Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KharBevNor]

3 Inches of Bloods official band photo is kinda proof against that hypothesis, except after seeing them live in full metal glory I'm sure that was just some kind of twisted joke.

Genres are intensely useful things, because they provide the third, and crucial tool of music criticism. You can't just describe things by comparing them to other things, because that assumes everyone has the same musical vocabulary as you, similiary for describing things technically. Ideally, all things have to be used together for a proper picture.

[sp2]

then how do you explain that two different record stores can have the same record in different categories?

One of those record stores is wrong.  In fact, they're both probably wrong.

One of the record stores I frequent has a very discriminating punk/ska section.  By discriminating, I mean stuff like the Clash, the Ramones, the Dead Kennedys, they're NOT IN IT.  Their definition of punk is probably skewed, because no matter how poppy some Clash and Ramones stuff is, they are punk bands.

Another record store I frequent has stuff like Pretty Girls Make Graves, and Q and Not U in the punk section.  I wouldn't consider either of these bands to be punk in the least.  

Often, CDs in record stores are arranged by the personal opinions of the staff.  If a member of the staff thinks an album is too mainstream, it'll end up in pop rock, even if it's Rob Zombie.  Or they'll base their decision on a particular era of the band, example, Ministry's earlier stuff could by some be considered metal.  Their later stuff is solidly industrial.

This doesn't mean there isn't a relatively universal concept of metal that defines metaldom, or alt-rockdom,  or punkdom, or whatever.  The Weakerthans aren't metal.  Fugazi isn't electronica.  Ministry isn't pop rock.  Blonde Redhead isn't hip-hop.  Nirvana isn't prog rock.  There is no way at all in the very tiniest least bit to argue any of those.  So stop pretending that genres can be bent at your whim, because you're full of shit.

[kidd o]

Doesn’t it beg the question that if you listen to bands on their own merits rather than because they have something in common with something else you like, you palate would expand?  I think this is the reason that art is so stagnant in the modern world.  You have a few artists creating something unique and powerful, then you have people who say “that kind of music is category 5h7.  Then you have that same group say “these bands are also 5h7” and people feel a responsibility to listen to it over something else that isn’t.  It just seems like a marketing tactic to me and I don’t put much stock into it.  Not trying to be a snob but it’s something I care about.

That’s the reason that I love the Indy tag, it implies an authenticity, not a sound.

[KharBevNor]

Lol, this is off-topic, but have you heard Ministry's VERY early material? Still not pop-rock...but very, er...different. I'm particularly thinkinf of tracks like my much-beloved 'Every Day is Halloween'.

Also, as I never tire of pointing out, if 'indie' was about authenticity rather than sound, you would find Immortal, Skyclad, Inkubus Sukkubus, Forefather, Bathory, Edge of Sanity, Nightingale and Nokturnal Mortum in the 'Indie' section.

We all know Indie isn't 'just' about authenticity. Hell, half the bands a lot of indie kids listen to aren't even on indie labels. Someone post that NN2S comic.

[kidd o]

If you believe that someone can have an opinion about art that is wrong then there is no need to continue our conversation.

*added*

By the way who gets to decide what these terms mean?? Again, in Logic we call these words Buzzwords.  They don't mean anything unless someone agrees that they do.  Again just another logical fallacy.

Reading your post you seem to feel more qualified to designate where record shops put their records than they are.  What makes you more qualified to decide what is and isn't punk?

[sp2]

First, for Khar:

http://www.nothingnice.com/index.php?pageNum_Recordset2=184&totalRows_Recordset2=279

Second.

"Indie" is the single most bullshit term ever.  Indie as it is colloquially used describes a certain kind of pretentiously playful poppy alternative.  It has no connection to the actual label a band is on.  Most of the punk scene is on independant labels.  Most of the industrial scene is on independant labels.  Most of the post-hardcore scene is on independant labels.  Most of the electronica scene is on independant labels.

Additionally, the label a band is on means nothing about the quality of that band.  I've heard shitty bands from independant labels, even beloved labels like Sub-Pop.  I've heard damned good stuff that's on majors.  A major label just means you have more money, more funding for equipment and touring, and your music gets advertised more, so more people end up hearing it.  I doubt many of you have heard the Constantine's new album, but I bet all of you have heard something off the new Coldplay, whether or not you'll admit it.  

If I want to listen to music, I want to listen to something I enjoy, that incorporates musical techniques that intrigue and inspire me.  If I am inspired by certain types of music and not by others, why should I listen to the types of music that don't inspire or intrigue me?  Interpol bores the shit out of me, so why should I listen to bands that sound like them?  Trail of Dead, At the Drive In, and stuff like that really inspires me, so why shouldn't I listen specifically to that sort of music?  And how the hell is that a marketing ploy?

