Are there less truly original genres in popular music being created now than before?

The difference between genres of music is as much cultural, or about the means of making music, as it is about the sound of the music. If anything, the proliferation of a lot of "new" sounds and genres from '50-'90 had to do with innovations in instrumentation, amplification, and recording methods. Technology has kinda plateaued out to the point that there aren't many technical limitations to what sound you can make anymore. So I wouldn't say people are less creative now so much as there are fewer practical breakthroughs that easily yield artistic breakthroughs. Of course the first guy to distort an electric guitar or program a drum machine is going to sound more original than the 10 millionth guy to do so, that doesn't necessarily mean the first guy was a more creative musician. But I think there's still a lot of room for people to invent new instruments and new recording methods that could yield some new sounds or genres. But people still seem pretty eager to come up with new genre names, even if they usually seem to be PR buzzwords to apply to one or two artists.

fewer

Yeah, Alex, somebody brought up the technological aspect in the other thread, too. So would you say then that you agree or disagree with the idea that the genres created in past decades represented more of a radical departure from their antecedents than the genres that are being created now?

Here's my take, for what it's worth - I thought it missed the mark, and that the new genres that came around in decades past were never all that drastically different than what had come before - it was more of an incremental evolution, and that's still the way it is. I think punk or new wave or whatever genre of rock/pop may have seemed really new to people who had gotten used to listening to what came before, but when you look at the big picture there's never really that significant a break with tradition. I think the only thing that's really changed is the notion of a musical mainstream, the fragmentation of the market, etc.

You're right Hurting, my bad.

I also think that people who ask things like "Who are the (insert canonical band) of today?" or generally bemoan whatever they perceive as lacking in current music but present in older music are missing the fact that artists can't gain that sort of stature except in hindsight, and again that today's musical mainstream is much less of a cultural force than it used to be.

Is dubstep a new truly original genre? Can't say I'm convinced yet.

is homo sapiens a new truly original species? can't say i'm convinced yet.

This reminds me of John Stuart Mill, before jazz being created, worrying that because there are only so many notes that we were running out of music.

Is originality linked to authenticity? I think The Used or Good Charlotte are incredibly original. There's less in common between Good Charlotte and the Sex Pistols (socially, politically, even MUSICALLY) than between Good Charlotte and Green Day - yes. But isn't the chasm between G.C. and G.D. still large enough to call G.C. the originators of a new genre?

Except that socially people consider G.C. inauthentic (and G.D. inauthentic compared to the Sex Pistols). And they consider them derivative. And social borrowers.

Which is to say; isn't "originality" a social/class distinction? Otherwise what accounts for Radiohead + Oasis both being Britpop? Or the Hives and the White Stripes and <actual garage band> all being Garage Rock? Or... there being any common ground between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones at all? (Or between the Beach Boys and the Beatles?)

Isn't John Zorn a new genre? ;)

it is incredible

I'm not saying their necessarily good. I'm not making a value judgment. Just pointing out that they could, in a different place and setting, be considered the originators of new genres.

they're*

A big part of my disagreement was based on the definition of "truly new and different." I tend to think that as we're all so used to certain conventions of western music, it's easy for us to ignore the many fundamental similarities between ostensibly different sub-genres while focusing on differences that may be superficial. Sure, we can all probably tell the difference between a Buddy Holly song and a Sex Pistols song, but how big are those differences, really? How different would it sound to someone who mostly listened to Indian classical music?

Mordechai, I'm interested in what you see as being original about Good Charlotte. Also, do you really not see commonality between The Beatles and The Stones, or The Beatles and the Beach Boys?

Are we talking about large genre divisions like Blues, Rock, Hip Hop, etc. or internal genres like Bebop, Cool Jazz, Free Jazz, Fusion?

Well, I think this guy's contention was that the former are no longer being created, only the latter.

