Talk:Music genre/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2


Ambient Music and other genres

Ambient Music is an instrumental, <not rhythmic and not melodic> musical form that uses techniques and styles of electronic music, minimalistic acoustic music, and often concrete (sampled) music; it aims to get an "atmospheric environment", a sort of sonic carpet, better known as soundscape, that can merge with environmental noises or that can be listened as a form of ambience soundtrack. Therefore, the so called Ambient Techno and Ambient House have nothing to do with Ambient Music. Actually, those styles are within the field of "Techno" dance music. Nevertheless, many works by KLF, The Orb, Aphex Twin and others are "pure electronic music" with no beats and drums, and lpokojoijiuhigyt;lmpobnrjpoghkerpgoke'rpgkporegkpojkgintrhgonrthknlhknmglkhnhgp[jy4lrtyjopirtated form of techno, but nothing more. Sorry if that may annoy someone... Electronica is a non-sense, meaningless word, used only with regard to modern works that mix many different styles. The term "New Age" has a bit more sense, at least New Age artists and works seem to share the same purpose, that is to chill out the listener and help spiritual meditation. For this reason, New Age is hated both by religious fundamentalists ("New Age is a plan of the Anti-Christ") and by those musicians and academics that reject such kinda "yoga tool" use of music.Dr. Who 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that none comments my above text. My question now is the following: is ambient music a music genre? Or is it just a music form, like symphony, opera and so on? --Dr. Who 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that th right term for ambient music is New Age. New Age is peaceful music of various styles, which is intended to create inspiration, relaxation, and positive feelings, often used by listeners for yoga, massage, inspiration, relaxation, meditation, and reading as a method of stress management or to create a peaceful atmosphere in their home or other environments often associated with environmentalism and New Age Spirituality. The harmonies in new age music are generally modal, consonant, or include a drone bass. The melodies are often repetitive, to create a hypnotic feeling, and sometimes recordings of nature sounds are used as an introduction to a track or throughout the piece. These songs can go beyond 30 minutes of playing. -Kurisu-Chan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.156.242 (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
"I see that none comments my above text. My question now is the following: is ambient music a music genre? Or is it just a music form, like symphony, opera and so on? --Dr. Who 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"

Opera isn't musical form. It is genre. I think that ambient music is rather genre, because forms of ambient is a lot of, but there is full of common composition traits, just from this reason this is genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdephinio (talk • contribs) 19:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Categorization(s)

The article should give enough coverage of different methods for "partitioning" music into many genres.Dr. Who 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

True. --Dynamic Progressive Turbulence Creator 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is "Classic Rock" a genre?

re: One example is Led Zeppelin, which could be called heavy metal, hard rock, classic rock, folk, or blues, depending on one's interpretation.

This quote points out a fairly deep issue with "genre". At the time it was being created, (nearly) no one thought of themselves as making "Classic Rock", partly because "Classic Rock" mainly means "old rock". At that time, the genre didn't exist for musicians to adhere to or reject, whereas most everyone who has recorded, say, reggae or blues, knew quite well at the time what they were doing, and what the rules were for their style - even if they were selfconsciously trying to be innovators. And the ones who DID think of themselves as making classic rock were looking to past styles, such as rockabilly, the "Sun Records" sound, Bakersfield country, or some other style. ex. Creedence Clearwater Revival, the Band.

Led Zeppelin is a prime example of this - in their time, they (and their audience, and many critics) considered themselves as innovative, building something entirely new on the foundations of rock and blues (and as Jimmy Page later called his influences, "CIA" music, for Celtic/Indian/Arabic. There's an uncredited Wikipedia reference to the term here.

I would also venture to disagree with the above in that very few would consider Led Zeppelin's entire body of work blues or folk, though both influences are apparent and acknowledged. Blues-rock, on the other hand, isn't really considered a genre now, but would fairly accurately, though narrowly, describe what they thought they were doing at the time.

