Genres

Well-Actually War Trall · April 9, 2012

Our reading thread, and to a lesser extent our tv/movie thread, have been quite successful. However, I think the community could use an updated poll on general tastes. I'm aware that it is not comprehensive, but Slarty's effort is focused elsewhere, and I think it's a good start.

Note: the lack of "classic" literature is an oversight, but perhaps for the best. In many ways, it's less a genre and more of a societal attitude.

Understated Ur-Drakon · April 9, 2012

I only get to pick three? I don't think the genres provided are distinct enough to choose an accurate preference.

Well-Actually War Trall · April 9, 2012

If you chose more than a quarter of the options, in what sense are they favorites? (Also, Iffy has brought to my attention the absence of "metal". I apologize for the omission.)

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 9, 2012

It's sad how metal is missing from the music list.

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 9, 2012

I am seriously the only one who chose romance in novels? Wow. You guys have no taste what so ever >.<

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 9, 2012

Novels: fantasy, sci-fi; Modesitt and Jordan, with some others thrown in.

Movies: AA, fantasy/scifi, documentaries; all sorts

Music: all over, from Metric to Orff to Coheed and Cambia to Dream Theater...

TV: MLP:FiM, and Big Bang sometimes.

Understated Ur-Drakon · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: Actaeon

If you chose more than a quarter of the options, in what sense are they favorites? (Also, Iffy has brought to my attention the absence of "metal". I apologize for the omission.)

If I think of favorite books/movies/shows then there's a lot of overlap, so there's no way I can really pick just three and have that reflect my tastes. As far as music goes there's only a handful of musical genres I don't like, and I don't necessarily prefer one over the other.

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: Trenton the Crazed Twilight Teen

I am seriously the only one who chose romance in novels? Wow. You guys have no taste what so ever >.<

Call me silly, but I doubt reading about the love lives of fictional characters will improve my mental/emotional stability any

Well-Actually War Trall · April 9, 2012

Fair enough. In fact, I had difficulty making decisions, myself. Without limits, however, those people with broad taste would completely overwhelm the more specific lot. For complexity, there are dedicated threads. Here, I'm after an overview.

Rotghroth Rhapsody · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: Sylae

Call me silly, but I doubt reading about the love lives of fictional characters will improve my mental/emotional stability any

. I watch animated pony cartoons for that.

fyt

Hatchling Cockatrice · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: Iffy

It's sad how metal is missing from the music list.

Metal is not a very broad genre, and it's pretty clearly a subgenre of rock.

It's sad how that 2006 music poll is gone forever, after the totally unnecessary amount of time I spent researching the format on Wikipedia.

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: Neb

Originally Posted By: Sylae

Call me silly, but I doubt reading about the love lives of fictional characters will improve my mental/emotional stability any

. I watch animated pony cartoons for that.

fyt

True that. Laugh if you want, but that show has done more for me than anything else has in a long time. I don't know exactly why, it just...has.

Magnificent Ornk · April 9, 2012

1: Fantasy and Other. I chose other because I actually don't read a lot of novels. I tend to go for non-fiction, with natural history being the main subject and with some social sciences books thrown in. I am probably the most boring person alive.

2: Sci-fi/fantasy and Other. About the only movies I ever decide to watch on my own are animated films and B movies that promise giant, angry reptiles and don't promise any sort of plot. Yes, my taste in movies suck.

3: Other. Specifically, soundtracks and trailer music. My taste in music also sucks, but in an awesome and ridiculously epic way.

4: Detective (CSI: Las Vegas all the way, and also the original Scooby-Doos when I can find them) and Reality (Dikiyoba has no shame).

Unflappable Drayk · April 9, 2012

@Neb: As opposed to all those live action pony cartoons. I'm all about those.

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Originally Posted By: Iffy

It's sad how metal is missing from the music list.

Metal is not a very broad genre, and it's pretty clearly a subgenre of rock.

It's sad how that 2006 music poll is gone forever, after the totally unnecessary amount of time I spent researching the format on Wikipedia.

It came from rock, yes, but it's large enough and has enough differences to merit being it's own genre. Metal itself has sub-genres, even.

You must not know very much about metal to say that it isn't very broad.

