On music genres

Perun

Perun

His name struck fear into hearts of men
Staff member
So recently, we've had some people denying that Grunge, as a music genre, ever existed, and the same has been said time and again of Viking Metal. The argument that is usually brought forth, is that it is an image, an aesthetic or a statement. Grunge is just Alternative Rock and Viking Metal is just Black Metal with folk influences. I've always had a problem with this point of view. I don't know enough about Grunge to say anything with confidence, but I have always had the feeling that there is a more distinct, heavy and down-tuned sound to Grunge. As for Viking Metal, there are plenty of bands identifying as Viking Metal themselves, combining specifically Norse folk influences with lyrics specifically about Viking culture and the result is quite distinct from other Folk or Pagan Metal bands. Who are we to tell them that they are wrong about their genre?

Anyway, the purpose of this thread is to go beyond one-line statements such as "Viking Metal isn't a real thing" or "Grunge is just aesthetics" and get deeper into the question what a genre is, who gets to determine the existence of a genre and what the purpose of genres is, anyway. To kick off, I'm going to make the following, possibly contradictory claims for you to pick apart:

  • It is ultimately up to the artist to state what genre they play. e.g. Motörhead played rock 'n' roll.
  • A music genre is not exclusively defined by musical characteristics. Lyrics, image, attitude and fan reception also play a role.
  • The scene from which the artist originates also plays a role in their genre: Norwegian Black Metal and Bay Area Thrash are distinct music genres that are restricted to the time and place they are from.
  • Cultural appropriation in metal is a thing. A Celtic Metal band from Brazil will never be an actual Celtic Metal band and what they do feels wrong.
 
I have never enjoyed labels and stylistic limitations. If I like a band, I like it and I don't care what genre they're playing.
I also don't care much about nitpicking genres, so I don't even know why I'm posting here.

giphy.gif
 
I find genres are really for one dimensional bands anyway and are creatively limiting. I don't think they enhance the listening experience either, e.g. I like Faith No More but I don't really have any interest in many other bands that are Alternative Metal purely because FNM are a unique band and the umbrella term doesn't do justice to unique elements that appeal to me that their peers lack.

"Just listen to bands you like" would be my take on it.
 
Perun said:
  • A music genre is not exclusively defined by musical characteristics. Lyrics, image, attitude and fan reception also play a role.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree about this. It brings an interesting angle to the - in my opinion - boring and tiring debates around "BLACK ALBUM ISN'T METAL" or whether Guns N' Roses is metal to any extent or not. Especially with the first mentioned, the legacy, attitude, imagery and lyrical content of the band's past work, and the very album in question, definitely support it's definition as a metal album.

Then again, the whole thing is often just a matter of pointless fan debate.

Personally, I've stranded very far from genre-centered attitude towards any music. I always find it tiring when people nitpick about whether it's appropriate to call this or that band eg. power metal band, industrial metal band or whatever. I've came across this rather often with a couple of Finnish bands that I like. I'm much more interested about the music itself and their musical journey as it is, rather than stressing about whether the upcoming record is metal enough or whether I can listen to it if it's taken to a too heavy or, for example, pop direction.

In other words, I do understand that many, me included, find their musical taste with some genre-defining elements and that helps u to categorize things, but I try to listen and enjoy different music as individual works, without slavishly trying to categorize them; or let that categorization define it to me - on behalf of my deepest personal feelings towards the music itself.

That all being said, I do understand the value of defining genres and providing some frame of reference to different types of music. It's often very helpful too. And even though the mess above is trying to say that I'm not a very genre oriented listener, it's also true that genre definitions play a huge role when deciding what kind of new music to discover. As a fan of crisp sound, acoustic stuff, relaxing melodies, progressive elements, clean vocals and whatnot, it's no secret that the more "extreme" metal music, for example, isn't really something I'd be too eager to listen, but then again, I've found stuff and elements to like in very surprising places, even.

Ariana said:
I have never enjoyed labels and stylistic limitations. If I like a band, I like it and I don't care what genre they're playing.
I also don't care much about nitpicking genres, so I don't even know why I'm posting here.
Click to expand...

And while I was messing around with the load above, someone just summed up my exact thoughts in rather compact form.
 
The one thing that sticks out to me from previous posts on MaidenFans is that being one genre doesn’t exclude you from also being in another, and that there’s also a breaking point between lyricism and the actual music played. Alestorm is a pirate metal band because that’s the subject matter they’re based around, but their music is power / folk metal. Swashbuckle is also a pirate metal band, but they play thrash metal music.
 
