Are Punk Sub-Genres Needed?
 

Do you feel punk sub-genres add anything? Do they really make it easier to catalog bands? Are they even needed? Do most people even apply them correctly?

I suppose I can understand a handful of them. Pop-Punk, Horror Punk, Hardcore, etc. Fusion genres make since to have their own sub-genre. But Street punk, skate punk, garage punk. Do these labels actually add any value?

What are your thoughts?

That assumes that Punk is needed.

In all sincerity, genres are an extension of adolecent us-vs.-them-ism and only serves to senselessly divide music along lines that are neither

a. accurate or
b. useful.

The idea of musical genre is shocking in its longevity because bands more increasingly move toward "indescribable" and while I'm sure thats great for recod labels (a sound you've never heard before!) it doesn't help us.

In the most general sense, music genres at the macro level allow us to sum up peoples tastes a little quicker, it allows for more directed (or rejected) conversation from the jump.

I like roots, jazz, noise, whatever.

But lets be honest with one another, if its a website, the douchebag probably put songs/bands/albums in his username and you can sum him up in a quick second. If its IRL, well...everyones prejudice in this town.

"nice ripped jeans toolbag, how's the Whitesnake collection going."

Also: Welcome to Musicbanter~!

I think high level genres are useful. Rock, Rap, Classical, Pop. It allows us to easily filter music on radio, looking through CDs at the store, searching for music to listen to in our music players, etc.

But I feel that sub-genres have reached the level of absurdity. Mathcore is a sub-genre to a fusion-genre. I'm sure there are examples of even deeper genres that exist.

Do these genres help us any more than the band name itself at this point?

Thanks.

Well, genres segregate and bring people together at the same time... So really, if you keep adding on sub-genres you're just going to make several smaller groups of people who hate each other.

Although on the other side, I like being super-specific and giving things complex tags and meanings. I figure, "What the hell, we have the language, why not use it?"

Pop-punk really just seems like alternative to me.

Also, people go overboard with these.
Christian Metalcore, Christian Deathcore, Jazzcore, Mathcore, Skate Punk, Street Punk, Garage Punk, Semi-Punk, Posi-core, Straight-Edge Hardcore Punk, and so on and so forth.

I never understood using life style choices and activities to dictate musical genre. Queercore, Straight-Edge Punk, Skatepunk. I might as well say I listen to "Web Designer Punk" or "I like to drink Rockstar energy drinks punk"

i'm a big fan of quitessential no-wavecore

Skate Punk isn't even consistent like the other ones (Straight-Edge Punk, Queercore, etc.) Now, people usually use it to refer to pop-punk acts, such as blink-182 and Sum 41, but it's also used for hardcore punk.
I'd say the same thing goes for Grunge. I was listening to a BTBAM song on YouTube, and there was a whole discussion going on about how Grunge isn't a real genre, or how it can pretty much mean the same as punk. It just doesn't work.

Straight-Edge Punk has been applied to bands that weren't Straight-Edge or had one person in the band who was. How does it work that choosing not to do drugs becomes a musical style?

subgenres are definitely necessary for punk, although a lot of punk has the same sound for the most, nowave and anarcho have their own unique sound, hardcore and crust have their own unique sound. older punk sounds pretty different than 80's and current punk.

multiple subgenres for punk are about as necessary as multiple subgenres for metal... ie: if there are more than 3-4 bands using this term to describe themselves a new name needs to be created so that they remain 'unique'...

the real question to me is, are the subgenres more relevant to the bands who create the music or for the egos of the listeners?

Genres and sub-genres are a reality. Some folks may not acknowledge them, or refuse to acknowledge their existance, but the reality is new bands are attracted to genres, or better stated "scenes", hard-core, cow-punk, skate-punk, whatever...and either die a death within it's confines, or expand out of it into something else. The Clash, X, Meat Puppets, The Replacements, Husker Du are examples of bands that started within the narrow constrains of various punk scenes, then busted out of them to become something else.

i don't deny their existence, i deny their worth.

a.k.a. They finally figured out sub-genres were dumb and moved on.

