @ 2:12 PM Imagine missing out on a boatload of great music because we're relegating ourselves to a style categorized by someone else. Every one of those country/rock tracks that RandomToxy climbed could very easily be produced as an electronic track (or any style for that matter). Do we really wanna cut off the song to spite the music?
pog	Date: November 7, 2002 @ 1:01 PM Bring on the tibetan philharmonic yak horn sections I say !!!
Svensta	Date: November 8, 2002 @ 8:41 AM tibetan philharmonic yak horns really whip the llama's ass.
milladrive	Date: November 8, 2002 @ 9:17 AM hehehe
Svensta	Date: November 9, 2002 @ 11:02 AM Seriously, for me I only know of two genres: Songs I like and songs I don't like Classifying it any other way means missing out on a possible new favorite song, in my mind
milladrive	Date: November 9, 2002 @ 11:27 AM That's exactly it, Sven. Well put.
creativetim	Date: November 9, 2002 @ 1:40 PM Very well put!
CinemA	Date: November 10, 2002 @ 3:17 PM yes, they do, i feel that its all music and i kinda like MOST hybrid music...
DraKK	Date: November 26, 2002 @ 5:44 AM Well.. its also got to do with peoples taste... for example,.. u said is Hip hop r&b... well i'd say no.. i like hip hop.. but there is hardly any r&b i like... so the reason they are Seperated is because they are different,, there maybe crosses from one to another but there might be a tree growing in ur neighbours backyard that leans over ur fence... sure its there to piss u off but in the end its ur neighbours tree
milladrive	Date: November 26, 2002 @ 9:07 AM Ahhh, but much of the neighbor's fruit falls in our yards. That makes the fruit ours. You say you don't like much r&b, but yet you like a lotta hiphop. I like a lotta rock, but I don't care much for contemporary heavy metal, hardcore, or thrash. Does this mean those genres are also under the rock umbrella? They sure are. As is hiphop under the r&b umbrella. Like it or not, hiphop is indeed a form of r&b. ...Hell, so is most rock for that matter. I still assert that the reason they are classified so much is for marketing purposes only, and it's served to give us a pretty poor perception of how close the various forms of music really are.
starseven	Date: November 27, 2002 @ 1:58 AM i dont; think so.. they generes are related.. because they take from the same places.. sometimes each other.. but the only reason to have genres is to tell things apart..... describe what something sounds like.... but there are no rules... you can put things where ever you want
starseven	Date: November 27, 2002 @ 2:05 AM did that make any sense? it;s late
teknokimono	Date: December 16, 2002 @ 7:18 PM Bands have usually stuck to a genre based on the interaction of their musicians, and over time bands have moved from one to another, sometimes creating their own sub-genres. Computers have allowed, given enough time, for anyone to create as many "virtual musicians" using any possible combination of "virtual instruments" that normally might have been too expensive to experiment with in real life. Perhaps the most important thing they've done is remove the arguments, the scheduling issues, the confusion and allowed a single person to create what they have in their mind; with enough dedication it can sound almost exactly like it does in the head. Computers have allowed artists to use computers as musical labs of sorts, to mix ingridents. A simple example perhaps can illustrate it best. Let's do a symphonic opening for 10 seconds, full stop, switch to 3/4, play accordian for three seconds, bring symphonic orchestra back in, start a rapper on the left speaker to the rhythm of the strings section, no beats, introduce a rapper on the right speaker that's responding to the left rapper, fade in electronic 303/505 noises in the center. Rapper starts to slow down his rapping until it's rock sounding, and the electronic sounds of the 303 are slowly tweaked until they sound like a screeching electric guitar, and a 909 pops in along the 505 sounding like a typical rock drum but harder. What would you classify this as, because that's how I compose my music. The issue I have with genres is not one of them existing or not, but rather of how the listener will be exposed to "my" (ie. your) music, what they will associate with "my" song and how they return to the site. Whereas I don't hate any particular genre, it's evident everyone has their own preferences. I tend to dislike most rap (all subgenres), and tend to prefer more instrumental pieces. This is purely my own tastes, and those shouldn't be forced on everyone, no matter how valid they may seem to me. To this effect, as a listener I'd like to NOT listen to rap at all. Am I excluding a potential number of amazing and intelligent artists? Probably, but I'm