Talk:Music genre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Music genre article.

Article policies
Archives: 1
Music genre is within the scope of WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents


[edit] Ambient Music and other genres

Ambient Music is an instrumental, not rhythmic and not melodic musical form that uses techniques and styles of electronic music, minimalistic acoustic music, and often concrete (sampled) music; it aims to get an "atmospheric environment", a sort of sonic carpet, better known as soundscape, that can merge with environmental noises or that can be listened as a form of ambience soundtrack. Therefore, the so called Ambient Techno and Ambient House have nothing to do with Ambient Music. Actually, those styles are within the field of "Techno" dance music. Nevertheless, many works by KLF, The Orb, Aphex Twin and others are "pure electronic music" with no beats and drums, and many are pure ambient music, but most of their hits are Techno, a sophisticated form of techno, but nothing more. Sorry if that may annoy someone... Electronica is a non-sense, meaningless word, used only with regard to modern works that mix many different styles. The term "New Age" has a bit more sense, at least New Age artists and works seem to share the same purpose, that is to chill out the listener and help spiritual meditation. For this reason, New Age is hated both by religious fundamentalists ("New Age is a plan of the Anti-Christ") and by those musicians and academics that reject such kinda "yoga tool" use of music.Dr. Who 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that none comments my above text. My question now is the following: is ambient music a music genre? Or is it just a music form, like symphony, opera and so on? --Dr. Who 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization(s)

The article should give enough coverage of different methods for "partitioning" music into many genres.Dr. Who 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

True. --Dynamic Progressive Turbulence Creator 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is "Classic Rock" a genre?

re: One example is Led Zeppelin, which could be called heavy metal, hard rock, classic rock, folk, or blues, depending on one's interpretation.

This quote points out a fairly deep issue with "genre". At the time it was being created, (nearly) no one thought of themselves as making "Classic Rock", partly because "Classic Rock" mainly means "old rock". At that time, the genre didn't exist for musicians to adhere to or reject, whereas most everyone who has recorded, say, reggae or blues, knew quite well at the time what they were doing, and what the rules were for their style - even if they were selfconsciously trying to be innovators. And the ones who DID think of themselves as making classic rock were looking to past styles, such as rockabilly, the "Sun Records" sound, Bakersfield country, or some other style. ex. Creedence Clearwater Revival, the Band.

Led Zeppelin is a prime example of this - in their time, they (and their audience, and many critics) considered themselves as innovative, building something entirely new on the foundations of rock and blues (and as Jimmy Page later called his influences, "CIA" music, for Celtic/Indian/Arabic. There's an uncredited Wikipedia reference to the term here [[1]]

I would also venture to disagree with the above in that very few would consider Led Zeppelin's entire body of work blues or folk, though both influences are apparent and acknowledged. Blues-rock, on the other hand, isn't really considered a genre now, but would fairly accurately, though narrowly, describe what they thought they were doing at the time.

A question to contemplate - should the notion of genre include artists who acquired a genre posthumously, so to speak, or should it apply to the artist's intentions and actions, and the public's perceptions, at the time they made the music?

24.17.180.126 20:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin and others are under "heavy metal" in Rock music. I think there should be heavy metal didived into parts "classic rock" and other metal (or something like that) (because there isn't even division "metal"). Though, some classic rock can be considered as psychedelic, progressive or some other rock. Strange.
--Dynamic Progressive Turbulence Creator 12:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I consider Classic Rock to simply refer to a particular era in Hard Rock, though where it begins and where it ends I really couldn't say. It's a shady term at best but a common one as well. Thee darcy (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive rock

Most of progressive rock listeners defines progressive rock not in the rock genre, or only in that. It often is rock, but sometimes maybe not at all. Jazz, classical, folk and some avant-garde for example. Though genres are always obscure.

Progressive rock is separate thing. And I can't halp you if you think The Who, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd are the progressive rock. They aren't.

--Dynamic Progressive Turbulence Creator 12:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fusion genres

Let's see : fr:fusion de genres musicaux Contact me : fr:Utilisateur:Michel_BUZE

[edit] Ordered the other way

194.2.163.124 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trance and other Electronic Subgenres

[this section has been moved into proper chronological sequence from where it was entered at the top of the page]

Would it be ridiculous to suggest a section for the six major electronic dance music genres? I might be alone in this belief, but I think music is divided into two main genres: acoustic and electronic. If you listen to electronic music, it's clear that the differences between its main genres are just as wide - if not wider - than the differences between the better-known genres ofm usic such as jazz, country, rock, etc. Trance music is extremely notable as of late, and probably moreso than the other main EDM genres. Trance gets mainstream radio play - Castles in the Sky, We're in Heaven, Everytime we Touch, etc., and is probably better known than other qualified genres like Spoken Word. House music is also pretty popular. Would it be alright if I added sections for the main EDM genres (trance, techno, industrial, house, hardcore, jungle), and if not, trance and house? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.243.14.122 (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Globalize tag

