[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

music and classification

Andrew Sten <stenad at email_uc.edu> wrote:
> A similar question to this is what is Alternative music now?  A few years
> ago, a lot of the music that is now popular was considered Alternative.  I
> would probably consider the music that some of you listen to Alternative and
> vice versa.  It all depends on your own point of view.

"Alternative", aka "College Rock", is a certain style of
music.  Yes, the label begs the question of "alternative
to what?", but even if it becomes popular it's still that
style.  New Wave ain't so new anymore, and "Progressive
Rock" (Yes, ELP, et al) is even older, but it's too late
to change the name now.
 
> I guess the point I'm trying to make is why do we have to label music?  Why
> can't we just call it music, or art.  Does it have to be a specific type?

Yes, because otherwise I might get stuck listening to
glossy Nashville country when what I really wanted to
hear was a skankin horn band.
There are two ways to use labels in art: one way is so
that you can have some idea what you're about to hear/
read/see, and can find more of the same if you like it.
The other way is to avoid anything new and unusual and
challenging.  I'm afraid we'll always have people who
follow the second path, and the best you can do is try
to convert them to the first.

> Don't most people think that labeling others is wrong?  At least thats the
> idea I get from society nowadays.

In a diverse society you have to have some labeling of 
people, to know how to interact with them initially.
When you first meet a Midwestern farmer, you'll talk to
them differently than you will to an East Coast 
business executive.
What's wrong is to let the labels keep you from knowing
the person.  If you can't allow that the dirt-poor
farmer might be a skilled classical violinist, then
you've closed your mind to the breadth of human experience.

Mike.