not interested in lyrical superiority, I'm more interested in instrumental orchestration, musical (instrumental) structure. This perhaps explains why I love some jazz and rock songs as well, where there are lyrics sung, why I enjoy some well produced techno and eurotechno, but not all. And what about when I am in the mood to write a novel and wish to listen to music that sounds like it came straight from a movie soundtrack? Some might think rap as in the soundtrack for Bones, others may think more traditional soundtracks that are mostly classical, such as that for Jurrasic Park or even The Perfect Storm. Maybe I want to listen to soundtrack to Cowboy Bebop, jazzy something subgenre? Categorization of music allows the listener, without knowing the artists, to start listening to songs that fit their current desire or mood. Through this process, the listener is introduced to artists, which usually leads to the listener exploring other songs by this artist. For the artist, categorization of music allows them to market on the principle of clubs, radios and media in general. There is a reason I don't go to clubs that play hip hop, rap, or heavy metal or even jazz, but do prefer ones that play eurotechno. Unfortunately there is no club scene for classical music, these are called Concerts. :) Therefore, categorization is beneficial to all it seems. Perhaps the listener should clasiffy the music themselves, and the site, which is primarly a listener-resource for music as much as an artist-resource for inspiration, should display listener-genres instead of artist-imposed genres. I don't classify my music, and forcing me to do so would result in an unjustified classification or the creation of a potentially almost-empty sub-category. As in the case above, will it be a rock-rap-techno-classical category? Will the song belong to all four? It's difficult to pick the better decision between multiple genres, single but limited genres with the understanding they aren't ideal, or no genres at all. So why not leave this choice up to the listeners? The artist could provide a guiding choice, whereby you place your song into a genre initially. The listeneres can add "genre pushes" to your song. If enough people feel your song is not "rock" but is indeed "rap", the song "moves over". After all, as an artist, you can't really argue with it, you're arguing against those who like listening to your song and who classify it in their heads a certain way. And if you're going to argue with that, I fail to see the point of releasing music. There is the potential for this system, like any peer system, to get abused. A disgrunteled artist might wish to push "my" song into an undesirable or incorrect category. But with proper security measures, it is very possible to eliminate almost all attempts. Besides, common sense can always be used by the admins and by the site's majority. But how to decide on the genres that are available in the "pull down list" that artists and listeneres see? That's another thing I've never seen anywhere done yet. Why not start off with an initial set, make it a "core set" perhaps, and then allow the members of dmusic, artists and non-artists, to "push" genres on or off the list. A genre can only go away from the list if there are no songs listed under it, of course. And a genre may only be added if a song needs to be placed into it, this eliminates unneeded genres. In other words, this would be a completely peer-driven system, where genres are listed according to the desires of listeners and musicians, and the same would apply for song's genres. It should be immediately easy and instanteous to "push" a song or "push" a genre, shouldn't take more than a single mouse click once logged in, or the system won't be useful/effective. By push I obviously mean to add/remove/change..etc As an artist, one might object to being categorized into a category you don't agree with. "Damn it, my song isn't classical, it's Baroque!". But keep in mind that when someone does buy your CD, they will put it next to an artist they feel you are close to, or next to another non-RIAA member, or in their pile of "for exercise only". In other words, your CD, record, mp3/ogg, will be categorized by the listenere whoever they wish, and you can't, nor should you, control that, as an artist. Think of yourself as a parent of a child. Once it grows up, you give it your love and let it go in the world. Where it ends up, is up to those who it interacts with. You can merely set it on a path of interaction you feel is best. :) This is nothing more than my thoughts on the matter, and how I see things. I hope I didn't offend anyone by "singling out" rap, as merely that is my own listening preference, so it really shouldn't have been taken as