Music The Death of Music Genres
- Thread starter sglowrider
- Start date
Aside from the post-Genre effect driven by alogrithims Beato is talking about, there's also an interesting phenomenon of older tracks being repopularised via Tik Tok particularly:
Is this up for debate then? Of course it's true, there's much more music directly available to pretty much everyone than ever. In the past, if your taste was out of the mainstream, you had to know where to go to listen to and buy your music, and the further away from the mainstream you were, the harder it was. Now, it's the same amount of clicks no matter an artist's or genre's popularity. So of course people can also diversify their tastes more easily. (As a completist, I actually kinda dislike it, since it's impossible to feel like I got a grasp on the music scene in genres I like. But anyway.)
However: music was always more diverse than Beato is saying here. He associates the (early) 90s with grunge, but that's a North American perspective: having grown up in the Netherlands during that period, my association is rather with rave and hardcore house. Grunge wasn't big in my world, and virtually no-one was wearing plaid shirts. Or after getting more properly into rock later, I associate the years after 2004 very strongly with a Britpop revival, but that in turn might be a very western European rock festival scene perspective and probably Beato wouldn't recognize it (or even know most bands I like from that era, outside Franz Ferdinand). Also, a lot of 70s/80s/90s acts that are considered huge in the US and (English) Canada barely even made it into Europe.
Of course, the diversity is wider now; but I do think Beato here both states the obvious and also misrepresents history.
It's funny, I'm a big fan of his song analyses and interviews (been watching hours of the latter the past few weeks), but I don't care for Beato when he tries to provide historical perspectives on music: he often gets it wrong or does an 'old man yelling at clouds' thing.
His interview with Dominic Miller was interesting in that regard actually. At some point, Beato gets into his usual spiel about the poor quality of current-day song writing (harmonics, song structures), expecting a sophisticated guy like Miller to agree - but he actually doesn't, and instead points out that music now has different qualities, like on average sounding much better (I think it was).
I think that's a much more interesting perspective. Especially since you can find any music you want online, why highlight aspects of the most popular acts that you don't like? What's even the value of that? It's not like anyone becomes a less person when they listen to that (if it's even true). I mean, I can see the interest in looking at how the defining properties of the most popular music developed over time, but the value judgement feels very 'those stupid kids these days' to me.
Sorry for the tangent, but since the OP didn't really say anything, I suppose anything goes.
However: music was always more diverse than Beato is saying here. He associates the (early) 90s with grunge, but that's a North American perspective: having grown up in the Netherlands during that period, my association is rather with rave and hardcore house. Grunge wasn't big in my world, and virtually no-one was wearing plaid shirts. Or after getting more properly into rock later, I associate the years after 2004 very strongly with a Britpop revival, but that in turn might be a very western European rock festival scene perspective and probably Beato wouldn't recognize it (or even know most bands I like from that era, outside Franz Ferdinand). Also, a lot of 70s/80s/90s acts that are considered huge in the US and (English) Canada barely even made it into Europe.
Of course, the diversity is wider now; but I do think Beato here both states the obvious and also misrepresents history.
It's funny, I'm a big fan of his song analyses and interviews (been watching hours of the latter the past few weeks), but I don't care for Beato when he tries to provide historical perspectives on music: he often gets it wrong or does an 'old man yelling at clouds' thing.
His interview with Dominic Miller was interesting in that regard actually. At some point, Beato gets into his usual spiel about the poor quality of current-day song writing (harmonics, song structures), expecting a sophisticated guy like Miller to agree - but he actually doesn't, and instead points out that music now has different qualities, like on average sounding much better (I think it was).
I think that's a much more interesting perspective. Especially since you can find any music you want online, why highlight aspects of the most popular acts that you don't like? What's even the value of that? It's not like anyone becomes a less person when they listen to that (if it's even true). I mean, I can see the interest in looking at how the defining properties of the most popular music developed over time, but the value judgement feels very 'those stupid kids these days' to me.