Not unanimous, me, myself and I.
On the one hand, your ear can always recognize a genre regardless of what the bloody artist or even bloodier critics say, and no, Mercyful Fate ain't black metal, whatever their lyrics are.
On the other hand, if a band you like insists it doesn't belong to [insert name here] genre, you might probably try to relate, even if deep inside you know they're talking bollocks.
Also, a Celtic Metal band from Brazil "will never be an actual Celtic Metal band" and what they do would feel wrong indeed (see above) - unless you consider the Celtic heritage of Galicia and, by extension, Portugal, so again, not unanimous.
Bactrian history might be easier in comparison.
Or maybe not.
 
The purpose of a genre is categorization to help aid music listeners to identify artists that they may enjoy and to facilitate discussion on music. That's also the reason why specification of genres is such a controversial issue. Sometimes such specifications are perceived as overt, but they do ultimately serve the purpose of helping people discover and talk about similar artists. I think the key is to not lose touch with the hierarchy, most genres we talk about are subgenres of a more general genre, and recognizing that can help avoid much of the silly controversy.

I think the "we definitely aren't X genre", "we definitely are X genre" talk is silly overall, it usually signifies a pretentious approach or a dismissive attitude toward other genres. I think Motörhead recognized that smell of pretentiousness in genre talk, and that's why they kept referring to themselves as rock 'n' roll, even though their music, from a critical point of view, is too specific to simply be described as rock 'n' roll. Calling them rock 'n' roll defies the purpose of having genres, which, as I said, is categorization to help music listeners find similar artists and facilitate conversation on specific music.
 
Last edited:
I've noticed many of my favorite artists either don't categorize themselves or didn't strive for a particular genre (or, in the case of Motorhead, didn't strive for the genre that they are normally attached to). These tend to be the most exciting or unique artists. Those who strive for a certain genre or sound usually sound like a cheap copy of something that already exists.
 
Mosh said:
I've noticed many of my favorite artists either don't categorize themselves or didn't strive for a particular genre (or, in the case of Motorhead, didn't strive for the genre that they are normally attached to). These tend to be the most exciting or unique artists. Those who strive for a certain genre or sound usually sound like a cheap copy of something that already exists.
Click to expand...

It's a definition vs description thing. Genres are supposed to describe what you do, not be a definitive guide for what you should do. It's like adjusting your political views based on what fits a particular ideology or a part of the political spectrum. Both confusions result in a lack of substance, I note.
 
A lot depends on who is defining or applying the label and why. I thought 'Grunge' was a label originally applied by people outside the particular music scene(s) involved, or at least from critics and music press - hence the very different kinds of music falling into the category. Some bands like to classify themselves, for the purposes of their own musical identity, signifiying to potential fans that they could be something worth listening to, or for more cynical marketing reasons. 'Viking Metal', which again, is focused on image IMO rather than specifically the musical style itself, seems to me a more conscious direction the part of the bands themselves.

Record or music management companies most likely also have a hand in determining genre, if not inventing genres. Katatonia, for example, haven't clearly fallen into any genre category for some time, not being doom any more, moving away from metal in general, and dabbling in prog, melancholy pop, and acoustic stuff. A couple of years ago, some of their publicity material started decribing them as 'dark rock'. I didn't think much more about that until I visited the Northern Music Company website recently - they manage Katatonia, Bloodbath, Opeth, Paradise Lost, Anathema, and Devin Townsend - and noticed they promoted their work as specialising in 'Dark Music'. Although I see that grim and moody themes appears in these bands' music a lot, that surely is a music management company-invented genre?

One of the biggest rows I've ever seen on the subject of musical genre was about Emo. Diehard fans of niche punk music about emotional subjects (90s/early 00s) were really pissed off about 'Emo' coming to apply to bands like My Chemical Romance, or worse still, any guitar band featuring musicians with floppy fringes and eyeliner.
 
The reason I deny the existence of grunge as a musical style is that it lacks any unique or defining characteristics. Each of the big 4 grunge bands were vastly different from each other and carried heavy influences from other groups. Nirvana had a lot of punk plus 80s alt rock like REM and The Pixies. Pearl Jam was a very 70s hard rock sound with a lot of Zeppelin and Aerosmith. Alice and Chains and Soundgarden were kinda moving along the progression of Metal in the 90s without the glam and, again, a huge 70s influence.

That being said, the label of Grunge is fine to describe that particular point in music history. It gets the point across and people know what you're talking about. But you couldn't set out to form a grunge band today and have that mean anything. I assume that would sound like a carbon copy of one of the grunge bands from the 90s or some sort of 70s throwback.
 