offensive. Ciao!" id="28383">After reading this whole thread I feel I have something useful to contribute. It will take me a bit to explain it, so bare with me and read calmly and slowly Whether or not genres are usefull or not is something I don't feel is a useful question, or a productive one. It's obvious people separate and group things. Some do it based on their listening preference, or by RIAA-membership, perhaps a genre based on the tools used to make music (acoustic, electronic, vocal, then the three dual combos, and a final one that includes all three?). So what in essence are genres like Classical, Rock, Techno, Rap in fact based on? They surely aren't based on personal preference, nor on RIAA-membership, and not even on the method of production/composition/recording. These genre types, which is what they are, they seem to be based primarly on instruments used and a certain atmosphere associated with the "genre" the song has been "placed" into. Although it is possible to create a rock song using electronic "instruments" (such as sine waves, synth sounds,...etc) rarely does it give the same atmosphere and emotional effect as a guitar/base/drum song, although it can happen; hence why I've said "primarly", as there are numerous factors. Bands have usually stuck to a genre based on the interaction of their musicians, and over time bands have moved from one to another, sometimes creating their own sub-genres. Computers have allowed, given enough time, for anyone to create as many "virtual musicians" using any possible combination of "virtual instruments" that normally might have been too expensive to experiment with in real life. Perhaps the most important thing they've done is remove the arguments, the scheduling issues, the confusion and allowed a single person to create what they have in their mind; with enough dedication it can sound almost exactly like it does in the head. Computers have allowed artists to use computers as musical labs of sorts, to mix ingridents. A simple example perhaps can illustrate it best. Let's do a symphonic opening for 10 seconds, full stop, switch to 3/4, play accordian for three seconds, bring symphonic orchestra back in, start a rapper on the left speaker to the rhythm of the strings section, no beats, introduce a rapper on the right speaker that's responding to the left rapper, fade in electronic 303/505 noises in the center. Rapper starts to slow down his rapping until it's rock sounding, and the electronic sounds of the 303 are slowly tweaked until they sound like a screeching electric guitar, and a 909 pops in along the 505 sounding like a typical rock drum but harder. What would you classify this as, because that's how I compose my music. The issue I have with genres is not one of them existing or not, but rather of how the listener will be exposed to "my" (ie. your) music, what they will associate with "my" song and how they return to the site. Whereas I don't hate any particular genre, it's evident everyone has their own preferences. I tend to dislike most rap (all subgenres), and tend to prefer more instrumental pieces. This is purely my own tastes, and those shouldn't be forced on everyone, no matter how valid they may seem to me. To this effect, as a listener I'd like to NOT listen to rap at all. Am I excluding a potential number of amazing and intelligent artists? Probably, but I'm not interested in lyrical superiority, I'm more interested in instrumental orchestration, musical (instrumental) structure. This perhaps explains why I love some jazz and rock songs as well, where there are lyrics sung, why I enjoy some well produced techno and eurotechno, but not all. And what about when I am in the mood to write a novel and wish to listen to music that sounds like it came straight from a movie soundtrack? Some might think rap as in the soundtrack for Bones, others may think more traditional soundtracks that are mostly classical, such as that for Jurrasic Park or even The Perfect Storm. Maybe I want to listen to soundtrack to Cowboy Bebop, jazzy something subgenre? Categorization of music allows the listener, without knowing the artists, to start listening to songs that fit their current desire or mood. Through this process, the listener is introduced to artists, which usually leads to the listener exploring other songs by this artist. For the artist, categorization of music allows them to market on the principle of clubs, radios and media in general. There is a reason I don't go to clubs that play hip hop, rap, or heavy metal or even jazz, but do prefer ones that play eurotechno. Unfortunately there is no club scene for classical music, these are called Concerts. Therefore, categorization is beneficial to all it seems. Perhaps the listener should clasiffy the music