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 9, 2012

If you aren't watching Doctor Who or Breaking Bad then you are watching the wrong television shows...

Rotghroth Rhapsody · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: Darth RuPaula

@Neb: As opposed to all those live action pony cartoons. I'm all about those.

I believe that's called "smut".

Magnificent Ornk · April 9, 2012

bah, I already wrote this out but now it's gone?

Anyway, I only voted in movies and music, and even then, meh. I haven't read for enjoyment (substantially, at least) for the better part of 18 months, so I didn't vote there, and I watch very few TV shows, and only then once they've been out for a while (exception: Doctor Who).

also, I forgot what I *did* vote for

Rotghroth Rhapsody · April 9, 2012

Novels: Mystery/Crime, Fantasy, Science Fiction

Movies: Action/Adventure, Fantasy/SciFi, Musical

Music: Jazz, Classical, Rock

TV: Fantasy/SciFi, Detective, Documentary

I'm interested to see that I'm the only one who has voted for documentaries in the TV category. I don't really watch a whole lot of them, but I'd rather watch a good documentary rather than say sports or a drama. Also, I'm considering MythBusters a documentary. That show rocks.

Understated Ur-Drakon · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: Iffy

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Originally Posted By: Iffy

It's sad how metal is missing from the music list.

Metal is not a very broad genre, and it's pretty clearly a subgenre of rock.

It's sad how that 2006 music poll is gone forever, after the totally unnecessary amount of time I spent researching the format on Wikipedia.

It came from rock, yes, but it's large enough and has enough differences to merit being it's own genre. Metal itself has sub-genres, even.

You must not know very much about metal to say that it isn't very broad.

Yeah, metal and rock are more than distinct enough to deserve separate genres, unless you think The Beatles and Cannibal Corpse belong in the same sentence.

Unflappable Drayk · April 9, 2012

Not quite Cannibal Corpse, but pretty close:

(Warning: contains profanity.)

Well-Actually War Trall · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: Iffy

It's sad how metal is missing from the music list.

Dittoed

Ineffable Wingbolt · April 9, 2012

Novels : Fantasy and Humour.

Though Wodehouse's works are the only ones I know of that fall, for the most part, into the Humour category. And I can't stand even a trace of science in my fiction.

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 9, 2012

Wait, what? 91% of the options under "music" cover the junk current tastes of musical genres that haven't even been around for a century, and the every single prior Western musical composition that was ever made anywhere before ~1900 gets subsumed into a single category? I mean, at least break it up into "baroque/classical/romantic" if you're going to do that, instead of forcing those of us with taste to all huddle in a single category filled with subgenres of stuff many of us don't even like in the first place!

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 9, 2012

(Requisite complaining about the lack of a CowboyNeal option.)

Well-Actually War Trall · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Wait, what? 91% of the options under "music" cover the junk current tastes of musical genres that haven't even been around for a century, and the every single prior Western musical composition that was ever made anywhere before ~1900 gets subsumed into a single category? I mean, at least break it up into "baroque/classical/romantic" if you're going to do that, instead of forcing those of us with taste to all huddle in a single category filled with subgenres of stuff many of us don't even like in the first place!

Surely you're used to this by now. I happen to favor the romantic and classical eras over the baroque (with the significant exception of JS Bach), but do not generally say so when people ask me about my music taste.

I don't disagree with your assertion. Gregorian chant and Stravinsky do not belong in the same category anymore than the Beatles and Rammstein. Nevertheless, simplification is a necessity in a poll of any sort. If I had really been thinking, I would have included one poll for modern popular music, and an entirely separate one for traditional forms (which would include elements outside the West).

Understated Ur-Drakon · April 9, 2012

Novels: Haven't been doing a lot of dead-tree reading recently, but Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and Humor are my cups of coffee, so to speak.

Movies: Action, Comedy, Fantasy/Sci-Fi. Generally, if I'm watching a movie, it's to be entertained.

Music: Country, Rock, and Pop (with Electronic [more specifically, video-game electronic] coming in a ridiculously close 4th). Although really, my tastes are all over the place here. Also, very sad that country has so few votes.

