To be fair, there are far fewer games, and far few people making games than there are people making electronic music. A genre distinction that might not mean anything to you can mean a lot to someone who's entrenched in a certain scene.
To be fair, this whole thing is technically a semantic argument.
Hahaha, I knew someone was going to say this. We aren't really arguing about what is and what isn't at this point though, it's more about the usefulness of the naming system overall, so I think it's ok.
To be fair, there are far fewer games, and far few people making games than there are people making electronic music. A genre distinction that might not mean anything to you can mean a lot to someone who's entrenched in a certain scene.
I would love to see a blind test of the "scenesters" to see if they actually agree purely from hearing music what "genres" various songs fit into. I suspect the results would be all over the place.
To be fair, this whole thing is technically a semantic argument.
Hahaha, I knew someone was going to say this. We aren't really arguing about what is and what isn't at this point though, it's more about the usefulness of the naming system overall, so I think it's ok.
I think we all agree that a naming system is useful. I think part of the issue is that today's concept of a "genre" - especially in metal and electronic music - really isn't what "genre" has traditionally meant.
I liken it to magic items in D&D 3.5 - "This is a +1 flaming frost keen speed longsword."
Most genre names these days are really just descriptive tags that we combine to form new descriptions. It's basically jargon. Eventually, certain strings of jargon fuse together to become one solid unit of jargon.
It really only gets tricky when people invent completely new non-intuitive words to distance themselves from the rest of their genres. I'll always go back to my "Rocky Mountain hydro-grind" example - seriously, WTF is that supposed to mean?
So how about we only consider a genre of music legitimate if a statistically significant number of people "in the scene" can by ear and without reference identify songs as being in a particular genre? If they can't, the genre is completely meaningless.
Music genres are based on subjective listening rubrics and musical knowledge, though, and are not fixed and concrete. They could come up with entirely new genres and technically be right. I could call Mogwai "post-rock" or "orchestral rock" or "slow build up rock" and hey it all kind of works. Games have pretty concrete definitions based on objective aspects of their gameplay, like "First Person Shooter."
Like you want to create genres based on things you arbitrarily denote as rudimentary genres, like "jazz" or "funk", but these terms themselves are hella abstract and whatnot.
So how about we only consider a genre of music legitimate if a statistically significant number of people "in the scene" can by ear and without reference identify songs as being in a particular genre? If they can't, the genre is completely meaningless.
Yeah, absolutely. By this standard, however, dubstep certainly qualifies.
Music genres are based on subjective listening rubrics and musical knowledge, though, and are not fixed and concrete. They could come up with entirely new genres and technically be right. I could call Mogwai "post-rock" or "orchestral rock" or "slow build up rock" and hey it all kind of works.
But the difference is that post-rock has a lot more widespread use, especially for bands like Mogwai, than those other two.
So how about we only consider a genre of music legitimate if a statistically significant number of people "in the scene" can by ear and without reference identify songs as being in a particular genre? If they can't, the genre is completely meaningless.
I wouldn't say "completely meaningless." How about "incompletely defined" or "still developing?" It does require some critical mass of use, I'll agree. But what you're proposing is what actually exists for the majority of these genres. You don't understand because you're not "in the scene," much in the same way that I have no fucking clue what a molecular virology paper is actually saying.
You will never be able to actually dissect genre naming by being a casual fan of a given type of music. There are real structural differences between deathcore, but there's almost no chance of explaining this to someone who doesn't know the difference between "black metal" and "death metal."
Yeah I don't agree that popularity plays any role in it at all. Musical genres are fluid, and stuff can easily get classified and reclassified all up and down.
I also could see game genres getting to this point. Think about how Netflix creates genres like "Imaginitive Science Fiction" or "Visually Striking Horror." Now imagine Steam doing the same thing and well boom there's your fluid, arbitrary yet logically understandable game genres.
Personally, I don't mind the classification of music under very specific genres if those genres and subgenres can actually be defined to the point where there is no question as to the style of a particular song.
My bandmates and I run into this problem all the time when people ask what genre of music we make. Our general answer is, "We make music we like."
I propose that even most people in the scene would have a hard time agreeing (without the ability to discuss) on sub-genre across their preferred music genre in a blind (samples only, no context, no discussion) study (controlled for specific songs they already recognize).
Actually, I really want someone to run that study.
Well, "agreeing without the ability to discuss" is a completely useless marker, Rym. Scientists can't even agree on what is literally real without discussion. Data has to be interpreted for any meaningful discussion to take place, and since genre nomenclature is used to facilitate discussion...
Your study idea is fundamentally flawed in that it's designed to prove a point that isn't material to the nature of genres. Nomenclature is necessarily fluid in any field where it's used, and there are often discussions about what to call a particular thing.
I do this all the time with various E. coli that I isolate. "Well, that's not really an O157:H7 - it might have the antigens, but it lacks the toxin genes." That statement will provoke hours of discussion among really fucking smart microbiologists.
Our Spanish flatmate had a gang of Visigoths over to fuck up our flat (or, as she might have it, drink and play poker). One of the guys she invited over used our bathroom. This is not a problem; people have to pee, and I know that. The problem arises when said guy left the seat down while peeing and managed to cover the seat and most of the bathroom floor in puddles of urine. Seriously. It was like he just stood there swinging his dick around Meatspin style while peeing; there was pee fucking everywhere.
I'm getting pretty sick of the shit she and her friends pull.
Comments
I liken it to magic items in D&D 3.5 - "This is a +1 flaming frost keen speed longsword."
Most genre names these days are really just descriptive tags that we combine to form new descriptions. It's basically jargon. Eventually, certain strings of jargon fuse together to become one solid unit of jargon.
It really only gets tricky when people invent completely new non-intuitive words to distance themselves from the rest of their genres. I'll always go back to my "Rocky Mountain hydro-grind" example - seriously, WTF is that supposed to mean?
Like you want to create genres based on things you arbitrarily denote as rudimentary genres, like "jazz" or "funk", but these terms themselves are hella abstract and whatnot.
You will never be able to actually dissect genre naming by being a casual fan of a given type of music. There are real structural differences between deathcore, but there's almost no chance of explaining this to someone who doesn't know the difference between "black metal" and "death metal."
I also could see game genres getting to this point. Think about how Netflix creates genres like "Imaginitive Science Fiction" or "Visually Striking Horror." Now imagine Steam doing the same thing and well boom there's your fluid, arbitrary yet logically understandable game genres.
My bandmates and I run into this problem all the time when people ask what genre of music we make. Our general answer is, "We make music we like."
Actually, I really want someone to run that study.
Your study idea is fundamentally flawed in that it's designed to prove a point that isn't material to the nature of genres. Nomenclature is necessarily fluid in any field where it's used, and there are often discussions about what to call a particular thing.
I do this all the time with various E. coli that I isolate. "Well, that's not really an O157:H7 - it might have the antigens, but it lacks the toxin genes." That statement will provoke hours of discussion among really fucking smart microbiologists.
0:40 to 4:28
but copyright bullshit wrecked that.
"Buncha cats Tss Tss n'cats. Buncha cats tss Tch kah"
"Bowowowowow"
My students have confirmed this.
(loud volume warning)
I'm getting pretty sick of the shit she and her friends pull.
Also, nice MAGFest badge on the guy on the left.