This reminds me of a story. Me, my brother, and his friend were in Athens, GA in the early 90s, before DMB became popular. In fact, I didn’t even know who they were. So we went to a place that was supposed to have several acts play that night, but only one band actually showed up. (Gypsy Train, IIRC. Southern rock with country influences.)
They played their first set. It wasn’t the best opening act ever. Okay, it was probably the worst. But it was tolerable knowing better acts were to follow.
The next band didn’t show up, so the band played the exact same set - again!.
Still no other bands. So the band started to play their exact same stuff - again. Only this time a fiddler was up on stage improvving with them. He has more musical talent than all of Gypsy Train put together, and later we found out he of course was in DMB.
Speaking of fiddlers, as Ludovic just did, reminds me of another artist (the term really applies here) in the same basic bag as Bela Fleck, Dave Grisman, and even Yo-Yo Ma: Mark O’Connor. He is almost impossible to categorize as he is as competent a violinist as he is a fiddler, and is just as comfortable and adept in Bluegrass as he is in Jazz and as he is in Country, Classical, Cajun, Celtic, you pick a genre where the 4-string do-lolly you play with a bow and stick under your chin is a prominent instrument.
If there’s a bin where his CD’s are located not labeled Mark O’Connor, then it’s mislabled!
Was there a time that R&B shifted from groups such as the Stones and 10 Years After to the R&B of today? Beyonce was nominated for an R&B Grammy this year. When did this change happen, and what caused it. Should there be a new classification and R&B essentially “closed?” Or do we retroactively start calling the older, harder R&B something new?
hehe. I couldn’t find cowpunk listed. Bands like Long Black Sedan, 4-Barrel Ghost and Pittsburgh’s own Legendary Hucklebucks might be squeezed into Rockabilly, however they yell more and use the F word throughout their laments about their sweethearts running off with someone from the trailer park.
Y’all might want another thread for this side issue, but which artist do you know of who spans most genres? Another way to phrase it would be, “If the record shop were diligent enough in their genre labeling and storing of individual records, which artist (or group) would be in the most different genre bins?”
This could get really messy if the same CD had multiple genres equally well represented!
MMW is mostly avant garde Jazz, sort of, I think, I haven’t heard enough of their studio work to decide what they want themselves to be thought of as. I guess I mentioned them because they have an album or two that is much more Electronica/Jazz and striking in composition to the others (End of the World Party comes to mind).
Re: Bela Fleck – He’d be my vote for artist classified under the most genres, especially if you consider the guest work he’s done. BF&FT are usually Jazz; Bela Fleck is somewhere in the Acoustic, Bluegrass, Folk, or Country bin; Bela’s also written classical concertos; and he’s guested on Pish and DMB albums that I can think of.
Since making my previous post I’d considered starting a similar thread as you suggested. Especially reflecting on how everyone was getting near orgasmic over Prince’s SuperBowl performance while I thought he’s a really good musician, he just doesn’t wow me.
Hey, Bill Monroe is my homeboy. Someone’s got to stick up for him and his bluegrass boys. 'Specially since they’re all dead.
Neither do I (. . . see these genres as hard and fast. . . ). Since then, I’ve spent the past few days at work wondering if it’s purposefull to think about the bands that defie genres when trying to mark the boudaries that define any one particular genre. Afterall, as you said, the joy of good music is it’s ability to defie genres.
I didn’t want to give the impression that I am still a huge DMB fan, though my location may say otherwise. I feel the need to defend myself though. DMB is the music of my youth: ages 12-18. It’s the music I grew up listening to. I will relate to a song like “Pay For What You Get” like none other.
Obviously, this is the broadest category, both in variety and longevity. And in spite of what others have posted, the majority of “classical” music is not orchestral. And I can’t find anything intrinsic to classical music that distinguishes it from other genres.
That being said,
The melody and harmony take precedence over the rhythm (though there are exceptions).
The music is not performed with amplification (though there are exceptions).
The audience sits quietly during performances (though there are exceptions).
We know it when we hear it (though there are exceptions).
Here’s my try at at a few of those differences Pop vs Rock :Pop music is strictly a verse/chorus structure, with the distinction between the two very clear. Melodies and rhythms are simple and catchy. Instrumental breaks are short and stick to the melody/rhythm. Every song sounds like it was intended for radio play, with songs no longer than five minutes. The sound of the song would not be significantly altered if no guitars were used. Rock can deviate from these rules. Jazz vs Pop :Jazz is primarily instrumental. If vocal, the backing musicians must sound like they would with no vocalist. The song is heavily improvised on all instruments so that song structure is very loose. Rock is mostly vocal, with little improvisation (especially regarding rhythms).
Obviously many artists straddle these barriers. The main question is whether they would have to greatly alter their sound to meet the classifications. I consider Paul McCartney a rock artist even though he meets a lot of pop parameters, he could record a song like “A Day In The Life” without sounding like he totally deviated from the rest of his work. Frank Sinatra or Louis Armstrong were pop when they recorded with strings, but jazz if they recorded with somebody like Count Basie.
