...Is it bad that I think Skrillex is one of the most interesting musicians to hit popular music in ages?
Yeah, I agree. The only real crime he has committed is that of being a one-trick pony, but many others before him have built entire careers off far less unique tricks. He has a style all his own(at least, he did until everyone in the universe started copying him) and brings to the table a lot of influences that had never previously existed in the genre, like emo and hardcore. It turned into something very innovative and very influential, and I think that certainly deserves praise.
Huh? Dubstep predates Skrillex's solo career by about a decade. He's just a typical american pop rehash w/ a less diverse pallet than the artists he's influenced by.
You can't honestly believe that real dubstep is in any way related to what Skrillex is doing.
I mean its related to it of course, its a pop derivative of the more aggressive kinds of uk dstep . I dont really want to discuss dubstep a bunch cause I dont really like it, I just thought you were implying he's the first dubstep artist, but obviously you know more about the genre than that!
Oh, so Skrillex isn't really dubstep? Good, because I think he's trash and I'm curious as to what this whole "dubstep" thing is about. I've listened to some various other artists that I can't remember, and so far I just don't "get" it. Is it really all about heavy syncopated bass?
Skrillex is like a subgenre people call "brostep" lol. Much more of a bass focus and waaay more aggressive than older UK dubstep. The older stuff can sometimes be moody and ambient, like Burial. It's like a more techno-y dub reggae... hence the name.
I don't mind dubstep. However, I don't really see a clear enough differentiation to warrant any meaningful conversation on whether or not "x" song is "dubstep" or "post-dubstep" or whatever. "Dubstep" is barely differentiated from bass-heavy electronic music to my ears. It would be like trying to call bass-heavy jazz with particular syncopation a particular subgenre of jazz, when in reality this is not only barely useful, but furthermore, lends to the creation of songs with very little meaningful internal variation.
"Dubstep" barely warrants its own term, independent of how good the music is.
Music genres are dumb as hell in general and it's super dumb how many artists spring up who are just trying to fit into some reviewer-coined genre instead of doing anything earnest and original. For example: chillwave ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Tho chillwave is actually extra funny cause the term was actually created by a hyper satirical blogger who makes fun of the whole indie music scene.. and then people straight up took it seriously.
I was being a bit facetiously pretentious by using the term "real dubstep," but I do think the Americanized "brostep" artists are doing something completely different and fairly unrelated from the original British-style dubstep by now, mostly because it is completely devoid of any dub or two-step influences. But nevertheless, the type of music that Skrillex helped to popularize is interesting precisely because it is popular. Historically, it's unusual that music so aggressive and sometimes even dissonant be so appealing to the average listener.
Tho chillwave is actually extra funny cause the term was actually created by a hyper satirical blogger who makes fun of the whole indie music scene.. and then people straight up took it seriously.
It wasn't actually coined by Hipster Runoff, but Carles' ironic over-use of the term did cause it to catch on. However, this really is nothing new when it comes to musical genres and art movements. "Impressionism" was drawn from an insult, as was "shoegaze."
I think they're talking about different brands of cereal. Note the following quote (translated):
I was being a bit facetiously pretentious by using the term "real cereal," but I do think the Americanized "cereal" artists are doing something completely different and fairly unrelated from the original British-style cereal by now, mostly because it is completely devoid of any one or two-step influences
I can actually talk about cereal. I like it. I am pro cereal.
I will admit to having a less than healthy amount of love for gluten free Chex. It is incredible, whatever those artists do to that rice is just illegal.
I can actually talk about cereal. I like it. I am pro cereal.
I will admit to having a less than healthy amount of love for gluten free Chex. It is incredible, whatever those artists do to that rice is just illegal.
I've had chex. I actually liked "crispix" more. I'm fond of the hexagons. I have not tried the gluten free cereals.
It would be like trying to call bass-heavy jazz with particular syncopation a particular subgenre of jazz, when in reality this is not only barely useful, but furthermore, lends to the creation of songs with very little meaningful internal variation.
You think you're making a point, but entire subgenres of jazz have been formed based on the type of syncopation they use, as well as how prominent the bass is in the arrangement ^_~
A lot of laymen are quick to poo-poo what they see as frivolous genres, but remember, like all language, these words are only useful to the extent that everyone can agree on their meaning. To an outsider, all the terms a metal fan uses to describe the different subsets of their music may seem unnecessary, but just because it all sounds the same to you doesn't mean it sounds the same to everyone. Within the community, these words are essential and useful as they can express sounds in much quicker ways among those who are privy to their meaning. It's just like the jargon that goes along with any field.
