Can anyone think of...

SeventhSon

SeventhSon

Jason Gillespie


there's a modern metal section and a prog section in my local cd shop.

indie/alternative became an established genre in the 90s

Wow.  You're right!  Indie probably did rise out of the 90s!!  And it's relatively distinct and still going strong today.  It took many posts and lots of debate but that is definitely the best answer so far.

<BUZZER NOISE>

To quote Wikipedia:

"Indie rock is a genre of alternative rock that originated in the United Kingdom and the United States in the 1980s. "

Ok, any more suggestions?

So it's come to quoting wiki. hehe
Yeah it had it's origins in the 80s but indie over here anyway only became a recognisable genre in the 90s that you'd see heading a shop display.
I'll give another suggestion though. Emo came out of the 90s and developed into the 2000s.

Jason Gillespie

SeventhSon

SeventhSon

Jason Gillespie


there's a modern metal section and a prog section in my local cd shop.

indie/alternative became an established genre in the 90s

Wow.  You're right!  Indie probably did rise out of the 90s!!  And it's relatively distinct and still going strong today.  It took many posts and lots of debate but that is definitely the best answer so far.

<BUZZER NOISE>

To quote Wikipedia:

"Indie rock is a genre of alternative rock that originated in the United Kingdom and the United States in the 1980s. "

Ok, any more suggestions?

So it's come to quoting wiki. hehe
Yeah it had it's origins in the 80s but indie over here anyway only became a recognisable genre in the 90s that you'd see heading a shop display.
I'll give another suggestion though. Emo came out of the 90s and developed into the 2000s.

 
Ok, you are good.  Emo is another sub-genre that is probably distinct enough to become a main genre over time.  I don't know.  Time will tell.  Best answer so far again.

SeventhSon

Jason Gillespie

SeventhSon

SeventhSon

Jason Gillespie


there's a modern metal section and a prog section in my local cd shop.

indie/alternative became an established genre in the 90s

Wow.  You're right!  Indie probably did rise out of the 90s!!  And it's relatively distinct and still going strong today.  It took many posts and lots of debate but that is definitely the best answer so far.

<BUZZER NOISE>

To quote Wikipedia:

"Indie rock is a genre of alternative rock that originated in the United Kingdom and the United States in the 1980s. "

Ok, any more suggestions?

So it's come to quoting wiki. hehe
Yeah it had it's origins in the 80s but indie over here anyway only became a recognisable genre in the 90s that you'd see heading a shop display.
I'll give another suggestion though. Emo came out of the 90s and developed into the 2000s.

Ok, you are good.  Emo is another sub-genre that is probably distinct enough to become a main genre over time.  I don't know.  Time will tell.  Best answer so far again.

I want my golden sticker. ha

SeventhSon


@Bails,

Here is why genres aren't subjective:

Rush = Rock and Metal, and Prog
BB King = Blues
Frank Zappa = Rock and jazz, and classical, and Prog
Miles Davis = Jazz and fusion
Madonna = Rock and Pop
Motorhead = Rock
Vince Gil = Country
Snoop Dogg = Rap
The Sex Pistols = Punk
The Beastie Boys = Hip-Hop and Pop
Beethoven = Classical
The Prodigy = Electronic 
Al DiMeola = Fusion
Graham Central Station = Funk
K.C. & the Sunshine Band = Disco

 
Fixed.

CRAP!
 
To quote wikipedia again:
 
"Emo"
 
"It originated in the mid-1980s hardcore punk movement of Washington, D.C."
 
Darn!

SeventhSon


CRAP!

To quote wikipedia again:

"Emo"

"It originated in the mid-1980s hardcore punk movement of Washington, D.C."

Darn!

It doesn't matter when it originated, (even though none of those 80s bands are emo by today's standard) it's huge now and people only started calling bands emo in the late 90s.
 
Jazz had its origins in the late 1800s but the word didn't even come into existence 'til the early 1900s.

