Err... Spoken Word? Music? Are you sure about that one? Lezek
Suggest we create a subheading for Experimental music inside this list, move Noise Music and Free Music to it, add possibilies of Industrial Music and Free Jazz - Greg Godwin
- I don't see why not. Go ahead!;-) -- WojPob
Sorry about reverting your edit, Lezek - I just wasn't paying attention. It was a perfectly good change you made. --Camembert
- NP. It seems a bit out of place tho...
- Yeah, as I said before I noticed I'd messed up, I was tempted to just take it out. I might try to trim it down a bit later - there's no doubt that a lot of people think these labels do more harm than good, but I'm not sure we need a pretty lengthy quote from Zorn to make that point. --Camembert
- It's much better now... yay :) Lezek
- Yeah, as I said before I noticed I'd messed up, I was tempted to just take it out. I might try to trim it down a bit later - there's no doubt that a lot of people think these labels do more harm than good, but I'm not sure we need a pretty lengthy quote from Zorn to make that point. --Camembert
--- I would suggest musique concrete be shifted to the heading of experimental music. I have doubts that many of those concerned in its early production ever classified it as "classical" music. Although I could be wrong - Greg Godwin
- Well, I guess nobody really classifies themselves as "classical" (or anything else) do they? And there's a problem in defining what "classical music" is anyway (something of a problem in defining "musique concrete" as well). But I think musique concrete is generally seen as classical, inasmuch as its practitioners were working in traditional musical institutions, had been given more or less traditional music educations and generally wrote conventional classical music when they weren't writing musique concrete (Varese, Xenakis and so on). They were also quite theoretic about what they were doing (Pierre Schaeffer wrote big books on the subject). It's experimental as well as classical, I guess - it could be listed under both. --Camembert
Prehaps the problem lies in the actual classification of "experimental music" then. Minimalism could also fall under this heading, as could forms of electronica and free-jazz. I'll leave it as is for now. All talk of genre is going to be quite controversial, especially in this day and age where a hodge-podge of hybrid forms is the norm. (hearing concrete in Bjork, free-jazz in Radiohead) -- Greg Godwin
- Yeah, "experimental" is a troublesome label as well (they all are, as you say) - John Cage wrote an essay just about what experimental music might be, if I remember correctly. Anyway, if you want to suffle things around this article, then by all means feel free - I certainly won't change anything back. --Camembert
I just wanted to note that, if anyone was waiting until I was done reorganizing the list to say anything, I'm done so feel free to excoriate/lavish praise upon me as you see fit. Tokerboy
First, good job on the list. It's very well laid out.
I wrote the article for synth pop and would like to see it on the list. You would know better where you would want that than I, so I'm letting you decide where you want to put it. --Two Halves
- Synth pop added and, as a crazy-whack-chaos-theory result, punk is moved to its own section. Tokerboy
(Lezek's comments moved from top of page)
wtf?! Why are all those types listed as subcategories of black metal?! utter, utter nonsense. Gothic metal is not a subcategory of Black metal, it is closer to Doom metal but not a subcategory of that either. A lot of people think that Cradle of Filth are Gothic metal, but they aren't. They're more symphonic black metal, which is probably what has led to Gothic metal being listed under Black Metal. Industrial Metal, Nu Metal and Rapcore(!!!) bear absolutely no relation to Black Metal whatsoever, and not Thrash Metal either IMO. Rapcore is a fusion of Rap and Hard Rock, and sometimes Hip Hop. Listing it under Heavy Metal is skating on thin ice in many cases. Listing it under Black metal is just wrong. --Lezek
- Maybe the article should explain what the list means -- the placement of gothic metal under black metal does mean that it is a subcategory, it is meant to show the genealogical origin of the genres. I did such using a variety of web pages, but I have not been into much modern metal outside of Tool and System of a Down, so I may have misinterpreted some occasionally very badly written prose. No offense intended. Also note that such a structure can never be wholly accurate because of the constant give and take between genres, even wholly unrelated ones -- a complex discussion of the origins of any form of music needs to be done in paragraph form in an article on the subject, so don't worry too much about trying to communicate meaningful information through an outline format, as it can't be too informative, it is merely a collection of links and broad generalizations to organize the links in a meaningful way. Tokerboy
- Okay, that partly answers my comments below. I wonder if tracing a "family tree" of music shouldn't be a seperate article. Something to say "see below" when you've taken a genre to the head of another branch would be useful too. Bagpuss 00:03 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
I don't want to diss your hard work Tokerboy, and I may not be up to rewriting it myself, but some of the subdivisions seem odd to me. Firstly, "Rhythm and Blues" seems an odd place to put Garage, Merseybeat and British Invasion (the latter is a very American term for British music as well, so although it's fine to link to the article, I'd rather it wasn't a category). Secondly, Britpop under Dream Pop (what is this?) under New Wave under Punk Rock? I'm not sure about listing influences as genres. Britpop is not punk. Bagpuss 23:56 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
It's still rock 'n' roll to me -- Billy Joel ;-)