Sonic Youth Gossip - Can you distinguish different styles of music for what they really are?

Sonic Youth Gossip (http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/index.php)

- Non-Sonic Sounds (http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Can you distinguish different styles of music for what they really are? (http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/showthread.php?t=19356)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

I am not saying that all music can be caged under the same umbrella that easily, but there is, mostly, a correct way to describe music even if it's not with a single term.

Yeah, i think your right in some way. If you strip down rigorously every sound in one song from one album, and calculate every direction and root you will reach a certain amount of truth, but i see that as a worthless thing since the rest of songs from that album take different directions, and maybe the rest of the albums from that artist also take turns, so your opinion will be inapplicable in the real hazy music community / world (even it is not that complicated, there is fair ammount of obstacles). And maybe other person, who does the same thing reaches another verdict... so here we are on SY Gossip :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrei

That's why personal taste and musical skills are generally separated from one another, with due respect to both. :) :)

I put undecided. Some times I can tell what is what, but when it get's into thing like black metal vs death metal I have no idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

That's why personal taste and musical skills are generally separated from one another, with due respect to both. :) :)

And since we're 6.6 billion different personalities and brains around the world (according to wiki :D), that is almost utopia.
Like i said before, it can be apllied but in a very small circle of music "nerds", and since there is MTV and shitload of dork journalist, i mentain at the belief that this is almost utopian.

I try to use the genre's that will most correctl;y describe what I am talking about.
sure, it is tough to talk about music, but language is all wa have to understand and communicate with, so it has to be used. genres are not so specific, and can be applied to general groups. sonic youth and the rolling stones can both be called ROCK. They are ROCK music.
Howveer, to better define what we speak of, you can say that the roling stones are heavily "blues-based rock", or to get even more specific "blues based British rock" because british bands do sound different from american bands, even when they are both trying to do "blues rock"

sonic youth has been around long enough to where thy ahve explored quite a lot of sub-genre's within the "rock" sound. from their early days as noise rockers, to their mid period which could be referred to as melodic noisy rock to their later stuff which is more of a song-based, straight ahead rock.

genres are necessary. however. genres are not limitations, just descriptions. if you choose to see a genre name as a limitation that is yr problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheriff Rhys Chatham

I put undecided. Some times I can tell what is what, but when it get's into thing like black metal vs death metal I have no idea.

death metal is supposedly faster, higher pitch, frenetic while black metal is satanic and ussually slower more melvins-y

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

death metal is supposedly faster, higher pitch, frenetic while black metal is satanic and ussually slower more melvins-y

i dont think black is slower, i think the singing is a bit more satanic, like burzum, his music isnt slow, be he just kind of screams. death might be more growling...
i dont know... those things tend to confuse me

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

I totally disagree with this. So what would you make of the way certain traditional folk pieces are perceived in any given country? You're only mentioning styles of rock that aren't even that particularly complex and are tagged in a lazy way. The prefix math was put in front of rock to describe music that is more staccato-like in nature, even though there is very little of the complexity of calculations in most of its exponents (just a personal opinion). A lot of it sounds like soporiphic and slightly more lo-fi progressive rock, or better still, progressive rock ashamed of its own status. There is terminology that is there for a reason. Sub-genres, like you call them, are only variations of any given style. Garage rock is a good example in that it is such a formulaic style of rock that sometimes borrows from other genres (arabic scales, cacophony etc), still mantaining its garage rock stance. I am not saying that all music can be caged under the same umbrella that easily, but there is, mostly, a correct way to describe music even if it's not with a single term.

Good thread, sorry to sully it with my mitherings.

Following the gorgeous (did I mention she's gorgeous? Yeah, she well is) Nefeli's example:

1)Genres are rarely so simple as precise descriptions; however, they are rarely (in a broader context) so indefinite as to evade musical description.

2) Musical description (as above with Staccato, or your earlier assertion about the difference between drone & noise) is distinct from contingent description - something like trip-hop always struck me as a geographical description, although that's possibly due to my proximity to the makers. Dubstep, so far (and I'll admit that I've heard not enough) seems to describe ravers, dubheads and instrumental Grime, all distinct and not quite coalesced into one form (to my ears - I may well be wrong).

3) A lot of genres describe themselves perfectly, in musical terms. Again - DRONE doesn't need to be described (and, brilliantly, it's barely a genre, more a description). NOISE is, uh, noise. noise (lc) is sounds outside of the musical spectrum, unless consolidated within systems, be they ad-hoc or extant (so Stockhausen/ Xenakis aren't noise).

4) I have no more points to make at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

It seems (and it is not a problem) that there is always an eternal debate as to what style an artist plays in, be it the unfair perception of, say, Sonic Youth as mere noise rock merchants, or certain fringes of indie rock bands that have a pop edge to them being deemed as proper pop songwriters. It is a common thing that happens constantly, and it is only normal for people being confused by the constant contexualization that music in general is subjected to by the scribblers of this world, both on paper and on the internet. Do you generally attribute the right style to an artist, or are you just happy to be fed vague information without questioning it? Poll on the way.

I don't know. I generally think that the best bands defy categorization. Like Sonic Youth.

compared to the history of all music sonic youth are very easy to categorize

they play experimental-leaning dissonant rock. that covers them from their first EP to their current music

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glice

Good points from everyone. On the subject of describing music in general, does anyone agree that it seems more and more difficult for music journalists these days to coin new terms to describe groups of bands and the music that they play? Take the sort of crap that has been coming up on the NME ( I know, easy target and all....) for a long time, with your 'New Rave', 'New Grave' etc etc.

there is a big difference between naming a band's music describing their sound, and namin a band's music describing their fans

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

On the subject of describing music in general, does anyone agree that it seems more and more difficult for music journalists these days to coin new terms to describe groups of bands and the music that they play?

I think as time goes by, music becomes more eclectic mainly because of the technological evolution. It's like an upside down pyramid. Techonology is developing, musical instruments are developing, human minds are developing (not necesarry in a better way) and the resources and influences are more varied.
If you had a band in the 60's you didn't had much options, you could be La Monte Young, you could be John Lennon, you could be Coltrane or a classical guy. Time formed new and new generations of artists and an influence for a 2007 band is more varied. Over that the highly increasing technological evolution, in terms of sound, is burying the root and is showcasing a relatively new product, and for a journalist a new brand name.

Oh yeah, I know the sort of thing. Gives no idea at all as to what to expect. Quite often I think they're sites that just quote the label's press release, rather than listening to the record and describing / reviewing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pantophobia

i think labels are best for canned food and personal assignment

Amen to that.