Bails

SeventhSon


@Bails,

Here is why genres aren't subjective:

Rush = Rock and Metal, and Prog
BB King = Blues
Frank Zappa = Rock and jazz, and classical, and Prog
Miles Davis = Jazz and fusion
Madonna = Rock and Pop
Motorhead = Rock
Vince Gil = Country
Snoop Dogg = Rap
The Sex Pistols = Punk
The Beastie Boys = Hip-Hop and Pop
Beethoven = Classical
The Prodigy = Electronic 
Al DiMeola = Fusion
Graham Central Station = Funk
K.C. & the Sunshine Band = Disco

Fixed.

Very funny. :-)
 
You get what I'm saying though right?  You can roll anyone who popular into one of about a dozen root-level genres.  The list of root-level genres was expanded greatly in the second half of the last century, why has it stopped expanding? 

Jason Gillespie

SeventhSon


CRAP!

To quote wikipedia again:

"Emo"

"It originated in the mid-1980s hardcore punk movement of Washington, D.C."

Darn!

It doesn't matter when it originated, (even though none of those 80s bands are emo by today's standard) it's huge now and people only started calling bands emo in the late 90s.

Yep, that's why it's still the best answer so far.  Indie is a good answer too.  Are they major genres though or just sub-genres?  I guess I'm pondering why there has not been a new Jazz or Classical or Rock.  A new genre that is unique enough to spawn a zillion sub genres.

to rule out the 'origins' argument. 
Jazz had its origins in the late 1800s but the word didn't even come into existence 'til the early 1900s.  
 
earliest use of word 1912

Jason Gillespie


to rule out the 'origins' argument. 
Jazz had its origins in the late 1800s but the word didn't even come into existence 'til the early 1900s. 

That is a really good point too.  What Animals as Leaders is doing now we may call prog metal, but in 50 years people may call it Hoozpha or something.

SeventhSon

Jason Gillespie

SeventhSon


CRAP!

To quote wikipedia again:

"Emo"

"It originated in the mid-1980s hardcore punk movement of Washington, D.C."

Darn!

It doesn't matter when it originated, (even though none of those 80s bands are emo by today's standard) it's huge now and people only started calling bands emo in the late 90s.

Yep, that's why it's still the best answer so far.  Indie is a good answer too.  Are they major genres though or just sub-genres?  I guess I'm pondering why there has been a new Jazz or Classical or Rock.  A new genre that is unique enough to spawn a zillion sub genres.

Music is the genre that spawns a zillion sub genres.

Jason Gillespie

Music is the genre that spawns a zillion sub genres.

Can't argue with that.

SeventhSon


You get what I'm saying though right?

 
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!  I DON'T!!!!!!!  That's my point!!!!!!
 

SeventhSon
The list of root-level genres was expanded greatly in the second half of the last century, why has it stopped expanding? 

 
[facepalm]
 
This whole thread is full of examples that prove that they haven't stopped expanding.
 

Jason Gillespie

Music is the genre that spawns a zillion sub genres.

 
/thread

Personally, I think the answer is "no, they're aren't any major paradigm shifts in music," but with that regard, I do not think that jazz, blues, or country fall in to the "game changing" category any more or less than dubstep (at any rate, they are all the same idea).  What you're describing only happened during the Renaissance, and later during the 50's... total changes in the way music was perceived and listened to.  Everything else in between and after are changes in the approach to those ideas.  

SeventhSon




Now that I think about it, maybe it has more to do with the fans than the artists.  People now have instant access to anything, anywhere, anytime.

 
 
This. 40 years ago, Ritchie Blackmore was picking up Bulgarian music on a radio embedded in his hat. The world is a lot smaller now. You can get Pakistani music with a couple of mouse clicks on the internet. Previously, the world was a huge place, you didn't hear music from other parts of the world all that often, and that geographic distance meant that something that was old in Mynamar was new in Kansas City.
 
In my limited scope of opinion, I'd venture that any groundbreaking music is most likely to come from the classical/symphonic arena.  There are some really hard core dudes trying to expand sonic boundaries and let's face it, it's a lot easier to do that with hundreds of instruments at your disposal than a typical 5 piece prog band.
 
I mean seriously, is really even progressive anymore? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE listening to it, but nothing really suprises me anymore.
 
Maybe the new explosion will come from a totally new, unthinkable instrument that makes all sit up and take notice?

