Categorisation of Music

[Ein Heldenleben]

Of course, all music actually originated from what could be called folk music.

You see how easy it is to get tied in knots when trying to define musical "genres". Nobody agrees about where the boundaries between them should be. Any system of definition is going to throw up very many exceptions and contradictions. My take on the situation is to ask why people think they need such boundaries at all, especially now that recorded music no longer needs to be packaged into physical objects. So I disagree that "what we need" is more rigorous definitions. What might be more desirable, in terms of opening minds and imaginations, is not to define musical "genres" in the first place. Can anyone think of a reason why they're needed?

It’s because the need to categorise is deeply embedded in the Human psyche. Look at the Linnaean system of classification from Life down to species . Mind you that’s quite useful . Not so sure it works with music though . I suppose Life would be all sounds and species would be a Beethoven opus number . So what “family “ are folk and classical in ? You can’t count the legs of a string quartet

Yes - when you look at the inter-penetration of folk and classical music how do you begin to distinguish the two? Classical music can be become folk ( Va Pensiero from Nabucco say ) much more easily than we might think. Look at how the motto theme from Mahler 7 became inextricably linked with Castrol GTX .
I suppose there is a dividing line between notated music and the modern obsession with the notes and the more freewheeling style of jazz , blues, folk and pop . You can have a hugely successful career and not read a note but (unless you are supremely skilled ) busking along with a Mahler symphony might well end in disaster.

[french frank]

I'm using Windose 10. Perhaps the lack of GBP (£) is a Mac thing, or maybe it's just your computer that has the problem. You are, I hope, currently using the UK keyboard layout?

££££££££££££ That reported incapacity does date back to more than ten years ago! I cannot recall what I was using then.

[Bryn]

££££££££££££ That reported incapacity does date back to more than ten years ago! I cannot recall what I was using then.

Stranger still, the post I quoted it from popped up without prompting when I looked for new posts in this thread.

[RichardB]

Why have categories at all?

That's what I've been saying.

As for the Linnaean system, it works well enough most of the time in the discussion of extant species, but from an evolutionary perspective (that is to say a wider perspective! - which of course Linnaeus had no inkling of) it's not so useful. Are we sure that "the need to categorise is deeply embedded in the Human psyche"? How deeply? Of course, the fact that languages consist of discrete words indicates that categorisation is important for the development of communication through language. But is it necessary or desirable to extend that to most or all areas of human experience? - and particularly music... I say that because, while most of the instruments in general use are designed and built for the realisation of the discrete notes that comprise the basic elements of Western musical notation, that would not be true of the human voice. I'm not claiming to have a fully worked out "meta-taxonomic" philosophy here, just wondering whether such a thing might open up avenues of thought (including musical thought) which are closed to the categorising mind.

[RichardB]

You can’t count the legs of a string quartet

I think normally they have eight

[Ein Heldenleben]

I think normally they have eight

Unfortunately so do the legs of a folk quartet so it doesn’t help us with taxonomic classification!

[french frank]

That's what I've been saying.

But that isn't attempting an answer. It's just asking the question. The fact that there are answers which tend to be practical (or, heaven help us, commercial) rather than musical doesn't inavalidate them. If the BBC establishes generic stations and designates certain stations for certain kinds of music, there will be categorisation: what is broadcast where? If people want to sell their recordings they need to decide what will be described as 'world music' or 'jazz' so that they can be grouped together and potential buyers know where to look for them. Given that younger generations have different tastes from their elders means that physical recordings have to be easily located and not contained in some gigantic 'category' called 'music'. Tastes exist within pop music and classical: people prefer to listen to what they like/are interested in and and if 'popular' and 'unpopular' are not differentiated, the 'unpopular' will eventually die out.

In short, categories are established for a variety of practical purposes which allow individuals to sift through the undifferentiated mass of whatever it happens to be. Categorisation is one of the earliest cognitive practices: these things are similar, these things are different; these are the same in this way, but different in this other way.

'Good' and 'bad' as two categories without further attributes merely end up as 'what I like' and 'what I don't like'. Which is not the same as 'what you like and don't' which may be matters of interest for discussion but aren't in themselves 'categories'.

[Old Grumpy]

I think normally they have eight

Er, nine - including the one on the cello!

[Ein Heldenleben]

That's what I've been saying.

