# Sub-genres of non-classical genres



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I've been trying to learn the different sub-genres of Rock, Jazz, Rap and electronic music so I can be a more informed musician all around. I have a really clear idea of all the different sub-genres/styles in classical music and how they relate to each other but no where near that same clear understanding of other genres.

I'm finding that it feels a lot more complicated than classical music. I kind of feel like the sub-genres of classical music are more clear cut, and the sub-genres of other genres (especially Rock) are kind of fuzzy and sometimes have more to do with lyric content rather than actual musical style. How do other people feel about this? Maybe it's just because I have spent as much time learning about the other sub-genres as I have with classical music sub-genres.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

What are genres in classical music? baroque, classical, romantic? or opera, sonata, symphony etc? This seems a completely different style of classification than the nuances of pop, punk, rock, jazz etc so I think in that sense classical is more easily distinguished.

Non-classical people do love dividing their genres into hundreds of, hair-splitting, sub-genres, which are difficult to grasp for the outsider. Even when the difference in sound is obvious, say between rock and reggae, the similarities between them make it difficult to articulate the differences except in vague terms like mood.

I never understand genres much anyway. I think genres are mainly there so someone can feel good correcting you, and for marketing.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

quack said:


> What are genres in classical music? baroque, classical, romantic? or opera, sonata, symphony etc? This seems a completely different style of classification than the nuances of pop, punk, rock, jazz etc so I think in that sense classical is more easily distinguished.
> 
> Non-classical people do love dividing their genres into hundreds of, hair-splitting, sub-genres, which are difficult to grasp for the outsider. Even when the difference in sound is obvious, say between rock and reggae, the similarities between them make it difficult to articulate the differences except in vague terms like mood.
> 
> I never understand genres much anyway. I think genres are mainly there so someone can feel good correcting you, and for marketing.


What I meant by classical sub-genres are different styles I guess. Like Italian Baroque, German Baroque, Bel Canto style, Impressionism, Serialism ect.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I suppose that is where a musician's ear helps, I would only distinguish italian and german baroque by blind guessing and haven't a hope of knowing serialism from non-serialism.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I would say rock music began with a melding of blues and country music. At least in the case of Elvis Presley. But of course not all early rock n roll is the same. Chuck Berry obviously developed his own style which sounds nothing like the rockabilly of Elvis. Then there's the New Orleans piano style of rock n roll made popular by Fats Domino.

A big influence on the sound of rock music can also be attributed to the developing recording technology resulting in sonics and techniques previously unavailable to earlier generations.

At this point you could probably divide things up into several sun-genres. But basically the influences are either American roots music, or classical music influence on the prog rockers.

Then you have artists like Frank Zappa who combined a myriad of diverse styles into a seamless framework, and could pull it off convincingly due to his extraordinary talents.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Here's an elegantly arrogant, biased and a bit outdated guide to electronica http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'd say the various jazz genres are easily identifiable if you spend enough time listening. Starting with the New Orleans styles through swing, bebop, hardbop, postbop, third stream, free jazz, fusion, and the preponderance of world influenced music of today.

And of course there's a lot more to it than that. But I would mention some key artists to coincide with these genres.

King Oliver
Jelly Roll Morton
Louis Armstrong

Count Basie 
Lester Young
Coleman Hawkins

Charlie Parker
Dizzy Gillespie
Monk

Art Blakey
Horace Silver
Freddie Hubbard

Miles Davis
Wayne Shorter
Coltrane

Gunther Schuller
George Russell
Modern Jazz Quartet
Joe Zawinul

Ornette Coleman
Anthony Braxton

Joe Zawinul
John McLaughlin
Tony Williams

Pat Metheny
Nguyen Le

Miles would be included in both post bop and fusion, and Zawinul in third stream and fusion. And McLaughlin in fusion and world music.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

There's nothing clear-cut or dogmatic about it, music evolves and gesticulates all the time in ridiculously complex ways and the purpose of genres is just to make more sense of it all. (And they're a good marketing tool, as a clever person here noted.) Black Sabbath were called hard rock when they formed, they were called metal later in the 70s and ever since, and bands who play exactly like them these days are called "sludge", "doom metal" or "stoner rock". It's all really rather arbitrary.

