# Do we HAVE to approach music through genre??



## DennyL (Jun 2, 2011)

I know this is a classical music forum; if it were just a 'music' forum it would be overrun with posts about Paul McCartney and I wouldn't be here. But I don't go around saying 'I like classical music' or 'I don't like country and western'. The more unexpected the place where I find satisfying music, the more satisfying it is for me. I want to resist the idea of genre. Do we need it? I like the idea of music as a continuum, with hybrid forms. Does any musician or composer have an obligation to conform to the conventions of any genre? Should we not value just originality, freshness, authenticity and sincerity? No single genre meets all my emotional needs and I try to cast my net wide. I come to a classical music forum because I want to find a good quality of discussion, not because I want to discuss just classical music. Isn't genre just a marketing tool, so that album publishers could put 'file under folk' on the corner of the sleeve, and they'd know in which publications to place their ads.

I wonder if others here have thoughts about the dominance of genre in discussion of music.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Classical music is a group of genres. The differences between them are significant.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

We need it to describe differences in music. The alternative is to have one big disorganised mess. The existence of genres promotes understanding of music by analysing those differences. The influence of composers, songwriters and technology shapes a genre and I think it is important to understand music history as well as just music theory.

EDIT: To a large extent it IS a continuum. Nothing exists in a vacuum. The colours of the rainbow are a continuum, but we still have names for colours.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

> Does any musician or composer have an obligation to conform to the conventions of any genre?


I agree with your implication, but the existence of genres doesn't necessitate conformity to their conventions. Ideally genres are just a system of organizing music and making it more accessible. Music doesn't have to be approached through genre, but it can save a lot of effort.

It's for the listener, not the artist.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> It's for the listener, not the artist.


Yes, the musician doesn't necessarily change their playing when they go from (for ex.) orchestral to chamber settings, although, some style change must happen in a few cases where the instrumentalist changes role.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> [...]
> It's for the listener, not the artist.


True. 'Genres' means more than 'the filing system', but not much more.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I would speak to Argus about your continuum.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I prefer to have these labels, as I only like to listen to music written by dead white guys.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well if you are talking about classical genres, then I don't think that there are really any strict boundaries between them. Eg. _Monteverdi's Vespers of 1610 _to my ears have elements of not only sacred choral music, but also concerto, sonata (the last two are actually names of some of the movements), madrigals & opera. Mahler said that his music "embraces the whole world" and his symphonies attest to this - they aren't only symphonic works, but have elements of chamber music, choral, song, opera, perhaps even the tone poem? There are also often arguments as to whether say Mendelssohn's overtures like _Fingal's Cave (The Hebrides)_is just a concert overture or something more - a symphonic poem? To me, this just proves that there are few if any boundaries between the various genres in classical music. It's definitely not the composers or musicians who are stuck in grooves like a broken record - it's often more like the fans who stick to the one genre as if they were superglued to it!...


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> I would speak to Argus about your continuum.


I like music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Actually, I think that genres are inevitable because that's the way our minds work, and just as inevitably we try to make genre-bending music.

In the Middle Ages there was sacred and secular music, and then composers mixed them up. 

And so it goes.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Genre-Style. Being confused since 1960


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

Continuum of genres simply does not make sense since genre splits for classical are based on instrumentation. Now matter how hard you try there is nothing inbetween a piano sonata and a string quartet or a piano trio and an opera.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

You may view this thread I made a while back to see my opinion, I dont feel like typing it all out again.
http://www.talkclassical.com/13374-what-classical-music.html


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I'd say the terms 'genre' and style' are often interchangeable. Classical music is a genre, then styles or sub-genres within that would include impressionism, minimalism, expressionism, serialism etc, just like prog and punk are styles of the rock genre or bop and swing are styles of the jazz genre.



haydnfan said:


> Continuum of genres simply does not make sense since genre splits for classical are based on instrumentation.


Surely that's format you're talking about? Does a Busoni piano transcription of a Bach piece change genre because the instrumentation has changed.

