What if we all just stopped labeling music?

Labeling is beneficial to a degree, but escpecially lately on here, its a total pain. Were all guilty of it, I call bands posers all the time, then I suffer a swift calling out by Eyesore. The point is, when we label something it helps to share that music with others or for better understanding. I find myself lookng into bands more because of what style they play then for sake of their originality in sound. I thought finding a new band you like is because they dont sound like anyone else? Thats how it used to be, I dont think its like that as much anymore. Anyway, what do you guys think? I'm pretty sure I just confused myself............

Yeah, I think you confused yourself. Haha. You said you find yourself looking into bands not because of their originality, but then the next line you say you thought finding a new band you like is because they don't sound like anyone else. That would be originality, right? =)

And my response to your poser comment wasn't meant to be negative. I just think "poser" is a strong word, but one that has little meaning. 14- and 15-year-old kids emulate everything. I did. You did. You're still young and I'd be willing to bet you still do emulate and copy things. It's natural.

But anyway, labels are necessary, I think, but they're a bit ambiguous these days. Music has evolved; bands are incorporating all kinds of different styles. I'd say that nine out of ten bands can easily be put in a certain genre, one of the "umbrella genres." A band like Black Dahlia Murders, to me, do not get the melodic death metal label. Yeah, the vocals are screamed more than grunted, but the music has more in common with straight death metal, if you ask me. I'd label them death metal.

Labels are a pain, though, but a necessary evil.

There would be no organization. And I would end up picking a poseurs band by mistake

I stopped worrying about all the sub-divisions within metal and hard rock a looooong time ago.

Now I have two labels: stuff that sucks, and stuff that doesn't suck.

End of thread.

one can possibly use a genre to know what to avoid basted on your tastes. say for instance you dont really like metalcore and a band is described as metalcore then you would know to avoid it possibly. thats just an example

TheGooch wrote:

basted on your tastes

Mmmmmmmm....basted tatstes.....

I think it's more helpful to compare a band's sound to another band rather than label it with a genre. It's much more useful to me when someone says "new band A sounds something like classic Band B with some Band C thrown in."

tohostudios wrote:

I think it's more helpful to compare a band's sound to another band rather than label it with a genre. It's much more useful to me when someone says "new band A sounds something like classic Band B with some Band C thrown in."

very true. heres an example:

oh, there is this Danish band, "Sons of Tomorrow" ..they are quite cool - Imagine a mixture of Black Sabbath, Deep Purple and Alice in Chanes..yikes! Sounds awesome

TheGooch wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

I think it's more helpful to compare a band's sound to another band rather than label it with a genre. It's much more useful to me when someone says "new band A sounds something like classic Band B with some Band C thrown in."

very true. heres an example:

oh, there is this Danish band, "Sons of Tomorrow" ..they are quite cool - Imagine a mixture of Black Sabbath, Deep Purple and Alice in Chanes..yikes! Sounds awesome

Bingo! Is that a real review? That sounds interesting.

Then you buy it and it sounds nothing like any of those bands.

emptytomb1 wrote:

Then you buy it and it sounds nothing like any of those bands.

Yeah, but that's the only way to learn who's opinions you can trust. Besides, I only use band comparisons as a starting point. If the comparison sounds interesting, I go looking for samples.

emptytomb1 wrote:

Then you buy it and it sounds nothing like any of those bands.

Exactly! Haha. I love seeing stickers on new albums that say: FOR FANS OF MOONSPELL, AGNOSTIC FRONT, AND PAPA ROACH!

I've never really cared about wat a band is labeled, I usually just listen to the band and if I like them then I listen to them. Labels can be useful at times for if u like a specific genre of music but u shouldn't base wat u like off of labels.

I like labeling music. It makes it so much easier to be a close-minded individual. Works well on people too.

with the band names & album covers of most death & grindcore bands that i listen to, there is really no need for labels.

I look for band influences and how Old school they sound. The rawer and louder the better

If a band is reffered as a In your face heavy metal, is a must

If a band has Judas Priest influences, I have to check it

If the band has Iron Maiden inflences, It brings me down

I think they are a necessary evil; I try not to use them too much for fear of reprisals. Peace.

I find myself not even caring about new bands coming out anymore, since I'm a youngster and have only been into metal for a few years, I'm mostly trying to catch up on all the greats that I missed or was to young to appreciate.

CDs should all be in brown paper "grab" bags. Or, every cover the same plain white. It would be exciting and make trading more fun. Like when we were kids and bought baseball cards. You never knew what you were going to get. Griffey Jr. Rookie? Yay!! I'll trade you Rob Deer, Fred McGriff and Chris Sabo for that Griff Rookie!

Fat Freddy wrote:

I stopped worrying about all the sub-divisions within metal and hard rock a looooong time ago.

Now I have two labels: stuff that sucks, and stuff that doesn't suck.

End of thread.

'nuff said!

I think labels are a necessary evil for consumers of music, but I don't really take them seriously at the level of a band or an album. I mean how many bands can fit every song they ever did into one genre? A minority I'd say. I think labeling a song is valid, but labeling a band or album is usually only an indicator to the consumer as to that band's tendencies.