Big Four Bands Thread Round 19: Gothic Rock

[Key]

Originally Posted by JGuy Grungeman

Wait til he complains that I didn't count his vote.

Do it for the lulz.

[JGuy Grungeman]

Originally Posted by Ki

Do it for the lulz.

I'm counting it for the lulz. Just as long as he can find an eligible act to replace Elizabeth Cotten.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

But looking at Wikipedia, I'd have no idea if a listed artist is "really Metalcore" or "really EuroHouse" or whatever.

It's actually pretty easy to tell the difference between the two.

[Dylstew]

Originally Posted by 1blankmind

Well, the way I've always viewed genres is more like this, "I really like this band. What are some other bands." At that point you can be like we'll they're this genre.

So what I'm saying, is by classifying the bands, you can classify the band and easily find more similar bands to enjoy thanks to this classification.

My take would be that genres catagorize works of entertainment by their similar structural elements, to be used as a general guideline. Indeed, if someone loves let's say a Thrash Metal band, he can find other bands in the genre more easily because of genre's. However, most genres (and by that I mean if I also include outside of music) really do come from the structure and not the meaning. Which means that the general appeal or reason you consume the work in the same genre could be entirely different. The genre says about what it has, not how it approached said thing.

Neon Genesis Evangelion is a Mecha anime because it has giant robots (well, ''Robots'') battling. Gurren lagan is a Mecha for the same reason. However, these 2 most popular Mecha under the same teenage demographic couldn't be more of an opposite from eachother in tone and appeal. One is anti escapism, the other revels in it. One's tone is quite depressing despite the optinistic message, while the other is completely over the top fun. One is about characters and their flaws, while the other is about rediculous action.

Another example, both Metroid Prime and Call of Duty are first person shooters as they're in first person and there's plenty of shooting. However, Metroid Prime is more of an action adventure game that they switched into first person, and thus has an entirely different audience/appeal.

This means that genre's have the benefit of introducing you to familiar yet potentially different things. Another benefit is not actually trying to find similar stuff, but how if you feel like you've had enough of a certain style, you can just look up other ones. You can easily introduce yourself to a very diverse set of bands at your own pace by just getting into another genre. instead of just listening to random bands can choose to find 5 of the best bands of each given style instead.

The downside is that things with different appeals get put together, and you might recieve constant reccomendations you don't like. Such as a Super Metroid fan getting reccomended Castlevania Symphony of the Night. One is built around exploration and the other just uses exploration to serve it's focus: action.

While like 90% of works are dereviative and actually quite easy to catagorize, the problem is there will always be these bands hard to classify. It can also get difficult when lots of genres mix and overlap, or when people make genres that are either overly specific, or way too vague (both are rather useless) Then there''s the problem of people who instead of taking them as a general guideline take them waaaaay too seriously, worryng over the label more than the music.

But all in all, I'd say sub genres have done way more good for my music listening (and learning about different kinds of music) than if we wouldn't have them.

Hmm..I think I could turn this topic into a little video.

[JGuy Grungeman]

Do it! I'd love to see it!

[Blank.]

Originally Posted by Dylstew

My take would be that genres catagorize works of entertainment by their similar structural elements, to be used as a general guideline. Indeed, if someone loves let's say a Thrash Metal band, he can find other bands in the genre more easily because of genre's. However, most genres (and by that I mean if I also include outside of music) really do come from the structure and not the meaning. Which means that the general appeal or reason you consume the work in the same genre could be entirely different. The genre says about what it has, not how it approached said thing.

Neon Genesis Evangelion is a Mecha anime because it has giant robots (well, ''Robots'') battling. Gurren lagan is a Mecha for the same reason. However, these 2 most popular Mecha under the same teenage demographic couldn't be more of an opposite from eachother in tone and appeal. One is anti escapism, the other revels in it. One's tone is quite depressing despite the optinistic message, while the other is completely over the top fun. One is about characters and their flaws, while the other is about rediculous action.

Another example, both Metroid Prime and Call of Duty are first person shooters as they're in first person and there's plenty of shooting. However, Metroid Prime is more of an action adventure game that they switched into first person, and thus has an entirely different audience/appeal.