themselves, and the site, which is primarly a listener-resource for music as much as an artist-resource for inspiration, should display listener-genres instead of artist-imposed genres. I don't classify my music, and forcing me to do so would result in an unjustified classification or the creation of a potentially almost-empty sub-category. As in the case above, will it be a rock-rap-techno-classical category? Will the song belong to all four? It's difficult to pick the better decision between multiple genres, single but limited genres with the understanding they aren't ideal, or no genres at all. So why not leave this choice up to the listeners? The artist could provide a guiding choice, whereby you place your song into a genre initially. The listeneres can add "genre pushes" to your song. If enough people feel your song is not "rock" but is indeed "rap", the song "moves over". After all, as an artist, you can't really argue with it, you're arguing against those who like listening to your song and who classify it in their heads a certain way. And if you're going to argue with that, I fail to see the point of releasing music. There is the potential for this system, like any peer system, to get abused. A disgrunteled artist might wish to push "my" song into an undesirable or incorrect category. But with proper security measures, it is very possible to eliminate almost all attempts. Besides, common sense can always be used by the admins and by the site's majority. But how to decide on the genres that are available in the "pull down list" that artists and listeneres see? That's another thing I've never seen anywhere done yet. Why not start off with an initial set, make it a "core set" perhaps, and then allow the members of dmusic, artists and non-artists, to "push" genres on or off the list. A genre can only go away from the list if there are no songs listed under it, of course. And a genre may only be added if a song needs to be placed into it, this eliminates unneeded genres. In other words, this would be a completely peer-driven system, where genres are listed according to the desires of listeners and musicians, and the same would apply for song's genres. It should be immediately easy and instanteous to "push" a song or "push" a genre, shouldn't take more than a single m ouse click once logged in, or the system won't be useful/effective. By push I obviously mean to add/remove/change..etc As an artist, one might object to being categorized into a category you don't agree with. "Damn it, my song isn't classical, it's Baroque!". But keep in mind that when someone does buy your CD, they will put it next to an artist they feel you are close to, or next to another non-RIAA member, or in their pile of "for exercise only". In other words, your CD, record, mp3/ogg, will be categorized by the listenere whoever they wish, and you can't, nor should you, control that, as an artist. Think of yourself as a parent of a child. Once it grows up, you give it your love and let it go in the world. Where it ends up, is up to those who it interacts with. You can merely set it on a path of interaction you feel is best. This is nothing more than my thoughts on the matter, and how I see things. I hope I didn't offend anyone by "singling out" rap, as merely that is my own listening preference, so it really shouldn't have been taken as offensive. Ciao!
mcarp555	Date: December 16, 2002 @ 7:46 PM I like the idea, but don't know how hard it would be to implement from a programming point. Also, while the potential for abuse is there, I would worry more about unintentional mis-labeling that might serve to alienate future listeners. Still, it does indeed happen all the time in real life. Might be useful if you could see something like "listener genre votes" showing 71.3% of respondents consider song X to be 'rock'. 11.7% say 'country', 2.9% vote 'folk rock', etc.
milladrive	Date: December 16, 2002 @ 9:08 PM Woof. Wow. heh ...That post defies classification. =P
olethros	Date: December 19, 2002 @ 2:24 PM plus with some attributes like "has guitars" "real drummer used" "danceable" Unless it belongs to a very strictly defined genre such as for example "Salsa", "Tango", "Waltz". !> Or stuff. " id="28773">Maybe it would be nice to have something else instead - have the artist choose adjectives describing his piece: "Hectic/dark/brooding/sweet/happy/hard" plus with some attributes like "has guitars" "real drummer used" "danceable" Or stuff.
bassmankane	Date: December 19, 2002 @ 5:16 PM Could the artist list multiple genres, maybe under a ranking system? (ie., I'm mostly Rock, but some Bluegrass, and a little Mjitrbeet Clam-Dancing) That way the user could search for a Rockin Clam Dancer and find exactly what they're looking for. Or maybe not.