A question to contemplate - should the notion of genre include artists who acquired a genre posthumously, so to speak, or should it apply to the artist's intentions and actions, and the public's perceptions, at the time they made the music?

24.17.180.126 20:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin and others are under "heavy metal" in Rock music. I think there should be heavy metal didived into parts "classic rock" and other metal (or something like that) (because there isn't even division "metal"). Though, some classic rock can be considered as psychedelic, progressive or some other rock. Strange.
--Dynamic Progressive Turbulence Creator 12:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I consider Classic Rock to simply refer to a particular era in Hard Rock, though where it begins and where it ends I really couldn't say. It's a shady term at best but a common one as well. Thee darcy (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above, Classic Rock (and also Classic Metal) are not genre, but a generally grouping of various similar genres to distinguish the rock music played in what many would consider the genre's golden age versus the more modern forms. Its a nice radio friendly marketing term to describe stations that play older rock. I would definitely say it includes more than just Hard Rock. I would lump in all rock music made between 1965 and 1985(and these dates are very flexible). It won't surprise me if Classic Rock-only radio stations start playing Nirvana here soon and we add another 10 years to the definition of Classic Rock. As an aside, Led Zeppelin is a Hard Rock band that used some (not much at all though) Heavy Metal conventions. marnues (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No. It's actually a radio format. American radio invented the format when certain stations stopped playing less and less new music in the late 70s/early 80s. In discussion of musical genre the term has no meaning. This is a common misunderstanding. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Progressive rock

Most of progressive rock listeners defines progressive rock not in the rock genre, or only in that. It often is rock, but sometimes maybe not at all. Jazz, classical, folk and some avant-garde for example. Though genres are always obscure.

Progressive rock is separate thing. And I can't halp you if you think The Who, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd are the progressive rock. They aren't.

--Dynamic Progressive Turbulence Creator 12:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin is just no...The Who had some albums that suggested Prog Rock, but where mostly just Hard Rock...but Pink Floyd is the popular definition of Progressive Rock. I don't even think I should need to back that up here. The jazz and classical influences might not be as pronounced as other prog bands, but they are certainly there and the band obviously uses prog rock song structures. marnues (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Prog is a rock genre that emerged from psychedelic rock. While influenced at times by jazz, classical music, and so on, it's still firmly a rock genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

fusion genres

Let's see : fr:fusion de genres musicaux Contact me : fr:Utilisateur:Michel_BUZE

Ordered the other way

194.2.163.124 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Trance and other Electronic Subgenres

[this section has been moved into proper chronological sequence from where it was entered at the top of the page]

Would it be ridiculous to suggest a section for the six major electronic dance music genres? I might be alone in this belief, but I think music is divided into two main genres: acoustic and electronic. If you listen to electronic music, it's clear that the differences between its main genres are just as wide - if not wider - than the differences between the better-known genres ofm usic such as jazz, country, rock, etc. Trance music is extremely notable as of late, and probably moreso than the other main EDM genres. Trance gets mainstream radio play - Castles in the Sky, We're in Heaven, Everytime we Touch, etc., and is probably better known than other qualified genres like Spoken Word. House music is also pretty popular. Would it be alright if I added sections for the main EDM genres (trance, techno, industrial, house, hardcore, jungle), and if not, trance and house? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.243.14.122 (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

The line between electronic and acoustic is very blurry. How do you classify a band that uses electronically driven guitars and mics the drums and singer? Since the instruments can be done acoustically, I assume you would classify them that way. However, what about all the goth rock bands that use synths but mix in guitars. Or electronic dance music with clean vocals. Now certainly I classify electronica music in its own genre, but I do not find a clean distinction between it and acoustic material. Nor do I find that all digitally driven music is in the electronica genre. Brian Eno's pure ambient works are one of those as I find Ambient to be its own genre separate from all others. It is also pretty much the extreme opposite of eletronica dance music. marnues (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Globalize tag

