Differences among music genres?

[DataNick]

DataNick, y'all sound great as usual, love it! Maybe not bluegrass, but there's definitely something "grassy" about that performance. Good job.

Thanks Mark!

[DataNick]

...The OP wanted to know what constitutes a genre. And, to answer that question once more, yes, you can define the genre by listing defining characteristics of that genre. At the same time realizing that those characteristics are indicators not absolutes. There are blurry lines and exceptions to the rules. But the defining characteristics are still there.

I will use Jazz for an example...

I don't know if I completely agree with this. I'd like to confine the discussion to what is called "Classical Music" orchestral instrumentation (Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc. periods).

There are definitely absolutes, and classical in my mind is a definite genre boundary setter/limiter.

Harmonica can work in blues, it can work in a bluegrass setting, folk music(Dylan), R&R, Easy Listening, etc. but no way on God's green earth will anyone toting a harmonica be allowed to audition for an orchestral spot with a community orchestra, chamber orchestra, etc. Most don't even have a guitar; and variations are piece specific usually to accomodate soloists, but not considered standard.

So who wants to go to their local chamber orchestra audition carting a saxophone, mountain dulcimer, electric guitar, banjo, harmonica, pennywhistle, mandolin or any other non-standard instrument? You'd get laughed out of the concert hall, whether it's all music or not! You would be labeled as strange, and rightly so because it would be strange. The thought in your mind is so ludicrous it's hard to even imagine. Why? Because the genre is rigidly defined in it's instrumentation, as I believe most genres are! So the argument that it's all music just does not hold up when you leave the unique phenomena of bluegrass and consider other genres.

Like I said before, I tried with mandolin in a chamber orchestra, and they were having none of it!

[sblock]

Yeah, good luck defining "jazz," any better than you can define "bluegrass"! Mr. Yudkin's schoolbook definition is definitely for the unsophisticated, and it's overly simplistic. Maybe it'll suffice for some beginner course in music appreciation, but it definitely won't cut it here on the Mandolin Cafe.

Re syncopation: This is hardly a definitive trait for jazz. MANY forms of music employ syncopation, and not just jazz! A lot of purely classical music is syncopated. Ragtime is syncopated. Reggae music is syncopated. Samba is syncopated. Funk is syncopated. Hungarian dances are syncopated. Scottish fiddling is syncopated. Do I need to go on?

Re swing rhythm: Look up "swing rhythm" in Wikipedia, for example. It involves the temporal lengthening of the first of two eighth notes of a sequence, etc., giving rise to alternating (slightly) longer and shorter notes, also called "shuffle eighths." Yes, most (but not all!) jazz "swings," but then, so do several other genres of music. And note that Wikipedia states "as a performance technique, swing has been called "the most debated word in jazz." (Furthermore, realize that you can't define swing as the thing folks do in jazz, or you wind up with a circular definition!) And some types of well-established jazz DON'T even use a swing rhythm, for example, Bossa Nova and Samba. Furthermore, some types of rock music, and many types of blues, DO use swing rhythms. So do some hornpipes! And let's not forget the swung triplets that occur all the time in Celtic jigs.

Re improvisation. Bluegrass, beloved of so many here on the MC (including me!) features a lot of improvisation. No one is rushing to call it "jazz." Blues musicians improvise all the time, but are not considered jazz. Indian Carnatic music (ragas and all that) is based upon a foundation of improvisation. Again, not jazz. In classical music in the 18th and 19th centuries, cadenzas were usually improvised. Liszt, Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart were all famous for their improvisations. But not for their jazz.

These three characteristics, taken all together, simply CANNOT DEFINE JAZZ. In fact, there are types of jazz that do not respect all three of the traits, and there are types of non-jazz that do respect all three of the traits.

I agree that this is a complex subject, and I agree that some study is useful. And I agree that there are no easy answers. The folks who keep insisting on drawing boundaries are on a fool's errand. They mean well, but they will fail, time and again.

[foldedpath]

No one even thinks of ridiculousness like that in any genre unless that genre is bluegrass: the magic door in some people's minds that is open to any & all kinds of instruments and forms.....please!

Oh, it's not just Bluegrass. You'd be amazed at what walks in the door at some Irish/Scottish trad sessions.

