Big Four Bands Thread Round 19: Gothic Rock

[Blank.]

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

I'd have to care about it though. I think people get ridiculous with genre classifications, and part of how they get ridiculous is by being uptight about classifications being "right" or "wrong," "accurate" or "inaccurate," etc.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Blank.]

Originally Posted by Dylstew

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.

So before I expand on this, I have to say that what I'm going to talk about will cause elephenor to pop up and say, "Punk is an attitude! Not a sound!" And when that happens, can we all agree to ignore him and continue this discussion or whatever we are talking about at the time?

[Blank.]

Originally Posted by Dylstew

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.

I agree. But that's why certain genres are also defined by their attitude as well as their sound. Look at punk rock. It has its sound, but anot her part is the attitude. Don't get me wrong. I hate the over classification of genres. If I have to hear that All That Remains isn't "real" metal one more time I may knock someone out.

[Dylstew]

Originally Posted by 1blankmind

So before I expand on this, I have to say that what I'm going to talk about will cause elephenor to pop up and say, "Punk is an attitude! Not a sound!" And when that happens, can we all agree to ignore him and continue this discussion or whatever we are talking about at the time?

Punk is a social construct.

Originally Posted by 1blankmind

I agree. But that's why certain genres are also defined by their attitude as well as their sound. Look at punk rock. It has its sound, but anot her part is the attitude. Don't get me wrong. I hate the over classification of genres. If I have to hear that All That Remains isn't "real" metal one more time I may knock someone out.

Yeah, I agree, things like attitude are also parts of the genre itself as well, it's one of many elements. It's not an easy topic and I'm far from an expert.

I'm the type of person who loves to look at all kinds of different sub genres, yet it pisses me off as well when someone calls something ''not real punk'' or ''not real metal'', when it has just as many elements of said genre as any other. Just because it's a timbre, production,singing style or image you dislike in the genre doesn't mean it doesn't fit the genre. I defended Green Day despite not caring for them much just because I hate this narrow attitude on what's punk or metal.

Originally Posted by Mondo Bungle

The metal archives ***gots can get boned

Metal Archives seem to be eletist pricks who don't put anything they don't like or anything that they find to have too much pop or too much punk on the site. Correct me if I'm wrong but from what they've rejected I've gotten that impression.

[Key]

Originally Posted by Dylstew

Punk is a social construct.

Your mom is a social construct.

[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.