Posted by KB on 1/10/2019 to
Opinions & Thoughts
Had a discussion with my son in regards to music genres. He felt that genres were constricting. That once an artist was dubbed a certain style it was hard for them to shake it. Once trip hop always trip hop. I tend to agree and would go a step further saying that there are way too many genre striations for our own good and everyone's definition of each is personal. If you like Punk, is your Punk like Post-Punk, Neo-Core, Straight Edge, Hardcore, Anarcho... maybe? So do we just accept it or is there a way to make it better for the consumer and artist?
Let's make a case study out of Bon Jovi. In the 80's they were Hair Metal (not true Metal) or Hard Rock. They had a few hits so then they were also Pop, even Top 40 to an extent. Currently I would find few who would consider them Hard Rock but instead Adult Pop Rock. I've even read Arena Rock. So far we have six different genres noted- probably more could be added- which makes categorizing them a possible challenge. This doesn't even take into consideration where they may feel they fall. Now Bon Jovi decides they want to record an Acid Jazz album after 30+ years. How should this categorized without losing past audience (Acid Jazz might take care of that anyway) or missing the chance on a new audience? Sounds like an easy fix but to someone playing Bon Jovi on Spotify shuffle might get a little miffed hearing the Acid Jazz songs, or if one creates an Acid Jazz shuffle and "Livin' On A Prayer
" comes on.
Genres were created in the 70's to identify music for consumers to help them find what they like. Problem is now that music keeps evolving so my definition of R&B, having grown up in the 70's and 80's, is much different than what is deemed R&B now. How does one define all the Metal variations there are? What is the real difference between Alt-Country, Americana and Roots? When does an album become Classic Rock and why do some artist retain just Rock (think Hendrix
or Motorhead
, they aren't Classic Metal)? Of course some scholar will be able to define all of this but we are basically talking nuances, not wholesale differences between the styles.
Let's make a case study out of Bon Jovi. In the 80's they were Hair Metal (not true Metal) or Hard Rock. They had a few hits so then they were also Pop, even Top 40 to an extent. Currently I would find few who would consider them Hard Rock but instead Adult Pop Rock. I've even read Arena Rock. So far we have six different genres noted- probably more could be added- which makes categorizing them a possible challenge. This doesn't even take into consideration where they may feel they fall. Now Bon Jovi decides they want to record an Acid Jazz album after 30+ years. How should this categorized without losing past audience (Acid Jazz might take care of that anyway) or missing the chance on a new audience? Sounds like an easy fix but to someone playing Bon Jovi on Spotify shuffle might get a little miffed hearing the Acid Jazz songs, or if one creates an Acid Jazz shuffle and "Livin' On A Prayer
" comes on.Genres were created in the 70's to identify music for consumers to help them find what they like. Problem is now that music keeps evolving so my definition of R&B, having grown up in the 70's and 80's, is much different than what is deemed R&B now. How does one define all the Metal variations there are? What is the real difference between Alt-Country, Americana and Roots? When does an album become Classic Rock and why do some artist retain just Rock (think Hendrix
or Motorhead
, they aren't Classic Metal)? Of course some scholar will be able to define all of this but we are basically talking nuances, not wholesale differences between the styles.I have a two pronged approach to reclassifying that I think will benefit both consumer and artist. Requirement is that artists are not classified only their releases. First, simplify the categories into broader groups- the following example is not absolute and age of release not a determinant. Rock then becomes only Adult/Soft Rock (little edge, easy on ears, maybe with a beat, not offensive), Hard/Metal/Punk(more abrasive, harder edge, loud, screaming), Alt-Rock (not radio friendly or for the masses, unique, experimental, progressive) and Rock (the catchall, radio friendly). The second prong is the qualifier, use specific artists/albums to describe a release. Ex: I read about a release that fall into my Hard/Metal/Punk group. Based on just that I may give a quick listen. But if it they were compared to Cannibal Corpse
or Napalm Death
I would probably skip- not my Metal sweet-spot. If it was compared to Black Sabbath
, Turnstile
or True Widow
I would look into them. So putting it altogether the categorization would read; "NEW RELEASE- Hard/Metal/Punk, sounds like Black Sabbath, Uncle Acid and the Deadbeats
". Much better for consumer and artist because now the artist can release what they want since THEY aren't shoved into a genre (of course some artists will always remain in one style- their prerogative).
or Napalm Death
I would probably skip- not my Metal sweet-spot. If it was compared to Black Sabbath
, Turnstile
or True Widow
I would look into them. So putting it altogether the categorization would read; "NEW RELEASE- Hard/Metal/Punk, sounds like Black Sabbath, Uncle Acid and the Deadbeats
". Much better for consumer and artist because now the artist can release what they want since THEY aren't shoved into a genre (of course some artists will always remain in one style- their prerogative). Not perfect but more accurate. Interested in other thoughts
Tagged Products
1 Comments
Phil McCracken
Date
1/10/2019
I hate genres, but they serve a general purpose. Knowing something is alt country at least gives me a general picture of what to expect. As you point out, broad categories may be the way to go, and definitely by release. Kacey Musgraves first two albums fit the definition of country or alternative country. Her last most certainly doesn’t. I don’t care for the reliance on genres, and it sucks when artists get pigeon holed.
