Classifying Music

(This was originally a post in the IDM/Braindance thread, but it grew too tangential, so here we are.)

The classification/nomenclature thing we humans do is pretty nifty. It's one of the things that separates us from other animals.

When classifying music, I usually like to approach it in several ways. The largest categories in my system are similar to language classifications (vulgar vs classical):

vulgar/folk

often social and conservative

usually focused on performance/experience

learning based on mimicry

refined/academic

often introspective and experimental

usually focused on creation/product

learning based on theory/knowledge

Examples:

vulgar: dance, pop, punk, folk

refined: classical, jazz, IDM, various mutant forms of vulgar genres with "experimental" or some such nonsense tacked on

more elaboration to come

i once heard of this thing called like, er, genres or something that helps to put music in nice little groups that help you tell what is quite similar to what.

  On 8/10/2010 at 9:09 PM, messiaen said:

i once heard of this thing called like, er, genres or something that helps to put music in nice little groups that help you tell what is quite similar to what.

Well of course, but the attributes that separate music in the manner I mentioned are not really reflected by today's set of genres.

i know of two genres: the one that my ears enjoy and the other one they really don't.

genres only exist to make easy our search for illegal downloads.

Next time someone asks me what I like I genuinely think it'd be pretty cool to them I prefer 'refined/academic' music. Sounds better than my usual vague replies.

"conscious" vs "unconscious" may be another way to label the difference I'm going for.

  On 8/10/2010 at 9:29 PM, ruiagnelo said:

i know of two genres: the one that my ears enjoy and the other one they really don't.

 

genres only exist to make easy our search for illegal downloads.

Surely you group your music somehow as well, maybe even without thinking about it, for example according to your mood or the weather outside. Sad music? Happy music? Summer music? Winter music?

Or am I wrong?

  On 8/10/2010 at 8:52 PM, wahrk said:

 

vulgar/folk

often social and conservative

usually focused on performance/experience

learning based on mimicry

 

conservative? the content is often times quite radical. maybe im misunderstanding

  On 8/10/2010 at 9:37 PM, wahrk said:

"conscious" vs "unconscious" may be another way to label the difference I'm going for.

I see what you're saying. But this brings about the same argument as that with IDM (intelligent versus non-intelligent).

  On 8/10/2010 at 11:15 PM, 40days said:

  On 8/10/2010 at 9:29 PM, ruiagnelo said:

i know of two genres: the one that my ears enjoy and the other one they really don't.

 

genres only exist to make easy our search for illegal downloads.

I find replies like this funny. If you don't want to analyze art, then don't, but why interfere with those who want to?

 

Surely you group your music somehow as well, maybe even without thinking about it, for example according to your mood or the weather outside. Sad music? Happy music? Summer music? Winter music?

 

Or am I wrong?

look, you must think that my reply came from a first time thinking about this, but it didn't. i think about genres (and lets consider not just music, but art in general) constantly. i have thought about them so much that, at this point, i don't really care anymore.

when you consider a specific genre and you see things through its perspective, you tend to lose the singular and unique ideas that exist in specific music, in painting, in architecture and the examples go on and on.

i am not against genres, not at all. i just see that not thinking about them can be a way of freeing yourself and enjoying things much more.

that's why my only experience of genre has been simplified to a list on itunes so i can keep music organized. as simple as that.

my music folder is mainly separated into two camps, classical and booty bass.

  On 8/10/2010 at 11:19 PM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 8/10/2010 at 8:52 PM, wahrk said:

 

vulgar/folk

often social and conservative

usually focused on performance/experience

learning based on mimicry

 

 

conservative? the content is often times quite radical. maybe im misunderstanding

Perhaps conservative wasn't the best term. I guess what I was was really going for was, "embracing the current structure".

  On 8/10/2010 at 9:37 PM, wahrk said:

"conscious" vs "unconscious" may be another way to label the difference I'm going for.

into which of these categories would you put minimal/ambient?

  On 8/11/2010 at 1:24 AM, doorjamb said:

  On 8/10/2010 at 9:37 PM, wahrk said:

"conscious" vs "unconscious" may be another way to label the difference I'm going for.

 

into which of these categories would you put minimal/ambient?

It could fall under either depending on the artist.

i don't like those categories, surely they stem from trying to analyse the artist, the context and the other outside factors beyond the actual features of the music? in which case, their practicality is little unless you wanted to study the psychology behind music making and music culture.

more to the point, its a little pretentious to try to categories music as though similar styles come from similar states of mind. I mean, there are definately ambient and noise artists who are just following the trend set by others, but since their genre happens to be formless then they get an free pass to "refined".

Its like saying "Apex Twin is refined because his music is more cleverer", highly objective and not solid grounds for categorisation.

  On 8/11/2010 at 9:30 AM, Backson said:

i don't like those categories, surely they stem from trying to analyse the artist, the context and the other outside factors beyond the actual features of the music? in which case, their practicality is little unless you wanted to study the psychology behind music making and music culture.

 

more to the point, its a little pretentious to try to categories music as though similar styles come from similar states of mind. I mean, there are definately ambient and noise artists who are just following the trend set by others, but since their genre happens to be formless then they get an free pass to "refined".

 

Its like saying "Apex Twin is refined because his music is more cleverer", highly objective and not solid grounds for categorisation.

Well yes, this method attempts to categorize based on approach/method (not in execution, mind you, but conception), which I think is fairly evident in almost all music.

fair enough. like i said, I don't find that very practical.