Don't try to think of it in a classical sense. An opera is different from a piano concerto in an objective, clearly defined way. People could argue for an hour over whether a Cure tune is gothic rock, post-punk, darkwave or some degree of all three.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Shoooooegaze


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

violadude said:


> I've been trying to learn the different sub-genres of Rock, Jazz, Rap and electronic music so I can be a more informed musician all around. I have a really clear idea of all the different sub-genres/styles in classical music and how they relate to each other but no where near that same clear understanding of other genres.
> 
> I'm finding that it feels a lot more complicated than classical music. I kind of feel like the sub-genres of classical music are more clear cut, and the sub-genres of other genres (especially Rock) are kind of fuzzy and sometimes have more to do with lyric content rather than actual musical style. How do other people feel about this? Maybe it's just because I have spent as much time learning about the other sub-genres as I have with classical music sub-genres.


_I was going to point-out that same All-Music Guide to Electronica which "quack" posted. Talk about complicated! Sometimes a genre is associated with a city "scene," so it is a very social thing. Welcome to the "post-modern" era! This is what happens when "history explodes."_


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

quack said:


> Here's an elegantly arrogant, biased and a bit outdated guide to electronica http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/





millionrainbows said:


> _I was going to point-out that same All-Music Guide to Electronica which "quack" posted. Talk about complicated! Sometimes a genre is associated with a city "scene," so it is a very social thing. Welcome to the "post-modern" era! This is what happens when "history explodes."_


Uh, does this guy even like electronic music? He complains and moans about practically every genre that he talks about.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> Uh, does this guy even like electronic music? He complains and moans about practically every genre that he talks about.


That's the problem with adopting snarkiness as a basic mode. You end up saying absolutely nothing, and as it stops standing out, the humor quickly wears off.

Anyway, classical music is a tradition, not a genre. The word genre is used differently between writers on it and those on "popular" genres. The latter can be distinguished by an attitude, instrumentation, a rhythmic pattern, a particular kind of visual presentation, and other such things that don't have much to do with composition or form, which is how styles and genres in classical music are separated.

I would venture to say that if it keeps up, Jazz could be looked at as a tradition rather than a genre as well, and it probably will. Doom metal will always be a sub-sub-genre, never a tradition.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

violadude said:


> I've been trying to learn the different sub-genres of Rock, Jazz, Rap and electronic music so I can be a more informed musician all around. I have a really clear idea of all the different sub-genres/styles in classical music and how they relate to each other but no where near that same clear understanding of other genres.
> 
> I'm finding that it feels a lot more complicated than classical music. I kind of feel like the sub-genres of classical music are more clear cut, and the sub-genres of other genres (especially Rock) are kind of fuzzy and sometimes have more to do with lyric content rather than actual musical style. How do other people feel about this? Maybe it's just because I have spent as much time learning about the other sub-genres as I have with classical music sub-genres.


I think that it is pretty complicated, the only area outside of classical that I have a more solid idea of is jazz, for others like rock and its various offshoots (or other stuff like techno and hip-hop) I am only at the level of listening to stuff on the radio (or the few cd's of this type of stuff I do own). But I find I like a lot of the stuff, but unlike classical (as you suggest) I can't put it in any 'box.' But I listen for variety to get away from the classical more than anything else. There's some great stuff out there, incl. stuff coming from Australia.

But books like these rough guides on every area of music, incl. rock (which is my link) are good just as a start. Or those 'dummies guides' things. I am not patronising you, its just a step up, that's all it is.