Elu	Date: December 23, 2002 @ 10:57 AM Geeze...No offense to anyone here, but give me a break!...why even discuss genres? Music has got to be categorized. You can't just walk into a record store full of stuff and guess what you are getting. Especially since many artists on this site are anti-record co. How in the world does anyone expect to get their stuff out there?...through osmosis? I still think this site rocks!
Remye	Date: January 5, 2003 @ 10:46 AM Use of Genre should in my humble opinion only be used as a guidepost to find what you like, nothing more. I don't use it to pigeonhole a song or artist into something I don't like. I just use it to say "I like rock beats, heavy guitars and a hard bass line ala' Ted Nugent or Gary Hoey.. so I peruse the "rock" genres from time to time. I also like _some_ R&B stuff, like Fugees and such, so I peruse the R&B stuff. Use it as a tool instead of as a down and dirty way to pigeon hole your tastes and it makes a lot more sense. TTMMM " id="29614">um.. Salsa, Tango and Waltz are tempos.. or for the uninformed and illiterate, beats of a sort.. not genres! Genres merely typify the style that the artist (or person who is classifying the music) is trying to elaborate on or be associated with. Look at the recent posting at YahooMusic of a KidRock song as a COUNTRY song? He's a rock/r&b musician to most, yet he got one song (maybe two I didn't look cuz country ain't MY thing) he's suddenly a country singer? Genre is more closely related to the word "style" than anything else in this sense, since that's what it is. It's a category if you will of songs or music that have the same style (meaning beat, rhythm or instrumentation) as others. Use of Genre should in my humble opinion only be used as a guidepost to find what you like, nothing more. I don't use it to pigeonhole a song or artist into something I don't like. I just use it to say "I like rock beats, heavy guitars and a hard bass line ala' Ted Nugent or Gary Hoey.. so I peruse the "rock" genres from time to time. I also like _some_ R&B stuff, like Fugees and such, so I peruse the R&B stuff. Use it as a tool instead of as a down and dirty way to pigeon hole your tastes and it makes a lot more sense. TTMMM
SoulBeats	Date: January 5, 2003 @ 10:59 AM Another resurrection. I think he has a point there (I hope, cos I'm not sure about anything.)
Cryxan	Date: January 5, 2003 @ 6:23 PM Kid Rock does indeed have a country song, a duet with Sheryl Crow. I agree with Remye that it's merely a style thing--but for some reason, "style" is a lot more loosely defined, where genres try to make things much more specific and end up only causing trouble.
jkate	Date: January 5, 2003 @ 11:00 PM Genres are a fault-free tool. Keeping an open mind is the anti-dote. Don't blame the human-made category. Read reviews. Listen for yourself. eyes open...ears open. kate www.anti-industry.com" id="29655">Dentist = necessary evil Orifice exams = necessary evil Genres = necessary evil I think producing mixed albums are the best answer. A couple of years ago I was in Toronto and picked up an "alternative" CD from Sony. (before I had the sense to hate them for the mechanical heartless bastards they are) On it was "Warning" from System of A Down, I'd never heard of SOAD before and I loved that song. It paved the way for me listening to and LIKING SOAD even though they are much harder and more psychotic that my preferred music with depth and range. Genres are a fault-free tool. Keeping an open mind is the anti-dote. Don't blame the human-made category. Read reviews. Listen for yourself. eyes open...ears open. kate www.anti-industry.com
pog	Date: January 5, 2003 @ 11:31 PM Good advice, kate, but you're totally missing the point that this thread was started. I, personally don't have any qualms with niches and genre's, but as a muso, I refuse to be classified (my songs, however...knock yerself out). This is because I can play blues, funk, fusion, metal, death, rock, punk (old and new), ambient electronica, country, folk, r&b, classical, etc. so, as an artist, I can draw on no particular type of style to get new ideas. Now where's my yak horn and goat leggings...