I tagged tis article cause i noticed that almost all the genres listed are from the united states,a clear example is country Music:Country music is a folk music genre of the US but is listed with is own section in an article that includes a Classical music section wich is a trully universal genre;while music of latin america or Africa are all represented in a section when they consist of a lot of genres each as different of each other as is Bluess from Soul.I could list you at least 20 genres of music of south america yet none have a section here.The article looks more of a chart of music in some record store in the US than a serious categorization of music on a worlwide scale.--Andres rojas22 18:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. But the article has changed since you added the tag. It's now being re-organized in a major way, with the list of genres moved into a separate article, so the globalize tag is no longer needed. I'm removing it now. If you see this as a problem, please post a comment and we can discuss it further. --Parzival418 Hello 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

style vs. genre

in my textbook, musical style & musical genre are different stuffs. If this is right, in the artile, their meanings and the difference should be clarified. Jackzhp 04:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree! A piece of music can obviously contain different musical styles, but it is far less obvious that it also could be said to contain or belong to different genres. WikiPBia (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Could this be the difference, that musical style applies to parts of the music but genre applies to the whole? I will do some research what the music theorists say...
WikiPBia (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To me style is the way in which the music is played, the kinds of instruments, melodies, progressions that it uses. Genre is the musical tradition to which the music belongs.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you are on to something better than my initial idea! Would you then say that a musical tradition can contain many different styles?

If we take one rather wellknown example: I think one could easily say that the Beatles had many different styles (especially in different periods), but one would hesitate to say that the covered many different genres. WikiPBia (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I think for example one could argue that the early rockabilly stuff belongs to one genre and sergeant pepper to another. In the first case the beatles are trying to work within an already exsting tradition in sergeant pepper they are clearly no longer defining their music in terms of that same tradition.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Good point! But can´t one argue that Beatles was leading the tradition rather than moving away from it?WikiPBia (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If I am interpreting you correctly you would define 'style' from a purely musical point of view, but 'genre' you would define in a more sociological manner identifiying subcultures of the music society?WikiPBia (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point Jackzhp, they are different stuffs. The article needs major work. Please check out the entry in Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians.BassHistory (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
According to Grout A History of Western Music":
Genre
Type or category of musical COMPOSITION, such as a SONATA or SYMPHONY
BassHistory (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fusion genres

Hi all. I've nomination fusion (music) to be merged into this page. The reason for this is that all genres are either Traditional music, or fusion of some type. Rock music is a fusion. Hip-hop is a fusion. (European) Classical music is a fusion. In order to avoid duplication, fusion (music) should be merged here.

-- TimNelson 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur. --Parzival418 Hello 03:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree. --ΛэтєяиuS (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

List/Page reorganisation

I recommend we have a List of music genres which would replace the Categorization section of this article; there are too many genres to cover all of them in the style we've covered the ones here. I recommend that this article instead be used for topics such as the "Arguments" section, the proposed merge of the "Fusion" page, the characteristics that one uses to define a genre and distinguish it from other genres. I'd also recommend a basic coverage of the three major types of music, Art music, Traditional music, and Popular music (all music falls into one of the above three categories).

-- TimNelson 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Support:I think you have a good idea,the article should contain a good description of what criteria makes musicologists,labels,etc say that a style is different from other and avoid listing too much genres--Andres rojas22 16:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Support:I concur with the two comments above, with one caveat. we need to allow for the idea that some music may be included in more than one of the three main types. For example there has been classical music that could be considered Art Music, but was also Popular Music in its day. Examples: Mozart, Gilbert and Sullivan, George Gershwin, Scott Joplin. Or, consider that folk music is generally Traditional Music, but has at times been Popular Music. Examples: the rise of popular folk acts int he 1960's. The List of music genres will need some organizational thought as well, since genres are not a flat 2-dimensional universe but often cross-pollinate.
Overall though, I agree that the music genres page would benefit from a re-write focusing on a musicological perspective. Without that approach, this topic seems to tend towards a hodge-podge of genres which are described more completely elsewhere in dedicated articles. --Parzival418 Hello 21:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that not everything falls into one of those categories (I'm an Electric folk fan), but those distinctions are still useful. -- TimNelson 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Support: About a year ago, I proposed the same thing (well at least in regards to s.th. like an "arguments" section, which didn't exist at the time), when I tried to solve a heated debate on how to place Tool in current music genres. I tried to incorporate bits of the debate about music genres to explain why it is hard or useless to place some bands - but it was quite hard to find sources about the subject, especially on WP but in the net as well. I recommend taking a look at "Representing Musical Genre:A State of the Art", Journal of New Music Research as a start and offer help if wanted. --Johnnyw talk 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

