Are some sub-genres pointless

[Alex]

So are certain sub genres pointless. You have your various genres, Rock, Metal, Rap, Reggae, Funk, Pop etc You then have your fusions of styles which make sub genres Funk-Rock, Rap Metal etc.

However I'm curious as to whether some genres are pointless most notably Grunge. Bands of a genre are supposed to have a link this is why they are part of that genre, after listening to most of the 'Grunge' bands I feel none of them sound similar at all the only thing similar in my opinion was they were all from Seattle Washington.

Another one I'd like to say is Britpop. Seeing as there was only really two Britpop bands (to my knowledge) in Blur and Oasis can you technically have a genre dedicated to two bands who have varying styles???

Then you have your various types of Metal (Thrash, Black Death) but it all sounds pretty much the same so why bother even having these sub genres.

I'm not bashing the sub genres I'd just like to better understand why we have them.

 

[Nitafrong]

Sub-genre’s are there for the same reason that genre’s exist- they allow people to group various bands together for the ease of the listener. The differences though between these tend to be a lot more subtle as these are sub parts of a much larger style- for instance Black, Death are both parts of metal but while to the casual listener they may sound pretty identical- fans of either would see them as being very different. Barbedwireropes is probably the best to speak on that subject but as far as I know Black metal tends to encompass a lot more screaming vocals and a generally faster tempo.

But in any case the reason why there are so many of these genre’s are for the fans themselves- they are the ones that create the names after all and the ones that lump the bands into them rather than the bands themselves. It’s actually an interesting point- but some bands don’t agree with the label that is given to them. Panic! At the Disco I think really wanted to disassociate themselves from the Emo name and there were also lots of disagreement between older and newer fans over the label- people attempting to explain what Emo was really about and what it represented when it was just a tag that had been commonly attached to certain bands.

I remember Rammstein winning a Kerrang award a good many years ago for best Metal Live Act and they thought it was hilarious as none of the band really identified themselves as Metal- they pointed at Metallica and said they felt like it was a disservice to them to be seen as similar. All bands are relatively unique in their sound and putting people in different specific genre’s is a difficult exorcise at best. Some bands even change their sound over the course of albums or even in one. If you listened to Vermillion Part 2 by Slipknot would you identify them as acoustic? Or Your Honour by Regina Spektor and identify her as vaguely punk rock?

Britpop was an interesting name that was given- and similar to that of Grunge- it was really given to bands that were coming out of a region at a particular time who had some similar ties. Other than Oasis and Blur, other famous acts with the moniker were Pulp, Ocean Colour Scene, The Verve, Ash and the Devine Comedy. It was a term made up by newspapers and then used because it worked so well.

Overall though I think all the sub-genre’s have their uses. Some can be pretty silly and have limited differences between them but overall they help us group and define the huge array of music that we have. It would be pretty difficult to find similar bands if we didn’t have them.

 

[Hacksaw Highway]

Then you have your various types of Metal (Thrash, Black Death) but it all sounds pretty much the same so why bother even having these sub genres.

While I have a lot of difficulty finding the difference between a lot of the newer, more specific metal subgenres, the subgenres in metal are deffinately there for a reason. Death metal, hardcore, black metal, thrash metal, nu metal, industrial, alternative metal, prog metal, etc. sound vestly different. The more broad sub genres make sense, it's the super specific ones I have trouble with.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

I don't consider sub-genres pointless. But I understand you and where you are coming from. Today's sub-genre sounds like their respected genre from time to time, and it can be confusing.

But there are bands out there that are paving a road with their respected genre that most wouldn't label just Rock or Rap. Even the OP stated there are subgenres like Britpop and Nu Metal that are still vastly different then their predecessors of Rock and Pop.

Grunge to me is like Psychedelic Rock; it was mostly the music of the time, not necessarily a subgenre. I am sure lots would disagree with me but in today's society where is the Grunge? It makes mild appearances in other's music (ex. Shaman's Harvest, Violent Soho, etc) but it is still Rock music reminiscent of the 90s and unless it gets a "reawakening" like Cabarette did it will remain part of music history and not a genre in music.

Subgenre is music trying to be different. Variety is important, so I don't think it is pointless.

 

[Remy LaCroix]

I can explain the reason behind sub-genres with this quick post that doesn't necessarily need an explanation: if you don't like having sub-genres 'cause "it's all music no matter what", then it's like saying you don't like a library that helps pin-point exactly what you're looking for with the DDC 'cause, in the end, you're still reading a book.

And I really love tracing where each sub-genre came from, bred with, and sounds similar to and can blend together to create a new one.