drowning in sound

COMMENTS:

og said: i've never really been a genreist per se, but i've often gone on cd binges, buying things that i thought would sound like something i really liked and almost always regretted it later.

i think it might be fun to approach a single prolific musician's canon as a genre in itself. perhaps this isn't genreism so much as cultism (although the similarity, as i see it, is that genreism and cultism are actually both forms of historical study). i suppose this isn't too different from what you (and i, to a lesser extent) already do, i.e. tracking down all of the music made by a certain person.

one reason i could never really be a genreist (or cultist, for that matter) is that one of my favorite things about music is being able to talk about it with anyone on the fucking planet who speaks english. unless you are a christian music genreist, or a dave matthews band follower, there's a good chance i will be able to carry on a conversation about music with you, and perhaps we could even exchange recommendations. i don't see this as being the case with genreists. (also, i really like lots of different types of music.)

ps in case you wanted confirmation, pop is not a genre  


og said: also, i think i long ago gave up obsessively trying to catch everything really great that comes out. as long as i have plenty of music to listen to that is good and that has not bored me yet, then i am content.

i meant to post this link earlier.  


Mat said: I suppose you could call me a dilettante, but I don't think it would be all that accurate. I don't pretend to have knowledge, I do have knowledge. I know that certain songs make me feel certain ways, and that if I'm in a certain mood, certain types of music can either change my mood or exaggurate my mood. If it becomes difficult to find music that I like, then I suppose I might be concerned that I'm not listening to enough music. Until then, I'm not going to worry that I haven't listened to absolutely everything and might not be listening to music worth listening.

I haven't gone full-out one genre, but thanks to all-music, I tended to go long periods at a time in one genre, losing myself in the "similar artists." Most of the time, it only made me appreciate other genres more, and made everything else more refreshing to listen to, thanks to my new genre's perspective. I wouldn't give up any genre for all the rest indefinitely, but in spurts it seems like it can be useful.

Of course, I know people who've practically devoted their lives to country music, assisted by radio stations that play nothing but country. They seem to like it just fine, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad.  


jim said: When I got to college, and discovered Napster, I began to feel like Simon, missing the days when all my music fit in *one* 24-disc cd case. I also was a die-hard genre-ist, listening only to punk/hardcore. It's kind of weird now to think that I had a punk/hardcore record for every mood, angry ones, sad ones, happy ones, when now I would only listen to those records in one specific angry/need-to-get-pumped-up mood. I had a personal connection with each record.

As my taste in music got more general, I realized that some music isn't meant for one to have that personal attachment to. A lot of music I listen to now will only rotate in for a few plays and then be gone forever. That's not to say I don't have a personal connection with any music what so ever.

I listen to a lot of stuff, but the staff that "sticks" is usually all pretty much the same. I became really open-minded when I lost interest in most of punk, but eventually I found music that spoke to my older self.

For me, some areas of music are more rewarding to dig into than others. I don't really care about being a dilettante when it comes to a lot of music I listen to because I don't think there actually is any greater joy taken from becoming an expert. There's a cap on the enjoyment/effort equation when it comes to the Rolling Stones for me. Some artists only have one thing to say, some have more, and it's nice that in today's world you aren't confined to the bands that some record company thinks will have the most meaning for you.

Genres are an outdated concept anyway. With the wealth of music available, you can tailor your listening habits for yourself. I think that most of the music that "sticks" for me is similar, but I find it in contemporary classical genres, post-rock, and in electronica. It's my own genre of music. Maybe genres make music easier to talk about, but it's more descriptive for me to list a few exemplary artists of the music I like rather than say either contemporary classical, etc.  


rmd said: owen— if pop isn't a genre, what is it? i'm very tempted to use it as a genre at times... for instance it seems almost perfect to describe the type of music dirrty pop/into the groove posts about.

jim— word. realizing that you can live with, and not necessarily in, your music is a big step to make. at least it was for me.

but i don't think genres are completely outdated. they seem very useful, eg wrt grime/dubstep, dancehall and other niche genres. and being able to "tailor your listening habits for yourself" seems to be exactly the problem! it's the overabundance of choices that's so (at times) debilitating.  


jim said: I guess what I meant is that genres aren't super helpful in limiting the choices out there. If you're a genre-ist of any genre that has been around a while, there's almost too much music *within a single genre* to hear hear once, let alone become familiar with.

It's like a genre is relevant for about 2-3 years before it just bloats and explodes [link] http://www.di.fm/edmguide/edmguide.html [/link].  


Post a Comment