jkate	Date: January 5, 2003 @ 11:41 PM This one artist on anti-industry.com has influences on his music page of NIN, Ministry, etc, and his music was pretty much right on. If I ever get some of my originals up, you'll hear my hippie influences a lot, not to mention some of my alt rock/distortion love too. I know your frustration when people say "what kind of music do you write?" Everything! dammit!" id="29664">It looks like when I opened this thread I went straight to page 2, so I missed the first 100 replies, lol. (yeah, I'm an IT manager, what about it!!) I see what you mean. Maybe there can be an area of "influences" instead of genres. If I know who someone loves, I get an idea of the different elements they will let bleed into the music. This one artist on anti-industry.com has influences on his music page of NIN, Ministry, etc, and his music was pretty much right on. If I ever get some of my originals up, you'll hear my hippie influences a lot, not to mention some of my alt rock/distortion love too. I know your frustration when people say "what kind of music do you write?" Everything! dammit!
pog	Date: January 6, 2003 @ 7:05 AM Oh look, you've committed yourself now - I'll be looking forward to hearing your muzix, but I must warn you... the genre topic on this thread will be the least of your worries once you're hooked on this site.
jkate	Date: January 6, 2003 @ 4:01 PM Doesn't pog mean kiss in Irish?
azhazhellfire	Date: January 7, 2003 @ 2:38 AM it does indeed
curvyangel40...	Date: January 17, 2003 @ 12:21 AM Finally...someone has said it other than me...genres aren't exactly fair. i hate them. the history of genres can be extracted from the history of segregation...seperate but equal ,de jure.... a pain en mi los pompeis, de facto.
pog	Date: January 17, 2003 @ 8:27 AM I didn't know that it was irish... kewl
jkate	Date: January 17, 2003 @ 9:39 AM You're Irish now. According to the RIAA, once you are labeled, that sticky crap is NEVER coming off. I sure hope you like potatoes and corned beef. And liquor.
olethros	Date: January 20, 2003 @ 11:33 AM Remye blurted: um.. Salsa, Tango and Waltz are tempos.. Try telling that to the bands that perform Salsa! All the music is extremely similar. The same goes for a lot of folk music from other countries (that is what Salsa is anyway). They don't just keep the tempo, they keep EVERYTHING. They only use half a dozen different similar chord progressions that after an equal number of songs become immediately identifiable. Even the singing is done in a 'traditional' way. Some (extremely stupid) people try and 'modernize' folk music such as this by changing the beat (they say it is a house/techno mix, but it is a piece of smelly crap) - but I have never ever seen any kind of progress in the form of folk music. The only difference really is the lyrics. Anyway, enough ranting.. I'll be making some 'different' folk music soon, already made a 'Zimpekiko' and a 'Tsifteteli', will soon try a 'Xasapiko' and some 'Salsa' and put them up here...
jkate	Date: January 21, 2003 @ 8:23 AM What do you consider folk music? I think of James Taylor...Crosby Stills & Nash...Cat Stevens (ahhh my favorites).
olethros	Date: January 21, 2003 @ 8:34 AM " id="30833">Folk is any type/style of music that is confined to a limited geographical location/culture/time period and that has a lot of stereotyped passages/rhythms or some other identifying element, such as a particular way of dancing it. Those identifying elements have usually matured for a very long time and are now stable. Folk music thus tends to branch off to very specific styles and die. I'd like to make some "new-wave" folk music, but I know that the people that like folk would not accept it as 'real' folk and that those that hate folk would just hate it.
olethros	Date: January 21, 2003 @ 8:35 AM PS. Although I have heard folk music from various countries, I cannot identify any particular artists.