TV: Person of Interest. Er, I mean, Drama, Sci-Fi, and Detective. Although, really, the only show I watch regularly anymore is Person of Interest.

Hatchling Cockatrice · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: Iffy

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Originally Posted By: Iffy

It's sad how metal is missing from the music list.

Metal is not a very broad genre, and it's pretty clearly a subgenre of rock.

It came from rock, yes, but it's large enough and has enough differences to merit being it's own genre. Metal itself has sub-genres, even.

You must not know very much about metal to say that it isn't very broad.

That is far from the truth. But here we go again.

So, the 2006 poll that I put together was both very broad and very specific. I spent a lot of time going through Wikipedia, trying to decide what made the most sense to use as broad genres, and what to use as more specific ones.

That facts of the matter are as follows:

* The term "genre" indicates that two works can be grouped together in some way. What they have in common may be artistic, or it may have to social (or geographic, or linguistic) forces extrinsic to the works themselves.

* In a sense, defining genres is somewhat arbitrary. You could define them in different ways and they would still be useful. In another sense, defining genres is not arbitrary: the boundaries are established over time, collectively, by the audiences and the people who discuss the works.

* Music has a number of traditional major genres. See the point above about why these genres are sort of arbitrary, yet aren't up for debate. These are the gigantic genres like Classical, Jazz, Rock, Hip Hop and Electronic music.

* There are also tons of more specific musical styles. These may be more specific (no wave) or less specific (art rock). Often, it is possible to group multiple specific styles under a broader style heading, that still fits under a huge genre umbrella from the previous point. For example, Drill n' Bass, Jungle, and Breakbeat are all specific styles that fit under the Drum n' Bass umbrella, which in turn is one of the bigger subgenres within Electronic music.

* Often, these subgenres exhibit enormous diversity. (Drum n' Bass is actually not a great example of that.) Punk and Metal are two great examples from within Rock. Arguments could be made for making them independent genres. These are the sorts of subgenres that often get their own sections in record stores.

* So, why aren't they their own genres? Metal and Punk, diverse though they may be, largely subscribe to the same loose set of musical characteristics that apply to most Rock music. The same thing is true of Post-Rock.

* This should be obvious, but ALL of the large genres have immense diversity. Classical runs from Gregorian Chant, to Bach, to Bartok. Jazz encompasses Big Band on the one hand, and all kinds of crazy modern stuff on the other. Rock has Rock n' Roll, Folk Rock, Metal, and more. Hip Hop, which I know less about, apparently has more discernable diversity than any other genre, according to Pandora.

In short: the sort of music you like is special and unique, yes! But so is everything else.

Hatchling Cockatrice · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Wait, what? 91% of the options under "music" cover the junk current tastes of musical genres that haven't even been around for a century, and the every single prior Western musical composition that was ever made anywhere before ~1900 gets subsumed into a single category? I mean, at least break it up into "baroque/classical/romantic" if you're going to do that, instead of forcing those of us with taste to all huddle in a single category filled with subgenres of stuff many of us don't even like in the first place!

this poll is meant for people who are actually alive today

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Wait, what? 91% of the options under "music" cover the junk current tastes of musical genres that haven't even been around for a century, and the every single prior Western musical composition that was ever made anywhere before ~1900 gets subsumed into a single category? I mean, at least break it up into "baroque/classical/romantic" if you're going to do that, instead of forcing those of us with taste to all huddle in a single category filled with subgenres of stuff many of us don't even like in the first place!

I'll admit, a huge portion of today's music is utter garbage. However, classical and such are not the only good types of music. As for the poll, it certainly could've been done with more forethought.

@Slarty: You make a pretty good point. I suppose from a music theory perspective, rock and metal are rather similar.

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 9, 2012

More troublesome than the mega-genre of "Classical" is the mega-genre of "World" music. Listening to a didgeridoo is different than Buddhist chants.

That said, I chose the fantasy, humor, and young adult options for books; the comedy, horror, and fantasy option for movies; the rock and electronic categories for music; and the news, sitcom, and drama option for TV. I'm sure I made a third choice for music, but it slipped my mind. As for TV, my choices are misleading. I don't really watch television any longer, besides Saturday Night Live. Logically enough, that's only on Saturdays.