List/Page reorganisation (in progress)

Hi Tim - I see you started making the changes. Looks good. I archived the long-out-of-date talk page on List of music genres and updated the Template:Western music genres footer info-box to link it to that page now in addition to the Music genre article. The template I think might need further updating, to link to the divisions of music forms you're adding. I'm not doing that now though because I don't want to risk linking to an article that doesn't exist yet or cause an edit conflict collision in the edits you're doing.

I was also going to move/merge the fusion article over to this page, but I saw you added a section heading, so I'll stay out of your way on that too. Good work on the refactoring, this is a big improvement. --Parzival418 Hello 03:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done editing for a while (I think). Feel free to start changing stuff -- I just put something up to give us a basic framework. -- TimNelson 05:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

definition of Art Music

I suggest that in the section defining Art music, we include along with Jazz certain elements of Electronic music (excluding the popular music uses of that term) and Experimental music.

Comments are welcome... --Parzival418 Hello 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. If you did that based on your own knowledge (rather than what you gleaned from Wikipedia), you might want to also revise the Art music page to be a bit longer :). -- TimNelson 05:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added the info here and expanded the Art music article a bit. --Parzival418 Hello 06:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Great! With a little context, I was able to add to it too. -- TimNelson 07:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Classical and operatic singers

There has been some mislabeling of pop singers as being classical or operatic, and I'd like to propose a definition to place in the article:

  • A classical or operatic singer is someone who has regularly performed unamplified classical or operatic music in concert halls or opera houses.

It takes special voices and training to perform classical music in its intended environment, including having a robust enough voice to fill the venue with accompaniment, and the ability to modulate vocal color and dynamics with the accompaniment. This is what a classical singer does.
Singers who do not perform this music in these venues (and without amplification) can be said to sing crossover classical music, but should not be called classical or operatic singers. (Studio recordings are also a form of miked/amplified singing.) This includes singers like Bocelli, Jenkins, Brightman, Church etc. -- Operalalatalk 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but I don't think it belongs in the Music genre article. I'd suggest maybe Opera instead. -- TimNelson 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the genre category in the info boxes for singers links to this page, and there are no instructions to clarify which singers belong, or don't belong, to which genre. We got things covered on the opera side, the problem is editors in other genres not being aware of the difference. -- Operalala(talk) 04:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
So why not change the infobox? If you link to this infobox about which you complain, we might also be able to offer some more intelligent suggestions. I still think it doesn't belong on this page, though. -- TimNelson 05:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition Dispute

There has been dispute on another page about the definition of "Music Genre". By placing (Peter van der Merwe) as the only resource on the page, it heavily pushes the article toward his POV. As I am involved in a dispute on another page I wanted to provide some resources and request this page be researched and updated.

"A genre is a set of rules for generating musical works." ... "Genres are, however, more intersubjective than subjective phenomena. In each temporal and spacial context, there are certain genre definitions that are relevant and used by the most important groups of actors in the musical field: musicians, producers, marketers and audiences." Fornas, Johan The future of rock: discourses that struggle to define a genre

The following article is probably the best source I've read about style and genre. The use of "genre" comes from journalists with "film, cultural, and literary studies" backgrounds. (This is why "classical" or "art" music is described in "movements," while "popular" music is described in genres). Style is the type of sound, genre takes other factors into account such as lyrics and subject matter. Categorical Conventions in Music Discourse: Style and Genre

