Author Topic: Proposal: Extend 'Genre' hierarchy with 'Subgenre'  (Read 28454 times)

redwing

  • Guest
This looks good. Maybe only need to sift out less popular genres (no pun intended ;)).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popular_music_genres

Just like the list, I think it's OK some genres have no sub-genres. We don't have to invent things if that's contrary to the popular standard. But classical stuff in wikipedia looks rubbish. Probably we're gonna have to look elsewhere.

jistme

  • Guest
Thnx redwing, looks useful.
I'll see what's sensible to add to the list.

I send you a PM with current status of the list I'm working on.
Let me know what you think?


redwing

  • Guest
Thnx redwing, looks useful.
I'll see what's sensible to add to the list.

I send you a PM with current status of the list I'm working on.
Let me know what you think?

Thanks, you have accumulated quite a list!
Well, but not sure that's one for a normal or a freak, to borrow your terms  ;)
Some are too specific, others are too broad. But I won't go into specifics since then we will begin an endless, pointless discussion about what each genre is about. Maybe we can set some principles to handle this base list given that this will be constantly updated.

- We might need a reference point to which everyone can easily access and verify its validity. I think the wiki list could serve as a good one for this since it will be constantly updated too.

- Maybe we could agree that the base file may remove some from the list, but may not add new ones to the list for simplicity and avoiding partiality.

-All genres should have a blank sub-genre, indicating the total of sub-genres does not add up to their mother-genre. Always there's a room for a new, unnamed sub-genre.

-To polish and finish the base file, we're gonna need some volunteers who will work with jistme.

What do you guys think?


jistme

  • Guest
To give an impression, this is current state of my list:

http://bit.ly/MB_subgenres

It is still very much in the rough, and needs a lot more work, but this is so that anybody can shoot easier at the general idea.

Before commenting on specifics be sure to do some investigation yourself, and do not just comment on 'gut feelings'.
I had to correct many of my own assumptions about 'genres', 'styles', 'movements' and 'techniques'.




jistme

  • Guest
Made a lot of progress:

http://bit.ly/MB_subgenres

Two lists now, one with actual genres, and another one with 'other' terms which are often mistaken for genres, but still useful to have.

The terms in this second list could be divided into Style, Tradition, Movement, Technique, Musical Dance, Radio format, Trend, Marketing category, etc. etc. but it's probably most sensible to keep them all together as 'other'.

jistme

  • Guest
- Removed some duplicates
- Made some switches
- Corrected spelling and capitalization

I think this is the best I can do.
Without new input this is it.

http://bit.ly/MB_subgenres

redwing

  • Guest
How come C-pop as genre category, J-pop as genre, no K-pop?

I would propose

Pop / C-pop, J-pop, K-pop.

jistme

  • Guest
I think I made that choice because of this mention on Wikipedia:
 
"C-pop is sometimes used as an umbrella term covering not only Chinese pop but also R&B, ballads, Chinese rock, Chinese hip hop and Chinese ambient music."

This would put it outside the 'Pop' category.

But until we get angry letters from Chinese Bees I changed it to your suggestion ;-)

And added K-pop.
Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 01:18:42 PM by jistme

redwing

  • Guest
They are not about style but about region. Thus can't expect to be 100% correct unless they are all genre categories.

jistme

  • Guest
They are not about style but about region. Thus can't expect to be 100% correct unless they are all genre categories.

I already found almost every single item in such a list is debatable. But we've gotta do something, right?

Are you now advocating they should be genre categories? (I don't think you are, but just checking to be sure)



redwing

  • Guest
They are not about style but about region. Thus can't expect to be 100% correct unless they are all genre categories.

I already found almost every single item in such a list is debatable. But we've gotta do something, right?

Are you now advocating they should be genre categories? (I don't think you are, but just checking to be sure)

Not at all. To be 100% precise, they should be bigger than genre categories with all kinds of styles. So just go ahead!

jistme

  • Guest
I myself have custom tags for both Country and Language. That's already making navigating such genres and styles much easier.
And the use of the already present 'keywords' are also very handy for this.

Of course it's an illusion to think any genre list will cover all.





Xyzzy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
Of course I respect your opinion, but I object to "it is just adding complexity for the sake of itself"

Hierarchies are very useful if implemented correctly, and life would be much harder without them.

Let's not generalise. I have like 120 fine-grained genres in my main group and I've never felt a need to subdivide them.

Your example in my eyes proves more my point than yours.

Anyway, as long as this feature can be ignored and does not show up in the ui unrequested, I am totaly indifferent towards it.


jistme

  • Guest
Man, that is a great list. Only one I couldn't find is Zolo.
http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Zolo/


That's quite an interesting one. Thnx, hadn't heared of it  yet.
Strange there is no Wikipedia on it. (there was, but it is deleted?)

Yet it could be argued if this is an actual genre, reading:
"to describe a cross-section of bands and artists with similar approaches to music."

and

"Zolo itself is a creative thread that runs independently of both of these genres."

So it might also be considered a style, or an attitude.

But in case of doubt, I feel rules are there for the Bees, and not the other way around.

So it's added.