Recently, there was a discussion in a thread whether the band "Fugazi" was punk or emo. This got me thinking, does the band sound any different if they are called one thing as opposed to another? Of course not. So why is it necessary to call a certain band "punk" or "emo" or "alternative" or any other descriptive term? I don't see a problem with it to describe a band to someone who hasn't listened to them, but I think it's stupid when people start bashing an entire genre of music. For example, Minor Threat and the Misfits sound completely different, yet they are both considered punk. So how can someone say that they "love" or "hate" punk if there is such a disparity in the music itself. This is kind of how I feel about labeling politicians as Republican or Democrat or whatever, but that's a completely different issue. So do you think its important that music is labeled a certain genre? And how important is it to you what "genre" of music you listen to as opposed to how the band itself sounds?
I really couldnt care less what genre a band is grouped in. I like a band for thier music not what they are labeled. My music tastes vary from Classical, to rock, to metal , to pop, to country and every thing else in between. But as I am posting this, I see that the need for the genre label is needed only for the purpuse of describing the music I listen too.But does not mean that I listen to it because of said label. You know the types who only listen to Rock, only Rap, I say BAHHH , there is good music in evry form out there, you just have to know how to listen for it.
Edited By Brokenjaw on Mar. 03 2002 at 10:27
Brokenjaw Wrote:You know the types who only listen to Rock, only Rap, I say BAHHH , there is good music in evry form out there, you just have to know how to listen for it.
But I thought you only listened to "underground" music. :bouncer:
I am sorry, but top 40 pop is for the fuckin shitter.
I don't care what you say Polka is the best.
Quote:For example, Minor Threat and the Misfits sound completely different, yet they are both considered punk.
That's because Minor Threat is Emo :bouncer:
SLASH Wrote:Quote:For example, Minor Threat and the Misfits sound completely different, yet they are both considered punk.
That's because Minor Threat is Emo :bouncer:
I Don't Wanna Hear It
I don't want to hear it
All you do is talk about you
I don't want to hear it
Because I know that none of it's true
I don't want to hear it
Sick and tired of all your lies
I don't want to hear it
When are you gonna realize...
That I don't wanna hear it
Know you're full of shit
Shut your fucking mouth
I don't care what you say
You keep talking
Talking everday
First you're telling stories
Then you're telling lies
When the fuck are you gonna realize...
That I don't want to hear
Know that you're full of shit
are we talking about the real misfits or the new misfits?
ok, that's irrelavent, i have a story, it's probably irrelevant too. i moved here in 8th grade, and it seemed the entire school was divided between metalheads and rapsomethings, i don't know what they called themselves. so anyway, you can imagine my confusion when asked which one i was. i still don't know, and i don't know what to say when people ask me what kind of music i like. somehow, i don't think "good music" is an acceptable answer. maybe it is, i think i'll use that in future, thank you.
I met emo phillips in a diner once.. He told me my shirt was nice..
Wormface Wrote:I met emo phillips in a diner once.. He told me my shirt was nice..
Did you tip him well?
Labelling Music Genre's is important.
Not in describing what a group's "sound" is like... but in explaining a group's artistic "style" More often than not this remains a indicator of a given group's or genre's "sound" but there are certainly themes and even attitudes associated with genres regardless of style. hell, even appearance has a bearing on musical Genre's.
What was "Grunge" but a blend of heavy metal and hard rock sounds, only the performer's were generally seen in what looked like Goodwill purchased clothing, and often sang about morose topics.. grunge was an expression of manic-depressive teen angst, dressed up in dirty jeans and faded sweaters. Metal is more of the expression of rebellious teen attitudes, escapism, destruction, etc...
"Genre" and labelling of style is often more important to the artist attempting to convey something than the performer looking to make a buck, though in truth some styles sell better than others. this is true in any "artistic" media.
Look at the visual arts.. I bet there isn't a member of this board who wouldn't recognize an image drawn by Todd McFarlan as such, even if they don't know who Todd McFarlan is. The simple reason is his style sells.. so others emulate it.
Yet if I were to put forward an Impressionistic painting and a Pointelistic painting, most who didn't actually study art probably wouldn't recognize the difference. Primarily because, just as Grunge grew out of Rock and metal, Pointilism grew out of Impressionism.. so the two could seem very similar to the untrained eye.
Thank you for that explanation, MISTAR GOTH DUDE!!
I think artists that get too into sustaining a style wind up looking ridiculous. The come off seeming trite and phony. I still enjoy U2's music, but Bono makes me cringe an awful lot lately.
