How do you catagorise music?

Nitebob

Hey guys,

Thought I'd tap into the wisdom shared throughout the pages and ask a simple question?

How is the decision made to catagorise music? Example: Who decided that Taylor Swift is a country singer? Is it based on certain basics within her music? Chord progression? Did she decide she's a country singer? Is it due to certain featuring instruments? (Lapsteel, fiddle, or harmonica not always present)

I know this might come across as stupid initially, but if you think about it, I'm sure you'll get what I'm saying. A lot of her music doesn't sound much different from Avril Lavigne, which is definately not country.

Likewise with groups like Rascal flats. They are also catagorised as country, but sounds a lot like Bryan Adams, which is catagorised as pop/soft rock. Just wanted to get your various opinions on this...

Cheers

jt

I am not sure who decides this, and if you were wanting to categorise music yourself for some reason then i think i may have more to share with more substance and solidity in theory. Hopefully!?

I think How they decide it has alot to do with marketing, so perhaps the people making the money from taylor swift decided it would be more profitable marketing her music as country rather than perhaps a more dead rock? sound. And of course they will continue to build her image around those paradigms untill they are either, sure they could change a few things about the marketing to reach a different or wider audience if need, or, they choose to no longer bother. I also think country is a label that easier to adapt From and not For. Thats my two cents.

AlanRatcliffe

Nitebob wrote How is the decision made to catagorise music?

Sadly, it's a marketing decision more often than not. Someone's first impression formed after a few seconds of either the first track on the CD or the single. It''s a big market and it pays them to decide where best to concentrate their marketing. People buying music tend to shop in only one category, so marketing must decide where it will sell best.

Personally I tend to think of artists in terms of all their influences (so for instance, Amy Winehouse would be blues/R&B with a touch of jazz and an overall modern pop production).

Otherwise AFAIC, there are only two real "categories" that matter - "stuff I want to listen to" and "stuff I don't want to listen to". The truly great artists are usually impossible to categorise or should, strictly speaking have a category all of their own.

Having said all that, it truly pisses me off when I find Jethro Tull in the heavy metal bins. ? That's just wrong.

Psean

Alan Ratcliffe wrote
AFAIC, there are only two real "categories" that matter - "stuff I want to listen to" and "stuff I don't want to listen to". The truly great artists are usually impossible to categorise or should, strictly speaking have a category all of their own.

+1
Well put

Having said all that, it truly pisses me off when I find Jethro Tull in the heavy metal bins. ? That's just wrong.

I think it's up there with music shop staff's lack of knowledge resulting in Pink Floyd being put in the "F" section alphabetically - as though "Floyd" is a solo artist's surname. (By the way, which one's Pink? ?)
EDIT: Could happen with Tull too: "You know Jethro Tull; that guy who plays the flute"

Nitebob

[/quote]

I think it's up there with music shop staff's lack of knowledge resulting in Pink Floyd being put in the "F" section alphabetically - as though "Floyd" is a solo artist's surname. (By the way, which one's Pink? ?)

[/quote]

That's easy, the woman singing: "That's right, I'm still a rockstar...." :dance:

Jack-Flash-Jr

Alan Ratcliffe wrote
Otherwise AFAIC, there are only two real "categories" that matter - "stuff I want to listen to" and "stuff I don't want to listen to".

A million times yes.

If I'm pushed to categorize artists or songs I like I tend to say 'rock':
Rolling Stones? Rock
Suicidal Tendencies? Rock
Pink? Rock
Ali Farka Toure? Rock

With iTunes/Gracenote etc. the sub-categories are really friggin' annoying now... everything is getting to be like the spaghetti family pasta that metal categories are.

Bob-Dubery

Nitebob wrote Hey guys,

Thought I'd tap into the wisdom shared throughout the pages and ask a simple question?

How is the decision made to catagorise music? Example: Who decided that Taylor Swift is a country singer? Is it based on certain basics within her music? Chord progression? Did she decide she's a country singer? Is it due to certain featuring instruments? (Lapsteel, fiddle, or harmonica not always present)

I know this might come across as stupid initially, but if you think about it, I'm sure you'll get what I'm saying. A lot of her music doesn't sound much different from Avril Lavigne, which is definately not country.

Well is "country" Hank Williams or Garth Brooks. One is not that much like the other.

