Defining Results...
From the original Analog Industries archive. Some links and images from that era no longer resolve.
For some reason I can’t quite explain (perhaps it was all the Fashion Week articles in my New York Times RSS feed) I was hit with an overwhelming urge to re-read Zero History last week. In the course of doing so, I came across this passage:
It’s all about atemporality. About opting out of the industrialization of novelty. It’s about deeper code.
Of course, Mr. Gibson was talking about clothing styles, but the “industrialization of novelty” is, I realized, a base level instruction set for the music industry. The British and their former colonies are best at this, of course, inventing genres at the rate of a couple a week, it seems, but every level of the music industry, from a potential musician’s first ham-fisted attempts, on up to the A&R guys that grease the major labels’ remaining machinery, operates on the industrialization of novelty.
There are three factors that drive this event, in my opinion. They are:
1. Consumer desire to find More Like This. A genre identifier provides some ease in this regard.
2. A label’s desire to build upon the accidental success of an individual artist, or the success of an artist from a competing label, to satisfy consumer demand. (See #1, above.)
3. An artist’s desire to capitalize on the success of another artist.
I find it ironic that electronic music, which is arguably the most forward-looking of the various styles (and note I use “style” rather than “genre” here), has some of the strictest rules. Granted that there are some hundreds of distinct genres within the style known as “electronic,” each of which has their own ruleset, with over-arching meta-genres (e.g. House) which contain sub-genres (progressive house, minimal house, deep house, acid house, et al.; in fact a new one just showed up, “fidget house,” which is like minimal house made with a deep house soundset, arghhhh!) One could easily describe any track from any of these sub-genres as “house,” of course, because house music has three key elements: four-on-the-floor kick drums, a bit of swing, and a hi-hat on the “and.” In this system, the sub-genre identifier is arguably more important, allowing a deeper classification in the “I Like This” hierarchy, because one can’t be expected to like Farben’s “Beautone” just because one likes Marshall Jefferson’s “Move Your Body.”
Atemporality, however, should be the end goal of any musician, and in fact, any creative endeavor. Mr. Gibson points out, later in the book, that well-made articles of clothing don’t wear out. They wear in, and artificial distressing and aging is used to hide sub-standard manufacturing methods. This also applies to music. A well-made piece of forward-looking music (think: Sgt. Pepper’s) doesn’t ever wear out. It wears in. An artificial construct built to capitalize on the original (the movie Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, starring Peter Frampton and the BeeGees) sounds ludicrously dated.
The net result, in any event, is that you hear a song you like, and you do a little research and discover it is identified by Style:Genre:Sub-Genre. If it is electronic music (or, you know, ska or something), this means you can almost certainly find dozens, if not hundreds, of tracks that are more or less exactly like it, and quickly get saturated with hearing the same song in various keys, with some minor tempo drift and slightly different synth sounds.
Obviously, there’s no parthenogenesis here. A musician needs a creative sperm to fertilize his imagination egg (there’s a mental image that’s gonna fester…) and this almost always comes from someone else’s creation. You hear a song and, for some reason, you want to re-work the idea in to your own thing. Or a working method, or whatever. Another caveat is that we can necessarily date electronic music via the technology and production methods used, since electronic musicians are habitually using the latest technology and methods. There are exceptions to this, of course, and atemporality again rears its head.
My point, if I have one, is that one should draw from a deeper pool of inspiration than “ZOMG I WANT TO MAKE A DUBSTEP TRACK BECAUSE THAT SHIT PAYS!” Genre and sub-genre identifiers are at best a marketing tool, and at worst an artificial limitation, and shouldn’t be used to define your creative output. It’s time to opt out of the industrialization of novelty.
21 comments
Well said. REALLY well said. Sadly, I've only known a few people who are able to think (hear) beyond their preconceptions. A German author once wrote: "the audience does not applaud the performance, the audience applauds its own memory". While genre labels offer some form of orientation, they always obscure more than they reveal.
Most people are satisfied with chewing the cud, over and over and over. The trick is to lure them into new territory by mixing the familiar with the unexpected.
Good thoughts. One of the things that attracts me these days about the good stuff coming out of the whole UK Bass music continuum is that there's so many people doing things that are unclassifiable. You have to ignore all the wub-wub 'Bro-Step' me too records, because there's so much good all-over-the-map music on labels like Hessle Audio and Keysound.
That being said, what really makes me smile is guys that can make straight up the middle genre tracks that are awesome despite conforming to genre norms.