Yeah, what Sail said. I've gone on at length about this before. "Rocky Mountain hydro-grind" might be stupid, but that doesn't invalidate the utility of things like "symphonic power metal" or "deathcore" or "post-black."
Tho chillwave is actually extra funny cause the term was actually created by a hyper satirical blogger who makes fun of the whole indie music scene.. and then people straight up took it seriously.
It wasn't actually coined by Hipster Runoff, but Carles' ironic over-use of the term did cause it to catch on. However, this really is nothing new when it comes to musical genres and art movements. "Impressionism" was drawn from an insult, as was "shoegaze."
Oh huh I thought it was Carles creation, saw it there first anyway. But yeah I didn't mean genre-izing is a new thing by any means, but I think it's super annoying in the contemporary music scene because of the amount of potential creative freedom any aspiring musician can actually have. You don't need a formal studio any more, and you have amazing creative flexibility with the use of technology, yet small time artists still go around identifying themselves with some other big name act. A lot of times, that big act got there by doing something new, or being something new, but for some reason people think they'll be successful by just sounding like another Radiohead or some crap. It's too many creative people getting caught up in mimicry as some kind of avenue for success.
Also I agree that it's super interesting that Skrillex is huge, but I do think a decent amount of that is being backed by Warner Music Group (by way of deadmau5). It's not even just the dissonance or aggressiveness of his music, cause there's plenty of that in popular metal and gangster rap (to a lesser extent of course); but the style is just way out there in general. I felt the same way about how big Animal Collective got, but they aren't nearly as mainstream.
e: oh, to clarify: I mean it bugs me that bands themselves use genres as some kind of creative formula, not how listeners use them.
It's not even just the dissonance or aggressiveness of his music, cause there's plenty of that in popular metal and gangster rap (to a lesser extent of course); but the style is just way out there in general.
It would be like trying to call bass-heavy jazz with particular syncopation a particular subgenre of jazz, when in reality this is not only barely useful, but furthermore, lends to the creation of songs with very little meaningful internal variation.
You think you're making a point, but entire subgenres of jazz have been formed based on the type of syncopation they use, as well as how prominent the bass is in the arrangement.
A lot of laymen are quick to poo-poo what they see as frivolous genres, but remember, like all language, these words are only useful to the extent that everyone can agree on their meaning. To an outsider, all the terms a metal fan uses to describe the different subsets of their music may seem unnecessary, but just because it all sounds the same to you doesn't mean it sounds the same to everyone. To people who are within the community, these words are essential and useful as they can express sounds in much quicker ways for people who are privy to their meaning.
I agree, except that despite my musical education I hear little to meaningfully differentiate "dubstep" from other similar genres specifically.
As for the jazz subgenres, I there too find little to really differentiate them, especially considering that more classical or straight jazz has almost always incorporated those elements in various stanzas within works. Often, the only difference a sub-genre introduces is taking one of these various bits and turning it into an entire song.
Take the current popular "dueling saxaphone" jazz in New York. There are various terms for the "genre" within which it resides. However, there's nothing to separate these works from, say, even the extended solos within a typical Buddy Rich song. They're almost just the elements of these solos extended, with all contrasting sections of the original song simply removed.
Music fans genrify their likes and dislikes FAR more than other professionals and fans do. Under FPS, there is at best one further separation. If I described FPSs the way these people describe their music, I would call Quake III "Neo Twitchmodern," futher separating the "airtime" and "flatland" subgenres based on favored levels.
You can try to categorize a song, a band, or a collection of bands... but there are more issues than just terminology. Most of what makes up these categories are not binary flags, they are combinations of various different components at highly variable degrees.
It's not necessarily useless, but it's of limited use even when everyone involved agrees on the terminology.
Yeah, what Sail said. I've gone on at length about this before. "Rocky Mountain hydro-grind" might be stupid, but that doesn't invalidate the utility of things like "symphonic power metal" or "deathcore" or "post-black."
Not at all. Dubstep just doesn't define enough to be terribly worthwhile as a subgenre term, and further sub-genres within it make little sense as yet.