One memorable occasion was the guy who only knew OldTime music, and strolled into a Scottish/Cape Breton/Irish trad session at a local restaurant, carrying a giant stand-up banjo bass. It had a bass drum shell for the head. Loud as heck. He thought we were an "acoustic jam," and because this is normally a very friendly session to newcomers, nobody had the heart (or intestinal fortitude) to turn him away.

He came to the session twice on successive months, with zero understanding of the marches, jigs, strathspeys, and reels we were playing... murdering the music by bouncing between the I and V, and trying to do walking bass lines, out of sync with the rhythm pulse of the music. On the second occasion, someone (er... okay, it was me) finally told him "You know, this isn't working." Great relief and nods from everyone else in the group, that someone had finally stood up to this guy who was ruining the music. We gently pointed out to him that this wasn't OldTime music, and there were other local jams where he could join in. Apparently there were no hard feelings, because this guy still shows up at the session every now and then, just drinking a beer and listening to the music.

So yeah... it ain't just Bluegrass. We also have to deal with the occasional guitarist singer/songwriter who wants to join in with songs, treating the rest of the group as a backup band. Hey, there's fiddles! This will be fun! Er.... no.

Luckily, most of the local Irish and Scottish sessions in my area have some fairly strong leaders who will quickly tamp down on efforts to move things too far away from what the regular participants came there to play.

[DataNick]

...I agree that this is a complex subject, and I agree that some study is useful. And I agree that there are no easy answers. The folks who keep insisting on drawing boundaries are on a fool's errand. They mean well, but they will fail, time and again.

As usual sblock, your post was well written with many succint points made that I agree with; therefore I copied only the point that I find disagreement with:

Again in my example, when you cart your mandolin to an open audition for your local community or chamber orchestra; the refusal of the director to let you be a member is not you or I drawing boundaries: instrumentation boundaries already exist for this genre. The custodian of the music (in this case the director) is merely just enforcing them...

[multidon]

sblock- I absolutely agree with everything you say in the above post. And as a retired professional music educator with a bachelor's and a master's degree, I am completely aware of all of the exceptions you list, I assure you. But the text I used and the course I taught were meant as an introduction for non-music majors who know little or nothing about music to start with. Overly simplistic? absolutely. But at least a starting point for the uninitiated.

I did forget to mention that I did extensive guided listening with the class. and emphasized to them (and I should have emphasized here, my apologies for the oversight) that the best way to understand a genre is to listen to it. Listen to as many examples of a genre that you can and you will understand it. But it is not enough to just listen and say "I like that". If you want to understand it you have to listen analytically. What are you hearing that makes it what it is? Can you describe the beat, the rhythms, the melodies, the harmonies, the expressive elements, the form? When we studied jazz those three introductory defining characteristics were meant to be starting point, something for them to listen FOR rather than listening passively, which was always their first inclination. Most people listen to music passively and just react emotionally, either "I like that", or "I didn't care for that". But for a deeper understanding an "appreciation" if you will you have to go a little deeper, and have the musical vocabulary to communicate that understanding to others. Time after time on this forum people have been given the advice "Just listen to lots of (bluegrass, Irish trad, Old Time, whatever) and you'll eventually understand it". I think then the mistake is made to just "understand" it on some kind of subconscious level. I encourage folks to become ACTIVE listeners to learn what is truly going on in the music. One big thing to listen for is repetition and variation. What parts of the music are repeated exactly? What parts change? How do they change? In what ways? Why?

I apologize for trying to get that simplistic version of jazz past you guys. I should have realized the musical sophistication that resides here! The fact that I was taken to task for that only serves to emphasize that it is a complex subject.

Datanick: Thank goodness there are MANDOLIN orchestras around, right?

Points above about instrumentation are well taken as well. That goes into the formula, but there are ESTABLISHED groups, who are much more rigid in instrumentation and form, and there smaller groups, that have a tendency to be more open to innovation and of course soloists who can do as they please and those who form their own groups; who is to stop them? Maybe someone wants to form the National Saxophone Bluegrass Quintet, and can find like minded players to go along with that. There are lots of examples of innovation and boundary pushing out there. This is how the world of music keeps growing and staying relevant.

[Emmett Marshall]

When people used to ask me (frequently) what "type" of music genres I liked, I always got a little dumbfounded. My standard answer today is, "Some uh this and some uh that." As one who writes songs as a hobby, I guess the term "folk" pretty much covers what I do here. I'm not happy being in a box with music - like thinking, "I am going to write a "Country song," or write a "Rock Song." How limiting on the imagination would that would be?

