Understanding Music Genres

[viscousmemories]

In the Classical Music thread godfry mentioned being something of a Philistine and having had a chaotic and informal training in music. Anyone who knows much about me can probably guess that I'm in much the same boat, only probably worse off. My understanding of music is akin to the Supreme Court's understanding of obscenity: I know what I like when I hear it.

But what am I listening to? Where does Rock and Roll stop and Classical start? Are movie scores a genre all their own? Are classical and orchestral (as I've always believed) synonymous? Who bears more responsibility for the success of a composition: the composer, conductor or performers? I've always thought of the pianist George Winston as "New Age". Is that an actual genre?

I'll start off by imploring you to go to Zbigniew Preisner's website. It's one of few websites I've been to with a background score that doesn't skip a beat as you navigate around the site, and some astonishingly beautiful (to me) music. I went to the site because he composed one of my favorite soundtracks (from one of my favorite films) Krystov Kieslowski's Trois Couleurs: Bleu, which I was just listening to. I was suprised to learn there that he's composed scores for several other films I liked, and equally surprised (and saddened) to learn that Kieslowski died in 1996. Guess that's what I get for living in a cave.

Anyway let's make this thread for anything and everything about and related to understanding musical genres. I'm not looking for answers to each specific question I posed. Well I am, but not just that.

[wade-w]

Well, for one thing, what is popularly referred to as "classical" music is in fact divided into at least three and sometimes four seperate styles: Baroque Classical, Romantic and Modern. Bach was Baroque, Mozart is considered the epitome of the Classical style, and Beethoven represetns the transition from Classical to Romantic. Note that the term "Romantic" here does not mean "lovey-dovey" themes, but rather indicates a certain passion, and a lesser importance placed on adherence to rigid forms and guidelines. This is definitely analogous to the Romantic movement that was occuring in Literatire at about the same time. Examples of Modern composers are Aaron Copeland and John Cage.

Not all "classical" music is "orchestral" in that it isn't written for an entire orchestra. One of my all time favorite melodies is Mozart's string quartet popularly known as Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. You may not recognize the name, but I guarantee that you've heard at least the opening of this piece in some movie or TV show at one time or other. A string quartet is music for 2 violins, a viola and a cello.

I once met a guy who had a rather narrow definiton of rock and roll. I can't remember all of it, but it included "no song can be more than 3-4 minutes long" and "a constant beat or no timing changes." I do remember thinking that based in his definition, I don't like much rock and roll. He was a big Ramones fan, and as a result I never bothered to check them out. Historically, rock evolved out of the blues, which is the little brother of jazz. The defining quality of jazz is improvisation.

[JoeP]

First off, I'm not going to any sites with background music. My bandwidth is precious!

You asked about "new age". I'll say yes, this is a genre. And I'll defined a genre like this: it's any term people use in discussions (anywhere) to generalise or compartmentalise art. (We'll talk about music only, but you get genres just the same in novels, and in other areas.)

You will find "new age" sections in music stores, and new age channels on satellite radio (for all I know, there are new age broadcast radio stations too). This means it is a genre in the sense that - at least for commerce - it's identifiable by buyers.

Music critics seem the most apt to define sub-sub-genres. Ever heard of monki-punk? The only band I know in that genre is the SA band Boo! (who may be now defunct or reformed under another name). I heard No Doubt described as some genre I'd never heard of. But then, I'm not sure I could identify bluegrass or zydeco, and yet those are well-established genres.

The genre that troubles me most is "alternative". Alternative to what? Something in particular? Everything? Is it a political statement (like punk was originally)? You get the paradox of successful mega-bands like The Cure, REM, Radiohead, etc who are clearly in that alternative genre, and "mainstream alternative" (huh?) bands like The Cranberries.

I don't think there's a single genre that doesn't have fuzzy edges. Already wade-w's identified Beethoven as "the transition from Classical to Romantic".

joe

[Ymir's blood]

All Music Guide is a site that I used to consult a lot while looking for info on new (to me) bands. They've recently switched to a 'registration required' format so I stopped going. If that doesn't bug you, then it might be something to check out.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

But what am I listening to? Where does Rock and Roll stop and Classical start?

Somewhere in Norway apparently, from the bands I've been listening to lately. I've seen them referred to as 'Symphonic Black Metal' or 'Gothic Metal' but they feature multiple vocalists, choirs, and various instruments not normally associated with metal.

Originally Posted by wade-w

I once met a guy who had a rather narrow definiton of rock and roll. I can't remember all of it, but it included "no song can be more than 3-4 minutes long" and "a constant beat or no timing changes."

That disqualifies a lot of great bands. Led Zepplin's Stairway to Heaven fails on both counts, yet it is a long time favorite of AOR stations. The three minute thing seems to have more to do with getting radio play on traditional stations. Supposedly there is a bias against longer songs.

Originally Posted by JoeP

Music critics seem the most apt to define sub-sub-genres.

Yep, and usually the only ones who take them seriously.

The genre that troubles me most is "alternative". Alternative to what? Something in particular? Everything?

