just...eh?

[nobby]

I've combined Techno with Heckno and Fuckno.

[Gronk]

The new Fuckno just aint the same. The kids have no respect. That was where Respectno emerged from.

[upstairs]

I've combined Techno with Heckno and Fuckno.

Look out, we have a genre bendre!

[nobby]

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.

Industry mooks won't be chaining me to the radiator.
That's for the young and pretty to worry about.

[nobby]

The new Fuckno just aint the same. The kids have no respect. That was where Respectno emerged from.

Unfortunately, "Insolence" is already a band name.

IMO it should have been "The Insolence" or "The Insolents".

[nobby]

Here's a song/ production that seems like a good example of something not hemmed in by strict boundaries.

Kaze. Totally unknown -- do a search.

Stumbled across them on OurStage, category: Rock

Nothing works for everyone, but I'm totally digging this

[Gronk]

Very cool. Never heard of them.

I've been getting into the Courteny Barnett/Kurt Vile album. CB is really interesting...

[tylodawg]

Interesting conversation. My take on a lot of this has changed (evolved?) over the years. I used to be a "it doesn't matter about genre, just make music" type. But then I started making records, and I realized that you could take that too far. People wanted to smash together very disparate sounds (I won't say "genre") on the same record, and I was having trouble unifying that into a whole. It sounded more like a bunch of songs thrown together. I LIKE when a record has a feel, a sound, a whatever-you-call-it that ties it all together. Conceptually, yeah, it sounds great to say "I did a metal tune, then a folk tune, then a jazz tune, I'm just not bound by labels". OK, great. But I don't think that necessarily helps a recording. I guess it's knowing the difference between incorporating various elements into an established sound, and doing a "paint by numbers" thing from various genres.
Then everyone started listening to iTunes, one song at a time, and this whole concept of unifying a record was made obsolete and quaint. But I still think of records as a whole, because I'm old and out of touch.

[keks]

I LIKE when a record has a feel, a sound, a whatever-you-call-it that ties it all together. Conceptually, yeah, it sounds great to say "I did a metal tune, then a folk tune, then a jazz tune, I'm just not bound by labels". OK, great. But I don't think that necessarily helps a recording.

I'm totally with you on that.
But I don't think it helps a recording either to approach band assembly and initial writing with a fundamentalist cookie cutter approach.
I mean, what is the point in looking for creative individuals for tighly genre- boxed "paint by numbers", to stay in your metaphor?

I guess it's knowing the difference between incorporating various elements into an established sound, and doing a "paint by numbers" thing from various genres.

You could approach it that way, I guess.
I am more into finding other people I gel with, and stir the pot.
If there's a good creative chemistry, something will show up, music, songs, whatever.
And then it's about identifying the good stuff and how the good pieces relate to each other.
If you find a collection of songs that work well with each other, then you might have something exciting, even fresh.
If you stay in tight genre boundaries you just recycle stuff that is just more of the same from the start...

[upstairs]

Conceptually, yeah, it sounds great to say "I did a metal tune, then a folk tune, then a jazz tune, I'm just not bound by labels".

Sounds exactly like that person in question is bound by labels

"I'm really artistic and stuff man, I blend genres" has tended to be a bad sign when I was recording bands. It seems to end up sounding gimmicky most of the time. But that's my taste.

[tylodawg]

I wish I could calculate the exact line where these approaches cross, but I can't. This is not an exact art/science/whatever. That's about as much as I can explain it.
Not to mention, last I checked, nobody gives a turd what I think, so there's that.

[tylodawg]

Conceptually, yeah, it sounds great to say "I did a metal tune, then a folk tune, then a jazz tune, I'm just not bound by labels".

Sounds exactly like that person in question is bound by labels

well played, sir.

"I'm really artistic and stuff man, I blend genres" has tended to be a bad sign when I was recording bands. It seems to end up sounding gimmicky most of the time. But that's my taste.

Yeah, kinda been my experience too. Not that it has to be that way, if adding something from another style does make the tune better, then hell yeah! It does happen. But most of the time, like you said, it just comes off superficial and gimmicky. "throw a banjo in the background, sing with a affected twang and we'll call it bluegrass". I don't care for those records. < Right here would be a great place for a shrug emjoi thing. >

[Bob Olhsson]

What you are looking for is a balance of the head, heart and groin. Heartbeat is determined by the breath while singing. The right tempo is the foundation of connecting with other people to share the emotional experience. Where the head comes in is finding enough variation for the experience to not become boring. The test of a song or mix at Motown was "how does it feel to sing along with and dance to?" Music is something that people share, musicians and listeners.

[Gronk]

Thanks Bob. I'm going to print that out and keep it.

You really should write that book.