Referencing an above poster's story about the guy bringing a sax to a Bluegrass jam: Horns can work well with Bluegrass. Of course, I'd personally never just "impose" a horn on a Bluegrass jam full of puritans, but I can easily hear in my head how the result would be very good if done right - especially a soprano sax, a clarinet, or even an oboe. Would it tick off a "Bluegrass" jam if one brought in a porcelain cider jug? Why not a Trombone?

http://www.billevanssax.com/album/soulgrass/

[JeffD]

My only point in sharing that story, has nothing to do with what is or isn't bluegrass or how the protagonist should or shouldn't feel about things - my sole point is that the borders, fuzzy and changeable as they can be, are important, and the distinctions between genres matter.

[Emmett Marshall]

My only point in sharing that story, has nothing to do with what is or isn't bluegrass or how the protagonist should or shouldn't feel about things - my sole point is that the borders, fuzzy and changeable as they can be, are important, and the distinctions between genres matter.

Agree Jeff. Genres are important to being able to talk about music. I see the need for them - even if I wish there wasn't a need. Stereotypes really bug me. "I hate Disco!" then someday I hear a disco song I can, at least, live with. "I hate Rap!" then someday I hear a rap song that is actually really good. You know what I mean. Genres seem to carry stereotypes. Cultures form and further those genre stereotypes. I used to have zero appreciation for "Bluegrass" until I was thrown right into the middle of it. I get amazed by Bluegrass instrumentals but forego the traditional vocal signature completely. So what genre describes that? "Instrumental Bluegrass"? What I'm trying to say is that prior to my being exposed to it, and based on the stereotype of the genre, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Not saying I thought it was "bad," rather something I could never relate to. Now the only thing about Bluegrass that I can't stand is the pretty women and girls wearing flowery, beautiful dresses along with those leather, knee high, cowboy kickers! It makes me think Bluegrass was born in a mud slide. It's like elegant meets military surplus, but that has nothing to do with the music itself - which is my point.

[Beanzy]

Genre as a word shares its roots with some terms which help illustrate why single clear definitions will never be absolutes. Think generations, genetics, genus etc. They're called genres because they are generated from and contained in an ever evolving life of ideas in the whole area of musical activity. Trees, boughs, branches, twigs and buds of the forest of musical activity.
As with animal evolution defining where one species begins and the other ends is difficult. Not all developments are evolving at the same rate, not all will be successful.
Sometimes there will be developments that are strange, the freaks and monsters of an unfortunate mutation.
The reason competition in a particular musical niche can be fiercest between closely related species is because they're grazing the same limited resoursces.

[Petrus]

Referencing an above poster's story about the guy bringing a sax to a Bluegrass jam: Horns can work well with Bluegrass. Of course, I'd personally never just "impose" a horn on a Bluegrass jam full of puritans, but I can easily hear in my head how the result would be very good if done right - especially a soprano sax, a clarinet, or even an oboe. Would it tick off a "Bluegrass" jam if one brought in a porcelain cider jug? Why not a Trombone?

Sounds more like Western Swing ... doesn't that have horns in it? It originally borrowed a lot from jazz and swing back in the day (Bob Wills, et al.)

[Petrus]

I will use Jazz for an example, to get away from beating the Bluegrass horse (which is not its own genre but a sub-genre, for the record). I am paraphrasing from the textbook I used in the course I taught, Understanding Music by Yudkin. Mr. Yudkin lists three defining characteristics of Jazz: syncopation, swing rhythms, and improvisation. Now, keep in mind, all the sub-genres of Jazz have additional defining characteristics. Bebop could never be mistaken for Dixieland, but they are both Jazz and spring from the same root.

Most people would agree with these defining characteristics. The variation seems to come from instrumentation or orchestration, which is a pretty interesting and very wide field from which to draw!

I've studied jazz informally for a while now, probably know about it more than I do about bluegrass, not that I set out with any goal in mind of "coming to like" one thing over another. I like to joke that there are enough sub-genres in jazz that everyone can find something to hate. There's subgenres where a banjo is practically mandatory (Dixieland) and others where it is practically prohibited (hard bop, avant), and vice-versa for the saxophone (not common in early jazz); the mandolin is so rare in jazz that it's not even mentioned in several of the books I've read about jazz; even the oboe and bassoon are more common. Maybe that's part of the intellectual appeal of jazz, like classical, which has so many variations.