For those saying that modern music is crap, I'd beg to differ. Just because someone has gotten adjusted to a certain type of music doesn't mean it's superior; the positive doesn't always need to become the normative. So basically, let everyone have their own thing and don't judge. I like dubstep.

Well-Actually War Trall · April 9, 2012

Bah, forethought. I am no cleverer with time to prepare than on the spur of the moment. There would have been just as many errors and I would have been for more discouraged to discover them.

Dantius, certainly you acknowledge that the advent of audio recording resulted in a much greater variety of musical form? When music is confined locally or to the elite, it changes slowly except when a true genius pushes things along. When everyone is engaged... When you can hear a tune by the person that wrote it... The last century or so is like the Cambrian Explosion for music. Of course, the rate of experimentation and the tendency to cater to mass appeal has resulted in a lot of swill, but there's some nuggets of gold in there.

Hatchling Cockatrice · April 9, 2012

One thing that I find interesting is that the last century has worked very differently for music than for writing and visual art (painting and sculpture, say). While the quantity of production has exploded for all three types of art, the rate at which new genres and styles are produced has exploded only for music. The rate has gone up a little, maybe, for visual art, and a bit less for writing, but nowhere near as much as for music. Why is that?

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 9, 2012

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

One thing that I find interesting is that the last century has worked very differently for music than for writing and visual art (painting and sculpture, say). While the quantity of production has exploded for all three types of art, the rate at which new genres and styles are produced has exploded only for music. The rate has gone up a little, maybe, for visual art, and a bit less for writing, but nowhere near as much as for music. Why is that?

I would attribute it to two things - technology and a low initial learning curve.

Music got electrified, simply put, and instruments got entirely redone with a different timbre. The two most obvious examples, I believe, would be the electric guitar and the synthesizer. With the synthesizer, of course, you get more than just an electric piano, but the ability to play many different voices with the press of a key. This, and emergent digital software that allows for easier editing and production, made it so that the years one had to spend mastering an instrument could be shortened to a weekend playing with a keyboard. People could access musicality more easily, and they could access a wider range of it.

Writing has a relatively low necessary skill for production - with basic literacy, one can write a story. As literacy expands, more and more people can write. However, the technology has not really allowed for such a drastic reinvention of the wheel. There's a big difference between writing a novel with Microsoft Word than a quill feather. The difference is far less drastic for Microsoft Word and, say, a typewriter.

Visual art is the opposite, I'd say. Knowing how to actually carve a statue, or paint something more complicated than stick figures, requires quite a bit of practice and study. While technology has given some aid in this field, especially, I'd wager, for photography, it doesn't seem to me that there's been a reinvention of the wheel.

Magnificent Ornk · April 10, 2012

Originally Posted By: Goldenking

Writing has a relatively low necessary skill for production - with basic literacy, one can write a story.

Hahahahaha.

Dikiyoba.

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 10, 2012

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: Goldenking

Writing has a relatively low necessary skill for production - with basic literacy, one can write a story.

Hahahahaha.

Dikiyoba.

Well, nobody said it had to be a good story. But I wouldn't say it controversial to claim that it's fairly easy to write a (bad) story in and of itself.

The ability to write isn't some ability that you magically posses that the rest of us lack, Diki. You might be able to write better and longer and more involved stories, but every single person on these boards is easily capable of fleshing out a page or two with a plot in a few hours.

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 10, 2012

Originally Posted By: Goldenking

For those saying that modern music is crap, I'd beg to differ. Just because someone has gotten adjusted to a certain type of music doesn't mean it's superior; the positive doesn't always need to become the normative. So basically, let everyone have their own thing and don't judge. I like dubstep.

I'm sorry if I offended you. To each their own.
I do like some electronic stuff, but I will always prefer real instruments to anything computer generated.

Originally Posted By: Goldenking

I would attribute it to two things - technology and a low initial learning curve.

Music got electrified, simply put, and instruments got entirely redone with a different timbre. The two most obvious examples, I believe, would be the electric guitar and the synthesizer.