Edited By Keyser Soze on Mar. 08 2002 at 12:36
Style is a tool to be used.. and important to recognize, artists can get trapped in a style, so it is important for an artist to understand what the general impression their "style" gives and make sure it still integrates with the messages they're trying to convey.
Lord Magus Wrote:Style is a tool to be used.. and important to recognize, artists can get trapped in a style, so it is important for an artist to understand what the general impression their "style" gives and make sure it still integrates with the messages they're trying to convey.
I don't think style should be faked though, its easy to recognize when a band has been manufactured. Also trying to appease a musical style with a style limits creativity and appeals to the lowest common denominator of fan. So if we are talking about being commercially acceptable without regard to anything else, then I would say you would be correct but artistically i think thats a contrived way to approach art.
Artisticly "style" is the label or description applied to the message or method and artist or group of artist conveys, uses, or studies. It is much the same as delineating between Physicists and Chemists, both are scientists, but one focuses on developing, breaking down and understanding the basic elements of matter, and restructuring them to new purposes, while the other studies the effects and interaction of various energies with said matter. While both could easily be pursuing their fields for the pure sake of enlightnment, both their own and others.. others could just as easily by studying chemistry to make money developing pharmacudicals, or studying physics to make money developing space technology. This changes neither's status as being a scientist.
If I were to work in an impressionistic style to convey the sense of light, I would be using an established method for my own edification and further learning. If I worked impresionistic because I know it SELLS, THEN it would be, as you put, "contrived"
Music is the same.. music also has a more immediate catharsis. While visual artists can express and work through their own feelings with their art, music is a more immediate link and outlet for emotion.. this allows others to share in the artists own catharsis.
If the musician thinks to himself "there are always teens looking for angry, fast, heavy music they can vent their frustration to, so I'll write heavy metal music to attract an audience" then the use of style is contrived (in the sense I believe you mean the word).. if the musician instead thinks "I want to express my anger and dissatisfaction, and give others the chance to share my feelings, Heavy metal has always been a style of music that lends itself to what I want to express, so I'll write that kind of music" then the artist is conciously choosing style to emphasise his or her work.
In truth, all artistic endeavors are "contrived" on every level, if they weren't, they wouldn't be "art". Artists look to convey something, be it a story, an emotion, a single image, a look into something's nature. In order to properly convey their messages, artists must consider every aspect of their medium and how it helps or hinders the message they share, from choice of "style", to appearance, to instruments, to font, etc..
Even those merely looking to make a buck "contrive" their content to appease a consumer.
Even those without artistic or financial interest, who paint or sing or act purely for the joy of it, will "contrive" their methods.. from the local bar band that plays 80's music becaus they LIKE 80's music, to the homebody who paints his backyard ala Bob Ross.. they conciously choose and "contrive" their actions to emulate something they value.. be it Glam Rock or Happy trees.
I just re-read your last statement.. i think you were actually agreeing with my point. (initially i thought it was further debate)
If that's so... umm..... that makes twice in under 2 weeks we agreed on something... I'm waiting for the floor to split open and the hordes of hel to come forth and claim their 7 year dominion of earth before it's destruction.....
I see your point more clearly now. Overanalyzing it however defeats the purpose. ITS ROCK AND FUCKING ROLL!
I think most artists do fall into the process you described simply because its whats expected of them, a special few of them try to create something new and unexplored.
EDIT: I think its becoming more and more apparent the differences between discourse here and those that took place over there had to do with the way things run there and less about the individuals who didn't see eye to eye at the time. The ability to freely express oneself allows for more mutual respect here.
Edited By Keyser Soze on Mar. 08 2002 at 2:04
Much as with the visual arts.. those would be the Avant Gaurd of the musical field.. conciously choosing to forgo established styles and develop new ones to better reflect they're intentions.
Trent Reznor and his contemporaries are a fairly good example, sought to treat less attractive "sounds" as viable and arangeable into a musical theme, and because of the nature of the sounds they used they helped to emphasise the dark, moody, and often taboo content of the lyrics.
Marylin Manson, however, is someone how adopted the relatively newly developed style because it fit the image ond messages he wanted to push
Trent is more of the artist you're refering to, whereas Marylin is more the artist I'm refering to. (granted, at this point it seems Manson is more of a commercialist than an artist, but it still illustrates the point)
And I apologize for the "over analysis" the debate sent me into critique mode.. kinda hard habit to break
Edited By Lord Magus on Mar. 08 2002 at 2:10
Lord Magus Wrote:Much as with the visual arts.. those would be the Avant Gaurd of the musical field.. conciously choosing to forgo established styles and develop new ones.
The tricky part is doing that without seeming
contrived.
Edited By Keyser Soze on Mar. 08 2002 at 2:05