just...eh?

[keks]

I just had a short fb-conversation with a guy who looked for new folks to start a band.
I send him a couple of recordings that I'm putting together right now.
He replied that it was cool, but not exactly his genre.


I mean, why would you possibly look for guys and gals who bring something else to the table than more of your own shtick?

[upstairs]

Ah, yes, "genrefication". When I moved back to LA a while ago I had the same problem when I was trying to start a band.

"Sorry, I'm only into mathcore"
"My heart is really in progressive dreamfunk"
"I only play tasteful professional subgenre-appropriate guitar licks with my PRS, you guys are too wild"
etc.

Doesn't anyone just want to write a cool tune anymore? When I was playing more frequently I was in metal bands, grunge bands, blues bands, a few shoegaze bands, and luckily a few old fashioned songwriting bands. But I play drums.

[keks]

"Sorry, I'm only into mathcore"
"My heart is really in progressive dreamfunk"
"I only play tasteful professional subgenre-appropriate guitar licks with my PRS, you guys are too wild"
etc.

This really lives more in the realm of "personal validation" instead of making music...

[upstairs]

"Sorry, I'm only into mathcore"
"My heart is really in progressive dreamfunk"
"I only play tasteful professional subgenre-appropriate guitar licks with my PRS, you guys are too wild"
etc.

This really lives more in the realm of "personal validation" instead of making music...

And then the music they make tends to be anything but musical, in my opinion of course. They have drums, guitars, vocals, whatever - it's all there - but simultaneously, there is nothing (deep, man)

Music doesn't seem to be high on the list, as we see with the social media marketing craze. Spend an hour making a song and spend a week trying to promote it. I've found most of the people who do this sort of thing, at least in my area, are very interested in "getting into the industry". Apparently being an open sellout is no longer frowned upon.

[nobby]

There are 2 things to consider.

I remember being told many years ago, almost hysterically, by an industry guy ( he toured with Billy Joel as synth player at the time) that you can't go too far afield in terms of genre because the mooks wouldn't accept it, presumably because they felt the fans wouldn't.

But it's a matter of degree, and therefore, a moving target.

The Beatles played Rock, but their Rock was so inclusive that it incorporated Classical, Blues, Folk, and Jazz. In fact, I remember a review of Abbey Road in which the reviewer described "Octopus' Garden" as Country, and "I Want You" as being Jazz. A bit of a stretch, but you can hear the influence.

And a reviewer described the Stones "Lady Jane" as "Elizabethan". What would Chuck Berry say? Not exactly "Jumping Jack Flash".

Rock wasn't tightly restricted.

At the risk of pissing people off, most Death Metal that I've heard, for example, all sounds like the same song by comparison. Original Heavy Metal like Led Zeppelin was more inclusive.

I would have to say that for me, the Beatles went a bit too far in including "She's leaving Home" and "When I'm 64" on a Rock album. That's one of the few times I'd side with John against Paul (who wrote both).

Of course, because of that, the album tanked and the Beatles were never heard from again

Another example would be Sheryl Crow. I think her 1st album (Tuesday Night?) used Rock as the foundation with Folk, Jazz, Funk, Spiritual...

I may be wrong but my impression is that her song, "Solidify":


Why should I
Solidify
Make me real
So you can see me

Is about not being too limited stylistically because in so doing, you limit the type of songs, and thereby, the amount of original material, you can put out.

It's really a balance of not going too far afield on the one hand and not being unduly restricted or pigeonholed, on the other.

[Gronk]

I can understand why the business part of the music business is interested in genre, but I can't understand why the music part would be. Surely to a creative mind, genre serves as something to defy, rather than adhere too?

[upstairs]

Surely to a creative mind, genre serves as something to defy, rather than adhere too?

Or even better, something to generally not consider. Make cool noises with conviction, then 20 years later at least a few people will be calling you "the foundation of the [x] genre" and a genius for doing something different.

