It's human nature to try to categorize objects, subjects and ideas, and the art world falls perilously into the grasp of human nature daily. Take music for example (and I will because it's what I know); there are common and very broad genres of modern mainstream music: Rock, Hip-Hop, R&B and Country. Some are satisfied to stop there, but human nature also lends itself to progression, good or bad, and so we are left with sub-genres.
Allow me begin with a brief, and admittedly crude, history of two sub-genres.
In the late 60's, a new form of Rock appeared which came to be known as Heavy Metal. Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin blazed a path for wall-of-sound techniques and morally ambiguous lyrics. At its best points, Heavy Metal provided insight to man's dark secrets and at its lowest was just ridiculously Alpha-male (i.e. the Sabbath hit "Iron Man").
Around the same time, and on a much smaller setting, groups began popping up which were referred to in Creem Magazine as Punk Rock. The Sex Pistols and The Clash identified this genre with their anti-establishment tendencies and furious song paces.
At the time, within Rock, the two types could not have been more different. Heavy Metal reached elaborate and even epic proportions, becoming extremely profitable in the mid-eighties. On the contrary, Punk seemed a flash in the pan to mainstream Rock, going underground after a few relatively minor financial successes. Then came about a number of bands that displayed facets of both Punk and Heavy Metal, such as the Misfits and, later, Metallica. Today, the lines have been blurred to such a point they are nearly extinguished.
Within Rock and Heavy Metal alone there is an infinite number of subgenres. Hardcore, Grunge, Alternative, Grindcore, Death Metal (a.k.a. Black Metal, Doom Metal), Speed Metal, Thrash, Straight-Edge Hardcore, Southern Metal and the nondescript Metalcore, are just a few of the names in which aggressive Rock has come to be divided. To the casual music fan, this type of over-classification seems unnecessary, frustrating and confusing.
The worst part of musical classification is that it's almost completely subjective. One person may refer to smooth singer "X" as R&B, while another may believe that "X" is more aptly classified as Hip-Hop, due to their "older work." If people can get so mixed between two of the major genres, imagine a record consumer's frustration when one of the hip, downtown record stores decides to divvy up their collection into every sub-genre imaginable. All it takes is one less-experienced stock room worker to throw the entire system into an enigma.
So, one may conclude that the modern-day sub-genre is to be used only by minions of The Common Enemy (a.k.a. The Fallen One, Mephistopheles, Lucifer, Satan).
Is it really so bad, though? Sure, it might slow down the record purchasing process, but there are certainly uses for them too. When music aficionados (i.e. every college student in the US) discuss their favorite music or try to describe an artist, the easiest way, besides other-band comparisons, is to name all the possible sub-genres under which said artist may fall. Not to mention, this provides the listener to this description with a scale by which to gauge their compatriot's knowledge.
For example, if one were to classify Elvis Presley's work as simply Rock 'n' Roll, it would be a correct, yet incomplete classification. Elvis is the only artist ever to top the Billboard R&B, Country and Rock charts. In fact, as a young man, Elvis was among the first to truly require multiple categories (see "crossovers"), and could be the penultimate origin of the sub-genre debate.
Personally, I love sub-genres when discussing music and despise them when searching a record store for it. I've even come up with a few of my own genres while in the midst of an inspired conversation (Artcore happens to be my favorite genre creation.). Assuredly, whether you love it or would rather leave it, the classification of music shall continue to expand and grow, as does the music itself.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