I think the term arose to describe the 'grunge' sound that knocked Arena Rock/Glam Metal off the charts in the early nineties. It was alternative to what had been popular before.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by wade-w

Not all "classical" music is "orchestral" in that it isn't written for an entire orchestra. One of my all time favorite melodies is Mozart's string quartet popularly known as Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. You may not recognize the name, but I guarantee that you've heard at least the opening of this piece in some movie or TV show at one time or other. A string quartet is music for 2 violins, a viola and a cello.

Yep, I know Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. I just went to Amazon and listened to it there. I instantly thought of Bugs Bunny, but I couldn't find anything directly linking them on the 'net. Nevertheless I definitely know the music.

I once met a guy who had a rather narrow definiton of rock and roll. I can't remember all of it, but it included "no song can be more than 3-4 minutes long" and "a constant beat or no timing changes." I do remember thinking that based in his definition, I don't like much rock and roll. He was a big Ramones fan, and as a result I never bothered to check them out. Historically, rock evolved out of the blues, which is the little brother of jazz. The defining quality of jazz is improvisation.

I like the Ramones a lot, but then I like a whole lot of different kinds of music. Hopefully I'll be able to expand on that more in a bit. Thanks for your reply!

[Adora]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

But what am I listening to?

The only ones I really know are electronic-dance music genres. They're defined by their bpms and nothing else. Though I wish I could fucking remember what they are... *dies*

*wanders off to find some answers on google*

Oh, and anyone who calls Queen's stuff 'rock' should be shot in the gonads.

[LadyShea]

This may not be on topic, but I know enough techno fans to make this a real issue for me.I hear the following terms a lot. And really, they have no meaning to me. I think they're all techno, but maybe someone can explain the differences

Industrial
Electronica
House
Trance

[LadyShea]

The Ramones are your basic or pure rock. Guitar, drums, bass, vocals, 4/4 timing...nothing fancy, nothing experimental, nothing mixed... can be reproduced on stage or in a garage or the studio.

I am a huge fan

I don't like manufactured music. If the singer has to lipsync to taped music when performing live, the music is overly manufactured.

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't like manufactured music. If the singer has to lipsync to taped music when performing live, the music is overly manufactured.

Preferably, when playing 'live,' the band should also sound somewhat close to the way they do on their albums.

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't like manufactured music. If the singer has to lipsync to taped music when performing live, the music is overly manufactured.

I agree completely. This was the point Frank Zappa was making when he titled a series of live recordings (with no overdubs on any of the tracks) he released in the 90's You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore.

His music was far from "nothing fancy", and much of it was experimental, but his bands were good enough to pull it off live or in the studio.

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

Preferably, when playing 'live,' the band should also sound somewhat close to the way they do on their albums.

I disagree. I prefer to see (or hear, I guess) a band try new arrangements, and mix things up a bit. At the very least, they need some improvisation and jamming during the tune. A few solos doesn't hurt either. If I wanted to hear them just regurgitate their albums, I'll save my money and stay home and listen to the albums.

For example, The Grateful Dead's Friend of the Devil was done in a Bluegrass style on the original vinyl. However, in live performances it evolved into a ballad style, and it was, imo, much better with this arrangement.

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by wade-w

I disagree. I prefer to see (or hear, I guess) a band try new arrangements, and mix things up a bit. At the very least, they need some improvisation and jamming during the tune. A few solos doesn't hurt either. If I wanted to hear them just regurgitate their albums, I'll save my money and stay home and listen to the albums.

Oh, I meant quality wise, as in the live version sounds like a bunch of amateurs and the studio version is flawless. They should just play the album over the speakers and then have the producer come out and bow for the encore.

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

Oh, I meant quality wise, as in the live version sounds like a bunch of amateurs and the studio version is flawless. They should just play the album over the speakers and then have the producer come out and bow for the encore.

Oh, OK. I agree completely.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by wade-w

I agree completely. This was the point Frank Zappa was making when he titled a series of live recordings (with no overdubs on any of the tracks) he released in the 90's You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore.

His music was far from "nothing fancy", and much of it was experimental, but his bands were good enough to pull it off live or in the studio.

Oh Zappa was genius, nothing basic about him at all

The Ramones are basic...not even really great musicians or anything...just alot of fun.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This may not be on topic, but I know enough techno fans to make this a real issue for me.I hear the following terms a lot. And really, they have no meaning to me. I think they're all techno, but maybe someone can explain the differences

Industrial
Electronica
House
Trance

I'll wiki, cos they have the best definitions, and I'm too lazy to type it all up.

Techno

Industrial

Electronica

House

Trance

Jungle

Trip-Hop

I'll say Ambient Electronica too, because that comprises a lot of artists I like, and I'll put Dub and Dancehall in here as well, because they're starting to turn more acceptable and mainstream.