These sources have abstracts that don't tell us anything definitive; but access to the entire article may be useful - [1] [2] [3]

Denaar 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The use of Peter Van der Merwe's book "Origins of the Popular Style: The Antecedents of Twentieth-Century" here is misleading - his writing is not about genre studies. He is writing a book that purposly removes any factors other than sound in order to discuss popular music styles and their origins, and states this purpose specifically. The reference implies the sentence is supported by the work, but is not. From Page 3: "The term 'the popular style' is a label, not a description. 'Style' is really a less pretentious synonym for 'basic musical language'. As for 'popular', it is seriously misleading. In the ordinary sense of the word the popularity of the music discussed here is almost irrelevant. To be popular, whether in the sense of 'generally liked' or 'of the people', is an evanescent quality. If history follows its usual course the popular idioms of today will become the learned idioms of tomorrow, and the antiquated academicism of the day after tomorrow. In short, the term 'popular' is an infernal nuisance, but there seems no alternative to it." Denaar 17:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem? Find some sources and some information to this or other articles. Wikipedia may not cite itself. Hyacinth (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that there are two different definitions: one used in classical music/academia, and one used in popular music. This article should either deal with both topics individually, or be split in two.BassHistory (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Art rock

If "no rock form is real pure art music)" what about art rock? Hyacinth (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Sorry but I mostly agree with the statement. No rock form is real pure art music. So what about art rock ? I can explain you this apparent paradox very simply. Your confusion is actually frequent with people who are unfamiliar with musicological notion of "art music". Yes, there's no doubt art rock exists, but no it doesn't belong to art music but to popular music. Why isn't it considered as art music then? Actually the confusion lies in the fact meanings of a term can sometimes be blurred by popular use: One striking example is the word "schizophrenia" in popular use the word is believed to refer to multiple personality disorders whereas on a strict professional use the term has nothing to do with it. The same goes with popular use and musicological use.
Popular musicians and Musicologists don't use the word "art music" in the same sense.
In experimental popular music world(including such music like art rock or avant garde metal) the term art music is a notion used as opposed to commercial music. Indeed by art music, musicians consider themselves innovators, authentic and true to art as opposed to commercial music meant for entertainment. In popular meaning art music implies Innovation, experimentation and pure artistic approach instead of being a mere entertaining product.
But in the musicological sense, the term "Art music" is used as opposed to popular music and traditional music. Art music is characterized by advanced compositional techniques and theories. It also implies a written tradition as opposed to popular and Traditional approach which are based on oral traditions or on recordings.
In this sense art music doesn't necessarily implies innovation or being opposed to wide mass accessibility. For example certain forms of classical music are not necessarily characterized by innovation. However others forms of art music can be extremely avant-gardistes like Electroacoustic music for example.
Art rock music doesn't respond to the high technical and theoretical exigencies implied in the word "art music" to be considered as real art music. Art rock mostly saves a great part the popular music structure. Hence the fact it cannot be considered as real art music. However it must be mentioned that there are examples where art rock got closer to art music. Examples would include Zappa, Zorn or Glenn Branca. In such cases their music can't be regarded as art music yet but it can't be regarded as popular music either. These are case where limits between art music and popular music are blurred. However most of the music art rock is clearly popular music. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition, most musical genres are a fusion of other musical genres or (less often) a development of an earlier genre. This tree of music (in my somewhat limited experience) always goes right back until you reach a traditional genre, whose roots are unrecorded. The problem with Art Rock is that it (in some cases) fuses art and popular music. But it still pretty much ends up being one or the other.
None of this invalidates anything that Fred has said.
--TimNelson (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is an embarrassment.