The other thing is just listening. I listen to our local youth station and there's specialist programs - eg. of hip hop, techno, heavy metal of various kinds, etc. There's a lot of variety in these in terms of sub-genres for sure. & they all intermingle, even with classical and older stuff like jazz and classic rock. I think it would take another lifetime to disentangle them (eg. from a more academic/musicological viewpoint) but I think I have picked up a lot just through a type of osmosis. My parents listened to stuff like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and all that, but today things have gone far beyond those types of things.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> That's the problem with adopting snarkiness as a basic mode. You end up saying absolutely nothing, and as it stops standing out, the humor quickly wears off.
> 
> Anyway, classical music is a tradition, not a genre. The word genre is used differently between writers on it and those on "popular" genres. The latter can be distinguished by an attitude, instrumentation, a rhythmic pattern, a particular kind of visual presentation, and other such things that don't have much to do with composition or form, which is how styles and genres in classical music are separated.
> 
> I would venture to say that if it keeps up, Jazz could be looked at as a tradition rather than a genre as well, and it probably will. Doom metal will always be a sub-sub-genre, never a tradition.


You're sounding rather pompous, Malarian. The real reason jazz will be looked at as a tradition rather than a genre is because it has become Westernized, snobbish, and elitist, not to mention very pale. Your dismissal of other genres is totally off-the-wall generalisation of the shallowest kind. Stick to what you know.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You're sounding rather pompous, Malarian. The real reason jazz will be looked at as a tradition rather than a genre is because it has become Westernized, snobbish, and elitist, not to mention very pale. Your dismissal of other genres is totally off-the-wall generalisation of the shallowest kind. Stick to what you know.


I love non-classical music, even if I don't talk about it much. I'm sorry that what I said came off badly. Popular music has its own tradition as well, and by tradition I mean a stream of musical thinking from which it grew, and continues to grow. I'm not using it to imply anything more than that. Jazz grew out of several streams, and developed its own. Of course, it is already a tradition in my sense, and my original statement was stupid.

You're right that I know my classical music better, though.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I love non-classical music, even if I don't talk about it much. I'm sorry that what I said came off badly. Popular music has its own tradition as well, and by tradition I mean a stream of musical thinking from which it grew, and continues to grow. I'm not using it to imply anything more than that. Jazz grew out of several streams, and developed its own. Of course, it is already a tradition in my sense, and my original statement was stupid.
> 
> You're right that I know my classical music better, though.


I love this forum! You are one reason why! There are some wonderful people here. Peace!:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

@ Mahlerian, Sid, KenOC, Bassoon, Violadude, all: Hey, I'm sorry, too, for all my snarkiness. I guess I need to get off my high horse every now and then...:lol:


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2012)

starthrower said:


> I'd say the various jazz genres are easily identifiable if you spend enough time listening. Starting with the New Orleans styles through swing, bebop, hardbop, postbop, third stream, free jazz, fusion, and the preponderance of world influenced music of today.
> 
> .


Purely out of genuine interest what is the difference between Dixieland and Traditional Jazz and what is the difference between Jazz and Swing


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

violadude said:


> Uh, does this guy even like electronic music? He complains and moans about practically every genre that he talks about.


Personally I think that's healthy and not simply snark. Able to insult the things you love, find the faults and acknowledge them; better than worship anyday.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

quack said:


> Personally I think that's healthy and not simply snark. Able to insult the things you love, find the faults and acknowledge them; better than worship anyday.


Was violadude referring to you or me? He did not say.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

> Doom metal will always be a sub-sub-genre, never a tradition.


In a loose sense of the word, sure it's a tradition. These bands were developing the slower, murkier side of metal and maintaining a heavy 70s rock foundation when 98% of the genre was just getting faster and more brutal. And they wrote plenty of silly anthems about how much doom metal rules, etc. 



 That's pretty traditional.