I like crmoorhead's analogy above about thinking of music as the colour spectrum. There are infinite gradations of wavelength frequencies that make up colour yet we can roughly group them together for the benefit of cohesive discussion.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DennyL said:


> I know this is a classical music forum; if it were just a 'music' forum it would be overrun with posts about Paul McCartney and I wouldn't be here. But I don't go around saying 'I like classical music' or 'I don't like country and western'. The more unexpected the place where I find satisfying music, the more satisfying it is for me. I want to resist the idea of genre. Do we need it? I like the idea of music as a continuum, with hybrid forms. Does any musician or composer have an obligation to conform to the conventions of any genre? Should we not value just originality, freshness, authenticity and sincerity? No single genre meets all my emotional needs and I try to cast my net wide. I come to a classical music forum because I want to find a good quality of discussion, not because I want to discuss just classical music. Isn't genre just a marketing tool, so that album publishers could put 'file under folk' on the corner of the sleeve, and they'd know in which publications to place their ads.
> 
> I wonder if others here have thoughts about the dominance of genre in discussion of music.


Yes, Yes: we're all whole beings, each a universe, and all music is in one universe.

I'll take genre distinction as to type of style, two of the largest discerned groups are, most generally:
Pop Music
Non-Pop Music - in this I place both classical and jazz, perhaps some 'ethnic' music which is still tied to something like a notion of 'right thought' or culturally tied in with a ritual, often spiritual.

But -- no, I don't really come to a classical forum to hear about what prog-rock metal some classical folk also happen to like, or anything else (God forbid that anything else is Sinatra, repellent to my taste -- basically the sub-genre as well as the particular singer -- where a lot of other sorts of popular music I find wonderful.)

This Forum, better than many, allows readily for 'other music' to be discussed, and it is no more disturbing than walking from one room to the other in one building to participate.

I know what you mean about that meeting wherein two people who love 'all sorts' of music have a lively conversation and it jumps around from Monteverdi to Motown without either party stripping their gears, but fact is, those who love classical are in a tiny minority compared to those who love pop and like a handful of the classical chestnuts, so genre becomes a filter where the subject is defined, or it would be overwhelmed.

So, yeah, genre definition, and use as a 'defining parameter' is pretty necessary.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> I would speak to Argus about your continuum.


I wouldn't if I were you.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Why do the categories "HOT" and "COLD" exist when in fact they don't refer to concrete temperatures? They are in fact on a continuum and overlap and relap(se) into each other right? 

YOU TELL ME OP. Should we discard the words "hot" and "cold"?

WELL? SHOULD WE? 

A: "MAN THIS WEATHER IS APPROXIMATELY 85*F" 
B: "YEAH MAN IT FEELS ALMOST 90*, REALLY" 
C: "Don't you mean that it's hot?"
D: "DON'T SAY IT, DON'T SPEAK OF THE WEATHER IN TERMS OF HOT AND COLD. THERE'S A CONTINUUM."


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

When listening to music of different genres, my whole process of listening changes. I listen in a different way. So, "genre", in addition to being a useful tool in classifying things, also correlates with something that actually happens in the real world.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

For those of us with fairly bulky collections of CDs genres really help with filing. My religious music is stored in the cabinet where the TV is. The classical music is behind me in a specially constructed CD cabinet, likewise the jazz, pop and miscellaneous. So where do I file classical religious stuff? Under classical, of course.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

Nowhere is the truth of the continuum theory more evident than when you listen to Beethoven just after listening to Lil' Wayne. 


No, we don't HAVE to approach music by genre, but for many of us, it's how we do things, and we gather here to discuss and talk about an specific one, with sections devoted to more "any genre" discussion. And yes, some people DO approach music by genre. So what, that doesn't mean you're forced to. But just as with anything in life, you will find people forming groups based on a common denominator, in this case classical music, not just any music. Erode that particular specificity and you simply destroy the bond, and the forum. 

Why are these questions always posed about music? I'm not much into any sport (except football - soccer for the US) but I can bet none goes to, say, an NBA forum and says "sports are part of a continuum of physical activities, I want to discuss cricket and polo here".


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I suppose it saves lots of time, when you know the basic and content of each genre ... then if you like it or not, you seek it or avoid it. But there is always exceptions, bad or good.

A good generalization.

Also you can discuss everything there:

http://www.talkclassical.com/non-classical-music/


----------