Perun said:
  • It is ultimately up to the artist to state what genre they play. e.g. Motörhead played rock 'n' roll.
  • A music genre is not exclusively defined by musical characteristics. Lyrics, image, attitude and fan reception also play a role.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the first point to a certain extent but I agree with the second point, also to a certain extent.

The band that springs to mind is Bullet for my Valentine. They've often touted themselves as a Heavy Metal band and have said they are going to replace Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. They definitely have Metal influences in their music that are identifiable from the sort of riffs they play and their attempts at guitar harmonies (I think so anyway, it's been a long time since I listened to them). However, their lyrics don't fit anything I would feel comfortable labeling as Metal as they're all wimpy teen angst music. I read a review of one of their albums in The Guardian a couple of years ago where the reviewer, Dom Lawson, criticized "lyrics not befitting of a man of Matt Tuck's age". As far as I can tell, their fan base is mostly comprised of teenage girls who listen to My Chemical Romance and Hawthorne Heights. Image wise, the last time I saw a photo of them they didn't look like a Metal band at all. I think Bullet for my Valentine should be considered as an Emo/Screamo band because of their lyrical themes, image and core fanbase. They also came out of the remarkably productive music scene in South Wales which produced other notable bands (Funeral for a Friend and Lostprophets) with broadly similar fanbases.

I don't mean to criticize this type of music specifically as there are some bands whom I still listen to from time to time (e.g. Alexisonfire, Funeral for a Friend). Instead my criticism is aimed at Bullet for my Valentine themselves. The attempt at teen angst songs with Metalish riffs is really naff and it's hard to take them seriously when they tout themselves as a Heavy Metal band with these sort of lyrics, their image and their core fanbase. I've argued with people online about this before and my opponents have claimed them to be Metalcore as if that's a part of the wider Metal genre to aspire to. They do have an overlap in fanbase with bands like Killswitch Engage (who do have their soppy moments) but it still doesn't make them Metal in my opinion.

To summarize, an artist can state what type of music they play but they have to back that up with some consistency in their lyrics, image and wider appeal.
Perun said:
The scene from which the artist originates also plays a role in their genre: Norwegian Black Metal and Bay Area Thrash are distinct music genres that are restricted to the time and place they are from.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that's something which one could also apply to Grunge I think as many of the bands came from the Seattle area. I don't know much about the genre but perhaps it could be described as "Seattle Rock" instead? The Gothenburg Death Metal scene is also an important one with a particular sound. Using the above example, Bullet for my Valentine come from a scene which produced several notable bands of similar styles and fanbases.
Perun said:
Cultural appropriation in metal is a thing. A Celtic Metal band from Brazil will never be an actual Celtic Metal band and what they do feels wrong
Click to expand...
I agree with this. It feels very plastic and un-authentic when a band uses another culture's style to define their sound or key theme. Nile with Egypt and Gravedigger's recent obsession with Scotland feel weird to me. There are probably many more examples out there that I can't think of right now.
 
Black Wizard said:
I agree with this. It feels very plastic and un-authentic when a band uses another culture's style to define their sound or key theme. Nile with Egypt and Gravedigger's recent obsession with Scotland feel weird to me. There are probably many more examples out there that I can't think of right now.
Click to expand...

To be honest, each to their own and if that Brazilian band are enjoying themselves and their fans enjoy the music then more power to them, but that video of a dwarf prancing around and the band all dressed in peasant garb (of what country and time period are anyones guess) is cringe and helps me to understand the issues that black people have with blackface.
 
Black Wizard said:
I don't know much about the genre but perhaps it could be described as "Seattle Rock" instead?
Click to expand...

Well, if we have a name for it anyway, we might as well apply the one that's been in use all the time.
 
Black Sabbath HATED being called Heavy Metal at first, then reluctantly accepted the label. So is it always up to the artist?
 
Mosh said:
The reason I deny the existence of grunge as a musical style is that it lacks any unique or defining characteristics.
Click to expand...
Dissonance, baritone vocals, simplistic rhythm guitar. Boom.
 
Grunge, for me, is nicely defined by what it isn't, back then when it happened. It is hard rock of the very late 80s to mid 90s without any sort of glam, shred, party, epics, pumping up, etc.
 
Zare said:
Grunge, for me, is nicely defined by what it isn't, back then when it happened. It is hard rock of the very late 80s to mid 90s without any sort of glam, shred, party, epics, pumping up, etc.
Click to expand...

But does that mean it's a genre or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top