Sweeping Genre-lisation Posted by robsteranium

So, I promised to defend the practice of writing about music. I said that music couldn’t be described in words. That was true once. But that was before tagging came along…

The need to classify music into genres used to infuriate me. How do I know you’re hearing what I’m hearing? “We can see other people’s behaviour but not their experience” says Laing. More to the point, is it Rhythmy Blues or Rock & Roll? Does Various Production count as light-Dubstep or heavy-electro-Folk?!

The rigid hierarchy of genres was only a problem with physical records. If you’re in a record shop then you’ve got to choose where to put/ need to know where to get tunes: genres seem as sensible structure as any (unless you’re Rob Fleming in which case you’ll organise your personal CD collection into autobiographical order). Pigeon-holing (the filing metaphor not the blood sport) is inevitable when tunes have to be carved into plastic.

Now that music has a virtual as well as a physical presence, genres can be interpreted far more flexibly. Everything is miscellaneous. Various Production can be dubstep, folk, electro, and whatever else you want, all at the same time.

So, if everything is miscellaneous, and writing about music can now extend over an infinite range of possibility, then how do we read it? In other words, what use are tags to the listener? Enter meta-data…