GENRES OF MUSIC DON’T EXIST

With the recent discovery that races don’t exist, scientists have begun questioning the legitimacy of all social labels. Their most bold assignment was to challenge the common notion that music could be categorized into distinct ‘genres. Using the same methods used to debunk race, they set about testing these arbitrary musical categories.

Some scientists took these ‘genres’ of music, removed the labels, sorted them according to traits, and then re-labeled them. The results were shocking. When testing for the known ‘rap’ drum pattern, they found Hip-Hop, Techno, R&B, Jazz, Rock, Reggae, Country and a large assortment of tribal music from all over the world in the same category. When testing for a choir vocal pattern, they found Opera, Gospel, Gregorian Chant, Pop, and R&B in the same group. It didn’t stop there. When testing for vocal rhyme, both Anglo-Saxon bard songs and Gangsta Rap ended up in the same group. When testing for ‘Classical’ melodies; Techno, Ambient, Jazz, Metal, Big Band, and Romanticism ended up in the same genre. Gospel is a type of music that is thought to overlap with R&B to a large extent. Upon closer examination though, we find that the organ work in Gospel more closely resembles Baroque. When testing for high pitched yelping, Metal, Rock, Country, and Rap fell into the same group. Ska was a very interesting case. When the guitars were isolated on half the subjects, they were identical to Punk and Rock. Other Ska guitar melodies closely resembled Reggae. When the horns were isolated, they resembled anything from Big Band to Salsa. Let us take R&B. To the common listener, R&B sounds more like it is related to Hip-Hop and traditional Blues. But if we isolate the vocals, we find that the singing is not exclusive to the Blues genre and sounds more like it is related to average Pop. We also find that the beats are shared by a multitude of genres, including Hip-Hop, Country, and African Folk. Blues itself is thought to descend from African folk but we find that the blues formula actually resembles European folk. The most startling find was when vocals were removed from the equation: almost every conceivable genre of music fell into the non-vocal category.

Creating a family tree for these genres according to these traits would be near impossible, scientists say. Although certain traits can be identified as belonging to a certain root, they are not considered frequent enough to be categorized as a genre. As Dr. Smith points out, “Its about as useful as sorting music by the number of B notes present. It tells you nothing of any significance.”

We also know that genres are labeled differently around the world, further evidence that they are mere social constructs. At Exclusive Company, Jay-Z is categorized as Rap. But at Wal-Mart he is often categorized as Pop, sitting alongside Marlyn Manson on the same shelf. Marlyn Manson is a perfect case in point. Most assume he plays metal, but the traditional jazz-structure of metal is not present. We also find that he uses beats identical to Techno. So where does Metal end and Techno begin? Techno itself was spawned from Hip-Hop, but its melodies are more closely related to Classical. It was first declared that Hip-Hop was NOT a genre, but Rap and R&B culture itself. It was later declared that Hip-Hop and Rap were two different genres. Nowadays, they are both used interchangeably to describe the same thing. To the common man, Classical is a label used to encompass everything from Romanticism, Baroque, Opera, Big Band, Ragtime to Impressionism. However, scholars routinely consider these different genres. The evolution of what these genres encompass has also changed socially over time. For example, Elvis was considered a pioneer of the Rock genre. What is categorized as Rock today doesn’t resemble Elvis in any fashion. In fact, Elvis has been resigned to a completely absurd super genre called Oldies, a group that encompasses hundreds of different genres with no relation other than age. What greater proof do you need that genres are simply bigoted labels?

Why were genres invented in the first place? Dr. Smith claims that genres may have been conceived as a means to create a social hierarchy. “When people think of Classical, they associate it with intelligence, aristocracy, and restraint. On the other hand, something like Country or Rap is considered primitive, wild, and unsophisticated. In reality, we know that such characterizations can be applied to any sound. Genres were a way for Eurocentric leaders to gain social and political control over their subjects. For a while, Rap and Islamic genres were not even considered music, but now they are commonly accepted forms.”