As for the Linnaean system, it works well enough most of the time in the discussion of extant species, but from an evolutionary perspective (that is to say a wider perspective! - which of course Linnaeus had no inkling of) it's not so useful. Are we sure that "the need to categorise is deeply embedded in the Human psyche"? How deeply? Of course, the fact that languages consist of discrete words indicates that categorisation is important for the development of communication through language. But is it necessary or desirable to extend that to most or all areas of human experience? - and particularly music... I say that because, while most of the instruments in general use are designed and built for the realisation of the discrete notes that comprise the basic elements of Western musical notation, that would not be true of the human voice. I'm not claiming to have a fully worked out "meta-taxonomic" philosophy here, just wondering whether such a thing might open up avenues of thought (including musical thought) which are closed to the categorising mind.

There is an evolutionary taxonomy which in fact might be more useful in “classifying” music as it changes. You might look at the amount of improvisation , the reliance on diatonic scales , poly rhythm rather the rather arbitrary distinctions we have now.

[RichardB]

But that isn't attempting an answer.

I have attempted an answer, whether or not you find it acceptable. (I hope it's clear that I'm not espousing the position attributed to Ellington and Armstrong, although it was probably their way of cutting through some bullshit question in an interview rather than a seriously held view.) I don't think dividing music up into genres is an interesting or useful activity.

[RichardB]

There is an evolutionary taxonomy which in fact might be more useful in “classifying” music as it changes. You might look at the amount of improvisation

... assuming that it's even possible to estimate that amount! (and "improvisation" is another word that means different things to different people!)

[RichardB]

Er, nine - including the one on the cello!

That's a pin not a leg! Although legs can be called pins... oh I give up

[french frank]

I have attempted an answer, whether or not you find it acceptable.

Not a question of not finding it acceptable. I was responding to your single sentence "That's what I've been saying." What followed, I confess, I found difficult to connect with the question.

(I hope it's clear that I'm not espousing the position attributed to Ellington and Armstrong, although it was probably their way of cutting through some bullshit question in an interview rather than a seriously held view.) I don't think dividing music up into genres is an interesting or useful activity.

This is the problem. One can dispute particular efforts to categorise - i.e. dispute the validity, usefulness or otherwise - of the categories proposed or used, of course. But rather as in language evolution where new coinages are adopted because people find them useful or dropped because they don't prove useful, so (I would propose) categories survive because people find them useful. There may well be a downside to those categories (rigid pigeonholing, ignoring what falls outside one's own favoured categories and so on) but they continue because large numbers of people find them useful, however much others criticise them.

[RichardB]

What followed, I confess, I found difficult to connect with the question.

That's because most of it was a response to Heldenleben bringing up Linnaean taxonomy. As for "people" finding say music categories "useful", one might, as has been suggested, think that the people they're most "useful" to are those who run commercial and other institutions, whereas for most others it's just a matter of going with the flow.

One reason for my thinking on this issue is something I think has been discussed here before: the question of how your CDs are shelved. Given that it's probably better to order them in some way such that you can find what you're looking for if you're looking for something in particular, do you split them into different "genres" or just put them in a single alphabetical order of artists/composers? Of course I do the latter, and the original principal reason for doing it was that I noticed I would make all kinds of unexpected discoveries that way, for example looking for Beethoven I would encounter Captain Beefheart.

[french frank]

That's because most of it was a response to Heldenleben bringing up Linnaean taxonomy.

As for "people" finding say music categories "useful", one might, as has been suggested, think that the people they're most "useful" to are those who run commercial and other institutions, whereas for most others it's just a matter of going with the flow.

As I acknowledged, commercial considerations are (necessarily) involved, but they aren't totally divorced from what 'people' find useful (I would suggest). Making things 'easier' for potential/willing buyers suits both sides.

One reason for my thinking on this issue is something I think has been discussed here before: the question of how your CDs are shelved. Given that it's probably better to order them in some way such that you can find what you're looking for if you're looking for something in particular, do you split them into different "genres" or just put them in a single alphabetical order of artists/composers?

'Probably better' = 'probably most useful'. If one needs to make distinctions, one chooses the way that is most useful for one's purposes. Red wines separate from white wines (just like the supermarkets) so that you can lay your hand quickly on what you want.

Of course I do the latter, and the original principal reason for doing it was that I noticed I would make all kinds of unexpected discoveries that way, for example looking for Beethoven I would encounter Captain Beefheart.

I have them arranged alphabetically (L van Beethoven will follow KAK van Beethoven ) but also Early Music is separate from 'Classical' and contemporary is separate again. I may want to listen to a particular work, maybe just to a particular style rather than a particular composer. I don't have any popular or jazz now, though I do have a couple of what would be 'categorised' as world music. If I had a larger collection, yes, I would shelve them as 'jazz' and 'world music'.