Obviously not even a speck compared to jazz in terms of scope or influence though. Just sayin'.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> That's the problem with adopting snarkiness as a basic mode. You end up saying absolutely nothing, and as it stops standing out, the humor quickly wears off.
> 
> Anyway, classical music is a tradition, not a genre. The word genre is used differently between writers on it and those on "popular" genres. The latter can be distinguished by an attitude, instrumentation, a rhythmic pattern, a particular kind of visual presentation, and other such things that don't have much to do with composition or form, which is how styles and genres in classical music are separated.
> 
> I would venture to say that if it keeps up, Jazz could be looked at as a tradition rather than a genre as well, and it probably will. Doom metal will always be a sub-sub-genre, never a tradition.


Well, the website is still sort of helpful. I wish I knew how to make something like that. I would love to make the same kind of website for classical music.

Your distinguishing of a tradition from a genre makes sense. I've never thought of it that way.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Was violadude referring to you or me? He did not say.


hahaha no millionrainbows! I was talking about the guy (or girl) who made the website!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Andante said:


> Purely out of genuine interest what is the difference between Dixieland and Traditional Jazz and what is the difference between Jazz and Swing


WIK: Dixieland music, sometimes referred to as Hot jazz or Early Jazz, is a style of jazz music which developed in New Orleans at the start of the 20th century, and was spread to Chicago and New York City by New Orleans bands in the 1910s.

Trad jazz - short for "traditional jazz" - refers to the Dixieland and Ragtime jazz styles of the early 20th century[1] in contrast to any more modern style. Specifically the term is used to cover a revival of these styles in the mid 20th-century. In Britain the "trad jazz" scene was an important feature of the early 1960s, before the dominance of Beat music epitomised by The Beatles.

*So there you have it; "Dixieland jazz" is a sub-category of "traditional jazz."
"Traditional jazz" also refers to a retrospective revival perspective, British in origin.*

WIK: Swing music, or simply Swing, is a form of American music that developed in the early 1930s and became a distinctive style by 1940. Swing uses a strong rhythm section of double bass and drums as the anchor for a lead section of brass instruments such as trumpets and trombones, woodwinds including saxophones and clarinets, and sometimes stringed instruments such as violin and guitar, medium to fast tempos, and a "lilting" swing time rhythm.*The name swing came from the phrase 'swing feel' where the emphasis is on the off-beat or weaker pulse in the music (unlike classical music).* Swing bands usually featured soloists who would improvise on the melody over the arrangement.

The danceable swing style of big bands and bandleaders such as Benny Goodman was the dominant form of American popular music from 1935 to 1945, a period known as the Swing Era.

*The term "swing" is also used to refer to...the genre of swing, a jazz style which originated in the 1930s. As swing jazz was dance music and coevolved together with swing dances such as Lindy Hop the term swing can be understood as music that makes you want to dance. *Even though there is overlap between these concepts, music from any era of jazz or even from non-jazz music can be said to have "swing" (in the sense of having a strong rhythmic groove or feel).

_*There it is! I learned something!*_


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

quack said:


> Personally I think that's healthy and not simply snark. Able to insult the things you love, find the faults and acknowledge them; better than worship anyday.


Ya I understand. Thanks for the website, it is a good resource! It's just kind of annoying for me to read a bunch of negativity about a type of music that I haven't formed an opinion about yet and am trying to form my own opinion about, if that makes sense.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

violadude said:


> Ya I understand. Thanks for the website, it is a good resource! It's just kind of annoying for me to read a bunch of negativity about a type of music that I haven't formed an opinion about yet and am trying to form my own opinion about, if that makes sense.


Hey, I understand; you were pushed-around in that Lutheran choir for too long!:lol:


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/

Here you go, violadude


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/
> 
> Here you go, violadude


That's a great link, Cnote11! Yesterday, I didn't even know what a DJ was; now I are one!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Don't worry your pretty classical head about it 
These are so caught up with youth culture, teens through early twenties, that they are completely conjoined with all the angst and elitism of identity, social sub-cultures, sub-sub groups, etc. The petty pedantry, snobbism and elitism around any one of them winning any contest against the worst of the elitist snob classical music fans -- even beating out that particularly even worse / weirder classical snob, those who only listen to opera -- by miles, hands down 'no contest.'