Goldenfoxx


Personally, I think the answer is "no, they're aren't any major paradigm shifts in music," but with that regard, I do not think that jazz, blues, or country fall in to the "game changing" category any more or less than dubstep (at any rate, they are all the same idea).  What you're describing only happened during the Renaissance, and later during the 50's... total changes in the way music was perceived and listened to.  Everything else in between and after are changes in the approach to those ideas.  

I think you're right.  I'm describing rare spurts of expansion.  I'm glad I got to experience my youth during one of those expansions.  Funny how technology expanded and contracted almost in parallel with music.  Yeah, I know, all you peeps think the wizbang stuff from Apple and Microsoft is something new, but it's all based on really old concepts and technology.  Even the iPhone is a freaking *unix* computer running a core os conceptually born 40 years ago - and even Captain Kirk was sporting something similar to it in concept.  We have become good at making this stuff small, fast, and cheap though.  But, we shouldn't mistake that for true innovation.  

progguitar

SeventhSon


I mean seriously, is really even progressive anymore? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE listening to it, but nothing really suprises me anymore.

I've been asking this question for a while.  I mean, even DT's latest offering was incredibly predictable and formulaic.  (in my humble and can't play as well as them opinion)

SeventhSon


and even Captain Kirk was sporting something similar to it in concept.

 
Ahhh yes, life imitating art.
 
 

SeventhSon
We have become good at making this stuff small, fast, and cheap though. 

Except for Apple, of course.
 
 
 
Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

Bails

SeventhSon


and even Captain Kirk was sporting something similar to it in concept.

Ahhh yes, life imitating art.

SeventhSon
We have become good at making this stuff small, fast, and cheap though. 

Except for Apple, of course.



Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

Well they make it cheap, but they sell it expensive!

@SeventhSon,
 
As usual great question, but i think you are WAAAAYYYYYYYY off base with two things in particular:
 
1.  That genres are not subject to debate.  You picked Vince Gill for country; what about Garth Brooks?  Taylor Swift?  Madonna for rock; what about Ray of Light?   And you are generalizing to an almost obscene degree:  you have Ruch, Zappa, Madonna, Motorhead all in the same genre?  Really?  On almost EVERY level, there are significant musical differences between all four of those artists.
 
2.  That the industry is somehow relevant in this discussion.  The distinctions made by the industry have nothing whatsoever to do with the artistic endeavor, and everything to do with the economic endeavor.  If it would sell records to classify Kiss as a Funk band, it would be done before morning. 

Yeah - what Stadler said!

Stadler


@SeventhSon,

As usual great question, but i think you are WAAAAYYYYYYYY off base with two things in particular:

1.  That genres are not subject to debate.  You picked Vince Gill for country; what about Garth Brooks?  Taylor Swift?  Madonna for rock; what about Ray of Light?   And you are generalizing to an almost obscene degree:  you have Ruch, Zappa, Madonna, Motorhead all in the same genre?  Really?  On almost EVERY level, there are significant musical differences between all four of those artists.

2.  That the industry is somehow relevant in this discussion.  The distinctions made by the industry have nothing whatsoever to do with the artistic endeavor, and everything to do with the economic endeavor.  If it would sell records to classify Kiss as a Funk band, it would be done before morning. 

 
Poor examples on both points.  Rush, Zappa, Madonna and Motorhead are all Rock artists despite their musical differences - if you don't have the luxury of prog, pop, and metal sub genres, you are forced to label them as rock.  I'm not saying it isn't subject to debate, I'm saying that where an artist is classified isn't really subjective once it has been done.  You can think all you want that Frank Zappa isn't classified as a rock artist, but that just isn't reality.  Even though he did great work in Jazz, Fusion, and Orchestral music he's known pretty much universally as an experimental rock artist. 
 
The industry is paramount in artistic endeavor, because economics and politics is a key factor in artistic motivation.  And, Kiss did put a disco album out because they wanted to sell records.      

Bails


Yeah - what Stadler said!

 
So you are agreeing with him that Rush isn't a rock band?  Funny.
 