There is a heavy pro-classical bias to this article. I just deleted a bit saying that art/classical music is synonymous with 'serious music.' Also, the definition of popular music given is awful, totally excluding most forms of Heavy metal, electronic music and quite a bit of punk rock. Zazaban (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

on pages

this seems as good a place as any to ask this- no band/album/or song page list the genre, but when you edit it the genre is filled out in the info box. what up?♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is something I have noticed recently ... What happened? Ostalocutanje (talk)

I've noticed it too because it's how I used to categorize my music, and now all of a sudden nothing has the genre listed anymore. I hope this gets fixed! 76.95.58.104 (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed it too, but I think it's getting better. I'm slowly starting to see genres coming back on pages. All you really have to do, though, is go to edit this page, not make any changes, and click save page. Tell me how it works out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigUns (talk • contribs) 03:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sexually attractive"--wtf?

A music genre is a categorical and typological construct that identifies musical and sexually attractive sounds as belonging to a particular category and type of music that can be distinguished from other types of music.

What?! Can anyone explain what sexual attraction has to do with defining a musical genre? If not, this bit should be removed post-haste. Severoon (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

First sentence is baited

A music genre is a categorical and typological construct that identifies musical sounds as belonging to a particular category and type of music that can be distinguished from other types of music.

Obviously there is overlap, and sometimes the blur between dichotomous genres is too thick to make any judgment. Please keep it real here. Its like rap and hip-hop. Not everything in your world is like country or rock&roll. In some cultures, the barrier between genres isn't so well fit yo cookie-cutter moldlines or expectations.

peace out W to the pizzle

~^4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.151.165 (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing

So... what exactly is a "music genre"? Even as an experienced musician, I find this article confusing: we get several completely contradictory statements in the lead and no actual answer. The following text that addresses the issue of categorisation is no more helpful. I note the List of music genres redirects to List of music styles. I guess some gave up trying to figure it all out! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC) PS, don't ask me: I haven't a clue!

"Single"

There is nothing in this article referring to how some songs say, 'single' as the genre. OzzyOzrock (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That'll be because you downloaded your music from Limewire or something.58.161.121.200 (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding means of categorization

I have added some means of categorization, i.e. 'time period' and 'sociological function', which I think should be included for the sake of completeness. --WikiPBia (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also added 'technique and instrumentation'. --WikiPBia (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Expanding intruduction

I like the header text from List of music styles; it states clearly the often arbitrary categorizations behind different genres. I have added it to the present article after some minor revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPBia (talk • contribs) 10:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

New section

I have moved the paragraph on fusion to a completely new section which I labelled 'The emerge of new genres' (maybe it should be just 'Emerge of new genres'!?), and indicated what I think need further expansion and explanation. --WikiPBia (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples of categorizations?

Would it be informative or trivial to give examples of genre categorizations, e.g. the genres from the billboard chart? We have the List of music genres but it is way to long to grasp. --WikiPBia (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Article split