Jazzers can be nearly as bad, if not worse!

Elitist snobbism is plainly not the exclusive domain of the minority upper crust who subsidize and or consume classical music.

When dealing with them, remember these are people who call what they listen to, their preferred genre subsubsub genre, "My Music."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Don't worry your pretty classical head about it
> These are so caught up with youth culture, teens through early twenties, that they are completely conjoined with all the angst and elitism of identity, social sub-cultures, sub-sub groups, etc. The petty pedantry, snobbism and elitism around any one of them winning any contest against the worst of the elitist snob classical music fans -- even beating out that particularly even worse / weirder classical snob, those who only listen to opera -- by miles, hands down 'no contest.'
> 
> Jazzers can be nearly as bad, if not worse!
> ...


I guess that's the difference between you and I, PetrB; I'm not afraid to tackle the task of learning all the sub-genres of electronica. Cnote11 has provided a good link, so get to work and stop complaining about other music fans. They can't help it if post-modernism has created this profusion of categories. Or, if you're not into sports, never mind.:lol:


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

violadude said:


> I've been trying to learn the different sub-genres of Rock, Jazz, Rap and electronic music so I can be a more informed musician all around. I have a really clear idea of all the different sub-genres/styles in classical music and how they relate to each other but no where near that same clear understanding of other genres.
> 
> I'm finding that it feels a lot more complicated than classical music. I kind of feel like the sub-genres of classical music are more clear cut, and the sub-genres of other genres (especially Rock) are kind of fuzzy and sometimes have more to do with lyric content rather than actual musical style. How do other people feel about this? Maybe it's just because I have spent as much time learning about the other sub-genres as I have with classical music sub-genres.


Hi violadude,

I can tell a little about Jazz because I love this music.

Jazz has evolved through genres from 'Rag Time' mainly the one that was played by Scott Joplin into mixed styles after the time of 'Free and Fusion Jazz'.

After Joplin's success with his Rag Time -a kind of rhythm - that evolved into swing the need for orchestration started and afroamerican people from French and English sides started to bring their taste and temper into the way of playing western instruments; those that were used by the academic musicians.

This very early orchestration was known as New Orleans style with Jelly Roll Morton as its main figure around 1902.

Jazz is like a pendulum: It goes from a lot of 'black' intense rhythms called the 'black' ingredient into much more melodic and academical style called the 'white' ingredient.

When New Orleans shifted from the black ingredient to a more whiter the next stage appeared, called Dixie Land with Jack Lain as its main figure.

Then Chicago City became the centre of economic development and industrial progress. Many people travelled to find a good job or to play Jazz there.

The Chicago Style -1920- started there with a much more urban aspect and academic approach. From there we have the legendary Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington and the very first female 'educated' voices of Jazz.

After a decade of an outstanding success in money and glamour the Swing style appeared around 1930 with Benny Goodman as its main musician.

That Jazz was so 'white' that it was considered by some afroamericans to bring it into their 'black' roots starting the golden era of the BeBop around 1940 and into 1950. Form this extraordinary period we have Theolonious Monk, Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker and Lester Young. This Jazz was written in Bars and Canteens far from the glamour of the big saloons. It was, again, a Jazz full of racial struggle and the drama of being 'black'.

Around 1950, the 'white' ingredient appeared again: it started a more melodic and soft Jazz called Cool Jazz having in Lenny Tristano, Lee Konitz and Miles Davis as the main figures.

It was so soft... that the reaction against it was called the Hard Bop of the East Coast with John Coltrane, Art Blakey and Sonny Rollins as their main figures. Also between both styles there was the Modern Jazz Quartet.

It became -again- too academic and the response, around the 60's was the 'Free Jazz'. Another outstanding moment because it was very experimental but became too noisy and the 'swing' element started to vanish. The late Coltrane can be a good example as it was the early Keith Jarrett.

