Does anyone else dislike it when you hear a term like "post grunge" or "acid jazz"? When someone asks me what type of music I like I'll usually use a rather glib response like, "oh I'll listen to just about anything. I realize that some labeling is necessary but calling something "punk fusion grindcore speedmetal" just seems to be a bit pretentious in my opinion. I guess it's not a big deal just a pet peeve. Your thoughts would be appreciated. And as an added bonus what was the most ridicules label for a music sub genre you have seen at a record shop?
I'll agree that some of the sub-genre labels are downright ridiculous and confusing.That said, I'd much rather someone tell me "I listen to acid jazz" than tell me "Oh, I like a bit of everything." That answer frustrates me a lot more! Not saying you are like this, but I find that most of the time when people say "I like everything", they mean they like everything that's been exposed for them already via the media. They don't realize "everything" can include psychedelic folk, brazilian pop, death metal, irish jigs/reels, lenghty progressive rock epics about elves....The "I like everything" crowd usually aren't so open-minded once they're thrown into unfamiliar territory. Of course, I'm generalizing horribly. Just going by my personal experience. Genres don't bother me in themselves--only when they become a restriction as to what a person listens to, or what a band limits themselves to playing. Most of the time I get a twisted pleasure out of organizing my digital library genres.
Well, I have use for names for the distinictive subgenres. Of course some names feel silly and unpractical for me as well. It's not always the very narrow genre definition like 'speedy thrash metal with death metal influences' and stuff that annoys me. Here are some that I don't get or I feel they just aren't right: I always found Emo ... a pretty silly name, and no, not because I generally don't like the music, but because it doesn't sound more emotional to me as other music. Even more silly to me are: Alternative rock.. It's very vague and too many bands seem to be fit in it to be a real dinstinctive genre to me. It just have no use. Also lots of stuff called alternative rock sounds more like alternative pop to me. Post.... is always silly. Like rock has been done and now there's something new. If it's so new and other from rock why don't you name it something new. How is the next new thing that'll happen to rock is gonna be named? Post-post rock? Classic rock. This one probably annoys me most if I would really let it trouble me . Classic rock is not a real genre, it's a collective noun for many rock genres (blues rock, folk rock, psych rock, prog rock etc.) from the past. If it's old it's automatically classic rock.. Pretty stupid, I dunno what you really like if you say you dig classic rock. Indie also just doesn't make sense. Lots of them aren't 'indie' as in independant from record lables anymore and it doesn't say anything about the kind of music it is, although through the time it has become a specific genre it contains bands from experimental folk to 'alternative rock' and I don't know what
So how about instead of making up all these ridicules sub genre's we just say, "X band sounds like Q band mixed with Y band" That way everyone gets credit and you never run the risk of saying "acid jazz" in a public setting. Of course if someone was to make a band and call it acid jazz the threat may still be relevant. Wait, what if someone already did? Fuck, there goes my theory.
I don't make up ridicilous subgenres, I just ignore them and use the ones I find useful and thus aren't ridicilous
Like Viking Metal because it is most definitely metal, because it is raw and heavy. yet it is also gracefully domineering in a sense of a viking. add in the usual lyrics of cascading fjords, deep valleys, green hills, and hot Norwegian bimbos, it is well rounded.
Asmodean - Although I agree "classic rock" is not a genre and shouldn't be used as such, I don't really mind when people use it to describe rock from past decades, as a general observation. I'm very much with you when it comes to "Alternative" though. Alternative to what? It gives you no idea what the sound of the band is like. (Though much of the time, bands hailed as great "alternative" are a bit bland to me). Just a question to the original poster, why do you feel acid jazz is ridiculous? There is acid rock, there is acid folk, there is acid jazz. These genres are quite useful to me, because there are key elements distinguishing them from traditional rock, folk, and jazz. In the end, it could also depend on the size/diversity of your music collection. If you have a small collection, a few labels like rap, country, rock, etc. might suffice. If you have a vast collection that sprinkles over the entire spectrum of sound, specific genres become a lot more useful.
I was using the term acid jazz as an example, I could of said post contemporary folk, or death core. I didn't mean any disrespect to any musicians who have been labeled that particular name. And I believe that the majority of these ridicules labels don't come from the artist's themselves but by music journalists and music enthusiasts. I've known a few of artist's who feel embarrassed and even a bit angry when their art is labeled by someone other than themselves .