These terms are for marketing purposes and really reflect the market segment aimed at. "R&B" means "for the negro market" - unless you think Ray Charles and Kanye West are cut from the same musical cloth. Until the late 50s there was no such thing as "R&B", such stuff was all lumped together under the less polite term of "race records".

It's ridiculous reallly. Many artists have broad appeal or different appeal in different territories. Motown sold loads of records to white teenagers in the 1960s in UK (the Supremes were particularly massive in that market).

Ignore the categories - unless you're in some part of the music industry that thinks it needs them - like the guys in record bars who file grungy Neil Young records under "folk" or "country", or countryish Neil Young records under "rock". IMO Neil Young should be filed under "Y".

Nitebob

X-rated Bob wrote
Nitebob wrote Hey guys,

Thought I'd tap into the wisdom shared throughout the pages and ask a simple question?

How is the decision made to catagorise music? Example: Who decided that Taylor Swift is a country singer? Is it based on certain basics within her music? Chord progression? Did she decide she's a country singer? Is it due to certain featuring instruments? (Lapsteel, fiddle, or harmonica not always present)

I know this might come across as stupid initially, but if you think about it, I'm sure you'll get what I'm saying. A lot of her music doesn't sound much different from Avril Lavigne, which is definately not country.
Well is "country" Hank Williams or Garth Brooks. One is not that much like the other.

These terms are for marketing purposes and really reflect the market segment aimed at. "R&B" means "for the negro market" - unless you think Ray Charles and Kanye West are cut from the same musical cloth. Until the late 50s there was no such thing as "R&B", such stuff was all lumped together under the less polite term of "race records".

It's ridiculous reallly. Many artists have broad appeal or different appeal in different territories. Motown sold loads of records to white teenagers in the 1960s in UK (the Supremes were particularly massive in that market).

Ignore the categories - unless you're in some part of the music industry that thinks it needs them - like the guys in record bars who file grungy Neil Young records under "folk" or "country", or countryish Neil Young records under "rock". IMO Neil Young should be filed under "Y".

BOB! Welcoe back, was so hoping you'd post to this thread....thanks for all the opinions.

Psean

X-rated Bob wrote
Nitebob wrote Hey guys,

IMO Neil Young should be filed under "Y".
Yip

And welcome back

Bob-Dubery

Nitebob wrote Hey guys,

Thought I'd tap into the wisdom shared throughout the pages and ask a simple question?

How is the decision made to catagorise music? Example: Who decided that Taylor Swift is a country singer? Is it based on certain basics within her music? Chord progression? Did she decide she's a country singer? Is it due to certain featuring instruments? (Lapsteel, fiddle, or harmonica not always present)

I know this might come across as stupid initially, but if you think about it, I'm sure you'll get what I'm saying. A lot of her music doesn't sound much different from Avril Lavigne, which is definately not country.

Likewise with groups like Rascal flats. They are also catagorised as country, but sounds a lot like Bryan Adams, which is catagorised as pop/soft rock. Just wanted to get your various opinions on this...

There's a practice which, as far as I can tell, started with Shania Twain's block-busting Come On Over. Now how "country" did that sound to you?

What happened was that there were TWO releases of that album. The first, in 1997, was a commercial country affair, released in North America to capitalise on Twain's reputation on the country circuit - and it did well. Then a year later, in an attempt to cross over, the "international" album was released. Same songs, but lots of remixing with a lot of the traditional instrument parts deleted and replaced by synths, electronic drums and overdriven guitars, even different promo videos. That was the one that we got here, that most countries got and we're all quite entitled to go "huh? THIS is country?".

You can make very good money on the country circuit, but to make the really big money, to have the mega-hits, you need to have something with international appeal - hence the two versions of Come On Over (both of which did their job).

This is easier for songwriters, by the way, and quite a few have had a song do well - with different artists - in different markets, notably the American R&B and Country charts. A famous example was Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" which crossed over first into R&B and then was a global smash hit when Whitney Houston recorded it. Even Richard Thompson had a bluegrass hit (as a songwriter) when Del McCoury covered "1952 Vincent Black Lightning" and took it to the top of the Bluegrass hits (McCoury changed the words a little, James and Red Molly rode down to Knoxville rather than Box Hill).

Anyhoo.... maybe most markets are getting the "internationalised" versions of Taylor Swift's recordings.