View Single Post
Old 01.30.2008, 01:43 PM   #31
sarramkrop
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glice
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.

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.
  |QUOTE AND REPLY|