How's this for a line? You need 15 artists, each of which having at least 1,000 self-described fans, and all of which can be identified in a blind sample test by the people who want to use the term as being specifically in the defined subgenre. Otherwise, the subgenre is bullshit masturbatory wank.
I don't mind subgenres, mostly because it's just useful. If I like one sort of music, having a name for it makes it easy to find others that have a similar style. I wouldn't mind if video games were categorized in a similar way, honestly.
Dubstep is a super duper literal genre demarkation, though. It's a combination of "dub" which is a term for applying heavy reverb/delay to a track and general remixing and whatnot + "2-step" which refers to a specific drum patterning in UK garage techno.
I agree, except that despite my musical education I hear little to meaningfully differentiate "dubstep" from other similar genres specifically.
I would argue that musical education is a much lesser factor than level of involvement in a particular sphere of music.
As for your FPS analogy, I think that's mostly because music has been around for far longer ^_~ If you were to expand that analogy out to video games in general, I think you can find a lot of examples of terms that are similar in nature to musical genres. Take "Metroidvania" and "Rouge-like" for example. These are entire genres of games that take influence from a very narrow and specific influence, namely exactly one or two other games.
Take "Metroidvania" and "Rouge-like" for example. These are entire genres of games that take influence from a very narrow and specific influence, namely exactly one or two other games.
I honestly don't believe any significant number of people will ever sub-genre any game from that.
At best, games will go down a road of "genres" being nothing more than a list of mechanics involved. They will be cumulative labels, not categorical "genres."
Hardly. There's a fundamental difference between categorization and cumulative labeling. Music genres make these deep categorical differentiations between types of songes in largely tree-like structure. If I have a "dubstep" song with a "straight jazz" section in the middle and every fourth stanza being "psychedelic trance," what the fuck genre would you people call that?
Gamers would call that "a mix of dubstep, straight jazz, and trance." Music people would probably call it something like "psychadelic jazzdub" and root it in the tree from those three as its own genre, then arguing over whether it should be "jazzadelic psychdub" if the stanza order and percentage changes.
Game "genres" you will find more and more describe games as a list of mechanics of previous games from which they drew.
Psychology aside, they're fundamentally different means of classification.
To be fair, this whole thing is technically a semantic argument.
Genres already exist as descriptors, though. They are not used to pigenhole composition - they're used to describe existing works and to provide a basis for the creation of new works.
Fuck, the same thing exists in beer. We used to have "beer" and "ale." In the 1400's, you drank ale. You didn't drink stout, or porter, or bitter. You drank ale. It didn't matter that the ale in London was nothing like the ale in Burton - it was all "ale."
Eventually, as we learned more about brewing, we developed beer styles. We now use the style guidelines to categorize existing beers, and to serve as guidelines when creating new beers. They're not limiting.
This kind of robust, evolving nomenclature is the hallmark of a robust, evolving field of study. We need these nomenclatures to push development.
Psychology aside, they're fundamentally different means of classification.
No, they're really not. I think you fundamentally fail to grasp how metal fans and electronic music fans actually use these genre names in conversation.
There's no definitive listing of genres. The community winds up using a set of terminology to describe bands. We use the terms in combination to describe complex music. At some point, a movement evolves that produces that same sound consistently.
Blind Guardian is one of the earliest "power metal" bands. I've read that Metallica actually coined the term "power metal," but I can't find the link. Then someone added some elements of symphonic music to power metal, so they called it "symphonic power metal." That was a descriptive term until many bands started doing it - then it became a genre.
What you are saying about video games is exactly the same as the way the genres are used in music description. "Rogue-like" started off as a way of describing games. Then, people started intentionally making games that fit the descriptor. That's when it became a subgenre.
tl;dr: Genre naming evolves out of description. We use descriptors to talk about music. Eventually, a number of bands wind up being described in exactly the same way. This effectively creates a sub-genre.
Comments
"Dubstep" barely warrants its own term, independent of how good the music is.
Tho chillwave is actually extra funny cause the term was actually created by a hyper satirical blogger who makes fun of the whole indie music scene.. and then people straight up took it seriously.
Oh wait, are you talking about that shitty derivative electronica bullshit?