I also like bottom-feeding in the used bins, especially in Chicago. Between the mid-80s and the rise of Rave in the early 90s there was an eruption of insane creativity in Chicago, Detroit, and New York City. I keep finding records by never-heard-from-again artists that are as good or better than the famous tracks from that period. And what makes them fresh is the way they DIDN'T fit with the mainstream of the genre.
I'm left with the lingering impression that the ubiquitous "Customers Also Bought..." sections in iTunes and Amazon lend themselves to perpetuating this sort of behavior. Music is an inherently subjective medium. An architect is able to express his artistic bent, but within the framework of utility. He can't just decide to forego a roof because it is inhibiting his expression, at least not if he wants his building to be usable.
Not so with music. Any deviation from the chosen starting point (e.g. fidget house) is only limited by our willingness to risk not being in the "Customers Also Bought..." section of the leading lights of that starting point. The algorithms that decide what goes in the "You Might Also Like" areas of online stores do us, as consumers (as opposed to creators) a great disservice, in my opinion. A brick-and-mortar record store doesn't usually have sub-genres, or even genres. It separates records in to much broader classifications like Classical, Jazz & Blues, Dance, R&B. These are useful headings, I believe. The More Like This algorithm has too sharp a focus, and it drives us creatively, which is in and of itself a bad thing.
-CR
i find that the "customers also bought" section on every online music store i've ever visited might as well suggest something random because i've never liked anything put forth in those sections.
anyway - re: your initial post.. well said.
i think though, there are plenty of people out there making music within their genre who think they are making music that is timeless but really they just have no idea about anything outside their little world. these people are particularly annoying to meet in person.
it's a shame those people can't meet the people who bought a million house 12 inches in the 90s for $8 each who have 2000 records that they don't listen to and can't sell on discogs or ebay etc. except in bundles of 30 for $5.
there are also assloads of people making "next months hit fidget midget skitter booger butter house" track and are well aware of the disposable aspect and sameness of it.
I wouldn't have found "Micronaut" without "Customers Also Bought..." ;-) I get very varied suggestions - all from just random noises albums to Lady Gaga.
This sort of thing was institutionalized prior to online music stores, was it not? CMJ's RIYL comes to mind.
In Vancouver in the late 70s/early 80s there was record store called (i think) Phantasmagoria. They used to place different records on the wall with little write-ups. I went in to buy Graham Parker's Squeezing Out the Sparks and below that it said: "You may also like: The Damned, This Heat, The Suburbs, Human Sexual Response" - i thought, well, I like The Damned and I am buying Graham Parker so i better get this other stuff (in the pre-auditioning of our purchases days).
I now know Graham Parker and This Heat have nothing to do with each other but at the time (and only this time) - it worked for me.
"Genre and sub-genre identifiers are at best a marketing tool, and at worst an artificial limitation, and shouldn't be used to define your creative output."
Never mind that by the time you've official jumped on the bandwagon (written down your ideas, recorded it, released it, assembled a band, etc.) the wagon will have rolled on down the street to the Next Big Thing, rendering you passe. It's a fucking hamster wheel.
It's best to do your own thing and let the Novelty Industry come to you. Or even better: ignore it entirely.
I'll be quoting this a long time, but as Wayne Gretzky's Dad said, "go where the puck is gonna be, not where it is."
Also I want to mention that you should all note my choice of pictures for this article; the fractal repetition inherent in cactii was appropriate, and I just wanted to make sure that was coming through. ;-)
-CR
@CR I got that ref.
- c
Funny; I've been thinking about re-reading that also. I find that I usually have to read his books twice to fully appreciate them.
Myrnaloy's comment jogged my memory. Two anecdotes from my music-buying history come to mind. These date back to the times in which buying music necessarily meant going to a physical store and purchasing a physical object
The first anecdote, the earlier of the two, involved going to WaxTrax in Denver (a small, independent store) and carrying a sizable stack of records(!) by Throbbing Gristle and SPK to the front counter. The proprietor turned out to also be a fan of said artists, and said, "hey, if you like these guys, you should also check out ," and led me to the appropriate bins to personally suggest a few titles. As a result I was happy because I was introduced to several artists I previous did not know of (and he was happy because he sold me more records that day, and other days, than he might have otherwise).
The second anecdote happened 10-15 years later at a big chain music store in a mall in Boulder. I was looking for a CD by Bela Fleck & the Flecktones, and soon realized that I had no idea where a chain store might pigeonhole this group's recordings. (Folk? Jazz? Country?) So I asked someone at the counter for help, and she looked at me good-naturedly but somewhat vacantly and said, "uh, where would that be filed?" I replied, "I don't know--that's why I'm asking you!" I think we finally found the appropriate bin by wandering through the entire store, but they didn't have the CD in question anyway. As a result my already low opinion of that store sank further, and they didn't make a sale.
