DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads

Electric guitars, Classical guitars, Guitar amps and more.

zZounds.com offers recording equipment for starting and experienced musicians. Find the best prices on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, classical guitars and more.

Forums > The General Forum: Thoughts For The Day

your genre

2step-4eva	Date: March 21, 2005 @ 2:30 PM man i have spent many a pissed hour at the pub arguing with my guitar playing mates about why or why not rock music is/isnt better than dance music...they are very opinionated. i take it lots of u are opinionated about music since this is a music site. any1 wanna argue why their genre is the best?
Cryxan	Date: March 21, 2005 @ 5:58 PM Why argue over something that just comes down to personal preference? There is no right answer.
moam	Date: March 21, 2005 @ 6:18 PM Well, I don't want to be cocky so I'm not going to say anything. I love all music and I don't think a genre of music is better than any. It depends on the artist and how the artist creates his/her music for that genre.
zedsalt	Date: March 22, 2005 @ 12:03 PM Thee practice of categorization is pretty useless and arbitrary, anyway.
2step-4eva	Date: March 22, 2005 @ 12:32 PM yeh i do agree with u guys it is basically personal preference, but as u can see i was hoping to start an argument...a lot of stuff definately can be categorised. i notice that a lot of stuff on this site is really original definately more than u normally hear so it would be hard to categorise it, and i love the way they dont care about the rules or boundaries. a lot of ppl also make stuff that fits neatly into a genre and this is no bad thing, i think certain sounds of music that become popular do for a reason - that they combine a lot of elements that work well together so why change a formula that works? one thing i hear a lot from ppl i know is that anything produced on a computer isnt "real music". they say where is the talent involved, where is the feeling, and music=musical instruments. and they say dance music all sounds the same, and that its music for idiots or chavs. obviously u wud think they have no clue what they are talking about but 1 reason this annoys me is that ppl who say these things do actually know a lot about music and are really into it just as much as me. its good 2 see that u ppl can see past short sighted views of what is good and what is "chav music" (like they always accuse dance of being), but we all like an argument dont we. (um well i do)
rhthesinner	Date: March 22, 2005 @ 3:55 PM As far as I'm concerned there are only two types of music. Music I like and music I don't like The latter is miniscule to say the least!
kingo	Date: March 22, 2005 @ 5:04 PM Man, I fucking hate music.
leplume	Date: March 22, 2005 @ 7:51 PM Man, I fucking love music.
Veracohr	Date: March 22, 2005 @ 8:57 PM It's kind of surprising sometimes how vehment people who don't like electronic music can be when expressing their opinions of it.
wet1	Date: March 22, 2005 @ 9:00 PM It isn't just one form of music. It always boils down to "one mans trash" thing. Sort of like arguing religion there is never a clear cut winner in such as it always amounts to personal preferance no matter the genre nor the talent level.
bLINK2005uk	Date: April 3, 2005 @ 3:21 PM punk kicks ass simple not this post punk but the good old kicking headbutting being sick on the crowd punk
EvilPicnic	Date: May 21, 2005 @ 8:13 AM What I think is a more important question (sorry to hijack the thread) is whether music is art or not. I think there is a line between an 'art' musician - someone who makes music for the love of the music, and a 'pop' musician - someone who makes music beacuse it's their job and it makes them popular, gets them supermodel girlfriends etc. Now 99.999999% of musicians we hear fall into this 'pop' category because of the capitalist,money grabbing, record label culture, and the 'coolness' factor. The performers with record selling potential are picked up by the labels over innovative, avant-garde musicians for obvious reasons; they sell. Frank Zappa started off consciously trying to make an impact on music, but it was only in the last years of his life when he realised that all the innovative, oddly-metred songs about dental floss, titties and beer he'd been writing for decades were in the 'pop' category. He then moved on to 'art' music, dropped his over-the-top stage act and as a result sold less records. I don't pretend to be an expert, I'm 16, but this is how the moern musical world appears through my eyes, and I don't much like it. Now, in my categories I'm not saying that 'art' is better than 'pop'. Most of the stuff I like is 'pop', but I also like a lot of 'art'. It's all 'music'. As for the rock-is-better-than-dance thing, I can't comment, because I don't know how to work a sequencer or a drum machine, or anything above a simple synthesizer. However, from my experience, writing a decent rock song isn't actually that hard... And anyway, both genres mostly come under the 'pop' umbrella with a few noted exceptions. This means the way the way the 'product' is sold is often arguably more important than the musical content...
