Quote:
Originally Posted by bmah
Don't forget there's a heavy bias on people's knowledge of specific rock-related genres. Most users are not critical of other music genres because they probably aren't familiar with them, so it's important to note that bias. If there was to be a change for genres, it should change across the board, so I would like input from more than just metalheads please. That's simply my observations based on the feedback I hear on the particular songs that people are currently critical of.
People may also be surprised at what are "real" genres vs made up ones. You're probably thinking of commercially relevant genres, and if you choose to go that route, then you might as well give very sweeping generalizations on song genres (with exception to people's insistence on metal-specific genres it seems). Thirdstyle does something like this, but I find it very dull. Overall I find it hard to take "real" genres seriously, because "real" doesn't have a very defined boundary in the first place. "Real" as far as I can tell are the genres that people are familiar with, so this differs from user to user. Therefore, I am very dismissive of the idea of generalizing song genres - everyone has their own idea of what genres are legit or not.
That being said, I'll always take into consideration individual song genre corrections, so please keep them coming, but note that you're only as critical as the genres you know about.
|
You're right but there's also the fact that the rock/metal bands that are being stepped are usually more well known than your average electronic producer hence more users will be able to pinpoint genres that are off.
Also, it might also depends on the people who defined the genres. I think Spitfire was helping for a bit and he's quite knowledgeable in electronic music subgenres.
I'm open to go specific (even if it's pushing a bit) and I'm not against made-up genres if they make sense with how they are used in music circles.
Quote:
|
Overall I find it hard to take "real" genres seriously, because "real" doesn't have a very defined boundary in the first place. "Real" as far as I can tell are the genres that people are familiar with, so this differs from user to user. Therefore, I am very dismissive of the idea of generalizing song genres - everyone has their own idea of what genres are legit or not.
|
I disagree with this. I find "real" genres easier to recognise (as long as you know the musical characteristics of it and how they are used*) than made-up genres. Those can be interpreted in different ways depending on the listener, considerably more than "real" genres.
* I'm going off-topic with this, but it's safer to go with "real" genres since they usually develop an agreed definition over years. When boundaries are pushed, that's when journalists and critics like to create buzzwords to describe the music. People that are interested in the evolution of music and how new subgenres are formed and recognised usually set themselves criterias to determine the "validity" of a genre. They usually revolve around those :
- if there's an agreed definition and if that definition is used consistently
- if it has developed its own characteristics
- if it's possible to trace its history
- if it's used in real life and music journalism
My point is that it takes more than one people to push the creation of "real" genres (with rare exceptions like plunderphonics for example). The genres are recognised by people because they are consistent in their usage.
So like I said, if a made-up genre makes sense with the song and in relation with other genres, I'm alright using it.