Garage is possibly the only one I still have trouble understanding, because it has been applied to so much in such a short amount of time, you can get confused unless the people you're talking to know the genre you're referring to. It's been used to describe house, dub, R&B, rock, UK Garage, Garridge, and other shit not worth mentioning.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by JoeP

First off, I'm not going to any sites with background music. My bandwidth is precious!

Oh, right. Sorry. Well Preisner did the score for Europa, Europa, The Double Life of Veronique, Damage, all three of the Trois Couleurs films, and several others. Brilliant music, IMHO.

You asked about "new age". I'll say yes, this is a genre. And I'll defined a genre like this: it's any term people use in discussions (anywhere) to generalise or compartmentalise art. (We'll talk about music only, but you get genres just the same in novels, and in other areas.)

You will find "new age" sections in music stores, and new age channels on satellite radio (for all I know, there are new age broadcast radio stations too). This means it is a genre in the sense that - at least for commerce - it's identifiable by buyers.

Okay that sounds reasonable. I like a lot of New Age music. Actually I like something from almost every genre of music. Except Country.

Music critics seem the most apt to define sub-sub-genres. Ever heard of monki-punk? The only band I know in that genre is the SA band Boo! (who may be now defunct or reformed under another name). I heard No Doubt described as some genre I'd never heard of. But then, I'm not sure I could identify bluegrass or zydeco, and yet those are well-established genres.

Hmm. I've heard No Doubt referred to as Ska before, is that it?

The genre that troubles me most is "alternative". Alternative to what? Something in particular? Everything? Is it a political statement (like punk was originally)? You get the paradox of successful mega-bands like The Cure, REM, Radiohead, etc who are clearly in that alternative genre, and "mainstream alternative" (huh?) bands like The Cranberries.

I think Ymir's Blood is right, but it wasn't just grunge. It was also stuff like R.E.M, The Smiths, Siouxie and the Banshees, etc. I used to listen to this radio station in Ann Arbor that was a regular pop station during the day, but for one hour each night they would do a show called "The Cutting Edge", where they would play "alternative bands" like those I just mentioned, because nobody else was playing that stuff. That one hour show became a two hour show, then 4 hour, and within a couple months that station was 24x7 "alternative". At which point, of course, it was no longer the alternative, but the mainstream. That's when it lost it's literal meaning.

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by JoeP

But then, I'm not sure I could identify bluegrass or zydeco, and yet those are well-established genres.

Both are very distinctive, and if you ever hear one example of either genre, you'll be able to easily identify it the next time you hear it.

A typical bluegrass band will usually have guitars, banjos, a fiddle and an upright bass. In practice, it's similar to jazz, with lots of improvisation. As an aside, Jerry Garcia played banjo in a bluegrass band before he started the Grateful Dead.

Zydeco is rather odd. Think jazz polka. Including the accordian as the central instrument.

[LadyShea]

Thanks for the links Adora. I am afraid I am not a connoisseur and even if I listened to a perfect example from each genre listed, all I would hear is annoying club techno. The differences sound from the decriptions to be quite subtle in many or most cases.

I also hate that if I occasionally heard a techno song I liked at a club (I can only think of one), there were no lyrics to identify it with, so I could never go buy it.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Thanks for the links Adora. I am afraid I am not a connoisseur and even if I listened to a perfect example from each genre listed, all I would hear is annoying club techno. The differences sound from the decriptions to be quite subtle in many or most cases.

I also hate that if I occasionally heard a techno song I liked at a club (I can only think of one), there were no lyrics to identify it with, so I could never go buy it.

I've heard as many definitions of the techno genres as sources I've read or talked to. Not that those Wikipedia entries aren't good - they are - it's just that to someone who isn't interested in devoting a fair chunk of their life to studying electronic music it can be really ambiguous. Here's my gross (and probably at least partly inaccurate) oversimplification:

Industrial: Heavy metal with a bit of synthesizer, ala Ministry - Jesus Built My Hotrod.

I don't really think of Industrial as techno, personally.

Techo:
Electronica: Equal parts metal and synthesizer, ala Prodigy - Smack My Bitch Up
House/Hip-hop/trip-hop: Mostly synthesized dance club music
Trance/Ambient: Mello, airy, spacy Enya-like stuff or experimental.

[LadyShea]

Electronica: Equal parts metal and synthesizer, ala Prodigy - Smack My Bitch Up

Then I like elctronica because I like Prodigy

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Adora

Oh, and anyone who calls Queen's stuff 'rock' should be shot in the gonads.

So what genre is Queen anyway?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by JoeP

So what genre is Queen anyway?

Don't listen to her, Queen has been called rock since before she was born.

It's just a weird orchestra-rock fusion of sorts is all.

[Gawen]

Composed soundtracks...hmmm. I like them. I call it contemporay Classical music. Horner is one of my favs. Used to be a radio station up north that played an hour of selected movie music.

[Adora]

They're a big fat P-o-p. Too much orchestra kind of negates calling them "rock" in the end.

[JoeP]

wikipedia claims "glam rock" and I'll go with that. "Rock" as a term is too wide and inclusive for most bands to be denied rock status ... nearly as overused as "classical" ...