GTOriginal	Date: May 21, 2005 @ 11:23 AM Music calms the savage beast.
swoppy	Date: May 21, 2005 @ 11:26 AM I have a like for all music, nomatter what style that has been played to express a thought or feeling. I dislike all music that is made to impress or even worse, just to make money
zedsalt	Date: May 21, 2005 @ 1:11 PM Is music art? There are as many answers to that as there are musicians. Swoppy hit the nail on the head. The opposite of "artful" is "contrived"; honest self-expression rules. They tell me every rule needs an exception, and one of my fave bands seems to be one. It blew my mind to hear members of Pink Floyd talking about how much concern they gave to how commercial their tunes would be. Listening to their music, one might think I meant that they consciously AVOIDED anything "Pop", but according to their interviews, songs like "See Emily Play" were written with a great deal of importance placed on how well they'd sell! I can't speak for anyone else, but that just boggles my mind. EvilPicnic made me do a double-take, too, by suggesting that FZ's Fusion work fell into the Pop category. I mean, obviously, "Joe's Garage, pts.1-3" sold more copies than "Civilization, pts.1-3", but everyone I've heard who bought the former and passed on the latter said it was...at least in part...because the Fusion material seemed much more innovative and the symphonic stuff took some already very well-trodden paths. I suppose the important thing is that Zappa did the music he wanted how he wanted to, from before playing a bicycle on the Steve Allen Show to his last symphonic opus.
mdearing	Date: May 21, 2005 @ 3:21 PM Frank rules!
EvilPicnic	Date: May 21, 2005 @ 4:48 PM FZ is the best. Zappa probably wasn't the best of examples, but what the hell. I haven't really thought about this topic much, and what I wrote above was a spur-of-the-moment thing, which I know see as abscenely black-and-white. The world isn't like that, there are infinite shades of grey inbetween. Any labels are arbitrary. As you can tell this is a sort of stream of consciousness thing... If you take an arty artist at one end of the spectrum and a pop product at the other, all musicians fall in the grey area in the middle. Yes, most acts want to be innovative and ground-breaking, but they also need to accept that being a 'successful' musician is as much a job as being a bus driver. Does this mean then that the most real, vital musicians are those who don't have it as a profession? But then they are the ones you don't hear... Which is where this site comes in! Anyway, as far as Zappa is concerned, (IMO) Joe's Garage sold more copies than Civilization phase III because it was a more accessable album in terms of music, especially to the rock fans Zappa picked up with Apostrophe(') and Overnite-Sensation; a band of drums, bass,guitar, marimba etc. as opposed to Synclavier generated symphonies. I don't think it was because the former was more innovative than the latter, I think it was because the latter was less accessable by the masses. Zappa wasn't doing anything new with his sound, rock operas weren't exactly a new thing, and I think there was even a single, Joe's Garage (but don't quote me on that). Anyway, it doesn't matter. Zappa is my favourite artist and I love everything he did, Joe's Garage is one of my favourite albums, and I'm just generally mouthing off opinionatedly. Ignore everything I've just said.
-dp-	Date: May 22, 2005 @ 9:39 AM Music is art for sure, but the question is what is art, how do you define it. Big beat and House are the 2 best as they're purley based around the idea of euphoria. But then again all music is great.
djeffectz	Date: May 31, 2005 @ 9:10 PM I listen to nearly anything.. I'll go from Toby Keith, to Flogging Molly, to Toto, to Crystal Method, to Paul Oakenfold, to Dope all in one sitting on my computer. lol I love all kinds of music. Music is ALL preference; there is no BEST genre.
koiulpoi	Date: June 6, 2005 @ 4:12 PM My genere is the best. Why? It's been determined my music needs it's own damn genere.
iOrbit	Date: June 6, 2005 @ 8:26 PM Have to agree with koiulpoi, his genre is pretty awesome
koiulpoi	Date: June 7, 2005 @ 10:12 AM Now, all I need is a good name for my genere. Like... TechnaDistor SoulEater TranceThingy...