ความคิดเห็นที่ 88
 
i don't think the descriptions are accurate
also, it does aim to be exhaustive while in actuality it is far from it
but at the same time, it makes one wonder what good is pigeonholing artistic expressions?
true, music today (pop music in particular, and not 'pop' as in four mod or 'mainstream', but pop as in pop versus classical / jazz or what not) is highly evolved considering the evolution of music since the middle age. it is due in most part by technology, similar to every other forms of scientific, cultural, and artistic developments, but the availability and accessibility to musical instruments that can expand the palette of the artists (electronic music being the most impacted) and at the same time the internet that makes musical distribution and dissemination so easy has really broaden a musician's artistic expression, but at the same time galvanized the various influences, musical ethos, and those with the same general musical attitudes.
for example, musical development since the classical period up until the 20th century focused mostly on theoretical developments, namely broadening the musical language like the range of the intervals used, the chords, and voicings, being more adventurous and trying to 'break new grounds', bringing us to atonality and algorithmic compositions in the 20th century that sometimes can be hard pressed to be described as music. cage or glass's works, for example, in my opinion borders on the reinterpretation and a challenge to the identity of 'music' as an art form rather than focusing on creating music, i.e. tonally enjoyable experience. i personally feel 'jazz' is the last descendant of the line of music that is focused on theoretical progression--anything after that is derivative.
true, during these periods, there were technical developments that lead to greater artistic expresions, such as the invention of piano that allowed more dynamics to playing, but these were of an entirely different magnitude to the developments in 20th century.
from the advent of synthesizers and other more elaborate instruments, however, comes an entirely new dimension of music--the dimension that is above the relationship between notes, intervals, harmonies, and rhythm, ascending to the level of 'sound design'. sound design through synthesizer does not rely on musical relationship per se, but it is focused on creating sonic textures and timbres that is not producible by traditional instruments.
anyway, pardon my digression, but my point is this: throughout the ages, musical developments can be generalized, to some extent, by certainly similarities that are sometimes intentional, i.e. the musician identifying with certain movements or school of thought, or sometimes unintentional. but in any case, the importance of musical 'genres' are in so far as the musicians identify themselves with a certain way of expressing oneself.
whether electronic, rock, metal, whatever, there will exist a multitude of sub-genres that are sometimes incomprehensible--or perhaps merely insignificant--to the casual observers, but for those who would like to passionately follow certain group of artists who share similar attitudes or certain way of thought towards music, genres and sub-genres are just means of identifying which of those groups an artist might belong to. some generate sub-genres by themselves, but sooner than later, given the vastness of this thing we call earth, someone will soon follow, or coincidentally create something that can be identifiable in the same genres.
last point:
- ELECTRONICA เป็นชื่อที่นักวิจารณ์ใช้เรียกแทนดนตรีเต้นรำแนวใหม่ที่แตกแขนงมาจากดนตรีเต้นรำแนวหลักๆ ข้างต้น แต่ยังสัดส่วนที่คล้ายและไกล้เคียงกัน แตกต่างกันที่รายละเอียดและโครงสร้างดนตรีที่นำมาผสมผสานและรีมิกซ์เข้าด้วยกันแนวหลักที่เกิดขึ้นใหม่มีดังต่อไปนี้ Hard House ความเร็ว 110-130 BPM / Deep Funk ความเร็ว 110-120 BPM / Progressive House ความเร็ว 110-130 BPM
this is perhaps the WORST EVER definition i have ever heard of electronica. electronica probably warrants an entire article to itself as it is an extremely rich genre with drastically different artistic aim for those on opposite ends of the electronica spectrum.
and also, i think k. fxxnoevil's rock thread is too metal oriented. there's much more to 'rock' than metal (or emo, or grunge (which is so '90's), or numetal, for that matter).
so to sum up this lengthy and rambling post, MUSICAL GENRES ARE JUST TAGS FOR MUSICIANS TO IDENTIFY TO, AND FOR LISTENERS TO PICK WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO IDENTIFY WITH.
ps. i hate the 'broad' definition of post-rock. if post-rock is ANYTHING after rock, then the sub-genre is pretty much MEANINGLESS. i prefer post-rock (as it is now) to refer to bands like GY!BE, explosions in the sky, do make say think, mogwai, and other floaty, soundscapey, and dynamic instrumental pop. yes, it is quite a narrow description, and one that is obviously WRONG as many of these artists do not consider themselves 'post-rock', but as i have mentioned before, the genres are just there to act as a label, and one that serves a functional purpose more than artistic ideology.
จากคุณ :
.. (! o_o !)  
- [
3 ก.ค. 52 07:26:25
]
|
|
|
3แต้มเลยค่ะ