Bluegrass, by contrast, has few subgenres (newgrass is the only one I can think of but again I am no BG expert.) I played around very casually with some friends in the past in amateur bands (Zero Fret and the F-Holes; Mandöhead, which was more thrashgrass) but most innovations don't ever take off. Every once in a while a master like Bill Monroe will come along and "invent" a whole new genre, but from what I've studied music is a chaotic, more or less random, evolution like most things. And that's one of the attractions!

As a semi-related aside, I find the term "classical" misleading and not particularly helpful. I see the term "common practice period" thrown around a lot in specialist circles, which refers specifically to the post-Baroque, pre-Romantic period; it just sounds strange referring to recently composed or contemporary art music as "classical." I don't know what the standard parlance is.

[Bertram Henze]

Didn't anybody mention Rob's view yet?

[JeffD]

Now the only thing about Bluegrass that I can't stand is the pretty women and girls wearing flowery, beautiful dresses along with those leather, knee high, cowboy kickers!

That might be my favorite part.

[ombudsman]

As a semi-related aside, I find the term "classical" misleading and not particularly helpful. I see the term "common practice period" thrown around a lot in specialist circles, which refers specifically to the post-Baroque, pre-Romantic period; it just sounds strange referring to recently composed or contemporary art music as "classical." I don't know what the standard parlance is.

The term is absolutely incorrect for those styles. This is one of those situations where you can either be intelligible (to an "average person" who knows little about this) and wrong, or unintelligible and right.

[catmandu2]

Re Petrus' and ombudsman's -

Ever check out the 1985 doc "Rising Tones"? - it's available in its entirety on youtube.. Charles Gayle mentions how he can accept being grouped in as a 'jazz' player - even though his music defies the typical 'qualifications.' Since the 'Free' school in jazz (post-bop ca. 1960 Coleman, Taylor, Murray, et al), jazz has come to denote basically - any creative thing that people can't classify otherwise...basically the same thing as with classical/art music. Gayle calls it 'personal music.' The players themselves generally don't give much to trying to classify what they are doing.

Beyond this, an excellent document (also very interesting are Kowald's observations on differences between European and American scenes):

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...5742&FORM=VIRE

[ombudsman]

Re Petrus' and ombudsman's -

Ever check out the 1985 doc "Rising Tones"? - it's available in its entirety on youtube.. Charles Gayle mentions how he can accept being grouped in as a 'jazz' player - even though his music defies the typical 'qualifications.' Since the 'Free' school in jazz (post-bop ca. 1960 Coleman, Taylor, Murray, et al), jazz has come to denote basically - any creative thing that people can't classify otherwise...basically the same thing as with classical/art music. Gayle calls it 'personal music.' The players themselves generally don't give much to trying to classify what they are doing.

Free jazz is kind of a home base interest for me. There are many different attitudes about this.

Early free jazz was clearly a form of jazz, but it's hard to see how that applies to non swinging free improvisation. Not that I particularly care where the line is drawn, I like it all... but I think ongoing use of "jazz" is more about the lack of a better or understandable alternative.

Cecil Taylor and Anthony Braxton among others (especially those that were involved in academia in the 70s as both were) went to a lot of trouble to get acceptance as composers and to criticize some of the arbitrary distinctions between "classical" and "jazz", not only for their scored work but also for their improvised or "spontaneously composed" work. Those guys cared a lot about the terminology, not least because they were on the receiving end of double standards that they saw as connected.

Peter Brotzmann played here recently and had a couple of things to say about it

http://www.citybeat.com/music/music-...tual-curiosity

“If people ask me what I’m doing, I tell them I’m a Jazz musician in my own way. I’m not an American — I’m not a black American — I’m a European. But I learn a lot from all these guys from Jazz history, and from Albert and Coltrane.”

"Free Jazz’ for me is related to the years in the 1960s where it had not only a musical meaning but also a political one. We in Europe had our fight with the establishment, and especially me as a German, the after-war political dust from the old Nazi times. That was a time when the word ‘free’ had meaning — to get rid of what was and find something new.