SeventhSon, what you are talking about has little to do with actual artistic endeavor. It is almost entirely an issue left up to marketing departments. Different companies have different labels for things. The classifications for the Grammy's are different from Rhapsody, which are different from FYE, which are different from my old myspace account, which are different from itunes. A good many of those classifications aren't real musical classifications, to boot. Many are just descriptions and classifications of the purpose of the music, location of music, or the technology to create it (dance, spiritual, Christian, electronic, Soundtracks, fitness/workout, ambient, world, latin). Those aren't really genres. They are marketing handles. Every friggin sound around you is ambient. Anything produced by computers or keyboards could be electronic. What line crosses you into dance? Can ALL Latin music be lumped into one Latin catch-all? Does heavy metal or rap about Jesus negate its metal or rap roots?
 
Economics and politics as a key factor to their relation to art has almost nothing to do with the classification system of the American record industry. Technology has way more to do with the birthing of new styles and genres than economics or politics. Electricity, recording technology, modular synthesis, etc... Economics and politics affects quantity, intent, and transmission. 

gmoneymcfly2k

Economics and politics affects quantity, intent, and transmission.  

@gmoneymcfly2k,
 
Economics affects motivation (intent as you put it).  For example, Black Sabbath chose to be in a band because they didn't want to work in the factories of Birmingham, that is an economic decision not an artistic one.  Many of today's artists are changing the things they do based on the economic impact of digital delivery.  Me sitting in my house grooving on my acoustic is expression and maybe even artistic, but If I were to endeavor to sell it to folks the motivation is purely economical.  Good post though.  You make a lot of sense in what you are saying.  I agree that many the so-called genres I've been talking about are somewhat make-believe, but it's what I see when I shop for or read about music.  I see this stuff being labeled and diligently cataloged by the bean counters.  I'm fully aware that the artistic and technical aspects of music are moving forward full steam ahead, but the way we perceive what we hear is practically dictated to us by external sources in terms that aren't evolving much.   

SeventhSon
 
Zappa      

 
No.  To the degree you argue that people are defined based on what uninformed people think, is essentially making a case that a definition should be based on collective ignorance rather than a comprehensive view of a person's achievements.  In this world, Van Gogh should be filed under "guys who cut their own ear off."

Twiddlenutz

SeventhSon
 
Zappa      

No.  To the degree you argue that people are defined based on what uninformed people think, is essentially making a case that a definition should be based on collective ignorance rather than a comprehensive view of a person's achievements.  In this world, Van Gogh should be filed under "guys who cut their own ear off."

I don't think that's what Seventh is saying at all.... Sub Genres are very very subjective but root genres really aren't Zappa is a rock artist, despite anything else... subgenres or not he is a rock artist.... I may be misunderstanding what Seventh is saying but im having a really hard time hearing it any other way and a really hard time not understanding what about that could be wrong. It has nothing to do with collective ignorance...

I happen to hate the genre game, and don't play it.... These days I just use adjectives like big, loud, fast, hard, soft, bubbly but I hate the subgenre game cause there is always someone around to say "no dude... it's this" So to me, defining Zappa as rock works very well. I certainly don't think im ignorant. 

I guess my point is: just because "most people" think something, it doesn't make it the case.  If you know Zappa as a rock artist, that's great.  Is that all he did?  No.  I'd even venture to guess that he didn't think of himself that way.  What I mean by ignorance is that most people don't have anything but a passing familiarity with his music.  Is that you, or a lot of the people that come here?  No.  So to me using a term like "most people" is pointing towards people who have no real familiarity with him.
 
An artist is just an artist.  But we do a real disservice to artists by defining them by only one aspect of what they do.  Picasso- most people think about him as a painter.  I understand that, and I know why.  Do "most people" know that he invented the collage?  Do most people know invented assemblage (3 dimensional collage)?  Probably not.  I guess to me, having a hand in pioneering a new school of painting is heavy, creating two completely new forms is even more so, but "most people" know him as the guy who painted weird faces.
 
Not to sound like a snob, which I hate, but back to Zappa- he worked in several different genres, combined and modified forms to create music that was not genre specific, and so on.  I'd rather people know artists and define them by the medium they work in (ie  Zappa is a MUSICIAN.  Here's a classical piece by Zappa.  Put it in the classical bin.  Here's a big band piece by Zappa, put it in the jazz bin).  People try to generalize to the degree that they can use discriptive terms that are familiar and it does a disservice, I'd rather people go all the way and generalize on the least specific level and let the chips fall where they may.  Be specific about specific pieces.  Don't define the artist that way.
 
