Music Banter - Are Punk Sub-Genres Needed?

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Punk (https://www.musicbanter.com/punk/)

- - Are Punk Sub-Genres Needed? (https://www.musicbanter.com/punk/44747-punk-sub-genres-needed.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome (Post 755429)

There's only two categories. Awesome music and not-so-awesome music.

Alright... I listen to awesome music. What kind of music do I like?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome (Post 755437)

There is good artists and bad artists in every genre. I'm saying **** the labels there's only awesome music and not-so-awesome music.

There's to many labels now. Theres like a billion types of rock, to me bon jovi, guns n roses, kings of leon, linkin park, metallica are all rock more importantly they're all good music.

I'm saying plain and simply **** the subgenres, **** the labels.

Your ignorance is shameful. You seem (and I'd be willing to bet on it) to have little to no experience with any small subgenres, and because you have not experienced them in depth, you obviously will not understand the importance of their existence. Of course, it will just be a word to you, describing something you do not understand, and you will eschew it as being ridiculous or unnecessary.

But consider this analogy: you are a child, you have a small vocabulary. I describe a man's demeanor as wrathful, a word you do not understand. I tell you that it means angry, and you say "well, why not just call him angry?" I explain that the word wrathful has connotations which describe the man in more depth than simply "angry". Yes, he is angry, but more specifically, wrathful. So it is with genres; yes, Metallica is a rock band, but more specifically, metal; even more specifically, thrash metal. To go back to my example, I could say the man was "silently wrathful."

Genre is a descriptor as necessary to music as colour to anything we percieve visually.

And I can't even believe that I even need to point out that "good music" and "bad music" are completely useless for description, and to say that "there's only awesome music and not-so-awesome music" is like saying there are delicious apples and disgusting apples. Yeah, so what? We know that. You have to describe the fucking apple beyond your opinion of it for anyone to understand it or base their own opinions on it, and thats what genres do.

Your views are based on a lack of understanding. It is unfortunate that you had to paint yourself as a moron to learn better, but it's for the best.

Reminds me of an analogy I posted on another forum a year or two ago, when someone claimed that any kind of subgenre classification was ridiculous in any situation. Taken out of context it makes me sound like a complete genre whore but whatever.

Quote:

When you first go to school, what you learn can be subdivided into areas like maths, English, social studies, science, art/music and PE. Somewhere in high school, social studies will split off into geography and history, science will split off into chemistry, physics and biology, maths will split off into calculus and statistics etc. and some new subjects will be introduced which mix fields (i.e. management, economics etc.). At this point, going into much more detail isn't too meaningful to high school students.

Then you go to university and end up doing a whole paper on electromagnetism etc. in your first year and it becomes more and more specialised over time. By the time you're a postgrad, you'll end up doing research and ploughing through 1000 pg books on incredibly specific topics like how the use of trapezoidal clocks gives rise to adiabatic circuits.

My point is that something so specific sounds absolutely ridiculous to us and is meaningless to 99% of people. But to people who are interested in these things, it is possible to spend 20 years studying them and to write tomes about them.

Same with music. 'Funeral doom metal' isn't going to mean too much to the general population... but to people who like and listen to a fair bit of doom metal, the distinction is blatantly obvious. Some people in their lifetimes will never musically discern beyond classic rock, alternative, 'that screaming music', classical, jazz, hip-hop, pop and 'slow jamz'. Well that's their choice... but it does look incredibly foolish when they criticise people for using more specific labels.

genres might be half useful if so many people didnt overuse and incorrectly label bands in a cute little name so that they can classify them as one type or brag about listening to that random genre. There is plenty of diverse amazing music out there. But we really dont have to go through and incorrectly name all of it just so we can later judge it before we even hear it. And who comes up with these names in modern times. Magi zine editors? some kids who dont have any idea what there talking about posting stuff around on the internet. or the people who get paid being "music critics" seriously. there is plenty of diverse music out there and maybe classification could seem good to some people but seriously all of the misinformation and useless classifications are pointless.

If I could nuke any sub genre of punk i'd like it to be OI please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by storymilo (Post 755746)

Alright... I listen to awesome music. What kind of music do I like?

why does it matter? why do other people have to validate your tastes?

that seems to be the biggest factor here. not whether or not the music fits into classification A or classification B, but how listening to either A or B affects the perceived social status of the individual listening to the material.

in all the replies to this thread i have yet to see any worthwhile validation for the glut of subgenres besides marketing terms or listener based specialization. Seltzer has a good analogy, IF all subgenres were actually technical advancements upon the initial style but they're not. would a physicist really tell everyone that they only work with trapezoidal clocks and adiabatic circuits rather than electromagnets? i suppose it's possible if they're looking to establish some sort of narcissistic status but the layman's term will get them farther with the public than most specialized terms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban hatemonger (Post 756451)

if i could nuke any sub genre of punk i'd like it to be oi please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAPTAIN CAVEMAN (Post 755747)

Brilliant! I couldn't think of a way to word it better!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave (Post 756582)

Yeah but if they're talking with other physicist then they would obviously use those terms because it can help them both understand better. It's the same with music. I know people at musicbanter understand what I mean when I say
that I like dream pop or 70's alternative indie or whatever, (these are just examples, not actual representations of my taste) but I obviously wouldn't tell some random chick who listens exclusively to Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus. Genres (and everything else really) are only useful in situations where people will understand them, but they are still useful.

i see their worth on a large scale. but when it comes down to splitting hairs like the difference between chaos punk and crust punk it's rather inane in my eyes.