In the 70's a return to the swing element started a new era of Jazz called Fusion Jazz. Fusion with Rock and Academic Music mainly. This Jazz was still Free but it started the adoption of BeBop and Hard Bop and the rescue of the swing element. A little touch of 'white' ingredient was incorporated.

I cant tell further but what is sure is that white and black ingredients are still swinging from one extreme to the another.

Modern Jazz -from the 80' and nowadays- has explored many different cultures and rhythms like those of South America with Charles Mingus as an example and other world music like traditional tunes and artisan music.

Jazz is a very noble music full of strength always incorporating other elements.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I guess that's the difference between you and I, PetrB; I'm not afraid to tackle the task of learning all the sub-genres of electronica. Cnote11 has provided a good link, so get to work and stop complaining about other music fans. They can't help it if post-modernism has created this profusion of categories. Or, if you're not into sports, never mind.:lol:


It saddens me a bit that the most blatant of satire is not perceived for what it is:-/. But such is the post-modern age that so many take so much literally and in extreme earnestness, since it seems to include reinventing the wheel and re-defining the already well defined 

You did nail me on the 'sports mentality' about art, pop or otherwise. "The Greatest Pianists / Pieces, 'like ever," or "who can shred / play the most notes in one minute," etc. mentality just does not interest me at all. Neither does sport in general, or rather I appreciate the skill and prowess, but get no adrenaline thrill over which team makes the point! I couldn't care less which team wins a tournée that involves pushing a ball around, or who makes it first in a race where they circuit circles or ovals.

I also see no point in naming a pop music trend which may 'keep its form' for two years, or of which its entire lifespan is one to two years -- rather like in earlier European history where people did not name their children for about two years in case the child died, their knowing the infant mortality rate. Much of that labeling is caused by 'the industry' and marketing, "What bin do we put it in? Can we create a new category to distinguish this very similar to the rest product from the others, so it sits in a publicized isolation and has a better chance of selling?"

At any rate, 'exploding history' is kind of right, only I see it more like some have literally demolished it, just blew it up and off, not because it was no longer relevant, but because they just were too lazy to bother learning it: now instead we have 'neoclassical' pop music, which is neither very neo or remotely quasi-classical. That sort of labeling is also the height of inverse snobbery, thinking to borrow the costume of a supposed 'legitimacy, credibility or marks for profundity or high merit, simply because it sounds more 'classical.' [Marketing, dude, marketing inclusive with a calculated element of exclusivity and snob appeal.]

The people who know little of music history and or music terminology, well, they're all muddling through and will sort it out as each generation does... to some degree or another. Mwah ha haaaaaa.

The proliferation of sub-genre names, the musics often distinguishable from one another by no more than a micron of auditory difference (or by lyric content - not at all a 'musical' factor), is commonplace in pop music.

Pop musics' youth demographic, who are (mainly) the creators of the stuff and almost exclusively consumers of same, are being that particular, micro parsing sub-categories of sub-categories, as you sagely said, for very social reasons.

Much of it, when I've heard or read discussions on and within the genre(s) clearly has the energy of near desperate attempts to be 'exclusive,' (ah, youth, finding and defining itself each generation after the next.) Ergo, there is rampant snobbery amongst those who are ardent fans of a genre, that much more aflame with ardor because so much actually overlaps others, the distinction far less about the music itself that than having to do with social politics. That brings it full circle back to the sports mentality, "My team / social group is hipper than, more tuned into what is what, than thine."  Somewhere in that are actual distinctions between one musical approach and the next....

So much in the commercial pop arena needs its exclusive labeling and 'spin' in order to push it to the fore in the marketing of it because it is being launched in a sea of so much already nearly 'the same.' Another very real reason for all the micro distinctions.

'They' do call the genre they are into, "My Music." Funny, that: I'd think 'my music' could be said by the performers and creators of the stuff, not the fans.