But if you destroy the old forms, you always find new forms. I think I developed my language over the years, and Heather in her relatively young years has developed her own, too. So we’re trying to find a new form each night. It’s a kind of instant composing, but the word ‘free’ is wrong.”

I've heard similar things from the modern composition/experimental side of things. Some accept the term in various ways (one early meaning was that the score is indeterminate of the results, so in that sense it is an experiment). Others say that they experimented when they were younger and it's no longer that. Certainly once you've been doing something for years, the surprise about the outcome tends to get small, and it's not like these guys are collecting data or running statistics about the outcomes. Again, there are these different preferences but no clear alternative or winner.

[catmandu2]

Ombud- how do people like you and me wind up on a mandolin site..?

[ombudsman]

Ombud- how do people like you and me wind up on a mandolin site..?

Music really does bring all kinds of people together in all kinds of situations.

I've got a lot to learn on the instrument yet, but I'm on my way to making some music on the mandola that probably about 3 people here would like.

[Petrus]

Ever check out the 1985 doc "Rising Tones"? - it's available in its entirety on youtube.. Charles Gayle mentions how he can accept being grouped in as a 'jazz' player - even though his music defies the typical 'qualifications.' Since the 'Free' school in jazz (post-bop ca. 1960 Coleman, Taylor, Murray, et al), jazz has come to denote basically - any creative thing that people can't classify otherwise...basically the same thing as with classical/art music. Gayle calls it 'personal music.' The players themselves generally don't give much to trying to classify what they are doing.

I'll have to check it out. I'm working my way through DeVeaux & Giddins' "Jazz," a big textbook-sized tome that not only goes through the history but analyzes many famous pieces on a minute-by-minute basis.

The genre is interesting on any number of levels, which may be why the topic is so inexhaustible. You can approach it from whatever angle you find compelling: instrumentation, sociology, writing, culture, etc. (Interesting how many instrument choices were driven by the simple need to be heard in a large room among other loud instruments ... the early version of "turning it up to 11.") There was huge controversy when bop / bebop came out; a lot of bop players didn't even want to call it jazz and I imagine if you ever showed up to a jam with banjo in hand you'd probably cause a riot. (Even though the banjo was originally popular in part because of its loudness.)

I actually have been listening to a lot of Brotzmann's stuff lately; it creates a reaction among my friends rather similar to that of a combination of rap and punk rock. I.e., great for clearing out a room. Of course I also listen to Merzbow who certainly is not jazz (electronic noise, mainly.) I like unusual instrumentation. I have albums of Colin Stetson (bass sax), Vinny Golia (tubax and contrabass sax) and Ken McIntyre (flute, oboe, bassoon.)

It's just sad that the mandolin is not more prominent in any genre of jazz. And I've looked for it!

[Martin Ohrt]

Music really does bring all kinds of people together in all kinds of situations.

I've got a lot to learn on the instrument yet, but I'm on my way to making some music on the mandola that probably about 3 people here would like.

I don't want to hijack this brilliant thread, but you've got me curious: What kind of music do you play? Do you have any records of yourself? I'm always curious when it comes to unusual music...

[ombudsman]

Martin I sent you a few links, not sure if they came through OK because I don't see the message in my sent items here.

[ombudsman]

Of course I also listen to Merzbow who certainly is not jazz (electronic noise, mainly.) I like unusual instrumentation. I have albums of Colin Stetson (bass sax), Vinny Golia (tubax and contrabass sax) and Ken McIntyre (flute, oboe, bassoon.)

It's just sad that the mandolin is not more prominent in any genre of jazz. And I've looked for it!

There's one Merzbow record from the 80s called Live In Khabarovsk, CCCP where on the second side they are joined on stage by two Russian free jazz musicians on piano and drums !

I like Vinny Golia and Ken McIntyre a lot.

Yusef Lateef was influential to a lot of other musicians because of introducing other instruments like oboe to jazz (and also mixing in an "exotica" sound) among other things. Also that makes me think of a Reform Art Unit (Vienna) album that has free jazz bassoon - which works really well.

I agree, jazz mandolin seems like it should be more of a thing. At the least, Django Reinhardt style bands could easily co opt it, it seems like it would fit in great.

[sblock]

Way to hijack the thread, guys! Yeah, better to write about your personal preferences for types of avant-garde music.

[Austin Bob]

I just buy what's on sale.

Music all sounds the same to me.