"Hey man, I was just going twiddly-dee doo wop on the geetar"
"Amazing. Now I'll read three or four books on how to emulate the [x] genre form, and maybe I'll be able to approach his mastery."

It's just getting a bit silly.

For marketing purposes, whatever, but that's after the music was made.

[upstairs]

The Beatles played Rock, but their Rock was so inclusive that it incorporated Classical, Blues, Folk, and Jazz. In fact, I remember a review of Abbey Road in which the reviewer described "Octopus' Garden" as Country, and "I Want You" as being Jazz. A bit of a stretch, but you can hear the influence.

See, I would just define that as The Beatles making the sounds they wanted to make, as opposed to making a specific attempt to "incorporate other genres". Though I don't know what they were thinking at the time, or if they had any time to think. But the influence (consciously or not) was there surely.

[nobby]

I can understand why the business part of the music business is interested in genre, but I can't understand why the music part would be. Surely to a creative mind, genre serves as something to defy, rather than adhere too?

It isn't. But if you want to promote your music in any way, it's relevant. If you just view music as a fun hobby it doesn't.

If you're shopping a song, you would pitch something pretty specific to a specific artist, wouldn't you? Not exactly what they've already done, but something along those lines.

Making a record? Put on your producer's hat.

What is the purpose of the record?

Is it a single or an album?

I have 2 projects in the works: One is an album. The other is a series of singles.

The album is guitar Rock, to keep it simple. The songs all sound different, different chords, keys, tempos, subject matter/ lyrics, arrangements from Folk to Metal, but they're all guitar Rock. As the producer, you want it to be cohesive, don't you? I know I do. Not necessarily a "concept album", just one that flows from song to song.

The singles are songs I wrote that don't fit that genre. They don't even fit with each other. One is Jazz, another is Reggae, one is Bluegrass, one is Boogie.

You get the idea

Surely to a creative mind, genre serves as something to defy, rather than adhere too?

Doing something new in an existing genre is a MAJOR challenge for the creative mind.

To me, Nirvana's "Nevermind" album was a shockingly fresh look at the decades old genre of Hard Rock, for example.

The problem isn't adhering to a genre, it's being boxed into a SUB-genre, or sub-sub-genre, IMO. Which is not your problem or mine, or at least, it shouldn't be.

[upstairs]

It isn't. But if you want to promote your music in any way, it's relevant. If you just view music as a fun hobby it doesn't.

Well to me that's why the problem of ultra-subsubsubgenre-ized music has developed. Too much thought about the marketing by the musician. Maybe you do have to do that to make it work these days.

I think this Zappa clip is fairly relevant

[Gronk]

To me, Nirvana's "Nevermind" album was a shockingly fresh look at the decades old genre of Hard Rock, for example.

Fair enough. To me, it was just a bunch of great songs. Which to me puts in the same genre as Hotel California.

[Toonman]

I just had a short fb-conversation with a guy who looked for new folks to start a band.
I send him a couple of recordings that I'm putting together right now.
He replied that it was cool, but not exactly his genre.


I mean, why would you possibly look for guys and gals who bring something else to the table than more of your own shtick?

I guess it all comes down to what you want to do with the whole "get a band together" experience. I mean, if someone really likes what they'd identify as "punk rock", it would be kinda natural that they don't really connect with someone who tries to incorporate what they'd identify as "country ballads" into the band, right?

Not all bands are born to re-define or challenge our preconceived genres. Some are there just for personal entertainment, whatever that means in their heads.
I guess.

[nobby]

To me, Nirvana's "Nevermind" album was a shockingly fresh look at the decades old genre of Hard Rock, for example.

Fair enough. To me, it was just a bunch of great songs. Which to me puts in the same genre as Hotel California.

They are both in the same genre. Rock.

"a bunch of great songs" has nothing whatsoever to do with genre.