I tagged tis article cause i noticed that almost all the genres listed are from the united states,a clear example is country Music:Country music is a folk music genre of the US but is listed with is own section in an article that includes a Classical music section wich is a trully universal genre;while music of latin america or Africa are all represented in a section when they consist of a lot of genres each as different of each other as is Bluess from Soul.I could list you at least 20 genres of music of south america yet none have a section here.The article looks more of a chart of music in some record store in the US than a serious categorization of music on a worlwide scale.--Andres rojas22 18:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. But the article has changed since you added the tag. It's now being re-organized in a major way, with the list of genres moved into a separate article, so the globalize tag is no longer needed. I'm removing it now. If you see this as a problem, please post a comment and we can discuss it further. --Parzival418 Hello 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] style vs. genre

in my textbook, musical style & musical genre are different stuffs. If this is right, in the artile, their meanings and the difference should be clarified. Jackzhp 04:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fusion genres

Hi all. I've nomination fusion (music) to be merged into this page. The reason for this is that all genres are either Traditional music, or fusion of some type. Rock music is a fusion. Hip-hop is a fusion. (European) Classical music is a fusion. In order to avoid duplication, fusion (music) should be merged here.

-- TimNelson 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur. --Parzival418 Hello 03:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree. --ΛэтєяиuS (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List/Page reorganisation

I recommend we have a List of music genres which would replace the Categorization section of this article; there are too many genres to cover all of them in the style we've covered the ones here. I recommend that this article instead be used for topics such as the "Arguments" section, the proposed merge of the "Fusion" page, the characteristics that one uses to define a genre and distinguish it from other genres. I'd also recommend a basic coverage of the three major types of music, Art music, Traditional music, and Popular music (all music falls into one of the above three categories).

-- TimNelson 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Support:I think you have a good idea,the article should contain a good description of what criteria makes musicologists,labels,etc say that a style is different from other and avoid listing too much genres--Andres rojas22 16:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Support:I concur with the two comments above, with one caveat. we need to allow for the idea that some music may be included in more than one of the three main types. For example there has been classical music that could be considered Art Music, but was also Popular Music in its day. Examples: Mozart, Gilbert and Sullivan, George Gershwin, Scott Joplin. Or, consider that folk music is generally Traditional Music, but has at times been Popular Music. Examples: the rise of popular folk acts int he 1960's. The List of music genres will need some organizational thought as well, since genres are not a flat 2-dimensional universe but often cross-pollinate.
Overall though, I agree that the music genres page would benefit from a re-write focusing on a musicological perspective. Without that approach, this topic seems to tend towards a hodge-podge of genres which are described more completely elsewhere in dedicated articles. --Parzival418 Hello 21:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that not everything falls into one of those categories (I'm an Electric folk fan), but those distinctions are still useful. -- TimNelson 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Support: About a year ago, I proposed the same thing (well at least in regards to s.th. like an "arguments" section, which didn't exist at the time), when I tried to solve a heated debate on how to place Tool in current music genres. I tried to incorporate bits of the debate about music genres to explain why it is hard or useless to place some bands - but it was quite hard to find sources about the subject, especially on WP but in the net as well. I recommend taking a look at "Representing Musical Genre:A State of the Art", Journal of New Music Research as a start and offer help if wanted. --Johnnyw talk 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List/Page reorganisation (in progress)

Hi Tim - I see you started making the changes. Looks good. I archived the long-out-of-date talk page on List of music genres and updated the Template:Western music genres footer info-box to link it to that page now in addition to the Music genre article. The template I think might need further updating, to link to the divisions of music forms you're adding. I'm not doing that now though because I don't want to risk linking to an article that doesn't exist yet or cause an edit conflict collision in the edits you're doing.

I was also going to move/merge the fusion article over to this page, but I saw you added a section heading, so I'll stay out of your way on that too. Good work on the refactoring, this is a big improvement. --Parzival418 Hello 03:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done editing for a while (I think). Feel free to start changing stuff -- I just put something up to give us a basic framework. -- TimNelson 05:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] definition of Art Music

I suggest that in the section defining Art music, we include along with Jazz certain elements of Electronic music (excluding the popular music uses of that term) and Experimental music.

Comments are welcome... --Parzival418 Hello 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. If you did that based on your own knowledge (rather than what you gleaned from Wikipedia), you might want to also revise the Art music page to be a bit longer :). -- TimNelson 05:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added the info here and expanded the Art music article a bit. --Parzival418 Hello 06:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Great! With a little context, I was able to add to it too. -- TimNelson 07:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classical and operatic singers

There has been some mislabeling of pop singers as being classical or operatic, and I'd like to propose a definition to place in the article:

  • A classical or operatic singer is someone who has regularly performed unamplified classical or operatic music in concert halls or opera houses.