Remye	Date: January 22, 2003 @ 9:18 AM ttmmm" id="30954">blurted? LOL.. good one. But seriously folks..those ARE tempos.. Salsa happens to be an easily defined TEMPO of Latin music.. but I guess that's just the way I see it.. plenty of room for interpretation there. I will say again that genres are just sort of "guidelines" if you will.. of how/where a song/album could be placed.. there are LOT of Eagles tunes, as well as other artists.. that are placed in the Country Genre as well as in Pop or even Top 40..but some people ONLY know them as one or the other. NBD..but I think that it does behoove everyone to open up a bit and realise that just cuz it LOOKS like a duck, and quacks like a duck.. it MIGHT be a platypus.. or something ttmmm
jkate	Date: January 22, 2003 @ 9:27 AM Wow olethros, you actually made folk sound intentional and complex, and not the backwater hee-haw that some of it is I still love contemporary folk tho. Words are so powerful.
olethros	Date: January 22, 2003 @ 9:53 AM He - did you ever get to listen to folk music from other countries? I have only listened to greek, italian, irish and US (country) myself. Quote: - What kinds of music do you have here? - Why, we have both kinds, Country AND Western
olethros	Date: January 22, 2003 @ 9:56 AM Oh, and from what I heard from latin america, salsa is considered folk music. The kind of thing that you might be dancing with your grandmother when you're a young boy . Folk music is a way of life. Of course in other countries it is 'hip'. I guess flamenco is a kind of folk music too. Or was.
Cryxan	Date: January 25, 2003 @ 6:24 AM Interesting how this discussion took a turn towards folk music. I definitely agree with olethros that folk music is a way of life. If you grow up with it, it's your friend for life.
milladrive	Date: January 25, 2003 @ 9:48 AM Just more labels we get to suck on. What I find interesting is how a discussion intended to show how broad music really is and how weakly the genres hold it all together for marketing purposes, has turned into a discussion further detailing whatever genres our favorites happen to be. Btw, no genre is a "tempo." Simply put, a tempo is the rate at which the song is performed. A genre has nothing to do with speed.
mcarp555	Date: January 25, 2003 @ 4:08 PM And just to aggro things further, in the US, what olethos is calling Folk music is considered "World Music". Folk in the US is anything from acoustic to bluegrass.
GrooveTonic	Date: January 25, 2003 @ 4:46 PM Folk music just means music of the people. Whatever that means.
Mookrit	Date: January 25, 2003 @ 11:09 PM He is known as the King, the biggest entertainer ever. He is remembered every year by thousands of people the world over, his achievements in music and outside of it are well known. Yes, there is only one Elvis Presley. One human being whose career spanned 21 years but was cut short by a tragic death at the age of 42. He was someone whom most could relate to, his singing was startlingly natural, his personality – real. Yet there is something more he achieved, he unknowingly united a nation. People of all cultures throughout America in the 1960’s and 1970’s loved to groove to his easy to listen songs. Sure he caused a fair share of controversy amongst parents, but judging by today’s lax social standards, they had nothing to worry about. There were no classifications or boundaries back then, at least not much. If someone wanted to make music, no one questioned what type of music. Elvis did not cop flak from critics as to whether he was staying in his specific genre by making a mix of R&B and rock. It is feel good music that still manages to shake my bones to this day. Elvis never stepped into a recording studio till he was 18, when he recorded a personal song for his mother. Of course, when his mother heard his deep, drawling voice there was no doubt of his musical gift. He was destined for fame, yet fame did not mould him to what he was; he did that himself. His aim was to please the crowd. A huge amount of vigorous enthusiasm was put into everything he did. With a larger than life head, wavy black hair and wondering eyes practically everyone who has met Elvis is quick to say what a pleasure it was speaking to him. He gave the impression that he was modest, clean and simple. What a difference from today’s bling-bling culture! Nowadays popular music is of many genres. Artists such as Eminem have gradually intertwined rock and rap to create mainstream material. In White America, Eminem