Page 1 of 4
#1
I have this hypothesis that 95% of all music is crap, and the other 5% is absolutely phenomenal.


I came to this conclusion after talking about my jazz interests with a friend of mine who goes to school for music, specifically a lot of performance jazz. He said that almost all it out there is shit, but what isn't is absolutely mind blowing. That got me thinking about my tastes and how I really like only a certain niche of it. Same with him, he likes his niche. Then I realized that I liked a niche of pretty much every major genre of music out there.

I figured that I couldn't be that far from the norm considering how many subgenres are 'created' specifically just to try to label someone's specific musical tastes.

So I have this idea that 95% of any genre sucks, but the 5% that doesn't is amazing. That 5% is different for everyone. I like the 5% of Jazz out there that is Avant Jazz. Some folks would hate that shit and prefer that 5% of Jazz that's Free Jazz, or Smooth Jazz, etc.

Same with metalheads who like that 5% of metal that's technical death, melodic, power, black, stoner etc. Or maybe those specific few, really similar blues bands you like? I could go on and on.

Is anyone else like this?
Last edited by JustRooster at Jun 2, 2013,
#2
Your opinion counts as the 95% that are crap to me.
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
#4
Quote by JustRooster
I figured that I couldn't be that far from the norm considering how many subgenres are 'created' specifically just to try to label someone's specific musical tastes.

Um...what?

Subgenres are "created" to catalog and define different styles. This allows people who know something about a genre to understand what a band in a subgenre of that genre sounds like. For instance, Black Metal and Thrash Metal are two distinctive styles of Metal, despite sharing a few similarities. Most people, however, can listen to both and tell a difference between the two.

Quote by JustRooster
Same with metalheads who like that 5% of metal that's technical death, melodic, power, black, stoner etc.

I've never met a Metalhead who decided, "Hey, I only like this subgenre of Metal", short of people frequent sites like ANUS or middle schoolers in the phase of thinking they know everything about Metal (and everything else usually) and really don't know more than 5% of what they think they know.

Btw, for an example of the latter, look at Ian_the_Fox.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Jun 2, 2013,
#5
that first sentence, followed by saying jazz around 15,000 times, is why i hate the fact that i play and like the genre of jazz. the people of jazz can be awful.
#6
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Um...what?

Subgenres are "created" to catalog and define different styles. This allows people who know something about a genre to understand what a band in a subgenre of that genre sounds like. For instance, Black Metal and Thrash Metal are two distinctive styles of Metal, despite sharing a few similarities. Most people, however, can listen to both and tell a difference between the two.



There are plenty of genre labels created to describe people's specific tastes, man. Check out Paiste and NME's forums and you'll see it running rampant.
Last edited by JustRooster at Jun 2, 2013,
#7
Quote by JustRooster
Okay.

Nah, I'm just joshing ya. It's late.
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
#8
Quote by JustRooster
There are plenty of genre labels created to describe people's specific tastes, man. Check out Paiste and NME's forums and you'll see it running rampant.

Obviously, you don't get how subgenres work. Just because some idiot on Paiste or NME says it's a genre doesn't make it an actual genre. For example of how many subgenres work, look into how electronic music subgenres work, how Punk and Hardcore subgenres work, and how Metal subgenres work. Those are probably the biggest 3 types of music that have fans who insist on use of subgenres.
#9
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Obviously, you don't get how subgenres work. Just because some idiot on Paiste or NME says it's a genre doesn't make it an actual genre. For example of how many subgenres work, look into how electronic music subgenres work, how Punk and Hardcore subgenres work, and how Metal subgenres work. Those are probably the biggest 3 types of music that have fans who insist on use of subgenres.



Watch out, guys, don't have a wrong opinion about a loose music definition or this guy's gonna get you!


EDIT: Chill out, dude. Subgenres are whatever people really want them to be. I'm not saying my definition, or their definition, or your definition is right or wrong. It's a fluid definition since all sorts of labels and 'genre's are being created constantly to try and describe a very certain sound.
Last edited by JustRooster at Jun 2, 2013,
#12
Quote by JustRooster
Watch out, guys, don't have a wrong opinion about a loose music definition or this guy's gonna get you!