Sorry for the tangent, but since the OP didn't really say anything, I suppose anything goes.
Last edited:
Is this up for debate then? Of course it's true, there's much more music directly available to pretty much everyone than ever. In the past, if your taste was out of the mainstream, you had to know where to go to listen to and buy your music, and the further away from the mainstream you were, the harder it was. Now, it's the same amount of clicks no matter an artist's or genre's popularity. So of course people can also diversify their tastes more easily. (As a completist, I actually kinda dislike it, since it's impossible to feel like I got a grasp on the music scene in genres I like. But anyway.)
However: music was always more diverse than Beato is saying here. He associates the (early) 90s with grunge, but that's a North American perspective: having grown up in the Netherlands during that period, my association is rather with rave and hardcore house. Grunge wasn't big in my world, and virtually no-one was wearing plaid shirts. Or after getting more properly into rock later, I associate the years after 2004 very strongly with a Britpop revival, but that in turn might be a very western European rock festival scene perspective and probably Beato wouldn't recognize it (or even know most bands I like from that era, outside Franz Ferdinand). Also, a lot of 70s/80s/90s acts that are considered huge in the US and (English) Canada barely even made it into Europe.
Of course, the diversity is wider now; but I do think Beato here both states the obvious and also misrepresents history.
It's funny, I'm a big fan of his song analyses and interviews (been watching hours of the latter the past few weeks), but I don't care for Beato when he tries to provide historical perspectives on music: he often gets it wrong or does an 'old man yelling at clouds' thing.
His interview with Dominic Miller was interesting in that regard actually. At some point, Beato gets into his usual spiel about the poor quality of current-day song writing (harmonics, song structures), expecting a sophisticated guy like Miller to agree - but he actually doesn't, and instead points out that music now has different qualities, like on average sounding much better (I think it was).
I think that's a much more interesting perspective. Especially since you can find any music you want online, why highlight aspects of the most popular acts that you don't like? What's even the value of that? It's not like anyone becomes a less person when they listen to that (of its even true). I mean, I can see the interest in looking at how the defining properties of the most popular music developed over time, but the value judgement feels very 'those stupid kids these days' to me.
Sorry for the tangent, but since the OP didn't really say anything, I suppose anything goes.
Yeah Beato's theory lessons, song breakdowns and interviews are second to none imo. His platform is fantastic.
However, he does love a bit of old man yelling at the clouds analysis when it comes to comparing modern music to the past. As you pointed out he is very North American centric in his analysis as well as failing to point out how music now is more diverse than ever, with more genres than ever. People point to the billboard top 10 and say rock has died when there are probably more rock genres and bands available to listen to now than there was in the past. You just have to go searching for them.
Dead genres mainstream:
Southern Rock was a genre that died a long time ago. Now it’s country rock which doesn’t come close
Glam Rock- has to be dead mainstream anyway
Hard blues influenced rock - Zeppelin, Stones ect
Southern Rock was a genre that died a long time ago. Now it’s country rock which doesn’t come close
Glam Rock- has to be dead mainstream anyway
Hard blues influenced rock - Zeppelin, Stones ect
Genres being "dead" mainstream isn't necessarily a bad thing. Most interesting music comes from the underground. If it's good enough, it will become popular over time.
Give me a list of 10 really good rock bands that have emerged in the last 10 years even since you say there's just so many of them waiting to be discovered
IDLES, Fontaines DC, Amyl and the Sniffers, Viagra Boys, High Vis, The Chats, FIDLAR, Chubby and the Gang, Yard Act, Stiff Richards.
Come on.... there are multitudes of good rock or rock adjacent bands out there and more accessible than ever. They may no longer reach the top of the charts as frequently (as in the majority of music not Pop or Hip Hop adjacent), but if you want rock bands they are out there. Whether more main stream like Royal Blood, Highly Suspect or more underground like Grandson, Heavy Water Experiments etc. If you like a rock sub-genre there will be bands out there. Is there a Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix or Nirvana, no. Rock is not really in fashion as with other genres but there are multitudes of rock based musicians and more bands per sub genre out there if you look.