And when I am interested, I learn: the general area of 'ambient' (not new-age, please) IDM, Electro-acoustic (pop arena) interests me. With all those specific genres and sub-genres, I still find huge variance of what type of music sits 'in one bin.' Generally useful, then, the genre labels, but not nearly as much as that micro sub-genre distinguishing might lead one to think.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ViolaDude: Probably a stone's throw distance down the hall at the uni you attend you might find there is an ongoing class for credit called 'The history of Rock 'n' Roll' or 'The history of pop(ular) music.' Really 

These started in the mid-late sixties, a generation now eager to study it arrived, and there was also, at last, enough of a body of work in popular music, enough to fill a textbook and make a semester long course of.

There are probably dozens of such textbooks floating about, only a few years old, for sale via online venues and local second-hand bookstores in your area. If there is such a course running at your school, I would ask the teacher not only which textbook they use, but of others. Just as in most any other academic area, pedagogy kicks in first, so you will find a very well laid out chronological time-line oriented text, from which you can scan the essential shifts of genre, style, etc.

Pop being pop, I would not be surprised if those textbooks are updated every several years.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> WIK:
> 
> *So there you have it; "Dixieland jazz" is a sub-category of "traditional jazz."
> "Traditional jazz" also refers to a retrospective revival perspective, British in origin.*


I agree completely with the Dixie/trad description mainly because it is what I would have said lol.


> WIK: Swing music,
> 
> The danceable swing style of big bands and bandleaders such as Benny Goodman was the dominant form of American popular music from 1935 to 1945, a period known as the Swing Era.
> 
> _*There it is! I learned something!*_


Regarding the Jazz/Swing I think this is a very murky area as we are now referring to the large as opposed to small bands say 10 plus. A lot of these were called Jazz Bands but were they? For example:

Ellington, Goodman, Basie then there is of course Dorsey and Whiteman "Jazz or Swing" ?? and of course Stan Kenton

As the OP said classical is much easier to categorise but then it has been around a lot longer.


----------



## etkearne (Sep 28, 2012)

Popular music sure does have a lot of sub-genere division. I guess because popular music interests MOST people in some way (which is more than classical music which interests many but arguably not most), there is more room for splitting up and forming cliques. Here are the specific sub-genres of popular music I like:

- Progressive Rock - formed in the late 60's by rockers who wanted to dull down the blues-based edge and in turn incorporated harmonic principles from mainly the late Romantic Era of classical music (eg Genesis & my band "The HK Alliance")
- Indie Rock - originally called Indie because its artists were independent of a major record contract, allowing them more freedom, it now just means a form of experimental pop-rock often featuring highly chromatic harmonies and strange rhythms although I often wonder if they know what they are doing because it is dissonant and chromatic but doesn't follow normal rules for dissonance and chromaticism like in Progressive Rock. Nonetheless, I like it. (eg "Dr. Dog" & "The Slackwater News")
- Post-Bop Jazz - a form of jazz based on modal harmonies (usually Lydian based because of some guy's book that suggested using 7#11 chords all over the place) and is extremely frantic and jittery as if the players had taken many amphetamine tablets. (eg "Miles Davis Second Quintet" & "Bill Evans" [the later Bill Evans period that is)
- Jazz Fusion - an umbrella term usually referring to music that is strictly chord-change based and without vocals that is otherwise Progressive Rock. (eg "The Weather Report" & "Jean-Luc Ponty")


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Andante said:


> I agree completely with the Dixie/trad description mainly because it is what I would have said lol.
> 
> Regarding the Jazz/Swing I think this is a very murky area as we are now referring to the large as opposed to small bands say 10 plus. A lot of these were called Jazz Bands but were they? For example:
> 
> ...


whiteman's band is considered "symphonic jazz", in a sense his music predated the so called third stream (and kenton too in some work could be considered a part of the third stream). 
About Dixieland, i suspect that the difference is that was made in particular by white people.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> So much in the commercial pop arena needs its exclusive labeling and 'spin' in order to push it to the fore in the marketing of it because it is being launched in a sea of so much already nearly 'the same.' Another very real reason for all the micro distinctions.