It takes special voices and training to perform classical music in its intended environment, including having a robust enough voice to fill the venue with accompaniment, and the ability to modulate vocal color and dynamics with the accompaniment. This is what a classical singer does.
Singers who do not perform this music in these venues (and without amplification) can be said to sing crossover classical music, but should not be called classical or operatic singers. (Studio recordings are also a form of miked/amplified singing.) This includes singers like Bocelli, Jenkins, Brightman, Church etc. -- Operalalatalk 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but I don't think it belongs in the Music genre article. I'd suggest maybe Opera instead. -- TimNelson 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the genre category in the info boxes for singers links to this page, and there are no instructions to clarify which singers belong, or don't belong, to which genre. We got things covered on the opera side, the problem is editors in other genres not being aware of the difference. -- Operalala(talk) 04:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
So why not change the infobox? If you link to this infobox about which you complain, we might also be able to offer some more intelligent suggestions. I still think it doesn't belong on this page, though. -- TimNelson 05:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition Dispute

There has been dispute on another page about the definition of "Music Genre". By placing (Peter van der Merwe) as the only resource on the page, it heavily pushes the article toward his POV. As I am involved in a dispute on another page I wanted to provide some resources and request this page be researched and updated.

"A genre is a set of rules for generating musical works." ... "Genres are, however, more intersubjective than subjective phenomena. In each temporal and spacial context, there are certain genre definitions that are relevant and used by the most important groups of actors in the musical field: musicians, producers, marketers and audiences." Fornas, Johan The future of rock: discourses that struggle to define a genre

The following article is probably the best source I've read about style and genre. The use of "genre" comes from journalists with "film, cultural, and literary studies" backgrounds. (This is why "classical" or "art" music is described in "movements," while "popular" music is described in genres). Style is the type of sound, genre takes other factors into account such as lyrics and subject matter. Categorical Conventions in Music Discourse: Style and Genre

These sources have abstracts that don't tell us anything definitive; but access to the entire article may be useful - [2] [3] [4]

Denaar 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The use of Peter Van der Merwe's book "Origins of the Popular Style: The Antecedents of Twentieth-Century" here is misleading - his writing is not about genre studies. He is writing a book that purposly removes any factors other than sound in order to discuss popular music styles and their origins, and states this purpose specifically. The reference implies the sentence is supported by the work, but is not. From Page 3: "The term 'the popular style' is a label, not a description. 'Style' is really a less pretentious synonym for 'basic musical language'. As for 'popular', it is seriously misleading. In the ordinary sense of the word the popularity of the music discussed here is almost irrelevant. To be popular, whether in the sense of 'generally liked' or 'of the people', is an evanescent quality. If history follows its usual course the popular idioms of today will become the learned idioms of tomorrow, and the antiquated academicism of the day after tomorrow. In short, the term 'popular' is an infernal nuisance, but there seems no alternative to it." Denaar 17:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem? Find some sources and some information to this or other articles. Wikipedia may not cite itself. Hyacinth (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art rock

If "no rock form is real pure art music)" what about art rock? Hyacinth (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Sorry but I mostly agree with the statement. No rock form is real pure art music. So what about art rock ? I can explain you this apparent paradox very simply. Your confusion is actually frequent with people who are unfamiliar with musicological notion of "art music". Yes, there's no doubt art rock exists, but no it doesn't belong to art music but to popular music. Why isn't it considered as art music then? Actually the confusion lies in the fact meanings of a term can sometimes be blurred by popular use: One striking example is the word "schizophrenia" in popular use the word is believed to refer to multiple personality disorders whereas on a strict professional use the term has nothing to do with it. The same goes with popular use and musicological use.
Popular musicians and Musicologists don't use the word "art music" in the same sense.
In experimental popular music world(including such music like art rock or avant garde metal) the term art music is a notion used as opposed to commercial music. Indeed by art music, musicians consider themselves innovators, authentic and true to art as opposed to commercial music meant for entertainment. In popular meaning art music implies Innovation, experimentation and pure artistic approach instead of being a mere entertaining product.
But in the musicological sense, the term "Art music" is used as opposed to popular music and traditional music. Art music is characterized by advanced compositional techniques and theories. It also implies a written tradition as opposed to popular and Traditional approach which are based on oral traditions or on recordings.
In this sense art music doesn't necessarily implies innovation or being opposed to wide mass accessibility. For example certain forms of classical music are not necessarily characterized by innovation. However others forms of art music can be extremely avant-gardistes like Electroacoustic music for example.
Art rock music doesn't respond to the high technical and theoretical exigencies implied in the word "art music" to be considered as real art music. Art rock mostly saves a great part the popular music structure. Hence the fact it cannot be considered as real art music. However it must be mentioned that there are examples where art rock got closer to art music. Examples would include Zappa, Zorn or Glenn Branca. In such cases their music can't be regarded as art music yet but it can't be regarded as popular music either. These are case where limits between art music and popular music are blurred. However most of the music art rock is clearly popular music. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition, most musical genres are a fusion of other musical genres or (less often) a development of an earlier genre. This tree of music (in my somewhat limited experience) always goes right back until you reach a traditional genre, whose roots are unrecorded. The problem with Art Rock is that it (in some cases) fuses art and popular music. But it still pretty much ends up being one or the other.
None of this invalidates anything that Fred has said.
--TimNelson (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)