You could be talking about Jazz, Classical, Reggae, etc. Any genre that has identifiable songs.

[Gronk]

I think that "a bunch of great songs" is the only genre worth considering.

[nobby]

That doesn't meet the definition of genre, though. Genre means category; it has nothing to do with quality.

[Gronk]

I've redefined genre. I'm categorising by quality. That way I can move right past the 'monotonous crap' section.

[upstairs]

I suppose "genre" can mean different things to different people...if you mean the overall mood of a song, sure. Often a certain mood or feel is best achieved with some standard practices. Some times it isn't necessary. But I think it should happen naturally as opposed to trying to emulate preexisting works. Even with something like the blues, when I listen to old blues records (even a lot of the unspectacular ones), I hear "songs" first and the blues just happens to be the way the musicians communicate those songs. When I turn on the local blues/jazz station and hear what most of the new groups are doing, it just sounds like a cartoon version of the real thing. They're just trying to fit into a compartmentalized vision of the "genre", and they never (or very rarely) do anything that goes against it even slightly.

So it becomes music without a purpose. Just an exercise in the "genre". I don't want to hear a genre, I want to hear a song

[upstairs]

And there are degrees to it. If you're writing an exciting record with loud electric guitar and drums with a heavy backbeat, it's fine to realize that you're most likely writing a rock record. Of course you'd want to market it as such.

[Gronk]

Well each to their own. I just think that if you are considering genre at the creative stage, then you are limiting the possibilities.
For me personally, categorisation is the least of my problems. Fix it in the marketing!

[nobby]

And there are degrees to it. If you're writing an exciting record with loud electric guitar and drums with a heavy backbeat, it's fine to realize that you're most likely writing a rock record. Of course you'd want to market it as such.

Exactly. Unless you are treating music as strictly a hobby, it isn't really possible to go too far afield.

I'm like Gronk. If I have my choice, I'll listen to great music regardless of genre. Except for Punkrap Polkacore. I avoid that.

People generally don't want to hear Punk Rock at an expensive restaurant. You can't dance a waltz to Bebop.

Like radio programming. Unless it's a college radio anything-goes situation. My mother used to listen to Classical music all day long while she worked.

If you worked at the station and you thought you'd sneak some Hendrix in between Brahms' Lullaby and a Strauss waltz, that wouldn't work.

And neither would you, probably ever again

I would put it between Khachaturian and Bartok where it belongs

But I'd still be fired.

Likewise, if you were selling an album, there had to be something the songs had in common. If it's a Rock album, you can get away with a lot and still have a cohesive unit. Throw a ballad in here and there between the up tempo rockers

Here's some pretty stark contrast for you: the 3rd and 4th songs from the Rolling Stones' "Aftermath" album.

[Gronk]

Exactly. Unless you are treating music as strictly a hobby, it isn't really possible to go too far afield.

Replace "a hobby" with 'an art', and I'll agree.

[Bob Olhsson]

Genre means an intended audience. They are always handy work of marketing suits.

[nobby]

This has evolved into semantics.

Name any album you think I could be possibly familiar with in which no regard whatsoever was given to genre.

Of course it's marketing but you would never be able to sell my mother a Zappa album, so why waste the promotional re$ource$?

Back in the day, if you walked into a record store you either already knew what you wanted or you could go to the racks.

IIRC the genres were Country & Western, Rock, Pop, Classical and Jazz, which covered most of it. After that, depending on the size of the store you might have Miscellaneous, Eastern or whatever.

Having to stock the physical product limited the store from having too many categories. They wouldn't, for example, break Jazz down into New Orleans, Ragtime, Swing, Stride, Bebop, Avant-Garde. Zappa would have to go in either the Rock or the Jazz bin... sorry, Frank.

The problem, as I see it is that now since there are no physical restrictions you have marketing mooks that are totally out of control with hundreds of "genres" and a Balkanized environment for the listener to have to navigate.

