An artist's dominion over their art

[Gowienczyk]

I gotta side with the artist who created the songs.

No, in a lot of cases a band has little knowledge of genre history or what sounds mean what. A good case of every post-hardcore or "alternative rock" citation by bands in the last decade. There is a process, wisdom and proper understanding for classification of sound.

An artist knows their "influences" and their "favorites" and that is mostly it with sound development with musicians.

[Sargehalo51]

No, in a lot of cases a band has little knowledge of genre history or what sounds mean what. A good case of every post-hardcore or "alternative rock" citation by bands in the last decade. There is a process, wisdom and proper understanding for classification of sound.

An artist knows their "influences" and their "favorites" and that is mostly it with sound development with musicians.

An example I can think of off the top of my head is when Stone Gossard was asked about Grunge music in reference to Pearl Jam. He very flatly refused to acknowledge or use the term "Grunge" even though he was in Green River, which many consider to be the first true Grunge band.

[SheSaidSheSaid]

Genre labels are just not that important to be fussing over them. Ever. EVER.

[Gowienczyk]

Genre labels are just not that important to be fussing over them. Ever. EVER.

For you.

Genres have their place and the history and understanding is to me essential for music historians, music critics and generally anyone who has a bone for music beyond "I like how it sounds".

"People who disregard genres entirely are most likely too immature to deal with the idea that their favorite band is categorically generic, which is often the case. People who adhere to genres like religion often do so out of an obsession in protecting whatever music they identify with from that which they "oppose" and, therefore, listen to generic si**t that is exploiting their allegiance. It's important to understand the value and purpose of genre categorization but the best music will always be those that transgress those categories."

My friend Patrick said that three years ago and a lot of it rings true.

[Sargehalo51]

Genre labels are just not that important to be fussing over them. Ever. EVER.

I totally agree! Especially when you get into the endless sub-genres. Hell, it's all rock n roll to me! lol

[Gowienczyk]

I totally agree! Especially when you get into the endless sub-genres. Hell, it's all rock n roll to me! lol

and that simplicity is fine, just don't pretend it is objectively static and can't be objected to. I'm friends with plenty of people who see music as just "rock, electronic, jazz, blues, metal, hip-hop, etc." - but they don't dare tell me or pretend genres don't have value, significance or relevance because they know it does, they just don't care to divulge or learn it.

[Sargehalo51]

and that simplicity is fine, just don't pretend it is objectively static and can't be objected to. I'm friends with plenty of people who see music as just "rock, electronic, jazz, blues, metal, hip-hop, etc." - but they don't dare tell me or pretend genres don't have value, significance or relevance because they know it does, they just don't care to divulge or learn it.

Not saying that genres and knowledge of them aren't important, everything has their place. I just personally think the opinion of the artists themselves, in regards to the genre of their music, should be held in high opinion.

I might call a song Grunge, someone else might call it Alternative, someone else might call it Hard Rock, and the artist might consider it Punk. Who's opinion should matter most?

[Gowienczyk]

someone else might call it Alternative, someone else might call it Hard Rock, and the artist might consider it Punk. Who's opinion should matter most?

The person who has put years of understanding into objective sound classification and not simply idly listening nor "playing their music". An artist knows their influences, but in many cases they mix influences and favorites (where their favorites may not make it into their actual sounds, but they claim they are an influence).

An artist is not always the best interpretative nor objective viewer of their art and this is obviously so. A outside person could see their influences and their art; and see something that the artist put in their (albeit subconsciously).

[Sargehalo51]

The person who has put years of understanding into objective sound classification and not simply idly listening nor "playing their music". An artist knows their influences, but in many cases they mix influences and favorites (where their favorites may not make it into their actual sounds, but they claim they are an influence).

An artist is not always the best interpretative nor objective viewer of their art and this is obviously so. A outside person could see their influences and their art; and see something that the artist put in their (albeit subconsciously).

You do speak with a great deal of wisdom on the matter, and I agree that an artist may not be able to always view their art objectively. Not sure I agree with you totally, but I do enjoy your well thought out and intelligent answers!

[Gowienczyk]

However, I do think an artist's interpetation is something to be weighed in the genre "assessment" to a degree. As the artists perception does exist and isn't imagined completely. Moving on from that, I do thank you for taking my answers evenly instead of reacting obtusely to them. It's a welcome change to some of my previous experiences with replies on genre classification.