[upstairs]

Thanks Bob. I'm going to print that out and keep it.

You really should write that book.

If it's called

The Head, The Heart, and The Groin

I'll preorder it.

[John Eppstein]

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

My favorite Zappa clip!

[John Eppstein]

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?

SOCIAL DISTORTION!

[John Eppstein]

I hate the word "genre". It's just a marketing term, used for pigeonholing and narrowcasting.

I much prefer the word "style".

It should not be overlooked that the greatest, most enduring acts of the '60s nearly all changed their sound fairly radically every three albums, while still maintaining their identity.

Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Kinks, etc.

[upstairs]

I much prefer the word "style".

I can definitely vibe with that. Avoids the "do things X way or else it's not proper" connotation that genre can take on.

[nobby]

I hate the word "genre". It's just a marketing term, used for pigeonholing and narrowcasting.

I much prefer the word "style".

It should not be overlooked that the greatest, most enduring acts of the '60s nearly all changed their sound fairly radically every three albums, while still maintaining their identity.

Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Kinks, etc.

Same point I was making in my Rock as English language thread.
Except those enduring acts changed their sound radically sometimes within the same album. You would have uptempo rockers interspersed with ballads to change things up.

Going directly from "Lady Jane" to "Under My Thumb" on the Stones "Aftermath" album for example.

[Bob Olhsson]

I never knew anybody who was consciously trying to sound like anything in particular back in the '60s.

[keks]

I never knew anybody who was consciously trying to sound like anything in particular back in the '60s.

There was not much to sound like, though...

[nobby]

There was not much to sound like, though...

Well, there was the music that preceded the 1960s. The Beatles and the Rolling Stones started out doing covers of American Rock & Roll, Rockabilly and Rhythm & Blues/ Soul.

The Beatles got the idea in their heads (mostly John and Paul) that they wanted to write songs. Their first couple of attempts were rejected by their producer (George Martin) but in fairly short order they demonstrated a knack for songwriting.

In the case of the Stones, their producer (Andrew Oldham) encouraged them to write their own songs. Again, after their first attempts at songwriting were rejected, they demonstrated a natural flair for it.

I never knew anybody who was consciously trying to sound like anything in particular back in the '60s.

Exactly. The idea was to not sound like that which was done before or what other people were doing.

Otherwise, from an artistic standpoint, what would be the point? And from a commercial perspective, if the fans already have what you're trying to copy, they don't need your record in their collections.

[Bob Olhsson]

People didn't think in terms of sounding like or not sounding like much. At Motown we were actually trying to not sound like Motown fearing it was a fad but it didn't work unless we used different musicians. More modern technology helped people sound more different but I doubt it helped much.

[nobby]

I guess it was called the 'Motown Sound' for a reason.

But Motown had a very high standard for songwriting. The songs themselves were usually quite original. If the songs all sounded the same it wouldn't have worked.

[Bob Olhsson]

The songs coming out of Nashville in the '50s were staggering so we saw that as our competition. The top songwriters were holding bidding wars between labels which resulted in the labels giving preference to singer-songwriters. This completely changed the industry placing less importance on the quality of writing in the late '60s.

[nobby]

Yet many of the best songs were written in the late '60s.

Some people apparently didn't get the memo.

[Bob Olhsson]

Many of these people had been professional songwriters.

[unitymusic]

I see it both ways. It's quite possible that someone might limit who they work with in order to stay in their "comfort zone", which could lead to something that is 'stylistically appropriate', but at the same time sort of generic and boring and predictable.

On the other hand, it's possible to add the wrong person or people, that don't really get the vision of what you're going for. Not all music is the same, and while great music is great music, sometimes there are compatibility issues.

A few years ago I was trying to put a band together for a show where most of the arrangements were already worked out. It was going well and we had six people practicing a few times a week. One of the newer guys was really good at his instrument, but it often sounded "noodlely" to me, like it wasn't on the same page harmoinically. I tried to talk to everyone about it and it turned into a huge thing where the guy quit, and we ended up playing the show as a four piece.

The point is, I had an idea that I wanted to pursue and follow through with, not because I thought it was the greatest thing ever, but I wanted to try it and see how it went. I think if you come into a project that is even a little established, and there's a vision, then you should be willing and able to master that before you try to impose new ideas and directions.

[nobby]

It was going well and we had six people practicing a few times a week. One of the newer guys was really good at his instrument, but it often sounded "noodlely" to me, like it wasn't on the same page harmoinically. I tried to talk to everyone about it and it turned into a huge thing where the guy quit, and we ended up playing the show as a four piece.

Why did the other person quit?

Anyway, there's another side to that coin.

It's great when you get someone who's really good at his instrument who adds something you didn't anticipate to the music that improves it dramatically.