[Gronk]

Not sure that this has "evolved" at all, nobby. As I understand it, you are interested in genre, and I am not. I have no problem with your position. I am just making it clear that I don't consider genre relevant in the creation of music. I find it to be an inhibitor, and I don't need any more of those.

I don't mind if people disagree with me. I don't mind if you call me a hobbiest. But if I ever win a grammy, you'd better lube up! Ok, you're probably safe in that respect.

[upstairs]

Maybe it once again all goes back to the economics. If people could get some sort of foot in the door writing more openly, I think they would (they probably still have a chance if they're really, really good). The only apparent way in is through a great gauntlet of people financially covering their own asses, as in pandering to highly defined and profit-proven fanbases/genres. That should be well known though. Bob keeps trying to tell us!

I do get your point Nobby. I just don't think the current situation produces much good.

[keks]

The only apparent way in is through a great gauntlet of people financially covering their own asses, as in pandering to highly defined and profit-proven fanbases/genres. That should be well known though. Bob keeps trying to tell us!

I guess that comes down to whatever you consider to being "in".
I mean, those days of raining dollar bills are over, period.
There might be a very small segment of people marketed as "stars" who might or might not have very comfy contracts, financially.

But for people who are trying to do it for the love of their own music, there's either indy or just totally DIY.
What does being "in" mean to them?
(That's a totally honest question, btw.)

[nobby]

Not sure that this has "evolved" at all, nobby. As I understand it, you are interested in genre, and I am not. I have no problem with your position. I am just making it clear that I don't consider genre relevant in the creation of music. I find it to be an inhibitor, and I don't need any more of those.

I don't mind if people disagree with me. I don't mind if you call me a hobbiest. But if I ever win a grammy, you'd better lube up! Ok, you're probably safe in that respect.

A grammy in what category?

[nobby]

Maybe it once again all goes back to the economics. If people could get some sort of foot in the door writing more openly, I think they would (they probably still have a chance if they're really, really good).

Not sure what you mean by "Foot in the door" in this context. I'm not looking to ever compete with Beyonce or Lady Gaga. I think Gronk might be, though.

Not exactly sure what you mean by "more openly" either but "really, really good" works for me.

The 2 best ways to make it in anything are to either be really, really good or to fool people into thinking you are

The only apparent way in is through a great gauntlet of people financially covering their own asses, as in pandering to highly defined and profit-proven fanbases/genres. That should be well known though. Bob keeps trying to tell us!

To superstardom? Yeah, probably. But I have to think life exists between busking and selling out stadiums.

I do get your point Nobby. I just don't think the current situation produces much good.

I also don't think the current situation produces much good.

But I refuse to give up. I have to believe there's some grass roots, DIY indie way to get something going.

[upstairs]

By foot in the door I mean a situation where quitting your day job isn't a horrible decision. At least from what I've witnessed (not all that much really) even the lowest rungs of those who don't want to be strictly hobbyists get into the moist pro "industry" attitude. Especially the ones who went to some sort of music/production school.

Sell outs, man!

I really do think people in the past could afford to be naive enough to truly be into music.

Not exactly sure what you mean by "more openly" either but "really, really good" works for me.

Well, "more openly" is what leads to "really, really good" for me. Once you start getting into the industry mindset, and writing as a function of "correctly" copping a genre which has become super defined, the life gets choked out and things get really boring.

[Gronk]

Not sure that this has "evolved" at all, nobby. As I understand it, you are interested in genre, and I am not. I have no problem with your position. I am just making it clear that I don't consider genre relevant in the creation of music. I find it to be an inhibitor, and I don't need any more of those.

I don't mind if people disagree with me. I don't mind if you call me a hobbiest. But if I ever win a grammy, you'd better lube up! Ok, you're probably safe in that respect.

A grammy in what category?

Damn!

Ok, I'm going with left handed techno folk. Now I'm off to practice my speech.