Of course I'm probably wrong about this.  Since we're just sharing opinions, I just thought I'd put that out there.

Twiddlenutz


I guess my point is: just because "most people" think something, it doesn't make it the case.  If you know Zappa as a rock artist, that's great.  Is that all he did?  No.  I'd even venture to guess that he didn't think of himself that way.  What I mean by ignorance is that most people don't have anything but a passing familiarity with his music.  Is that you, or a lot of the people that come here?  No.  So to me using a term like "most people" is pointing towards people who have no real familiarity with him.

An artist is just an artist.  But we do a real disservice to artists by defining them by only one aspect of what they do.  Picasso- most people think about him as a painter.  I understand that, and I know why.  Do "most people" know that he invented the collage?  Do most people know invented assemblage (3 dimensional collage)?  Probably not.  I guess to me, having a hand in pioneering a new school of painting is heavy, creating two completely new forms is even more so, but "most people" know him as the guy who painted weird faces.

Not to sound like a snob, which I hate, but back to Zappa- he worked in several different genres, combined and modified forms to create music that was not genre specific, and so on.  I'd rather people know artists and define them by the medium they work in (ie  Zappa is a MUSICIAN.  Here's a classical piece by Zappa.  Put it in the classical bin.  Here's a big band piece by Zappa, put it in the jazz bin).  People try to generalize to the degree that they can use discriptive terms that are familiar and it does a disservice, I'd rather people go all the way and generalize on the least specific level and let the chips fall where they may.  Be specific about specific pieces.  Don't define the artist that way.

Of course I'm probably wrong about this.  Since we're just sharing opinions, I just thought I'd put that out there.

 
this is a great post and you should feel great

Ha, if only it was that easy.

@Twiddlenutz,
 
I think you are absolutely correct that what I'm describing isn't fair to artists and is driven by collective ignorance.  But, it is a reality at least from my point of view.  I mean if you Google "People who cut off their own ear" guess who pops up.
 
@DougMasters,
 
I think you understand what I'm saying perfectly. 

SeventhSon

I think you are absolutely correct that what I'm describing isn't fair to artists and is driven by collective ignorance.  But, it is a reality at least from my point of view.  I mean if you Google "People who cut off their own ear" guess who pops up. 

 
Haha, I know.  He really did do that!  Although I guess there are people who say it happened another way, but anyway...
 
It sucks that that's "who he is" to a lot of people. 
 
Let me be idealistic dammit!

 
Yeah, I'm not advocating that artists be labeled and stuck into categories, but it is a reality.  I don't like it either, but I want to try to understand it.  I've just noticed that those labels haven't changed much in the last 20 years.  They've only been combined or altered.  Think of Jazz as the element H and Rock as element O and then Fusion as H2O.  We can create composite genres till the end of time, but when is there going to be a new element added to the periodic genre chart?  I'm not suggesting that the composite genres are invalid or unnecessary or lacking innovation, I'm just wondering about the next big paradigm shift in western music.  Is it happening now, or is it going to take a 1000 years, or have we reached a physical barrier that can't be broken until we evolve as a species?    

SeventhSon


Poor examples on both points.  Rush, Zappa, Madonna and Motorhead are all Rock artists despite their musical differences - if you don't have the luxury of prog, pop, and metal sub genres, you are forced to label them as rock.  I'm not saying it isn't subject to debate, I'm saying that where an artist is classified isn't really subjective once it has been done.  You can think all you want that Frank Zappa isn't classified as a rock artist, but that just isn't reality.  Even though he did great work in Jazz, Fusion, and Orchestral music he's known pretty much universally as an experimental rock artist. 

 
Well, then, you've lost me.  Or more correctly I officially disagree with the underlying premise (which as others have said, is extremely arbitrary, and conveniently set by you).  I'm not forced to do anything.  Madonna and Motorhead in the same genre is why the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (also "industry" by your standards) is a damn joke.  Zappa may have participated in the rock scene, but he is what we call "the exception that proves the rule"; that is, that this arbitrary notion that there are some finite number of genres and everything has to be shoehorned into those is crap.
 
