Contrarian musical opinions.

[Crybaby Bunting]

People talk about being able to categorise their music easily (I think I heard Doom Metal a few replies ago) when it comes to metal, but doesn't the exact opposite happen in say, pop music?

Pop bands aren't grouped by what they sound like, more who they sound like. I think I read something about Lady GaGa wondering why she's being labelled as new-electro when she just wants to be pop like her idol Madonna. It's all very silly in the long run.

Plus think about this, what's the difference between Devo and Kylie Minogue? now what's the difference between Dragonforce and System Of A Down? Most would just say that the first two songs are both pop (some bastard will say that one's futuristic electro punk and the other's power pop) Whilst more would claim that Dragonforce and System of a Down are completely unalike. Despite both being metal bands.

[Skummy]

Surely it depends on what kind of music you're most into? From my experience working in record shops, most fans of classical music and, to a lesser extent, jazz, are quick to refer to pretty much everything else as "pop", whilst to some of us it would seem absurd to do so...yet how many metal fans that could name a thousand sub-genres of metal could tell you the same amount of sub-genres of jazz (and trust me, there are plenty more)?

The reason pop acts aren't grouped into sub-genres is that, as a genre, it's more disposable - purposefully so - and it's not marketed at people with a deep enough musical knowledge or interest to bother with sub-genres.

While limiting yourselves to any one genre is just foolish in my opinion, I also think that sub-genres are a necessary evil - to a point, at least - that the more music you listen to, the more necessary they become.

[zero]

The problem with all these ridiculous genres popping up is they're used to describe a handful of bands. Even though System of a Down has a unique sound, they're a metal band... not a "nu metal experimental alt rock" band. They're a metal band, and when describing another band that might sound like them, I'd say "they sound like System of a Down." The fact that a genre called "Mathcore" even exists should be enough evidence that the genre trend is absurd. It's all just slightly different takes on hard rock/metal and honestly, I could dumb it down even further and say it's still Rock n' Roll to me.

[METALMAN]

Mathcore. pffffffffft.

Similar concept to math rock I presume?

[GoGo Yubari]

My favourite Beatle is Ringo Starr. Mostly cos he just seems to be the most laid back and the Beatle who would be the least annoying to go for a (non alcoholic) drink with down the local pub...And he's nearly 70!

Yeah, agreed on that front, though George Harrison strikes me as someone who would have been pleasant to be around as well. John and Paul, not so much.

And on that note, "Hey Jude" is the most overrated Beatles song of all time.

[Fitzy]

Agreed with the ones that said Load was a good album. I don't get the hate. Good stuff is on that.

[AnnIQ Edison]

I just have to say that the whole Pop scene really doesnt deserve half the crap that it receives. I can still easily listen to my Britney's and Justin's without a problem.

Also I will never accept when people put what an artist does outside of their music into the equation of whether it is good or not. I'm looking at the likes of Miley Cyrus, Britney and even the likes of Axl Rose.

Edited January 21, 2009 by The Inquisition

[Iain76er]

I just have to say that the whole Pop scene really doesnt deserve half the crap that it receives. I can still easily listen to my Britney's and Justin's without a problem.

Also I will never accept when people put what an artist does outside of their music into the equation of whether it is good or not. I'm looking at the likes of Miley Cyrus, Britney and even the likes of Axl Rose.

What does Axl do outside of music? Fight Tommy Hillfiger?

[Turbo Yannis]

Liberation Transmission is a fucking great pop album.

[AnnIQ Edison]

I just have to say that the whole Pop scene really doesnt deserve half the crap that it receives. I can still easily listen to my Britney's and Justin's without a problem.

Also I will never accept when people put what an artist does outside of their music into the equation of whether it is good or not. I'm looking at the likes of Miley Cyrus, Britney and even the likes of Axl Rose.

What does Axl do outside of music? Fight Tommy Hillfiger?

I meant like how he is seen as being a dickhead and all. That shouldn't influencehow people see he music. You always hear how people are like "Don't listen to that, the artist is a douche" or something like that.

[New Damage]

What I find stupid about 'pop' is that 'pop' originally (and still kinda does) mean 'popular' which could mean anything from your metal to your rap to your country-and-western-jazz-hop or whatever, if it's popular. But now 'pop' has turned into a genre of itself, ie. the Britney's, Take That's, Spice Girl's etc.

[RoyWill Rumble]

I just have to say that the whole Pop scene really doesnt deserve half the crap that it receives. I can still easily listen to my Britney's and Justin's without a problem.

Also I will never accept when people put what an artist does outside of their music into the equation of whether it is good or not. I'm looking at the likes of Miley Cyrus, Britney and even the likes of Axl Rose.

What does Axl do outside of music? Fight Tommy Hillfiger?

I meant like how he is seen as being a dickhead and all. That shouldn't influencehow people see he music. You always hear how people are like "Don't listen to that, the artist is a douche" or something like that.

So, if your favourite artist decided to go off and rape and mutilate thirty girls, then dump them into a lake you wouldn't a little put off listening to their music?

[YI]

Depends hosw ugly theywere.