I don’t think grunge was North American phenomena only in the early 90s. It was massive where I live (Ireland) as well. We also listened to dance music and the arrival of ecstasy caused a huge upsurge in the whole clubbing scene. But that existed in parallel with grunge, which was the overwhelming rock genre of that era. And rock music has always been front and centre as a musical genre, irrespective of the popularity of electronic music.
Rock music was literally for the dead or about to be dead where and when I grew up.
Okay Their newest album was really good I'll admit
The others I gave a quick Listen to and it's all mostly punk or punk adjacent and wouldn't be my taste but thanks for the suggestions
Okay Their newest album was really good I'll admit
The others I gave a quick Listen to and it's all mostly punk or punk adjacent and wouldn't be my taste but thanks for the suggestions
Yeah, that's my personal taste, won't be for everyone. Viagra Boys is all over the place, definitely not entirely punk
Maybe some others to check, more experimental/garage rock (with punk influences sometimes, haha): Ty Segall, King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, Osees, Beach Slang, shame, Civic, Uncle Acid and the Deadbeats, Militarie Gun, Wine Lips, Brutus...
Genre was always a silly way of categorising artists anyway, and mainly led by marketing rather than bands themselves, which often hate to be pigeon-holed into them.
My favourite artists often defy that kind of categorisation, so I don't see this as an issue.
My favourite artists often defy that kind of categorisation, so I don't see this as an issue.
Ever since How Bizzare was released in 1996 I thought genre was pretty much dead already. People realized you could combine multiple unlikely instruments to make a very good song. It mixed pop, folk, mariachi, and reggae. I love it.
...King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, Kaleo, Sam Fender, Wolf Alice, Cam Cole, English Teacher, Wunderhorse, Just Mustard, Creeper, Modern Studies...
(this should cover a fair few rock subgenres). King Gizzard are pretty versatile, one song alone would leave you under a misapprehension.
Yeah, I agree. I thought about that when writing the post, but forgot to actually phrase it better. You could also point out that the superstars were more unavoidable in the past: if you were into pop/rock in the time Madonna had her biggest hits, there is no way you hadn't heard those. Now, you can be a music fan without ever hearing anything by Beyoncé, Drake or Taylor Swift. I don't think it changes my overall point though.
The Warning is fantastic.
For which I'm eternally grateful as they are no Madonna.
I think a much more reasonable interpretation than his would be that there's an increasing gap between the charts and the overall mass of music. It used to be that the charts were more or less a microcosm of the overall picture, though some genres clearly made it more easily into the charts than other. But though it was mostly pop, there were always some metal bands (Metallica, Maiden) and some alternative bands (REM, The Smiths at least in the UK) who also made the high reaches of the charts. It doesn't seem to be like that anymore. But then the charts hardly matter as much as they used to - unless you listen to FM radio, they don't have nearly as much impact on what people listen to.
To me, music genres seem very much alive and well - if anything, they're shaping things more than they used to. If you're into, say, a particular kind of hardcore, there will be a lot more bands there then there used to, it'll be much easier to find them and they will all generally be instantly available.
There's a case to be made for declining top level quality maybe. Short version; compared to the previous century, there's more good music but less great music. Or so it seems to me.
Isn't that what he says in the video?
He's not actually talking about the Death of Genres for most of this. He's talking about the death of mainstream record labels and radio stations pushing the flavour of the month and dictating the music everyone hears as if that's not a good thing.
He talks about the death of genres at the end but blending genres and some artists having diverse influences isn't exactly new either, especially in pop music.
There are a multitude of bands and artists making music within genres. It seems quite a surface level analysis from your man.
He talks about the death of genres at the end but blending genres and some artists having diverse influences isn't exactly new either, especially in pop music.
There are a multitude of bands and artists making music within genres. It seems quite a surface level analysis from your man.