If you knew the first thing about it you wouldn't be saying that. Check out some Naked City, Lounge Lizards or James Chance sometime.

I really hope your not serious. And if you are you need me to introduce you to some music, stat.

Since some very talented musicians are attracked to them, they must have some worth. On the other hands, untalented musicians that jump on the bandwagon and vomit the same old song and dance are worthless.

like who?

adhering to a genre (especially a subgenre) so you can say you're part of 'something' strikes me like yet another patch of some torn up punk coat that screams the same message as every other patch on their coat. 'will someone PLEASE pay attention to me already! mommy and daddy were too busy'.

a talented musician worthy of note gets attention because of the music they create not because of the genre it happens to fall within.

Of course they're worthless, they're untalented...and possibly ill.

Just because a band doesn't invent a new genre, or doesn't break barriers doesn't mean they're worthless. By the same measure, not all bands that create new genres and break barriers are worthwhile.

In the end, it's the music that matters, not the stupid categorization of it.

A lot of bands view genres as an opportunity of expression and use it has a vehicle to launch from. Another obvious examples was Wire. The crappy bands are the ones you're referring too, which I just filter out. Regardless of the quality of music, which is a subjective judgement, the genre (sub) still exists and continues to influence other bands as well as future genre (sub) that haven't been created yet.

can anyone else make sense of this post and reiterate it in a way that my old ass can understand it?

I totally agree with you.One or two sub genres is cool,but theyre just going overboard.WTF is mathcore? Bands that sing about how math is cool? Jeez.

Have you ever heard of The Dillinger Escape Plan?

mathcore is a derivative of rock where nerds spend a bunch of time figuring out how different time signatures overlap so basically every instrument is playing a unique rhythm and speed that still has moments of cohesion when the formula cycles.

In the grand scheme of things genres are necessary, there are genres for everything everywhere you look.
Some genre just don't make sense, for example, Choking Victim is considered Crust Punk and Skacore/(in there eyes) Crack Rock Steady.
Crust Punk is essentially that Stza and the other bands members choose to live; hard drugs and squatting.
I think this is very unnecessary to classify someones music due to there lifestyle they choose to live. I think just calling a Stza and the other band members "Crusties' would do them justice.
Skate Punk is for the most part that skaters listen to, they aren't many qualities about it that differ from other generes. There's a lot of Pop-Punk, Hardcore, and thrashcore that fit into that sub genre, so I see no need to create skate punk as a sub genre due to the fact it is pretty broad (not saying broad genres are bad). I don't know what I'm getting at, it sounded better in my head.

It would be very hard to eliminate sub genres because people are always going to be putting things into categories.

It also happens to be awesome.

i didn't say it wasn't awesome, just what it was hahah

I would say yes, only becuase Cartel and Blink182 are both consitered "punk" by many people [this is arguable] ... but they are tottaly different.

I'd never heard of Cartel before, so I checked them out. After listening to them I think they and Blink 182 fit well together. They're both pop bands. So no need for a sub-genre.

the only time a subgenre really matters is when money is changing hands.

It's true. People always ask their hooker what sub-genre they listen to before they pay.

Ahh,I see.Is this dillinger escape plan a good recomendation?

hah

very, but they aren't punk.

^
I wouldn't be so sure, TDEP did come out of the East Coast hardcore scene. IMO, mathcore is a sub-genre of hardcore which is a sub-genre of punk. They also have strong roots in grindcore as well as metalcore. Lately, they have taken a bit of a turn towards Alt Metal and Melodic Metalcore, though.

Are any sub genres needed?

Rock is rock i don't care if you call it metal, speed metal, heavy rock, pop rock, punk rock, celtic rock. It's still rock.

**** subgenres. They're a waste of time. There's only two categories. Awesome music and not-so-awesome music.

- Captain awesome signing out

I have no idea what your saying. There all different. I may like on, and not the other. SO lets say I like Punk Rock and not 'celtic rock'... Do I like rock or not?

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.

Well if it were up to me I would just make more than one Genre :D. But its not. so **** that.

YES! someone else gets it :tramp:

This is very true.