🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Pine.SV4.3.91.951202225343.23825A-100000@larry>, Rebecca Sue
Conner <rconner@emory.edu> wrote:

>         
> 
> On 2 Dec 1995, Sunil Mishra wrote:
> I agree that there is some usefulness in using "music adjectives", but 
> people seem to get *way* too involved in defining what sound or band, or 
> even _song_ bests defines that genre.  Pu-lease!  I see that it is often 
> useful to be able to say things like "Gee, I love a good punk bass 
> thumpin'" or "That post-nuclear new wave is the sound for me", but some 
> people seem to obsess, no?  I guess its a really big deal to people who 
> use music to define their identity, and there's nothing wrong with that, 
> but these are loose, non-Webster definitions, and I don't think people 
> should get so hung up on "misuse" of them.  Besides, when you say "goth" 
> I still think of the 19th century literary movement -- pale people who 
> only wear black and love bass sounds with depressing lyrics (I was one 
> of them) were called "death rockers" when I was growing up...


A bigger problem with labelling music is when you go in to a store to find
something and it's not where you think it should be. HMV at Lenox Square
for instance puts (or did when they opened) their Irish acoustic/folk
stuff (Mary Black, etc.) not in the World Music rack but in regular folk.
I've often wished that music stores would simply do everything
alphabetically by performer. Maybe an exception for "classical", which
would be assimilated by composer. (Then again, to do that you've got to
decide what "classical music" actual means, don't you? grrrrrrr....)

-- 
  Howard Fore  -   Mac/LAN Manager/Webmaster   -   Creative Loafing Inc.
      hfore@mindspring.com   -   http://www.mindspring.com/~hfore
           What are YOU doing to oppose the Microsoft juggernaut?