I am proposing a split of this article, into Music genre (popular) and Music genre (classical). There are two definitions of genre in music that are significantly at odds with each other. In music scholarship, the term refers to a type of composition, whereas in popular usage it is more or less synonymous with "style" or "trend" (or often more exactly "major style group"). An article on the classical definition should be easy to do without conflict, if it is an independent article, as within academia this is not a controversial topic. The popular definition can be dealt with on another page, and concerned editors can work out there differences there.BassHistory (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That the term is used in two ways is certainly true, but is there any reason they could not both be dealt with on the one page? I wonder if this might be easier for the uninitiated reader to understand. I also wonder into which half things like folk music would fall, given that its status as popular music is debated.--SabreBD (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like you're getting the point what I'm saying. Just to be clear, here is the standard academic definition.
According to Grout A History of Western Music":
Genre
Type or category of musical COMPOSITION, such as a SONATA or SYMPHONY
The "popular" in Music genre (popular) doesn't have to do with "popular music." It has to do with the popular definition of genre, ie. music style. It's not about splitting styles of music into different pages. Folk music would appear as a genre (style) in the popular definition article, and blues form could appear as a genre in the classical article. Do you see what I'm getting at?
As far as the uninitiated reader is concerned, I doubt they will want to deal with both topics. They will either be a music undergrad trying to wrap their head around the concept of "genre" now that the popular usage has confused them, or they will be the casual reader trying to learn about what styles of music are out there.BassHistory (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Picking up on your proposed "Music genre (classical)", which is the space within which your quotation operates, then a de-bracketed version of your proposed article might be "Genre in Western Classical Music"? AllyD (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • On the wider topic, there's a need to go warily, given the extent to which the Wikipedia placement of music by project and by category trees is built on the concept "genre" (as can be seen at the top and bottom of this page). Any change here would imply root-and-branch restructuring across the article and category spaces. AllyD (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The main thing is that there needs to be a dedicated article on the "proper" definition. I guess "Genre in Western Classical Music" would be a good title, even though this method of classification isn't really limited to classical music. As for Wikipedia's current use of genre: couldn't all those lists simply be changed from "List of genres in music" to "List of styles of music," as this is what the lists actually are? I mean, if there was an article entitled "Nucular power," wouldn't we change it? BassHistory (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think AllyD is referring to more than just the list articles. The way in which popular music articles are organised is built around the "popular" definition, and legitimately so, there are plenty of academic texts in the musicology of popular music that use that meaning. It is not as simple as a spelling error, as I take your example to suggest. Such a change would also be outside of the scope of this article and so should be probably be discussed elsewhere if there is a need to take it further.--SabreBD (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I checked it out, I was unaware that the word was used with that meaning in academic sources. I may not have used the best analogy. Still, it needs to be made clear somewhere in this article that the word has a different meaning in classical music and certain academic contexts. Just because a majority here favors the popular definition, doesn't mean we should marginalize the classic academic definition or simply bulldoze over it altogether.BassHistory (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree that the academic classicial definition needs to be reflected here. At the moment what is said in this article is both inaccurate and very hard to understand. A lot of what is here now seems to have nothing to do with genre at all. This is such a poor article at the moment that I don't even know where to start. If you are up for it I would suggest you produce something on the academic classification definition. If you have a lot it could still go in a seperate article with a summary here. I will try to find time to come up with something on its use in popular music. However, to fit all this in I think we simply have to delete some of the irrelevant and unsourced information from this article.--SabreBD (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, maybe it could be done in one article. I could contribute a couple sentences for the academic definition, but it would be useles in this current version, which should probably be shaved back down to a stub at this point. My main concern is this: It looks like in an attempt to include both definitions in one article, that the lede and general definition here are actually shakey original synthesis (done in good faith). Here's what I mean: The classical definition is basically "a type of composition." The popular definition is virtually synonymous with "style." In an effort to compromise, the definition in this article is basically "any categorization of music." I don't think this is taken from a solid source, I think it is just an editor's attempt to fit both definitions in one article. With this view, most of the article should be deleted, as the sections Art vs. Popular music, time period, instrumentation, fusional origins (?), etc. are not based on actual established definitions, but are infact based on the unfounded original synthesis within this article (I should add that genre is not a subject that I have spent much time studying, I'm just familiar with the basic resources). Does anyone else see a problem with this inaccurate attempt at compromise?BassHistory (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully getting this one running again. I agree most of the article needs to be deleted and then perhaps we can have a reliably sourced "classical" definition (if you can contribute that BassHistory that would be great and I will try to find a popular music definition if that is OK.--SabreBD (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow

Needs hell of a lot of work this article. Its two main sections are traditional and metal music? Needs to be written from the beggining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartacus Marat (talk • contribs) 21:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit March 2012

  • "Art music" sub-section: I've removed the following from the end of the section:
"Art music is music that is used as in a form of a work of art, and uses many textbook elements of music. Art music is generally instrumental, and when vocals are present they have very explicit poetic, political, or religious overtones."
on the basis that (a) "textbook" elements are not of the essence in art music -- the textbooks are usually written after the music anyway; (b) "generally instrumental" is nonsense -- what about the many liturgical traditions, opera, secular choral, ...? --Stfg (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Emergence of new genres and subgenres"