A lot of laymen are quick to poo-poo what they see as frivolous genres, but remember, like all language, these words are only useful to the extent that everyone can agree on their meaning. To an outsider, all the terms a metal fan uses to describe the different subsets of their music may seem unnecessary, but just because it all sounds the same to you doesn't mean it sounds the same to everyone. Within the community, these words are essential and useful as they can express sounds in much quicker ways among those who are privy to their meaning. It's just like the jargon that goes along with any field.
Also I agree that it's super interesting that Skrillex is huge, but I do think a decent amount of that is being backed by Warner Music Group (by way of deadmau5). It's not even just the dissonance or aggressiveness of his music, cause there's plenty of that in popular metal and gangster rap (to a lesser extent of course); but the style is just way out there in general. I felt the same way about how big Animal Collective got, but they aren't nearly as mainstream.
e: oh, to clarify: I mean it bugs me that bands themselves use genres as some kind of creative formula, not how listeners use them.
As for the jazz subgenres, I there too find little to really differentiate them, especially considering that more classical or straight jazz has almost always incorporated those elements in various stanzas within works. Often, the only difference a sub-genre introduces is taking one of these various bits and turning it into an entire song.
Take the current popular "dueling saxaphone" jazz in New York. There are various terms for the "genre" within which it resides. However, there's nothing to separate these works from, say, even the extended solos within a typical Buddy Rich song. They're almost just the elements of these solos extended, with all contrasting sections of the original song simply removed.
Music fans genrify their likes and dislikes FAR more than other professionals and fans do. Under FPS, there is at best one further separation. If I described FPSs the way these people describe their music, I would call Quake III "Neo Twitchmodern," futher separating the "airtime" and "flatland" subgenres based on favored levels.
It's not necessarily useless, but it's of limited use even when everyone involved agrees on the terminology.
How's this for a line? You need 15 artists, each of which having at least 1,000 self-described fans, and all of which can be identified in a blind sample test by the people who want to use the term as being specifically in the defined subgenre. Otherwise, the subgenre is bullshit masturbatory wank.
As for your FPS analogy, I think that's mostly because music has been around for far longer ^_~ If you were to expand that analogy out to video games in general, I think you can find a lot of examples of terms that are similar in nature to musical genres. Take "Metroidvania" and "Rouge-like" for example. These are entire genres of games that take influence from a very narrow and specific influence, namely exactly one or two other games.
At best, games will go down a road of "genres" being nothing more than a list of mechanics involved. They will be cumulative labels, not categorical "genres."
Gamers would call that "a mix of dubstep, straight jazz, and trance." Music people would probably call it something like "psychadelic jazzdub" and root it in the tree from those three as its own genre, then arguing over whether it should be "jazzadelic psychdub" if the stanza order and percentage changes.
Game "genres" you will find more and more describe games as a list of mechanics of previous games from which they drew.
Psychology aside, they're fundamentally different means of classification.
Genres already exist as descriptors, though. They are not used to pigenhole composition - they're used to describe existing works and to provide a basis for the creation of new works.
Fuck, the same thing exists in beer. We used to have "beer" and "ale." In the 1400's, you drank ale. You didn't drink stout, or porter, or bitter. You drank ale. It didn't matter that the ale in London was nothing like the ale in Burton - it was all "ale."
Eventually, as we learned more about brewing, we developed beer styles. We now use the style guidelines to categorize existing beers, and to serve as guidelines when creating new beers. They're not limiting.
This kind of robust, evolving nomenclature is the hallmark of a robust, evolving field of study. We need these nomenclatures to push development. No, they're really not. I think you fundamentally fail to grasp how metal fans and electronic music fans actually use these genre names in conversation.
There's no definitive listing of genres. The community winds up using a set of terminology to describe bands. We use the terms in combination to describe complex music. At some point, a movement evolves that produces that same sound consistently.
Blind Guardian is one of the earliest "power metal" bands. I've read that Metallica actually coined the term "power metal," but I can't find the link. Then someone added some elements of symphonic music to power metal, so they called it "symphonic power metal." That was a descriptive term until many bands started doing it - then it became a genre.
What you are saying about video games is exactly the same as the way the genres are used in music description. "Rogue-like" started off as a way of describing games. Then, people started intentionally making games that fit the descriptor. That's when it became a subgenre.
tl;dr: Genre naming evolves out of description. We use descriptors to talk about music. Eventually, a number of bands wind up being described in exactly the same way. This effectively creates a sub-genre.