Do you really think that people just create new (and legitimate [legitimate is important]) subgenres because "hey, it defines my musical taste"?

For instance, why was Grunge defined? Why did it even become a thing? Was it because some guy woke up one morning and was like, "Hey! Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, and Nirvana all fit my taste?"? Hell no! It was because all of those bands shared certain musical characteristics that defined the genre.

Quote by JustRooster
Crazysam got his panties in a bunch because he disagreed with what someone said about a definition of something, and things got worse from there.

I got "my panties in a bunch" because genres don't just come about for no reason. It's not just because some arbitrary dude decided "it fit his taste". Trying to say that's how it works is ignorant and fails to take into account that genres or subgenres consist of bands and artists with similar musical characteristics.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Jun 2, 2013,
#13
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Do you really think that people just create new (and legitimate [legitimate is important]) subgenres because "hey, it defines my musical taste"?



I don't think they do because I know they do. It happens in every major music magazine and blog. It happens and tons of popular music sites daily. I'm a little surprised as to how you could deny that it happens. Do you read any music sites other than UG?
#14
i dont know whats happening but subgenres are sometimes needed. subgenres in electronic music are essential because BPM is pretty important. you arent going to find a drum and bass song at 120 bpm
#15
Ehh. I don't know about that. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't hate any kind of genre, I just don't listen to it. So I don't know if it's bad. Therefore, I can't call it bad.
Quote by SGstriker
If KFC is finger-licking good, then people would probably suck dicks for Popeyes. That's how good it is.


There's nothing left here to be saved
Just barreling dogs and barking trains
Another year lost to the blue line
#16
Quote by JustRooster
I don't think they do because I know they do. It happens in every major music magazine and blog. It happens and tons of popular music sites daily. I'm a little surprised as to how you could deny that it happens. Do you read any music sites other than UG?

Oh, they do, huh? That's great. Examples please. Or are you making a silly argument predicated upon the fact that you've not heard anyone outside of said site (which may or may not be a sketchy site) and therefore automatically assume that the term used is bullshit? Because that's the kind of argument that just doesn't fly, buddy.

Now, tell me, do you know why Britpop is considered it's own subgenre, to use an example of a subgenre from alternative?
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Jun 2, 2013,
#17
Quote by Unourrit01
i dont know whats happening but subgenres are sometimes needed. subgenres in electronic music are essential because BPM is pretty important. you arent going to find a drum and bass song at 120 bpm



Oh yeah, undoubtedly. What Sam and I are discussing is how they're created. I've seen tons of people coin terms and apply them to bands to describe what their specific tastes are. I think Sam is mostly arguing that that's not correct. Whether it's correct or not, though, it still happens.
#18
As a jazz listener, to say you only like avante garde, which by most jazz listeners is not considered jazz at all, is basically saying you're an idiot. The only thing avante garde shares with jazz is the essence of improvisation. So basically you don't even like jazz at all.
#19
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Oh, they do, huh? That's great. Examples please.



Some of the more popular/well-known ones that were coined to encompass a whole specific feel include Dad Rock, College Rock, Chiptune, Krautrock, Crunk Hop, and tons of others that MusicRadar and Paist like to use.

As I said before, I'm not arguing as to whether it's correct in their term coinage, I'm just saying that it happens.

Quote by rockgodman
As a jazz listener, to say you only like avante garde, which by most jazz listeners is not considered jazz at all, is basically saying you're an idiot. The only thing avante garde shares with jazz is the essence of improvisation. So basically you don't even like jazz at all.


I mean, wow. Don't even know how to respond to this. A genre of jazz isn't jazz? I'm interested in learning how.
Last edited by JustRooster at Jun 2, 2013,
#20
Quote by JustRooster
Oh yeah, undoubtedly. What Sam and I are discussing is how they're created. I've seen tons of people coin terms and apply them to bands to describe what their specific tastes are. I think Sam is mostly arguing that that's not correct. Whether it's correct or not, though, it still happens.