God, everywhere I go I seem to keep running into the ghost of Adorno. Just like him, you give way too much power to the music industry, and way too little to the artists and fans, the public who consumes it.

Like it or not, this electronica music was created by artists who are in certain geographic scenes, and all the industry did was try to catch it.* A lot of this stuff is independently produced, manufactured, and distributed anyway...So much for your "big bad record industry" theory, and Adorno's out-dated ideas.* _This is the digital age!_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> God, everywhere I go I seem to keep running into the ghost of Adorno. Just like him, you give way too much power to the music industry, and way too little to the artists and fans, the public who consumes it.
> 
> Like it or not, this electronica music was created by artists who are in certain geographic scenes, and all the industry did was try to catch it.* A lot of this stuff is independently produced, manufactured, and distributed anyway...So much for your "big bad record industry" theory, and Adorno's out-dated ideas.* _This is the digital age!_


The first time I've heard of Adorno was in a reference on TC.
If you don't know (you probably do) of how, where, and under what conditions Brian Eno has produced much of his work over the decades, it is a portrait of a 'slightly mad and otherworldly gypsy.' I know that techno grew up in squatted vacant industrial sites, and that whole movies are animated at home on someone's apple.

If the youth themselves are making the categorical labels, they are the same who distinguish their social clans by how many -- fictional example here -- small braids you sport, and on what part of their head those braids are located (sports ID, gang ID, group ID....) If that is where the micro-parsing comes from it makes even more sense.

I do know, checking in to reckless records in the late 90's, I was floored at all the sub-categories I was referred to in seeking electro / electro-ambient / electro acoustic, etc. and the very clever but weird copy written by their staff on the little cards in the sleeves in the bins, which read like recipes, "Think.... (genre, band) + (genre band) +, +, +, with a little bit of _____ !  Phew. It really was like reading a cookbook about ten thousand ways to prepare chicken.

There is also, if any are interested, no true 'recording industry' but an aggregate of competing recording companies, a few 'huge' many medium and small, and all the indies. The larger and more commercial ones do, as you say, copycat or climb on board after the fact of an initiated style or trend. (Yves Saint-Laurent sketching hippies in Central Park and then going home and releasing a collection of couture based on street clothing, LOL.

Within the last decade or thereabouts, a pianist from New York or the Bronx went in to a studio on his own dime, recorded a CD of the music of some late romantic composer (at the beginning of the wave of all the "second tier" or "neglected" late romantics becoming popular.) The CD sold well enough, nothing 'newsworthy' and the pianist did it out of love and conviction.

He later that year got a call from a friend, who told him, "You've won a Grammy!" The pianist thought his friend was putting him on; his friend was not putting him on. That is really encouraging. I think though, that CD was not difficult to ferret out in the classical music section of the bricks and mortar CD stores of the time.

I know that even if those pop genre tags are 'plucked out of the air' by the makers themselves, indies and their fans are as 'into' that split the hair what bin should it go in' mentality, because they are the generation of that sort of thinking.
Too, they are aware, I think, that if they are successful, replicating thousands of CDs to sell, they end up being sold on Amazon, etc. and then to call it something 'less exclusive' would be against their interests.

I think all the 'bracket' terminology is a very big deal, 20th century, second half when advertising became a huge factor, and I've 'never cared for it,' which does not affect it at all. I do think it is almost against the interest of the music itself, and a field day for the petty academic, to slice the differences so thin.

.... and it is now everywhere, in academia in relation to contemporary classical, in theory textbooks, with the smallest of musical traits from older literature getting a new terminology (often at odds with the base meanings in the overall theoretic canon), and I wonder if it makes any consumer or student miss the forest for being too obsessed with the trees.


----------