Oh, and Bails can prove this for me:  you go into the FYE on the corner of Chestnut and Broad in Philadelphia, and they have their music set out in "genres".  Guess what?  There is Rock/Pop, like you say, but they also have a whole section - separate and apart from the others - that has just "Heavy Metal".  And to further prove how ridiculous and arbitrary the notion of these labels are, Motorhead is in the "Rock/Pop", and Neal Morse - yes, the born-again prog rocker himself - is found in "Heavy Metal". 

The industry is paramount in artistic endeavor, because economics and politics is a key factor in artistic motivation.  And, Kiss did put a disco album out because they wanted to sell records.      

You've lost me once again.  It's a key factor in artistic EXPRESSION or DELIVERY, but not in motivation.  Google how many albums Neil Young has recorded and boxed away, only to be heard by close friends.  I doubt his close friends are paying him for the privilege of hearing that music.  Politics may be a motivator, but the politics of the industry are independent of the politics of the artist.  Also to use Neil Young, his "Living With War" wasn't released by the label as a political statement by the head of the label. 
 
The evolution of music doesn't happen as a result of "industry labeling".  Ask Mike.  He's an artist.  Do you think he wrote (or helped write) "Pull Me Under" with the specific hope that there would someday be another genre called "Prog Metal" or whatever, or did he write that because it was an emotional statement he wanted to make at that time? 

Stadler

Or more correctly I officially disagree with the underlying premise (which as others have said, is extremely arbitrary, and conveniently set by you). 

 
It's not a premise set by me.  It's just the way it is.  You said yourself that you found Motorhead stuffed in a Pop/Rock bin and Neal Morse in a Heavy Metal bin.  I know it's stupid for things to be labeled that way and I certainly don't agree with it, but it is the way things are done in the music industry.  Same thing with the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame being completely ignorant about music.  But, it is a reality and unfortunately historically significant.
 
It seems to me that you and @Bails are arguing that genres are always subjective and only necessary for ignorant people to communicate about music.  If that's what you are saying, and it sure sounds like that it is in a nutshell, then I think I have sufficiently explained above why I don't agree.   

SeventhSon


It's not a premise set by me.  It's just the way it is.  You said yourself that you found Motorhead stuffed in a Pop/Rock bin and Neal Morse in a Heavy Metal bin.  I know it's stupid for things to be labeled that way and I certainly don't agree with it, but it is the way things are done in the music industry.  Same thing with the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame being completely ignorant about music.  But, it is a reality and unfortunately historically significant.

 
But it's not.  And it doesn't have to be that way, and it doesn't bear on the question at hand:  will music evolve.  If I may use a very sensitive subject to make my point:  it's like women voting.  And you're saying essentially, that "women don't have the right to vote; I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but it's the way it is, so we have to live with it."  And I'm saying, no, no we don't.  I said before, the industry does it because it is convenient and it seems to make money, not because of any other reason.  I said before and I'll say it again:  the SECOND calling Kiss funk sells records, it will be done. 
 
I'll go one step further:  by your arument, there should be only ONE genre:  MUSIC, because the rest, even country and rock and blues, are just labels to promote and sell music.  Robert Johnson didn't give a shit what his music was called, because no one cared what it was called.  It was MUSIC.  It was his art, it was his life. It only came down to names and delineations when people had to figure out how to sell it. 
 
But I didn't think you were asking about "new genres" with the eye toward selling them.  If that's the case, I stand down, because I could care less what sells or not.  I'm not in the business, and I like what I like regardless of what the sales are.  I have CDs in my collection that have sold 20 million + (Back In Black, Hysteria) and I have CDs that I would be surprised if they sold more than a couple 1,000 (Johnette Napolitano's first band).
 

It seems to me that you and @Bails are arguing that genres are always subjective and only necessary for ignorant people to communicate about music.  If that's what you are saying, and it sure sounds like that it is in a nutshell, then I think I have sufficiently explained above why I don't agree.   

That is exactly what I am saying, though I don't speak for Bails, and I don't think I would go so far as to say "ignorant".  And, with due respect, I don't wuite understand why you disagree, since for me to understand it would require that you agree with some of the other things I said and you don't.