This means that genre's have the benefit of introducing you to familiar yet potentially different things. Another benefit is not actually trying to find similar stuff, but how if you feel like you've had enough of a certain style, you can just look up other ones. You can easily introduce yourself to a very diverse set of bands at your own pace by just getting into another genre. instead of just listening to random bands can choose to find 5 of the best bands of each given style instead.

The downside is that things with different appeals get put together, and you might recieve constant reccomendations you don't like. Such as a Super Metroid fan getting reccomended Castlevania Symphony of the Night. One is built around exploration and the other just uses exploration to serve it's focus: action.

While like 90% of works are dereviative and actually quite easy to catagorize, the problem is there will always be these bands hard to classify. It can also get difficult when lots of genres mix and overlap, or when people make genres that are either overly specific, or way too vague (both are rather useless) Then there''s the problem of people who instead of taking them as a general guideline take them waaaaay too seriously, worryng over the label more than the music.

But all in all, I'd say sub genres have done way more good for my music listening (and learning about different kinds of music) than if we wouldn't have them.

Hmm..I think I could turn this topic into a little video.

This would be a great video.

The only thing I have to disagree about is the film comparison. I see what you're getting at. The issue I have is that Music exploration into certain subjects is through lyrics. And as long as the singer can take the lyrics and match them vocally with the music, then the lyrical theme doesn't matter. But in film the theme is the single most important part. Is this making sense?

[Dylstew]

Originally Posted by 1blankmind

This would be a great video.

The only thing I have to disagree about is the film comparison. I see what you're getting at. The issue I have is that Music exploration into certain subjects is through lyrics. And as long as the singer can take the lyrics and match them vocally with the music, then the lyrical theme doesn't matter. But in film the theme is the single most important part. Is this making sense?

I think I know what you mean. Movies in the same genres can have different themes and tones and such, that's where most if it's meaning lies. With music, most of the meaning lies in the lyrics. This it's a different situation with music and hard to compare.

However, I do think the comparison still makes some sense in a different way. The ''meaning'' in music itself, would be the genral feelings it's trying to get across by itself (through stuff like timbre, timing, tempo, melody style, harmony, etc). If you go to Rateyourmusic, the genre would be the genre, but the ''meaning'' I talked about that can be so different in the same genre, would be closer to the ''Descriptors'', which describe what feeling the music gives across and the appeal instead of what way used to accomplish those things.

Minor Threat's genre on there is Hardcore Punk. It's descriptors by people however are:

'''Angry, energetic, aggressive, rebellious, political, raw, conscious''

There''s plenty of genres that can achieve these things in their own ways.


I like thinking and discussing about a subject like this, makes me figure stuff out on my own as opposed to taking someone elses word for it. And ofcourse I get to see which thoughts make sense and which don't from sharing said thoughts.

[Terrapin_Station]

Originally Posted by 1blankmind

Well, the way I've always viewed genres is more like this, "I really like this band. What are some other bands." At that point you can be like we'll they're this genre.

So what I'm saying, is by classifying the bands, you can classify the band and easily find more similar bands to enjoy thanks to this classification.

I'm not saying I'm against genre classification period, but fine-grained classifications and people getting uptight about "correct" genre classifications seem ridiculous to me. I don't need to find other artists that are playing the exact same rhythms, tempos, etc. When I want "more like this" I ideally want "something kind of in this vein, with some of these rough features, but interestingly different, too (and ideally interestingly different than anything I've heard before)," which goes against the grain of really fine-grained genre classification.

[Dylstew]

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

I'm not saying I'm against genre classification period, but fine-grained classifications and people getting uptight about "correct" genre classifications seem ridiculous to me. I don't need to find other artists that are playing the exact same rhythms, tempos, etc. When I want "more like this" I ideally want "something kind of in this vein, with some of these rough features, but interestingly different, too (and ideally interestingly different than anything I've heard before)," which goes against the grain of really fine-grained genre classification.

I get what you mean dude, I've seen tons of people take it way too far, and that's coming from a genre nut. And if a genre does not allow any difference in structure as it's too specific, it becomes extremely limiting for both artists and fans and rather boring to explore. Be too vague, and it's a useless term. Genres are kinda subjective anyways, as it's just someone picking certain (though often objective) elements and deciding those combined will be called x. And hell, even if the elements are objective it's mostly not even used that strictly in the slightest, making it more subjective.

[Terrapin_Station]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

It's actually pretty easy to tell the difference between the two.

Haha, yeah, between those two, if they're the only two choices.