It still takes quite a bit of effort and practice to be able to produce good music on the band level. As a guitarist, I can say that it requires a great deal of time and patience to get to the point to where you can play well and create. I have yet to play with others, but I suspect it also takes a great deal of cooperation to work together as a band.

As for the completely electronic music, it appears to be a hit and miss type thing. Some people get it right, most don't.

I agree that technology made it easier overall. In the sense that most can get access to software to electronically produce music and distribute over the internet any kind of music. Instruments are also far more accessible nowadays and there's a much higher population than there used to be.

Easygoing Eyebeast · April 10, 2012

Originally Posted By: Iffy

I'm sorry if I offended you. To each their own.
I do like some electronic stuff, but I will always prefer real instruments to anything computer generated.

No offense taken, it's just a pet peeve of mine. Don't even worry about it, Iffy; I also like rock, metal, and what this poll has deemed "classical," among many others. Music is good.

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Hahahahaha.

Dikiyoba.

As Dantius said, it doesn't have to be a good piece of writing. There's a world of difference between a five act play in iambic pentameter and a haiku, and even both of those are respected forms of literature.

With being truly good at anything, and this applies to writing as well as music production, the ten thousand hour rule is a good rule of thumb. With being able to get out a mediocre product, it's far less than that.

Magnificent Ornk · April 10, 2012

Originally Posted By: Dantius

But I wouldn't say it controversial to claim that it's fairly easy to write a (bad) story in and of itself.

But a finished piece of writing isn't just sitting down and putting some words on paper. (And putting the words on paper is the easy part.) It probably involves planning and research beforehand. Afterward, it's the process of revision. After that, you have to find some way to get it to your audience. Traditionally, it's been to have a publishing house or journal publish it, which is time-consuming and typically involves mountains of rejection letters. (Nowadays you can self-publish, and that's changing things, but it's too early to judge the full impact.) It's kind of like trying to claim that a pick up game of basketball (or whatever) is comparable to a game between two professional teams. They're both basketball, but the amount of skill involved and the impact that the games have on the on the sport are very different. Or another analogy: spending an afternoon to build a doghouse doesn't qualify me as an engineer, and spending an afternoon to write out a short story doesn't qualify anyone as a writer.

Quote:

The ability to write isn't some ability that you magically posses that the rest of us lack, Diki.

I apologize for being thoughtless and patronizing. I did not intend to put anyone down.

Dikiyoba.

Hatchling Cockatrice · April 10, 2012

Nevertheless, the art of writing hasn't changed for thousands of years. You come up with ideas, set words down, and you're done. It's not easy, and the kinds of things written have changed, but the art itself is fairly similar. And while there have been some expansions on the experimental fringes in the last hundred years, by and large poetry is still recognizable as roughly the same poetry as a few hundred years ago (more free verse, more odd spacing, but still the same poetry) and novels are still novels. Plays are even still plays.

Where writing has advanced is in filmmaking, and then I don't think it's really fair to call it writing anymore. Special effects and camerawork are part of the literature of film, but they aren't writing.

—Alorael, who would say that fine arts have changed more. Painting is still painting, but abstraction has been on a steady rise. And sculpture has changed more, especially with the number of massive installation and things that are art, and kind of sculpture-like, but not really sculpted in a way, say, Renaissance masters would recognize. Found art? Participatory art?

Well-Actually War Trall · April 11, 2012

I would have to say that there is quite a bit of difference between metal and rock.

Click to reveal.. ("Bad Rabbit")

Metal is rock that has been refined.

@Slarty, I am not meaning to contradict you. Your dissertation on classes and genres is a good read.

Back on topic, I have had to make the same compromises by being limited to three choices. My CD case here has the following titles;

Pink Floyd 7 cds including The Wall

Steppenwolf , Emerson Lake & Palmer (5 cds), Bad Company

Alice Cooper, Arlo Guthrey. Robin Trower, The Who

War, Santana, Charley Daniels Band, The Guess Who

The Moody Blues , Hank Williams Jr.,

Gregorian chants I & II, Classical Thunder 1 & 2

Stevie Ray Vaughn, Mendolsohn, Montovani, Hugo Montenegro,

Strauss.

I have Johann Sebastian, but I left him Bach at the house.

Well-Actually War Trall · April 11, 2012