All right, then how many new large genres came into existence between 1950 & 1990? Jazz, Blues, Folk, Country, Gospel, R&B already existed in 1950, albeit in different forms than they're in today. Some might argue that Hank Williams & the Bebop players created "modern" Country & Jazz, respectively, in the '40s, but these really weren't huge leaps away from what came before. So we have Rock & Roll (and perhaps its more serious sister Rock,) Reggae, Hip Hop, Electronic (stretching from Moog exotica through Minimalism/Ambient to whatever is covered in some Wire column today) and Disco/Dance. Everything else I can think of is either a micro-innovation within an existing genre or a genre hybrid.

haha you fucking indie rock faggots have never hung out with electronic music nerds have you? ps steve goldberg your music sucks

noise board is on the prowl tonite

Steve, I think I can point out different things they do that would distinguish them from other people in the same genre. Lyrically, musically, etc. But that's kindof off the topic. Because my point is really that any distinctions between genres are arbitrary. They are chosen by people who decided there was enough of a difference to call it something new. But I think there are enough hybrids (Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash) to point out that those genres are easily skirted. Even in specific songs, you can one song that could easily fall into two different genres. Does that make it a third genre?

I think you have similar questions with race/culture/religion. When does someone stop being Jewish? When they intermarry? When they say they are no longer Jewish? When they actively convert to the different religion? Never? When do you stop being a New Yorker? When you move away? When you move to Texas? When you vote for Bush? Etc. Etc. So when do you stop being pop (The Beatles) and become rock (The Beatles)? When you add a guitar? When you snarl? Pose? When you call yourself rock? When you distance yourself from your pop fans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_masturbation

C'mon over to the Uriah Heep thread.

mulla atari, I think you're right. Almost everything has antecedents - true breaks from tradition are exceedingly rare.

Mordechai, you make some good points, but I think it's a bit apples and oranges with some of your examples. Genres are only "real" in the sense that they can be used to communicate. When I say "XYZ is a punk rock band" I'm using it as a shorthand so I don't have to describe the music in detail. By saying that I'm presuming that you've heard other bands that are labelled as punk rock and understand the common threads between them. Now in many cases that's a big leap - it could be that you and I have very different ideas about what punk rock means, and so although you say you understand me, I haven't communicated successfully. But that's always a problem with that sort of linguistic shorthand. There's no linguistic authority setting the rules for English, or music, though, so I'd say it ends up being fairly democratic. A band stops being genre X when everybody stops referring to it as genre X. Although those whose opinions are the most public or influential (music critics at major publications, for example) tend to have the most "votes" when it comes to that kind of thing. Now how those individuals decide that a band belongs to one genre or the other can be influenced by many factors, as you allude to. Although I think this is perhaps still a bit tangential.

What does it matter, really? I mean, obviously, the more genres do already exist, they harder it is to create truly original genres. At least if they are supposed to be listenable.

But who needs new genres when the world is full of great old genres that are still aching to be used over and over again?

I mean, if it ain't broke....

I don't know Steve... does the word "genre" you're using in the topic title mean something different than this "linguistic shorthand" you're talking about now? Are you saying that despite the use of genre as shorthand, there really are these platonic genre forms?

Doods! What about Nu-rave?! NME says those guys are real innovators.

haha you fucking indie rock faggots have never hung out with electronic music nerds have you? ps steve goldberg your music sucks

-- Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Monday, July 23, 2007 1:37 AM (16 hours ago) Bookmark Link

(deafening self-high-five thunderclap)

This argument is close to unresolvable, because we're dealing with HUGE linguistic philosophical issues when we start talking about the origination of genres. Also, such things don't generally happen at the time the "genre" is created, it normally comes through as a signpost for X kind of music after time/public reaction/critical opinion deems it neccessary. The other glaring problem that comes to mind is the idea of new genres in the past being "significantly different", which is an utterly undefinable and empty term.

Was this a PEW blog that was making the original argument?

Pardon any bizarre inconsistencies in the above, I'm at work trying to explain a computer recording setup to a guy on the phone while typing this.

I don't know Steve... does the word "genre" you're using in the topic title mean something different than this "linguistic shorthand" you're talking about now? Are you saying that despite the use of genre as shorthand, there really are these platonic genre forms?

I'm certainly not a platonist about it, but I do think that genres can "really exist" in the sense that there are more-or-less commonly understood sets of characteristics that place a band into one category or the other (or many at the same time). Sure, the definitions can be fuzzy, but I don't think that means we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. When a single descriptor isn't a good enough shorthand, we can always use more words.