No, I'm arguing as to WHY they're created. I'm simply disagreeing with your "how". You seem to think the "how" is mostly arbitrary. I'm saying that that's bullshit, because they're created due to a need to define bands that share common musical characteristics. The "how" varies and is mostly irrelevant to the legitimacy of new subgenres anyway.

Quote by JustRooster
Some of the more popular/well-known ones that were coined to encompass a whole specific feel include Dad Rock, College Rock, Chiptune, Krautrock, Crunk Hop, and tons of others that MusicRadar and Paist like to use.

All of those are specific subgenres or sub-subgenres. Look into what are defined as "Dad Rock" or "College Rock" or "Krautrock", for example. You'll find that all of the bands in those ultra-specific subgenres share certain musical traits.

Krautrock, for example, put the emphasis on extended and ecstatic instrumental epics, neglecting the format of conventional psych-pop songs. (That's a short definition of it.) It was a movement of mostly German bands that was most popular from '70 to '75.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Jun 2, 2013,
#21
I mean, wow. Don't even know how to respond to this. A genre of jazz isn't jazz? I'm interested in learning how.

When you have a new genre of music that is undefinable, you base it off of what genres the players all are known for playing. Makes sense to me
#22
No, to me music more closely follows a bell curve. Most stuff is average, some stuff is terrible, and some stuff is amazing.

Actually I wouldn't argue that there's more bad than good, but 95% terrible to 5% amazing seems completely wrong, can't you think of a lot of music that is just average?

Quote by emad
jthm_guitarist
Warned for trolling!


Quote by metal4eva_22
Didn't you say that you had a stuffed fox that you would occasionally fuck?

Quote by Axelfox
It's not a fox,it's a wolf.
#23
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Oh, they do, huh? That's great. Examples please. Or are you making a silly argument predicated upon the fact that you've not heard anyone outside of said site (which may or may not be a sketchy site) and therefore automatically assume that the term used is bullshit? Because that's the kind of argument that just doesn't fly, buddy.

Now, tell me, do you know why Britpop is considered it's own subgenre, to use an example of a subgenre from alternative?



You think that Paist and NME are sketchy sites? They're world famous music review publishers. They're very, very popular. A lot of the guys who start these terms in publications are career music journalists.

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. I'm just simply saying that people coin their own terms to classify a sounds. It could be construed as a subgenre. What are you so angry about?
#24
Quote by jthm_guitarist
No, to me music more closely follows a bell curve. Most stuff is average, some stuff is terrible, and some stuff is amazing.

Actually I wouldn't argue that there's more bad than good, but 95% terrible to 5% amazing seems completely wrong, can't you think of a lot of music that is just average?


Different strokes, I guess. I guess a lot of music I listen to doesn't really inspire any indifference to me. I generally really like it or don't. A good lot of my friends are likewise that way.
#25
it's probably more like 1-2%. but seen as the figures are arbitrary, what you basically just described is a discernible music taste.
"I specialize in driving a set like I'm driving a Lexus" - Uncle Mez
#26
Quote by JustRooster
You think that Paist and NME are sketchy sites? They're world famous music review publishers. They're very, very popular. A lot of the guys who start these terms in publications are career music journalists.

You mentioned blog sites as well, which could be considered sketchy.

However, you also seem to think Krautrock is an arbitrarily-created genre, which leads me to believe that you just disregarded the term because you'd never heard of it before and didn't know enough about it to actually know it's legitimate.

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. I'm just simply saying that people coin their own terms to classify a sounds. It could be construed as a subgenre. What are you so angry about?

Because that's not how it works. Some may coin a term, but the need for coining such a term has nothing to do with "it fits my tastes". It has EVERYTHING to do with the need for classifying a new set of bands that have several common musical characteristics.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Jun 2, 2013,
#27
EDIT: Nevermind. You're taking this sub-genre nazi thing way too personally. I'll let you be 'right,' because I can see how important this is to you.
Last edited by JustRooster at Jun 2, 2013,
#28
Quote by JustRooster
Should I tell them to go through the official sub-genre classification application system before they can use a term for a group of bands, then?