Dr. Smith remains hopeful though. “Someday we hope our research will help break the cycle of prejudice and discrimination that results from such linear Aristotelian thought”, He said. “We have to accept the fact that all music is just music.”

GENRES OF MUSIC DON’T EXISTWell, that just goes to show you that there are still many parts of life that scientists have not mastered. The deeper you delve into artforms, the less useful the scientific method becomes. Every one of us can place most songs into the proper genre after a single hearing, or just one verse if it's a simple construction. Yes the definitions of those genres vary from one culture to another, that's what the word "culture" is all about! And of course some songs don't easily fit into one genre, that doesn't destroy the model either. If enough songs are created that span the same two genres, then we just happily define a new one like "rap metal" or "rock en español."

Art and science don't fit together very well. Don't make too much out of this. The people who did the study put way, way too much effort into it.What is categorized as Rock today doesn’t resemble Elvis in any fashion.Utter bullshit! The basic definition of rock and roll is, "A type of jazz music characterized by most of the following: a blues modality, a strongly emphasized rhythm that is highly and often intricately syncopated, a heavily accented backbeat, guitar-bass-drums instrumentation but periodically adopting other instruments such as the saxophone and electronic keyboard, very topical lyrics often phrased in a rebellious manner, singing that is rough-hewn, strained, and/or angry and often calculated to alienate non-fans, and very often extremely loud."

Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, the Beach Boys, Beatles, Joni Mitchell, Who, Stones, Led Zeppelin, Floyd, Roxy Music, AC/DC, Pat Benatar, Ozzy, Alannah Myles, almost any punk, rap, or goth tune, Alanis, Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, Korn, Audioslave, and Shakira -- they all fit this definition quite well.

In fact, Elvis has been resigned to a completely absurd super genre called Oldies, a group that encompasses hundreds of different genres with no relation other than age.Only by scientists. Radio stations know the difference. Elvis is on the same stations as Buddy Holly and the Diamonds and some of the pre-British Invasion rock and soul of the early to mid 1960s like the Supremes and the Four Tops. There's another station for the folk-rock and bubblegum of the 1960s and 1970s like the Eagles and James Taylor, and a completely different station that plays the Who and Led Zeppelin and the other music that was happening at exactly the same time. They both play the Beatles, of course, and they each have their own portion of the Stones' catalog.What greater proof do you need that genres are simply bigoted labels?Perhaps the concept of genre includes bigotry, since it is something that springs from culture instead of science. That doesn't make it any less real or any less worthy of inclusion in the study of human life.Dr. Smith remains hopeful though. “Someday we hope our research will help break the cycle of prejudice and discrimination that results from such linear Aristotelian thought”, He said. “We have to accept the fact that all music is just music.”It will be a cold day in hell before I accept Japanese court music as "just music"!

Interesting read, especially considering that I was thinking of a thread similar to this, except I was more interested in why certain kinds of people, and espeically from like socioeconomic backgrounds, have like "tastes" in music. I wonder if people deliberately or even subconsciously attain a dislike for a "different" kind of music because of societal pressures relating to the imagery produced by those who listen to the same "kind" of music.

I find among people I know that those not raised within this society are drastically more tolerant of other musical genres than those born and raised here. Thus, the "hardcore rock" fan detests rap and vice versa. They won't even acknowledge that the other is music. But melody is still melody and if different peoples across multiple cultures can appreciate different "kinds" of music, then really there is no genetic disposition to musical appreciation-- it is all sociological. Implicitly, there is no higher form of music. Hell, I should probably start a thread and compose the thoughts in a more organized form.

Science is not about this:


Dr. Smith remains hopeful though. “Someday we hope our research will help break the cycle of prejudice and discrimination that results from such linear Aristotelian thought”, He said. “We have to accept the fact that all music is just music.”

I haven't met any scientists that could give a damn about 'breaking the cycle of prejudice'. Scientists only care about revealing the truth.

That said, this 'scientist' is right about music being music. What a sound observation.

Good music comes from all genres. Bach, the spice girls, you name it. There aren't too many differences between music theory and the theory of evolution when you get down to the serious bits, and anyone with good observation skills can figure out the important parts.

