Psean wrote
Hammeron wrote
There's only 2 genres - Rock n' Roll and everything else. ?
Yup ?
Bah! Well... I'll go shopping for "everything else" then. I'm getting increasingly bored by "Rock" with a big "R".
I'm also increasingly wondering what's happened to the record buying public, to
us. Back in the 60s there wasn't this pigeon holing that you get now. Bands, artists, records were informed by all sorts of things, often at the same time, and nobody seemed to care a fig about it. Look at Led Zeppelin (philosophical types like to ponder the notion that Zep were the last of the 60s bands and the first of the 70s bands): Heavy one moment, folky the next with unicorns coming over the hill and heading for middle earth (when they weren't wanting their lemon squeezed real hard). Jimmy Page was as influenced by Bert Jansch as much as by Chuck Berry or Muddy Waters. The Beatles would have a rocker next to a pastiche of 30s jazz next to a sitar-driven piece (they might not even have guitars or drums). Fairport Convention made Top Of The Pops with a cover of a Dylan song, translated into French and given a Cajun arrangement. The Incredible String Band (who were biggish at the time, though these days lots of folks deny they ever owned the records) would cover multiple bases from all points of the compass, sometimes in one song. Fleetwood Mac didn't restrict themselves to the blues but stretched out into more ambitious, harder to define areas - and the audience didn't seem to mind.
Now we have all these labels, and try to define boundaries for genres and want artists that fit the definitions, rather than sit back and say, to the artist, "show me what you've got".