How about you actually do some research yourself? Most musical genres have at least a basic definition on wikipedia, as well as a history of the genre. You could at least look it up there and learn a bit. 2 minutes on wikipedia, for instance, could have told you that Krautrock refers to an actual genre.

If you can't find a genre on wikipedia, you probably can find a site through googling that defines that genre for you. It's not hard. You're on the internet; use it.

Quote by JustRooster
EDIT: Nevermind. You're taking this sub-genre nazi thing way too personally. I'll let you be 'right,' because I can see how important this is to you.

Don't patronize me, asshole.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Jun 2, 2013,
#31
hey m8s calm down yeah just like if u like a saw wobs bt sum other guy hu u think is an idiote says saw wobs r gey nd that square waves r where its at and also that u r an idiote when rely u both jus like different wobs yeh u cn both think each other is an idiote

but let me ask u do yu both like hunneys yeah? then hmu because u have something in common so while u may nt be on the same wavelength u cn still be on the same hunneylength u feelin me yeh ok gud.

dnt fite yeh

as my mum likes 2 say 2 me "calm ur ****"

so calm ur cocks yeah whats the point
#32
BWUHHHHH

Anyway I think each subgenre includes average/good/bad songs: classical jazz, latin jazz, creole jazz, jazz fusion, big band, swing, etc.

Except smooth/lounge "jazz", which can gtfo. It should belong to its own separate category, like "jizz" or "jizz".
#33
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Don't patronize me, asshole.

"I specialize in driving a set like I'm driving a Lexus" - Uncle Mez
#34
you know, a lot of people hate on smooth jazz, but for no good reason. i'm not even trying to be ironically hip. i realized one day listening to the isley brothers that i was a total hypocrite. why would this sound awesome to me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj8wufqK59Y

but this sounds stupid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNT8y_pH5BQ

it's not a huge leap from one to the other. the main difference is mainly vocals vs a cheesy sounding sax. i still cringe when i listen to the latter. the hatred of smooth jazz and all of its aesthetic and timbre and tendencies is deeply ingrained in me. but i think it's an unfair bias and i acknowledge it. trying to appreciate it. but man, it's hard.
#DTWD
#36
"Although music has changed alot, the percentages still stay the same, 95% rubbish and 5% pure" - Eric Clapton
#38
I'd say that just describes subjectivity of music. People develop their tastes and then fit into the niches that fit their taste, sometimes expanding into other niches. Most stuff you hear you probably won't like that much and since everyone will develop different opinions on music for several factors that is why everyone's 5% would be different, as you said.
#39
Quote by primusfan

it's not a huge leap from one to the other. the main difference is mainly vocals vs a cheesy sounding sax. i still cringe when i listen to the latter. the hatred of smooth jazz and all of its aesthetic and timbre and tendencies is deeply ingrained in me. but i think it's an unfair bias and i acknowledge it. trying to appreciate it. but man, it's hard.

Not hypocritical in the least. Key difference: your first example hasn't been frolicking around music world for years calling itself jazz, playing itself at jazz venues, and otherwise undermining the uninhibited spirit of the entire genre. Granted some of it is passable, but not enough to expend voluntary effort (pushing a button, turning a knob). You can almost feel it slapping you in the face and saying, "your brain is now safe from frightening complexity and confusion; you are trapped forever in the repetitive confines of a simplistic, predictable synth pattern built into every 1985 keyboard; stop expecting something to change, for this is the sound of inevitability".
It's exactly like that scary matrix dude
#40
Even though I like quite a few Smooth Jazz songs, but there are so many that suffer from being overbearing, focusing far too much on one instrument or one player, and reusing the same aesthetics for lack of a lack of a better term. Specifically really prominent reverb on most of the instruments, keyboards drowned in chorus, and a mellow tempo/feel. I don't mind songs like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQC0a84rXM8

It's not reverb heavy, no chorus to my knowledge, adequate focus is given to the other players/parts, and it's not a monotonous Kenny G-esque mellow backing track for some guy to jackoff solo on.
Page 1 of 4