  • The whole of the "Emergence of new genres and subgenres" section seems to me, frankly, misconceived. The authors appear to have overlooked that "genre" is a human construct, so agonizing over the definition misses the point -- we identify the genres we choose to identify in order to help us say the things we want to say about music, not because they exist in and of themselves. For that reason, too, genres come into being after the music they describe. As the whole section is completely uncited, maybe just delete it? --Stfg (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for all the hard work on this and for the massive improvement. I think you are absolutely right about the misconceptions over "Emergence of new genres and subgenres" and we would probably be best to delete it. I will also try to get back to producing some sourced input in the areas that need expansion at some point.--SabreBD (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for saying that, SabreBD. I'll watch it and see what you do. Best, --Stfg (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sub-sections for specific genres

So the hard work of removing superfluous information on this article is going back into reverse and we are going to have sections on individual genres. There are over a thousand genres that have articles on Wikipedia, if we globalise the article I guess there are still about a hundred that might be considered as significant as the ones listed here. Shall I add them or does someone else want to start? Just because it is sourced (and not very well sourced by the way) doesn't mean it has to be here. This [4] (reverted here [5]) seems clearly to be WP:undue to me, as we already have articles that list genres and subgenres, whereas this article should provide definitions and a guide to major scholarship on the topic. List of music genres already does the job of what has now been added to this article.--SabreBD (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Somebody took the time to type in 15kb of text. The least you can do is explain why you think that it is not an improvement, the best you could do would be to explain where the information would go if not here. Having a few examples of music genres does not mean that all genres have to be included - editorial decisions can be made about how best to represent the global and historic diversity of genres. You can remove the text if you think past consensus has been that the article shouldn't have examples of individual genres - but at least have the decency to explain the anonymous editor why you think your hard work is more important than hers. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Please note, I was not referring to my hard work, but that of other editors. I have explained why I believe that the edits are inappropriate and cited a guideline in support of this view: pretty clearly I have had the "decency" to explain my reasons. I am not sure how I could make that position any clearer. Putting aside the quality issues with this edit, it is not for me to find places for other peoples "hard work". Not all hard work is appropriate on Wikipedia and edits are certainly not judged for appropriateness by volume. If you or the IP want to include descriptions of individual genres in this article then by all means make a case for it. If there is a consensus then we can decide which genres are to be included and perhaps outline some criteria. At the moment I my feeling remains that this is WP:UNDUE for this article, but I am not incapable of changing my mind in the face of a reasoned case.--SabreBD (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, the IP did work hard to produce some nice material, and we don't need to dump their work altogether. It can surely we worked into the appropriate articles, which can probably by identified through the links in the list article. But I've got to agree with SabreBD on the future of this particular article. That it's 15K and someone took a lot of time to type it is no argument. Other editors have worked hard on the article too, and the new addition somewhat undermines their contributions. Imho it shouldn't have been restored before discussion, since it's in the history and wouldn't be lost. The additions highlight four favoured genres, all of which are modern, western, and commercial. Clearly WP:UNDUE. To make it comprehensive we'd need to add back many, many, many others, commercial and otherwise, western and otherwise, modern and otherwise. That's what the list is for.
Is anybody else alarmed that a new "Art music" section has been included in the "Contemporary Genres" section, duplicating the earlier section with the same title and adding two paragraphs that begin with "Recently ..."? Art music is not a genre, but a very large set of genres. Not all of them are electronic, which I believe is actually the main theme of the whole addition. --Stfg (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
It has been a week since the original edits. Do we have a consensus to remove these edits? Editors may if they wish attempt to find other locations for these additions.--SabreBD (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Both you (twice) and I have commented as to why we think the addition was detrimental, and there has been no reply. Your offer to discuss towards a new consensus has not been taken up. I think that means there's a consensus for removal. --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

a dance is not a genre

Arkan (dance) was tagged with Template:music-genre-stub. I've removed the tag, since a folk dance or its music is no more a genre than a page is a book. --Thnidu (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Musical subgenres by genre

Category:Musical subgenres by genre has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. CN1 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Music_genre/Archive_2&oldid=1137028202"