So, what's my point (other than succumbing to the temptation of mentioning Throbbing Gristle and Bela Fleck in the same comment)? The point is that sellers of recorded music once served a role far more useful than genre and sub-genre labels. They actually _knew_ the music they sold, and, unlike "You Might Also Like" algorithms, could make intelligent recommendations to their customers. Yes, their recommendations were commercially motivated, but they were also motivated by a genuine enthusiasm for the music. When we stopped going to small stores to buy music from that enthusiastic proprietor in favor of downloading it from iTunes or Amazon, we abandoned that personal attention in favor of convenience.
Now, it's entirely true that digital delivery of music has created opportunities for both music makers and music listeners that did not exist in those quaint days of the 20th century. The problem now is that there's more music than ever to listen to, and fewer people--people, not algorithms--to point the listeners in the right direction, should the listeners desire such assistance. People have access to the deeper code; algorithms don't.
--Adam
LOL. You flatter me, gentleman.
Oh, and just to redirect this conversation back to CR and how mega bad-ass he is: I love Audio Damage plugins.
Hhmmm
I lost track of what we were talking about, but on the topic of musical style classifications, I'm of the opinion that they are wholly detrimental to the creative process, which I think is about figuring out things for yourself. I bristle when I see new musicians show up on a forum to ask how to make dubstep, because I think listening and figuring it out on your own is more valuable.
Sub-genre classifications are not a force for good. I saw a review recently refer to a band as "nu-gaze" which is meant to describe new shoegaze, shoegaze itself being a barely coherent sub-genre label. How is that shit helping anyone? With a new sub-genre named every week, it doesn't help most listeners. And what if that band doesn't want to be nu-gaze, or doesn't remotely think of their music in related terms? Why should anyone box them in like that?
I like to blame that Consumer Guide of Rock douchebag, whatever his fucking name was (Robert something?) for a lot of that stupid shit.
Christ on his tricycle, RE-READ Zero History? I'm barely into chapter 2. But then again, i'm a slow reader!
I make Acid House. Why? Because it ain't country, and i fucking hate country. I'll never understand why people decide they want to hate on genre identifiers. They're around for a reason. Just saying "I make music, maaannn. Genres are for the sheep minded" is far to vague. Calling Iron Maiden Polka doesn't make them Polka. Yes, i could say that i make EDM, or House, or even techno, but that's still far to vague. The exception being people who know nothing about electronic music. I just say "I make electronic music" and be done with it.
Anyone catch Gibson on his Zero History tour?
OT: Hugo...You reading man..Goldbaby HQ OK?
@inteliko: He's on the North island. The earthquake happened on the South island. That said, he did have a lot of family in Christchurch, but they appear to be all okay. Lots of housing damage and such, but no injuries to Clan Goldbaby that I'm aware of.
-CR
I'm with boobs.
Ha, I pressed that button and sure enough, that's what it does.
My point is that people get so hell bent on being anti-genre naming, it gets pretentious. I'm going to call a piece of music the style i think it is. It also makes trying to find a certain style easier. One problem i have is i see A LOT of kids lately saying they DJ/Make Acid... but all it really is is shite "electro-house" (now there's a name we can do without). Same with Techno, "oh, i make techno". No you don't, you make fucking trance! What this does is gives new comers the wrong impression on genres. Then it just snowballs out of control.
I agree that there are way too many sub-sub-sub genres out there. But all this "i'm too cool for the genre school" business reeks of pretentiousness.
The whole genre argument is a lose-lose thing. I couldn't tell you what the difference between trance and techno is. But if you think that's bad, a friend of mine thinks Skinny Puppy is techno, and calls Venetian Snares "that starting-stopping-starting shit."
I think genres work better in reverse -- not telling people what kind of music they might like, but warning them away from music they're pretty sure they will hate.
As far as what it does to one's own creativity, well. If you decide you're going to make a certain kind of music, you can either do it creatively or not. Whether that's South Jersey Nu-Speed-Grindpolkacore or "I want to sound like that one Daft Punk album, but with a Rat Pack flair and it'll all be Akai EWI and banjo samples" doesn't predict how creative the music will be.
And how creative the music is doesn't correspond 100% to whether it doesn't suck.
Comments are closed on this post.