[AnnIQ Edison]

I just have to say that the whole Pop scene really doesnt deserve half the crap that it receives. I can still easily listen to my Britney's and Justin's without a problem.

Also I will never accept when people put what an artist does outside of their music into the equation of whether it is good or not. I'm looking at the likes of Miley Cyrus, Britney and even the likes of Axl Rose.

What does Axl do outside of music? Fight Tommy Hillfiger?

I meant like how he is seen as being a dickhead and all. That shouldn't influencehow people see he music. You always hear how people are like "Don't listen to that, the artist is a douche" or something like that.

So, if your favourite artist decided to go off and rape and mutilate thirty girls, then dump them into a lake you wouldn't a little put off listening to their music?

Too be honest it might for a short time but I would probably listen to them again eventually. Sure the music would have that question pop up whenever you listened to it of "remember what they did?" but it would just be an a side to the actual music and the enjoyment of listening to it.

[IAceI]

I don't not listen to Guns n Roses because Axl's a douche. I don't listen because I think they're fucking shit. And he's a douche to go on top of the fact that he is, in fact, shit.

[K]

I just have to say that the whole Pop scene really doesnt deserve half the crap that it receives. I can still easily listen to my Britney's and Justin's without a problem.

Also I will never accept when people put what an artist does outside of their music into the equation of whether it is good or not. I'm looking at the likes of Miley Cyrus, Britney and even the likes of Axl Rose.

What does Axl do outside of music? Fight Tommy Hillfiger?

I meant like how he is seen as being a dickhead and all. That shouldn't influencehow people see he music. You always hear how people are like "Don't listen to that, the artist is a douche" or something like that.

So, if your favourite artist decided to go off and rape and mutilate thirty girls, then dump them into a lake you wouldn't a little put off listening to their music?

Are you never gonna watch a Chris Benoit match?

[JStarr]

Also I will never accept when people put what an artist does outside of their music into the equation of whether it is good or not. I'm looking at the likes of Miley Cyrus, Britney and even the likes of Axl Rose.

I hear this a lot, being a Prince fan. People just write off the music because they think he's a freak. Of course, half the time, the music is good BECAUSE he's a freak. (Y)

I also had a friend whose mom really had a thing for George Michael...until she found out he was gay. Then, she literally brought her CD's out to a bonfire and fucking torched them. I mean, fuck, did the music just suddenly turn to complete shit overnight?

[IAceI]

Did she just listen and never actually see a picture of him ever, like not on his CD covers or anything? Because surely that would have at least raised suspicion to his massive gayness.

[RPS]

What I find stupid about 'pop' is that 'pop' originally (and still kinda does) mean 'popular' which could mean anything from your metal to your rap to your country-and-western-jazz-hop or whatever, if it's popular.But now 'pop' has turned into a genre of itself, ie. the Britney's, Take That's, Spice Girl's etc.

Pop has always been a genre. Tin Pan Alley pop has been around pretty much since the inception of recording and radio. In musical theory, there is popular music (music that is popular) and pop music (a genre of music short for Tin Pan Alley pop.) Just thought I'd chime in...

[Liam]

The problem with all these ridiculous genres popping up is they're used to describe a handful of bands. Even though System of a Down has a unique sound, they're a metal band... not a "nu metal experimental alt rock" band. They're a metal band, and when describing another band that might sound like them, I'd say "they sound like System of a Down." The fact that a genre called "Mathcore" even exists should be enough evidence that the genre trend is absurd. It's all just slightly different takes on hard rock/metal and honestly, I could dumb it down even further and say it's still Rock n' Roll to me.

What's the problem with 'mathcore'? It just works as shorthand for the use of differing time signatures with metal, rather than rock, as the base. It can go to far when things get nitpickey, but as for it just being slightly different takes on the same thing, there is a pretty big difference between, say, thrash and doom, or death and stoner, so thats fair enough as far as I see it. Everything is just metal, but if you go further, it makes sense to categorise at least to a point.

Power

Thrash

Death

Doom

Drone

Stoner/Sludge

Grind

seem to be the basics, and they all generally cover the majority of heavier bands. 'Melodic' and 'Symphonic', and even to some extent 'Experimental' also make sense to me to throw around, because a band like Nachtmystium, who do 'experimental black metal', won't necessarily be liked by someone who likes more standard stuff. For me, the further you delve, the better it works at least for ease of use.

I don't have a problem with people who don't care about genres, I just don't think its a big deal for people who want to use it. Everything else gets categorized for ease of use, why not music?

Anyway, big rant for no reason out of the way >_>

The main problem, as you mentioned with SOAD, is that people want to break down every last nuance of the music. The prefixes I used, with 'metal' or 'core' on the end, thats all you really need to give the general gist of most extreme metal bands anyway.

Mathcore. pffffffffft.

Similar concept to math rock I presume?

Yeah, and after the disparaging tone of the 'pffft', it was around only shortly after math rock was established, so bleh Converge, Beecher, Dillinger Escape Plan...and so on, and so forth.

Edited January 22, 2009 by rvdwannabe