the degenrification of music consumption

joshua wentz

may 1, 2008

Listening to a drum and bass podcast recently (Hospital Records Podcast, Episode 55) I was surprised by the last song of the episode: "Go Your Own Way" by Fleetwood Mac. This wasn't an electronic remix of the classic song, it was the original version. "This is out of character," I thought, and the point wasn't lost on me. Now more than ever we have the ability, perhaps even the obligation, to go our own way.

The term "genre" is defined as a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in style, form, or subject matter. The most basic musical genres include such titles as "rock", "r&b", "country", and "pop". Genres in music also contain subdivisions: "surf rock" and "heavy metal" could be considered subtypes of "rock".

On the most essential level, genres provide a non-musical understanding of a musical type. They allow the public to associate visual and experiential themes with a subset of music. People who might not know what "bluegrass" music sounds like can imagine what the type of place bluegrass music is played, or perhaps can picture what a bluegrass musician looks like.

Additionally, genre creates musical and non-musical cohorts. Musicians who play similar types of music may find that they have much in common. People who enjoy what is considered to be classical music can easily find groups of people devoted to this type of art.

On the consumer level, genre allows those selling music to discover and create solid bases of profit groups. Record shops can organize their music by genre, potentially making it easier for fans of particular types of music find what they're looking for. Record labels can sign and release music by artists exclusive to a genre. Concert promoters and venues can collect like-sounding musicians for events in order to entice particular groups of people. On perhaps the grandest scale, communities can be built around people that embrace or reject particular types of music.

Ultimately genre, along with every other type of classification, is an attempt by humans to understand the world they have created. Just as we assign names to building materials (brick, concrete, glass, steel), layers of air (troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere), and makes of automobiles (coupe, sedan, convertible, van), we give our art, architecture, music and design their own types and groupings. We label the way people look, the way they dress, and the way they worship. The goal is understanding.

In every instance we fail to reach this goal. Calling a building Romanesque, a painting Postmodern, a person Asian, or a song Alternative may give you a general idea of that thing, but that is absolutely inadequate in describing the true nature of that thing. These definitions do more to bind us to unfair and incorrect stereotypes than they do to give us a sense of understanding.

The musical genre system attempts to acknowledge this shortcoming by way of "subgenres". Simply calling something "drum and bass" is not sufficient to describe the nature of the sound. Is it upbeat? How fast is it? Are there vocals? All of these elements begin to create a mire of subgenres so numerous and specific that every artist practically ends up having their own genre.

Additionally, subdivision of genres gives rise to musical segregation and elitism. Inherent in every type of classification is the assignment of rank to each class. Suddenly you may hear arguments that "grindcore" is better than "vocal house", or someone may mention in passing that they love "rockabilly" but hate "country rock". These types of gross generalizations are damaging to any subject.

The acceptance of genre as a form of classification also creates artistic stagnation. Artists are rewarded for adhering to rules and punished for deviation. Innovation is the antithesis of classification, breaking and modifying the barriers we desperately try to create. If we, as consumers, continue to make generalizations about the type of music we listen to, then record labels, musicians, concert promoters, and retailers will refuse to acknowledge innovation.

The fact is that the current state of genres is just as confusing to the layperson as having absolutely no genre assignments. In most scenarios, "instrumental" is considered a genre of music. Yet there is instrumental rap, rock, techno, country, classical, trance, and so on. If "instrumental classical" music is a genre, is this music performed by a symphony orchestra, solo acoustic guitar, a pianist, a string quartet, or a chamber orchestra? How many modifiers must one add to a single piece of music until it simply becomes a descriptive paragraph?

Moreso, record labels and retailers simply cannot keep up the pretense of genre organization because most artists simply cannot follow every rule, even if they try. If an electronic musician uses a sample of an acoustic guitar, is it "electronic" anymore? If it is blues music that's created entirely in the digital realm, is it "blues" or "electronica"?

I have no problem with artists choosing to give themselves labels if that is their wish. Names always erupt from major art movements, changes in style, cultural revolutions, and transitions in era. While these labels are ultimately meaningless, they capture the zeitgeist and are helpful marketing tools. The real problem comes from the idea that something MUST fit into a category for it to be valid. This is why we must "degenrify" music consumption.

If you feel as if that's extreme, you should know that it's already happening. Look at the line-ups of major music festivals such as Lollapalooza, the Pitchfork Media/Intonation music festival, or SXSW over the last few years. Rap artists like Kanye West or Lupe Fiasco are sharing the stage with punk outfits like Tyrades, established "alternative" artists like Radiohead, metal bands, r&b vocalists, instrumentalists, and so on. If consumers aren't aligning with rigid genre definitions, why are we still using them?

Beyond sharing the stage, artists are muddying the genre spectrum through recorded collaborations. One can argue this has been happening for a long time and perhaps would recall the 1986 Run DMC/Aerosmith collaboration "Walk This Way". This type of cross-pollination is happening more often and with a wider view. Again, it is impossible to specify what genre an electronic downtempo song performed with an operatic tenor and produced by a hip-hop engineer fits into, so why should one be required to do so?

Degenrificiation would do much to remove stereotypes associated with musical styles and to dissuade elitism and ranking based on unfair expectations. If the only thing separating Rush from The Pretenders is the way the music sounds, there is no debate about what "type" of music is better. Listeners can base their bias on fair qualifications unique to the artists in question.

The audience for music is wider than ever. In almost every case, a consumer can hear a sample of the music they want to buy before they buy it. There are multiple subjective reviews available for every band, album, and artist out there. People have the ability to grasp art and music in a way that has not previously existed thanks to myriad voices on the Internet. With these much more accessible, descriptive and colorful interpretations at the consumer's fingertips, genre is defunct.

The point of all this is, it either is or is not music. There is no need to bother with inaccurate subsets and fruitless clichés. Music should be created because it must be. Music should be bought, sold, and given away because the world needs it. Music should be experienced, not categorized.

This is a call to artists, producers, and listeners: Be brave. Do not let old ways bind you. Do not accept labels that do not apply to you. And most of all, do not allow a broken system to continue breaking you.