John, I think you're OTM. This argument actually started on metafilter, a place that's generally pretty intelligent, but not so much for talking about music. I was getting frustrated with the discussion there, so I thought I'd bring it here and see if anybody could show me where I was missing the point.

I'm certainly not a platonist about it, but I do think that genres can "really exist" in the sense that there are more-or-less commonly understood sets of characteristics that place a band into one category or the other (or many at the same time). Sure, the definitions can be fuzzy, but I don't think that means we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. When a single descriptor isn't a good enough shorthand, we can always use more words.

In this case, the initial question lacks meaning. Are there less truly original genres in popular music being created now than before? Well, no. Because they are just sets of characteristics. And they can be fuzzy. And they are linguistic tools. So how could there be more original ones in the past if this is, in fact, the case? (I think that if you believe they exist as platonic ideals, or something similar, you could get away with the question a lot more.)

Well, I think the question would imply that there is less music being made now that has enough substantially different traits to set it apart from the genres that have already been established.

Not to get all philosogeek about this, but I think the closest we're going to get to an acceptable definition of genre is Wittgensteinian in nature, which means that "substanitially different traits" is going to end up being a pretty empty measuring stick. In other words, we know that something is "Punk" because it fits into the list of things that we understand as "Punk" without applying some imaginary definition of Punk rockitude to it.(Which is really the problem with the question as posed.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/Cantor_set_in_seven_iterations.svg

In other words, we know that something is "Punk" because it fits into the list of things that we understand as "Punk" without applying some imaginary definition of Punk rockitude to it.

I'm not sure I follow - what's the difference between "fitting a list of things we understand as punk" and "applying an imaginary definition of punk rockitude?"

The definition of punkrockitude would be "music that displays characteristics X, Y, Z, etc." and the more of those characteristics a band or piece of music has, the more confident we are in describing it as punk. The idea that some music sounds different enough from other music but also alike enough to still other music that the concept of genre makes sense is still a reasonable one, isn't it? Sure, the definition of what constitutes a different genre can be fuzzy, but that's not necessarily important here - I think the question is more about whether or not the line of demarcation where we say "that's a new genre" has shifted over time, whereas in the past what was considered a new genre was somehow more distinct from its antecedents than what we'd call a new genre today. As though today's genres "up and coming" genres are narrower or less significant than those in decades past. I don't think that's true, but I think that was the argument being made.

It might be instructive to compare ten years periods like, how rock and roll sounded in 1957 vs. 1967. Chuck Berry vs. Jimi Hendrix, is one comparison. Then think about music now vs. 1997. Is there any comparison you could make that is that different? Is anything happening now absolutely impossible to imagine happening in 1997? I'm not sure there is.

Really? I couldn't imagine listening to Girl Talk in 1997. Or Umbrella. Or Kelly Clarkson. Or Thursday. Or Mastodon.

xpost

Records are a lot louder now!

I think most of the stuff I listen to wouldn't have been very out of place in 1997, but I feel like there must be folks on ILM (who aren't indie rock, uh, enthusiasts) who'd say the opposite - no?

Or Lil Jon.

John?

No, I was right the first time.

I easily could've imagined all those *happening* in '97. Imagining them being popular is a bit harder.

I'm not sure I follow - what's the difference between "fitting a list of things we understand as punk" and "applying an imaginary definition of punk rockitude?"

Well, it would be hard (and terribly boring to most) to sum up the difference between Wittgenstein and the idea of the definite description in a message post, but the general distinction is that the latter appeals to some sort of long descriptive definition of the characteristics of "punk" (which I would argue is a pretty face mapped over the true platonic form being referenced), where the former refers to a set theory/Venn diagram idea in which things fit into genres due to an understanding of a list of experienced members of the genre, without a definition per se. In other words, when we decide that X fits into genre P, we do so because we are aware of A, B, and C (which we have decided are part of genre P), and X appears to fall within grouping P, instead of applying the "rules" of genre P to determine the inclusion of X.

See, now I'm even boring myself. Carry on.

John, if I understand you, basically:

We've already decided The Clash, the Sex Pistols and the Buzzcocks are Punk. Green Day seems related to that group, so they are punk too.

Versus:
Punk is X guitar playing + Y politics + Z hairstyle. Green Day has all 3! Green Day is therefore punk!

Yep, that's pretty much it.