Are genres useless?

[daftuprising]

Me and my friends had an argument at lunch today. I said they were a godsend. One said that pretty much all sub-genres are useless, and one said that genres in general are stupid. This being said, I don't understand genres. I don't know how a -core genre is different from the main. I don't know a lot, but I know that each genre is distinct.

He said Anything -core is just people making up genres to be different. He said that there isn't a huge difference between death metal, trash metal, black metal, etc. and it should all be metal. I begged to differ, that genres are very helpful, and they all are distinct from each other.

Your opinions on the argument?

[afterstasis]

your friends are clueless, i'm afraid.

adding a "-core" suffix to a genre basically indicates that it is a fusion with hardcore punk... and death metal, thrash metal, and black metal are very different (in many ways polar opposites to one another, in fact).

as for the topic at hand, genres are extremely useful (nearly vital, actually) for anyone wanting to dig into music beyond what they're spoonfed.
finding a few styles that you're particularly fond of and nabbing up all you can handle will get the ball rolling for a music newbie faster than anything.

[dabears116]

It simplifies stuff. I know I can avoid stuff labeled nu metal or crunkcore. When I hear something I like I can find bands similar to them if they are labeled as the same genre. The only negativity is mislabeling (which doesn't matter in most cases, although sometimes it does [see: last.fm tags]) and trivial arguments.

No, they are not useless. To some people it may all sound like metal, but black metal, doom metal, death metal, and power metal are all extremely different from eachother (and then theres the ones in between which are still distinctive, such as heavy metal, thrash, sludge, etc.)

PS: It thrash, not trash metal.

[Runesmith]

Genres are more annoying than useless, I think. They can be very helpful when you're looking for artists similar to a band you really like, but absolutely atrocious when special snowflakes make up their own label solely for the sake of appearing different and such.

[Axterix]

I'd agree with your friend who said the sub-genres are pretty much useless.

The broader categories are quite useful. Doom metal has a different sound than thrash. Symphonic differs from death. Say something is progressive metal and that will give me some idea of what to expect.

Beyond that though, I don't care much for categories. I'm not really sure what hardcore is. I definitely don't know what all the subcategories of it are. And, quite frankly, I really don't care. The sub-genres require too much knowledge that a more casual person just won't have. It only matters to the, well, going to use the term snobs. People that know a lot about the particular genre, that potentially like to argue with others about the merits of this or that within the genre, sort of like a wine snob, but for music.

Your typical person? They don't care. They might know of some broad categories, mostly because a few bands they like are classified as that category. And that's what they really care about. They are interested in bands that are similar, that fans of one band might like as well. The broader categories help with that. The sub-genres require too much knowledge, much easier to say "If you are a fan of Dio and Accept, you might like Benedictum" or "If you like early Maiden, Slough Feg's Traveller and Down among the Deadmen albums might well be worth checking out."

I can also see some merit to the idea that they are useless. Many bands are popular/unique enough that they just are that band. Pink Floyd, John Denver, Abba, SoaD, RatM, and so on. Plus bands change over time, so now you have to categorize albums or time periods, not bands. But I don't quite buy into it, because I do find certain genres to indicate a certain type of sound and that the application of those genres to bands to give a reasonable expectation of what to expect, especially for categories that don't have a definitive this is the sound band.

[afterstasis]

i suppose speaking in a "the world revolves around me" way one who isn't a terribly serious fan of a wide range of music could say genres are useless, but pretty much anyone who consistently digs up non-mainstream offerings will find that the more knowledgeable about the ins and outs they become the more quality tunes they'll unearth.

of course, by that line of thinking i can proudly say that knowing the difference between football and nascar is useless, along with the entire subject of theology and any mathematics more complex than "paycheck - groceries and whiskey = x".

[dabears116]

That statement was both arrogant and ignorant.

edit: @ Axterix

[SputnikDX]

Genres are very helpful, if you learn to understand them. The worst thing though is trying to define a genre to a friend who doesn't "get it", and the fact that so many genres can actually be overwhelming to someone who doesn't know better, but this mostly stems from mislabeling, and most genres, surprisingly, are too vague. Someone who likes The Who might not like Boston (gasp), and bands like King Crimson and Emerson, Lake & Palmer are so strikingly different it's remarkable they stay within the same, vast genre.

The rest of my words is a personal story, and doesn't need to be read.

The worst part ever is getting a friend who's so confused. My own personal story, but all my friends know I like Progressive Rock, but my friend insists on me defining it with words. I can't, so I play music, something like In the Court of the Crimson King. But by doing this, it creates a narrowmindedness on genres, and he doesn't seem to understand how broad prog really is. What's even worse is when you try to play music that suits to their tastes that doesn't really reflect what the genre's about. Day Five by Explosions in the Sky is certainly Post-Rock, but it hardly displays all the key properties of the genre, but it's still an enjoyable song for a typical Rock fan. Also, he doesn't get what's so "Post" about it, and neither do I, but it's cool.


tl;dr, genres are cool but sometimes there's too much, but I wish there were more.

[SputnikDX]

of course, by that line of thinking i can proudly say that knowing the difference between football and nascar is useless,

I think the genre debate is more akin to knowing the difference between American Football and Rugby.

[XacharyCross]

The mileage varies I find.

Mislabeling messes a lot of stuff up, and all in all, there's more then a few genres which either have gotten totally distorted by being used as a marketing gimmick, or were really just a gimmick (New Country, nu-metal, grunge, New Wave, Darkwave are all examples that could be tossed here).

I've always found Post-Whatever to be a generally useless term too. In general terms it's "inspired by, but not actually" <whatever>, but in most cases, is hopelessly broad. To use another example, Joy Division and U2 are both considered post-punk, yet I can't discern any real common ground there. Or Television to toss another name in that mix (Though some U2 and Television has minor similarity).

The other distortion is time itself. R & B used to mean Rhythym And Blues, and contained a lot of very credible rock music, nowadays, it's a very different thing (and I can't stand listening to the modern R&B). Metal/Heavy Metal has shifted forward from prior days, with bands like Deep Purple, Thin Lizzy, Steppenwolf, BOC, Rainbow, Queen, that were the pioneers and among the early fixtures of the genre, and even later entries AC/DC and Van Halen having been relegated back down to "Hard Rock".