Its obvious you're trying to make a point by making a fool of yourself. When really, you've only succeeded in making a fool of yourself. I'm not impressed.

Well, clearly everyone here needs to be enlightened: There are only two races... scientists and laypersons.

First of all, I wrote this article, its all made up, so the researchers aren't real. But my reasoning is perfectly sound, seeing as it was already done to debunk race.

Well, that just goes to show you that there are still many parts of life that scientists have not mastered. The deeper you delve into artforms, the less useful the scientific method becomes.

Exactly, because are is pseudoscience! Go join the KKK, you Genre-ist!

You CANNOT disprove my argument. There is more variation WITHIN so-called genres than between them. All perceived differences are just the results of musical evolution and have little importance beyond that. These traits have no significance outside of the bigoted social properties given to them.

Interesting read, especially considering that I was thinking of a thread similar to this, except I was more interested in why certain kinds of people, and espeically from like socioeconomic backgrounds, have like "tastes" in music.

Go ahead and write it. I have never really understood it myself. People pursue music for different purposes: social, religious-ritualistic, sexual, psychological, etc. I acknowledge other music as music but I do tend to rank it. I see classical and jazz as the greatest forms of music man has produced in terms of deep emotional expression and complexity, but I understand the importance of other types.

Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, the Beach Boys, Beatles, Joni Mitchell, Who, Stones, Led Zeppelin, Floyd, Roxy Music, AC/DC, Pat Benatar, Ozzy, Alannah Myles, almost any punk, rap, or goth tune, Alanis, Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, Korn, Audioslave, and Shakira -- they all fit this definition quite well.

NONE of these artists fit the criteria of a genre. They all share properties, they all diverge in properties. They can't fall into a genre. Genres are arbitrary social constructs!

There's another station for the folk-rock and bubblegum

Folk-Rock and Bubblegum are more meaningless labels imagined by people without any scientific basis.

this is very interesting. I am a musician myself. I hate "gangsta Rap" and most hip hop. I like classical, and punk. the only rap I really like is Eminem. I also lean toward metal and rock. I think that even if they tested beats and other elements of music, it really doesn't matter that it falls in the same category. It is how the final product works and pleases the senses. I thnk that the "alternate classification" is a bunch of bored "scientists" trying to prove crap, it is still interesting though.

Another musician here. <i>Usefulness</i> of genres aside, I find it hard to categorise alot of music, including my own. Which seems to me to be evidence of your argument Hastein.
I think musicians are like a sponge, in that they (perhaps for want of a better word) <i>absorb</i> a huge number of influences - both consciously and subconsciously. Perhaps this explains the common characteristics of different genres.

P.S. Your reference to Dr. Smith made me think the quotes were actually real for a while there. I had a lecturer in world music called Dr. Therese Smith - there's a coincidence for you. But I've just noticed that your fabricated 'Dr.' was also a 'He'.

Genres clearly exist and there is a system to classify them as well. However, using the logic scientists use to deconstruct the system of racial classification, I have done the exact same thing. Don't take it too seriously.

Don't take it too seriously.
I won't, don't worry.

Exactly, because are is pseudoscience! Go join the KKK, you Genre-ist!Um, you might consider cutting back on the caffeine! I expect to be subjected to dry wit and learned rebuttals and even the occasional snort from the musicological contingent when I attempt to show that Elvis, Joni Mitchell, and Linkin Park actually have a lot in common. But it's quite a leap from that to cross-burning!Folk-Rock and Bubblegum are more meaningless labels imagined by people without any scientific basis.Well I'll freely admit that the name "bubblegum music" never found its way into the dictionary, but "folk rock" certainly did. It was a historic moment in music when Bob Dylan went on stage at Newport with amplified instruments. There were lots of older people and academics who insisted that folk music had to be playable in milieux that lack electricity, and furthermore that folk musicians don't play drums. Eventually the issue was settled when people accepted the fact that folk music had always been what we now call "popular music" as opposed to "symphonic." The labels helped resolve the argument, instead of the university people and the mountain people and the dancing teenagers each stomping off in a huff without being able to find common ground upon which to base a discussion.

People like to be able to talk about things they like and things they're interested in. That's not easy to do if you insist that they not be allowed to abstract common characteristics that they perceive in things and coin a name for the set of things that has those characteristics.

Do you really think that racism wouldn't exist if people of different national origins, religions, linguistic groups, etc. didn't have names for themselves and each other? Do you really think more Americans of my generation would stop complaining about rap music if the name "rap music" didn't exist?

Language is arguably the most important attribute that allowed humans (oops, there I go again using labels) to surpass the accomplishments of the other animals, even the really bright ones like chimpanzees and macaws.

Abstraction and synthesis and all of the other psychological processes that enable us to categorize things and put them in groups are just part of the linguistic skill set that allows us to sit down and talk about the different ways we see things. I think that is healthy. Whether you and I agree that Buddy Holly and Kid Rock belong in the same category because they both have about 90 percent of the attributes I posted earlier in my definition of "rock and roll," we would not even be able to discuss our difference of opinion without these skills and you would have no chance of convincing me that you're right and I'm wrong.

Fraggle, I know it is very difficult to convery sarcasm on the internet, so I'll spell it out for you: "I'm just joking."

I know very well what bubblegum or folk rock means, I also know what a genre is and how it works. You need to understand the point of this article, which was a parody of anti-race science.

There were lots of older people and academics who insisted that folk music had to be playable in milieux that lack electricity, and furthermore that folk musicians don't play drums. Eventually the issue was settled when people accepted the fact that folk

Folk music isn't played on drums? What a bunch of idiots. About 90% of world folk music is on drums (in India it is often just drums).

"genres of music don't exist" -

I wish!
You know when you walk into a major store and you have to spend 10 hours looking for the CD you want because there are no helpers to be seen and you don't know if they've classified the band you want as rock, metal, grunge, trash, black, death, neo-black death with a twist of lime or WTF?!
Why can't they just pick obvious lables or classify everything under "MUSIC" and then you go looking for the band name?
OOOOOOOOOR give us access to those damned PCs that just sit there while you wait for the attendant to materialise.
*grrrrrr*

sorry about this unloading of repressed anger... but I'm sure it could be made easier than it is now.

Fraggle, I know it is very difficult to convery sarcasm on the internet, so I'll spell it out for you: "I'm just joking."Sorry. In addition to that, everyone tells me that I utterly lack the gene or the enzyme that detects sarcasm. There ought to be a "smiley face" for it.Folk music isn't played on drums? What a bunch of idiots. About 90% of world folk music is on drums (in India it is often just drums).Yeah, a few years before that the Grand Ole Opry went through the same thing. "Country and western bands don't have drummers." Uh, excuse me, weren't bands like Bob Wills and Tommy Duncan with the Texas Playboys, and Hank Duncan and the Brazos Valley Boys, already big stars? Or didn't "western swing" count as "country and western?" They were just using it as an excuse to keep Buddy Holly and the Crickets off the air.

Well, clearly everyone here needs to be enlightened: There are only two races... scientists and laypersons.

well i'm glad somebody finally said it

Genres clearly exist and there is a system to classify them as well. However, using the logic scientists use to deconstruct the system of racial classification, I have done the exact same thing. Don't take it too seriously.
This is nonsense, are you seriously comparing the concept of human races to that of musical genres??? :m:

All "jokes" aside, this thread is a textbook case of a bad analogy.

you're right, that is both the worst analogy I have heard in a long time and it is deathingly hilarious. Anyway, even if there are these new "genres" of music, it is like studying something for the sake of studying it, no one will change in the end, and nothing can be done about it.

It's people like this Dr. Smith that completely ruin EVERYTHING for me. They try to take the fun out of everything from sports, to art, to music. What a load of crap. And this buisness about there being no races is also garbage. I can't believe anyone takes that seriously.

Hastein, you've got to learn subtlety. This thread is the saddest reach to make an unrelated point I've run across in months.

Genre = Race? come on, you have to work harder than that here. Not much harder mind you but that's just pathetic.