[kidd o]

to fault this term for the reasons you have listed is the exact argument that  I've been making about all categories.  Funny enough I do describe any band not connected with a major label as an Indie band.  Bands that ascended to major labels but maintained creative control over their music I feel are also Indie.  

Indie = Independent of control

But thats what it means for me.  And because it's my interpretation of the term I'm not here to say that yours is wrong.

as for the bad/good argument I agree with you.  I don't like all Indie.  But the important thing is that even bad Indie is more tolerable than pre packaged fluff.

If you want to listen to music that you already enjoy why does it need a category to be placed in??  I mean do you have to give everything you listen to the litmus test to see if you're allowed to like it?  You're not capable of just listening to something free of preconceptions and evaluating it?

Just to let you know I've seen all three of the bands that you've listed below and I'm proud to say I enjoy lots of bands that sound nothing alike.

the marketing thing?  I don't need to get into all of that.  Do some research, form your own opinion.  But know that there are people out there who spend their whole lives figuring out how people think then applying that knowledge to the construction of music in order to satisfy people of designations that they’ve created.

[sp2]

A)  Independant music is no more genuine than music on a major label.  not all Major label artists are Britney Spears.  There are plenty of perfectly talented and genuine artists that are on majors, and they have just as much to offer to the scene.

B)  Marketing and distribution are a double-edged sword.  There are many albums I spend months to years looking for in vain because indie labels tend to have limited distribution and limited pressings.  While some indie releases are rereleased, many you have to find used (which is a very hit-or-miss operation) or you need to shell out $50 on ebay for the album.  Or downloading, which isn't an option for those of us without broadband.  You can claim that this makes a band "sellouts" but if the band really cares about their music, they'll negotiate for full creative control (look at, for example, the Mars Volta, who produced their sophomore LP themselves without any say from Universal), and plenty of indie labels still have other people produce a band's music for them.  There are plenty of bands on major labels with more creative control than bands on indie labels.  As for marketing, mostly it's to say "hey, this band has a new album out."  No one's saying "oh dude, listening to the new Foo Fighters album is going to make you 10 times more attractive."  I only wish that I could be informed about upcoming albums by various independant bands that I enjoy, often that information is buried deep in the news posts of a very spartan website (apparently, for example, Pretty Girls Make Graves are recording a new album, but you wouldn't know this unless you really looked for it).  Honestly, I wish that many of my favorite independant bands were on bigger labels; they'd tour more, play more all-ages (not a big deal for me, as I'm an adult, but more an issue for other folks), and their albums would be more accessible.  Music should be about the music, and good stuff shouldn't be so damned hard to get ahold of.  Good music is not good because it is esoteric, it is good because it is good.

As for genres, I don't have broadband.  I don't have other free unlimited access to music.  So I sometimes have to shell out $10+ for an album on faith.  I would rather spend that knowing that they play a style of music that I tend to enjoy rather than just being told "oh, they're good."  There are plenty of bands other people have told me are awesome that I think are talentless trash (Interpol, for example), or are decent, but I want to break the CD because it's boring as shit (Sigor Ros comes to mind).  If the band focuses on the technical aspects that I find inspiring and plays a style I enjoy listening to, even if it's subpar, I'll probably get a lot of pleasure out of the CD, guilty pleasure, certainly, but pleasure nonetheless.  But if they focus on things I find completely banal and play a style I find completely lame, I will probably not listen to that CD and I will have wasted a bunch of money.  Are you beginning to get my point here?

Anyone's going to go into music with certain tastes.  There are things I enjoy in music.  There are things that I find obnoxious.  There are things that I get distracted by and things that I find absolutely inspiring, be it specific instrumentals,  style, or lyrics (and by inspiring, I mean that I'm in a band and it opens up new ideas for composition and such for me).  There are other forms of music that just do nothing for me.  No matter how much I listen to Postal Service, I'm still going to hate it, and I'm going to get nothing out of it.  This isn't because I'm narrowing my tastes based on genre, but because I fucking hate that style of music, it makes me want to kick the shit out of someone, and I find it totally bland.  So once again, why should I listen to something just like Postal Service if I hate that shit?  And why shouldn't I listen to something like BearvsShark if that leaves me feeling happy and excited and I can't wait to get back to my bass because I've seen someone do something new with a style I like a lot, and that makes me want to try new stuff?