[Opinion] Music Genres: Why they are deeply flawed

I recently read a post by my good friend @cmp2020, which asks the question "How does Classical Music differs from other Genres of Music." Its a very well-written piece, and I highly recommend reading it if you haven't already. This view is partially a response to this post, but its also not, as I will not be describing what makes classical music different or not different from other genres of music, but instead what makes all genres of music different. In this article I will start by describing problems that arise within and between genres and discuss the various problems that arise.

Classical is not a genre where all the music is similar, in fact it is often vastly different. Different composers composed under different styles that were often very different and have very little in common other than being grouped under classical music. Lets look at a relatively obscure composer by the name of Conlon Nancarrow. Nancarrow is most well known for a series of studies for the player piano which completely challenged what music was by making pieces that were impossible for humans to play. A good example can be found here. (This video is nice as it provides visible representation to Nancarrow's often chaotic compositions). While Nancarrow is not a typical composer, even among more famous composers there exists great division. Take for example Mozart from the classical period being very different from Bach of the Baroque, and Debussy, of the romantic period. All of these pieces are quite celebrated, but have little in common with each other. Why is it that composers as radically different as Mozart and Nancarrow get placed under the same genre of Classical. Already we begin to see problems with trying to divide music into genres. While I chose classical as my example these same problems exist in most every broad genre whether it be jazz, rock, or pop.

Now let's step outside of the classical realm for a bit, and look at some Pop-Rock tunes from the late 1960s. It is not uncommon for these pieces to feature orchestral elements and be quite complex pieces in of themselves. Some great examples include The Beatles' "In My Life" with one section being quite reminiscent of Baroque piano music, and this Brilliant song by the Beach Boys, this particular piece is beautifully crafted balancing a wide variety of both instrumental and vocal parts and crafting them together, something classical composers are especially adept at doing. Due to cross-genre similarities it can be disputed that instrumentation defines genre. Another example of instrumentation differing across genres is the guitar, both electric and acoustic can be found in nearly every genre of music.

Another idea I've heard recommended is that the difference in music genre depends on emotion is perceived by both the audience and the composer. Emotion is a part of almost every listening experience. Whether it be classical, rock, pop, hip-hop, or any other variety of genres. In @cmp2020's post linked above he describes a couple pieces and how they have emotional feels. One particular example Dies Irae by Verdi, provokes a different emotion in me than it would in many others. Others may describe a feeling of fear, however I feel excitement of what's to come. My experience of the music is almost certainly not what Verdi intended, does that make my experience less accurate? I would say no. @cmp2020 used the point that he "listens to sad songs when I feel happy, and happy songs when I feel sad." I agree with him, one doesn't always have music they listen to when they feel a certain way, and can listen to something at any time regardless of how they feel. Overall the idea that genre of music can be determined solely by emotion is rather silly.

The sub-genre is a solution created by scholars to solve the problem of differences within music genres and to account for cross-genre influences. While this is certainly a precise way of viewing music through the idea of genres, it is completely useless through a non-scholarly lens. On this Wikipedia article on the list of rock genres there is a long list of genres and subgenres all with their own characteristics and complexity that would baffle even someone who deeply researched the topic. These genres in addition often have little in common with each other (so why are they all called rock?). Making the sub-genre at best a curiosity and at worst a confusion.

So what strengths do genres have? Well anyone who would want to refute my arguments would probably point out how often I used genre names in my article in which I'm attacking the idea of music genres. And they'd be absolutely correct. Music is very difficult to describe in ways that don't involve placeholder words like genres. Think of it like the color red. One would have a very difficult time explaining what it was to someone who had never experienced it, but those who have all have an idea of what it looks like. This is despite the vast number of shades that red could be found in. A genre like jazz would have a wide variety of possible types and forms, but people have an idea of what jazz is in their heads, making it much easier to simply describe a piece as "jazz." Another strength is the commercial aspect. If music is divided into genres in a store a customer would have a much easier time finding what they want to listen to then if everything was listed without genres.

So while genres are a very flimsy way of describing music, they are sometimes the only way to describe it, meaning that the idea will stay with us for a long time

Author's note: This is my first major post on Steemit and if anyone has any suggestions on how to write articles better I'd be glad to hear them, feedback is always appreciated. More importantly, put your thoughts in the comments, I'm interested to hear what you think of this issue. I always welcome debate and counter-arguments.

Thank you and always be sure to have a nice day
Sincerely,
@cmac