makes reference to his broader audience, although such generalization is impossible. There are so many different fan groups: some follow hip-hop others are devoted to techno. Music has been separated into various streams as a result of the evolving fan base. Punk fans expect to see their favorite musicians with pierced eyebrows, ears and nose. On the other hand hip-hop fans expect baggy pants, gold chains and a definite attitude. I guess one could say it is the qualification to make the cut. Fashion first, music second. Techno asserts itself with sleeveless shirts, colorful clothes and wearable accessories. Rock fans demand tattoos, baseball caps and brand-name labels. Pop entertainers have an entirely different dress code: wear as little as possible. That is for the girls, for the guys: dress hip, be cheerful, ‘respect’ the music. They are a little more flexible. Dark angel Pinks song Don’t Let Me Get Me contains these lyrics: “L.A. told me you’ll be a pop star/all you have to change is everything you are.” Speaks for itself does it not? Pop is somewhat new to me, but it involves claims of being unique even if you do not write your own songs. Nsync, the Backstreet Boys, Westlife and Blue are a couple that fit in here. Basically music has transformed into some sort of machine, producing meaningless one-hit wonders, with equally meaningless songs. Some such as the ones mentioned above, have managed to stick around longer than most. Quite categorically, industry executives latch on to one moneymaking person after another. Recently, Holly Valance fired off three successive singles, Kiss Kiss, Down Boy, and Naughty Girl. See anything familiar? All three singles contain sexual innuendo – surprise, surprise – in fact the video clip for Kiss Kiss depicts Holly Valance as being completely naked. And this is on early-morning Saturday kid TV. When and how did people start stooping to such lows to make a quick buck? Seemingly even in the heyday of Elvis. As his popularity grew, more frequent gyrating hip movements were encouraged, a system of having shirts that left his chest visible was put into place. His hand movements quickened, and occasionally there was a subliminal raunchiness to a few of his songs. Yep, the propensity towards a sex symbol was exploited back then too, but not in such explicit terms. These days it’s more of a soft porn clip than art. What ever happened to traditional musicians like Tracy Chapman whose Grammy hit Fast Car must have inspired someone somewhere? I still own a couple of Grammy hit tapes from 1987 onwards. Those songs were classics, something to be held onto, relevant in all settings. Listen to them repeatedly and they just get better. Commercial radio in the new millennium plays what is in my view, trash. Listen to Work It by Missy Elliot… convinced? Or that song about licking, by Khia… satisfied? Listen to these songs maybe 10 times and then dispose of them. Rap is popular because of its realness, however commercialized it may be. I suppose this is a good sign. People are reviving an interest in music from the heart. I do not know if music has evolved with the times, but it just does not seem right for image-consumed artists to win Grammy’s. The whole concept of a Grammy should be to award realness that reflects the actual culture the artist grew up in, not a made up or stereotyped one. Sometimes it feels like the ramblings of Vanilla Ice all over again. Sure I appreciate the hard work Kylie Minogue and others put in. But please, do not compromise the integrity and prestige of the Grammy’s by continuing to award this coveted prize to those who don’t deserve it. There are other awards that are clearly commercial like the MTV awards that would be more suitable for these artists. Reserve the prestige of this award, I’m sure previous winners in the early 90’s would want their trophy to be worth something. Although pop artists may deserve it for their talent, they probably don’t deserve it for their originality and freshness. The mainstream has become too superficial. I for one am going to start listening to underground/unsigned musicians who reflect their personality, not their producers.
Remye	Date: February 3, 2003 @ 8:03 PM oof.. long post. didnt' read half of it tho.. sorry. it just got long. I liked Elvis too, and he had an influence on many people as you say. hrmm.. I'm just much on long essays smirk.

Previous 100

Page: [ 1 2 ]

~~Next 100~~

Post A Reply
From:	Guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: