|
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! >
Defining Musical Genre's
Defining Musical Genre's
Page:
1
isaacullah
1187 posts
Oct 05, 2010
1:42 PM
|
I was reading though the "what is Cerebral music" thread, and it got me to thinking about how we define Musical Genres. Over the last couple of years, I've thought about this off an on. I've had a series of thoughts on this subject that I've started to connect together into a coherent theory. I thought I'd take this opportunity to air that theory here, and to see what you guys think about it. Here it goes:
IMO there are only really three genres of music: Folk, Art/Alt, and Pop. Of those three, Alt/Art and Pop are a function of modernity in that they only exist in a modern, highly complex polyglot society. Here are my definitions:
Folk: Any music that has developed in a particular culture or society that not only defines identity but also serves specific cultural purposes. Folk music is an institution of a particular culture or cultural group, and when removed from that context, it ceases to be Folk music.
Pop: Pop music is ANY music that is made where the artist made the music to please the widest audience possible. This means that as soon as one sits down and thinks "how can I make a song that people will like", they are in essence doing Pop music.
Alt/Art: Any music made just for the sake of making music because it makes you happy, or you like doing it, etc. When you sit down and think "What kind of music do I feel like playing right now", you are doing Alt/Art music.
Okay. These clearly are NOT discreet categories. I view it more as a continuum, where these categories are the three corners of a "triangle of music", and and interior space of the triangle is the continuum. Any particular song will fall somewhere in the space defined by the sides of the triangle, but will likely be closer to one of the three corners than the others. But what are the implications of this heuristic device? I'll provide some examples that everyone here should be familiar with that may help it make more sense.
1) "I Be's Troubled" vs. "I Can't Be Satisfied". These are essentially the same songs played by the same person several years apart. According to my tripartite division, the first is Folk, and the second is Alt/Pop. When Muddy Waters was playing music down on Stovall plantation, his music was intimately related to Black culture in the Delta. Musicians played a specific style of music, and that music served specific functions in that society. After Muddy went north, his music was removed from that cultural context, and in fact he (and Chess) were interested mainly in selling records. Did Muddy like what he was playing? Well, yes, probably he did. So there was some definite aspects of Alt/Art in there too. But was definitely NOT Folk any more.
2) Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan is often cited as a Folk singer. He was not. He was mainly an Alt/Art artist who got really famous. Some of his later stuff is probably more Pop, but he is a really good example of someone who just played whatever music he really wanted to play, and if it was also popular, that's cool too. So he gives us an example of how Art/Alt music can also be really popular music too, but is fundamentally different than Pop because it was not made with the intent of being popular.
3) Bob Dylan style "folk music" vs. Old Timey Music. As described above, Bob-style "folk" is not really Folk as I've defined it, but Old Timey Music certainly is. Old Timey Music developed out of the mingling of European and African cultures in the Appalachians, and evolved there in a specific cultural context. Much like Country Blues, in fact. The music served/serves specific cultural needs of people living in Appalachia, and when removed from Appalachia, it ceases to serve those needs. If, for example, I as an Arizonian was wanting to play Old Timey Music, well, then it would be Art/Alt. But if it is played by someone with deep roots in Appalachia in Appalachia for Appalachians, then it is Folk.
Under my definition, a song of a particular "type" of music (such as Blues, or Rap, or Country, or Rock, etc.) can be any of these three Genre's. It depends solely upon the intention of the songwriter when he/she wrote the song. Was it derived from a specific and traditional cultural context to serve a specific cultural purpose? Then it's Folk. Was it just because the songwriter liked doing it? Then it's Alt/Art. Or was it to make a song that would be popular and make money? Then it's Pop. The actual notes played, the scales used, the groove, the beat, the rhythm, the phrasing, the instruments, etc. don't matter. Those are a secondary classification of music that is useful for us as listeners to categorize related musical idioms, and to help us figure out what we like to listen to (e.g, "I like Blues").
I don't know, maybe it's the Anthropologist in me shining through, and I'm putting way too much on intentionality. But to me, that really seems to be the core and first division between musical types.
I could go on, but I think that those three examples are pretty good. There is a lot of overlap between them, and clearly Folk music influences Pop and Alt music. Pop and Alt derive inspiration from Folk. Alt/Art is the type of music that pushes boundaries and helps defined the new sounds. Once the new sounds are defined, then Pop comes along to capitalize on them. Someone like Muddy Waters is an example of how one person can start off in Folk, move up to Alt/Art, and end up in Pop. All in one life time...
Anyway, I thought I'd share some of my ramblings. Clearly I am procrastinating on grading the stack of Midterm essays that is on my desk. I sure hope my students figured out how to use their spell checkers this time!
----------
------------------
View my videos on YouTube!"
Last Edited by on Oct 05, 2010 3:07 PM
|
TNFrank
341 posts
Oct 05, 2010
1:51 PM
|
There's a lot of cross over between genres and even sub-categories within certain genres. Metal just isn't Metal, there's Thrash Metal, Prog(Progressive like Rush or Dream Theater)Metal, Death Metal, New Wave of British Heavy Metal, Speed Metal, Black Metal, a clean version called Stainless Steel, and the list goes on. Rock is the same way, you have Classic Rock, Acid Rock, Punk Rock, ect. In Jazz you have Smooth Jazz, Fusion, Free Form Jazz and others. I really don't think it's totally cut and dry.
Is Steely Dan - Rock, Classic Rock, Jazz, Blues, all of the above?
I pretty much know what I like when I hear it and I know what I don't like when I hear it even if I 'm not sure what to call it half the time.
I never really though of Dylan as "Folk", I've always thought of him as '60's Rock but I guess when you really look at it then he IS Folk. As far as "Old Timey" music, Bluegrass grew out of that genre of music but there's things about it that make it totally different the Old Timey music and other things that make it the same.
----------
Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D
Hohner Special 20 in Bb
Suzuki HarpMaster in C
Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
Last Edited by on Oct 05, 2010 1:56 PM
|
MrVerylongusername
1272 posts
Oct 05, 2010
2:06 PM
|
Ha! so hip-hop could be folk music!!!
Its true an anthropologist told me ;-)
That ain't gonna sit comfortably with the Arran sweater wearing, real ale quaffing beardy-weirdies!
|
isaacullah
1188 posts
Oct 05, 2010
2:47 PM
|
MrVLUN: It sure ain't gonna sit well with them! It also won't sit will with the Ford truck drivin', Budweiser swillin', NASCAR watchin' American populace when you tell them that their "Country" music is nothin' but Pop. ;)
----------
------------------
View my videos on YouTube!"
|
nacoran
2909 posts
Oct 05, 2010
3:56 PM
|
I'd never call country music Pop. I have other words I use for country music! (Although sadly, half my songs end up sounding country.)
----------
Nate
Facebook
Thread Organizer
|
TNFrank
343 posts
Oct 05, 2010
4:00 PM
|
Todays Country sounds a lot like the Southern Rock that we use to listen to back in the '70's.
----------
Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D
Hohner Special 20 in Bb
Suzuki HarpMaster in C
Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
|
isaacullah
1190 posts
Oct 05, 2010
4:42 PM
|
Nate: You see, my definition of "Pop" is not the same that you are using. Read my definition of 'Pop' (above), and you will see that modern day "country music" is, indeed, Pop music.
----------
--------------------------------------
View my videos on YouTube!"
|
nacoran
2911 posts
Oct 05, 2010
5:03 PM
|
I know. All the words I use for country have 4-letters.
Country actually has very distinct rules or they won't let you play in their clubhouse, but rock was that way with rap at one point. I remember a DJ quiting the local hard rock station when they made him play Faith No More's 'Epic'. The classic rock station got all excited once because they had an copy of U2's then latest song. They hadn't even listened to it themselves. Halfway through 'Numb' they stopped the song and vowed to never play it again. Now bands like Lincoln Park get and Evanescence get airtime on the same stations.
Seeking the widest audience sometimes chases away the diehards. I know a lot of country fans who don't like 'new' country. I've also known people who scrupulously distance themselves from any band that is successful, even if they loved the band before they hit it big. They define themselves by being anti-pop. Even Pop has exclusion rules though. When Rap went Gangsta acts like MC Hammer became poison, just like Poison did when hair metal died!
I've seen news stories about football stadiums trying to discourage drunken guys from showing up with no shirts on painted up in the team colors. They say it's not family friendly. Football is essentially going Pop!
----------
Nate
Facebook
Thread Organizer
|
Honkin On Bobo
391 posts
Oct 05, 2010
8:18 PM
|
"It also won't sit will with the Ford truck drivin', Budweiser swillin', NASCAR watchin' American populace when you tell them that their "Country" music is nothin' but Pop. ;)"
I'm horribly offended by this stereotype.
Oh the hypocrisy.
Last Edited by on Oct 05, 2010 8:29 PM
|
TNFrank
347 posts
Oct 05, 2010
8:21 PM
|
Me too, I drive a Chevy truck, drink Homemade wine, watch NHRA Drag Racing and listen to Metal,LOL.
----------
Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D
Hohner Special 20 in Bb
Suzuki HarpMaster in C
Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
|
Greg Heumann
808 posts
Oct 05, 2010
8:43 PM
|
You can pick any arbitrary divisions and classify MOST music into them. Acoustic vs. amplifed. Melodic vs Harmonic vs Atonal. Dance vs Not Dance. Vocal vs. instrumental. No matter what you choose there will be songs that defy categorization. Ultimately you listen to and/or make the music you want to. Your categorization works but I don't know what use it is. The current definitions in use in the industry, on radio stations, internet sites, etc - are also arbitrary but they've been around a long while and therefore probably have the best chance of helping someone choose a category to listen to.
I'm rambling. I don't know what my point is.
Might be the beer.
----------
/Greg
Last Edited by on Oct 05, 2010 8:44 PM
|
HarmonicaMick
175 posts
Oct 05, 2010
10:52 PM
|
Isaac,
As part of my degree I was forced to engage in the sort of discussion you started here. Sadly, much of the specifics of what I absorbed have now been long forgotten, and all of my coursework was thrown in a skip by a disreputable builder who blatantly ignored the instructions he'd been given by my mother.
But, I do remember similar themes to those that you've outlined coming up time and time again, both in seminars as a result of common sense responses, and in the books we had to hand in the college library. The web had not yet become available to us.
As I recall, all such studies begin with an exposure to the whole field of aesthetics, which is littered with lofty and virtually impenetrable texts. Kant springs to mind here. Fortunately, Anne Sheppard's Aesthetics: An introduction to the philosophy of art distils much of the subject into something that most normal people would be able to read and understand without needing several lifetimes to do so.
This site claims that you can read Sheppard's full text online, though I haven't yet clicked on through to see what the catch is:
http://www.questia.com/library/book/aesthetics-an-introduction-to-the-philosophy-of-art-by-anne-sheppard.jsp
Why all the banging on about aesthetics? Well, if you discuss the topic you've raised in any detail - at least in academic circles - then a definition of art itself is going to be one of the first things to come up.
Once you've got that pinned down - a bit like herding cats - then you can begin to clarify the distinctions between art/entertainment, folk/rock, rock/pop, or what have you.
Heaps of stuff has been written about these topics, though, much of it - if memory serves - with a rather biased Marxist leaning. I seem to remember the phrase 'means of production' popping up more often than I care to count.
Anyway, I agree with some of what you said above, but don't have the time to write any more. Well, I do, but it's 6:52 AM, and if I don't go and have my coffee soon, I'll die.
----------
YouTube SlimHarpMick
|
TNFrank
350 posts
Oct 06, 2010
5:17 AM
|
So where does the Blue Man Group fit into all of this. They're not really Pop but they're also NOT Folk, maybe Rock but they have a lot more "beat" with the instruments that they play to be the classic definition of Rock. Are they their own genre or what?
----------
Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D
Hohner Special 20 in Bb
Suzuki HarpMaster in C
Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
|
TNFrank
352 posts
Oct 06, 2010
5:31 AM
|
Well, it is FOR SURE Art. I'd love to see em' live someday but from what I've heard tickets aren't cheap.
----------
Hohner Big River in Low F,G,A,Bb and D
Hohner Special 20 in Bb
Suzuki HarpMaster in C
Suzuki FolkMaster in D,E and F
|
isaacullah
1192 posts
Oct 06, 2010
12:59 PM
|
First off, sorry if I actually offended anyone with my characterization of country music fans. I was being facetious, and did not mean to offend.
Second: Mick, I imagine you are correct that there is a largely Marxist literature on this subject. It strikes me as something that would be very interesting to Marxist thinkers... Your point about the need to first define "what is art" is quite valid, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms (one that was opened up here a little while ago in a thread about photography, of all things).
Third: Greg. My point was actually not to "categorize" things any more than they need to. I actually don't really believe that it's possible to categorize things. We only do it because our human brains find it VERY difficult to process the entire range of possibilities. Binning things up into nice tidy Types makes it considerably easier for us to make comparisons and to find interesting patterns. Actually, I've spent quite a lot of time researching the construction of types and the validity of using types. It's an incredibility important thing to research, considering that typology is a major "thing" us archaeologists do. In fact, most of what I do in this realm involves multidimensional parameterization of variability (say that three times fast!), as way to define a series of "parameter spaces" within which all the items are more related to eachother than to other items outside the parameter space. Then, one tries to find the minimum number of measurable variables that accounts for this relationship. The tripartite classification system I proposed in my original thread was a "light" example of this. I haven't really crunched any numbers, but I have done some reasonably extensive thought experiments. Certainly enough to propose the theory. And also remember, although I cite the "three types", I also say that they are really just the three ends of a tripartite continuum, wherein one can situate ANY type of music. Is it the end all be all classification system? Of course not. But id does have the benefit of being a) simple b) universal c) somewhat meaningful.
Cheers
Isaac
----------
--------------------------------------
View my videos on YouTube!"
|
Post a Message
|
