antiGUY gives his
top 5 list of music stuff. Could be songs, people, a stupid trend... nothing
is sacred to antiGUY
This
Months Top 5
Top 5 Misused Music Labels
Whats in a label? I know people like to
throw a label on everything. This is metal, this is hard rock, this is
punk and this is crap oops I meant rap. But what happens when in the span
of a few years a label is used to describe two totally different forms
of music? Or a label is misleading? A Cheap Trick fan hears about this
killer new power-pop group and is dismayed when he pops the Sum 41 CD into
his CD player. Or some poor misguided soul who loves Poison and is told
about this killer new metal band, Slipknot? What would happen if a music
store clerk told a punk fan to buy the latest Blink-182 CD, much
violence would ensue? You can see the dilemma. So this month I thought
it would be interesting to look at five of the most misused genre labels.
I realize that music does evolve and changes with time but I think the
following with be instructive in showing this process going awry.
Top 5 Misused Music Labels
5.) Hair Band It
seems this label is used to classify any band that had long hair and made
music in the 80s.
4. )Alternative Rock
When grunge (another misused label) hit big, people began to call forms
of harder edged rock Alternative. Well the fact is that this music became
mainstream so it couldnt be alternative any longer! Whats it an alternative
to? Itself?
3.) Pop The word
pop has been used through the years to discribe everything from The Beatles
to Cheap Trick to the Backstreet Boys. True, pop is short for popular music
but these days is synonymous with over processed focused grouped dance
and bubblegum music.
2.) Pop Punk This
label is often used to described pop bands that use simplistic chord structures.
While there are a few bands that could be labeled Pop Punk like All most
of the bands that are called Pop-Punk these days are really just power-pop
groups Blink 182
and
the number one Misused Music Label is
Boy Band I get
the boy part, but the band label is a misnomer. A band that doesnt play
instruments is a group, in the case of what are called boy bands, they
are boy singing groups. Hanson is a boy band = 3 boys in a band.
Your
turn, what do you think?
Fan
Speak:
Posted by Jazz:
consider the music of Jhon Coltrain,he was said to sound as if he was trying to blow up his sax by tring to get somany notes out.The sound is almost repulsive until you have listened many times then its like a gateway to any music,I consider him true hevey metal
Posted by Britt:
Labels are totally wrong! you can't describe someone by using a label. there is more to a person then the clothes they wear and lets face it that is how you are labeled.if you wear a pink shirt then u are preppy and Black you are some how Goth even though you are coming out in the day light.People are so Damn stupid!They don't seem to get that the human mind is so much more complex.emotions make us different and difference makes us human not labeled.
Posted by Rob:
Man, does it reely matter that much what someone labels your music as? Its all there to be enjoied so take time n listen 2 as much as u can cuz all music is inspired by all other music, eg. Jimi Hendrix was very inspirated by Mozart, And Jimmy Page was then influenced by him and so on... lol
Posted by Shaggy:
Whoever thinks that Bob Dylan is crap then theyre trippin. Music is what it is today because of him, The Bealtes, and all the other musicians in the sixties. At least have some respect
Posted by aG:
Hey you, if it made no sense then maybe it's you that is the dumbass. I know it's hard but think about it.
Posted by hey you:
whoever wrote that is a dumbass. it was irrelevant to anything, and made no sense what-so-ever. i give it an F for FRIGGIN SUCKED.
Posted by Druid:
Alternative rock. It once sorta meant something, but now, what is it an alternative to??
Posted by Florence the Grand:
well, pop punk is underused. Calling bands like good charolette, nfg, blink, theyre pop punk. It isnt the worst thing, i dont like it though. It's just like you said easy tunes and silly silly words. BRIGHT EYES IS THE GREATEST BAND I LOVE CONOR! yahaha, take that.
Posted by Bufo:
Hair Band is not a label to take serious, this is more like a joke. Instead of Hair Band, I would put "World Music". Because what the hell is world music anyways. Is there any music that is not made in this world besides Man or Astroman? There are thousands of complete different music that are under this label only because they are not sung in english, that doesn't make sense at all.
Posted by poster:
emo, that term gets tagged to everything now days. Swing kids = EMO
and blink 182 is power pop, thank you.
Posted by kkk666:
Posted by Mr. huh? saying, "My Generation Sucks":
Who cares? Music is music. However, if I had to choose, I'd say calling hip-hop and teen pop acts rock is the most overused one. Like when two members of the Backstreet Boys and Sisqo all appeared on "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire"'s Rock Star edition.
Posted by Babe wit a problem:
Ok they r pure rock to me
Posted by Babe wit a problem:
ok they are pure rock to me
Posted by babe wit a problem:
I think that Blink 182 are pure rock not pop punk
Posted by CrazyBumFungus:
I AM THE ALMIGHTY ASS FUNGUS! ok, enough of that. I have never heard the term 'pop-punk'. I've heard punk-rock, but that's it. I always considered Blink 182 and Sum41 just plain pop anyway.
Posted by GREENMUSE:
i am azag thoth,the mad,blind god fear me,tremble in my gaze.on weekends i zamfir,master of the pan flute,you can buy my cd right now for 19.99 plus 4.99 shipping and handling
Posted by Nidfbdshffuisdhfkjsdh:
that you should F*** off
Posted by Ritchie:
I am Aphrodite queen of love and beauty.
Posted by Eddy:
I am poseidon king of the sea
Posted by zeegirl:
Actually, can I point out that every label you can put on a band or artist- no exceptions, every single label- you could argue that it's misused. This doesn't just go for music, but for trying to label anything... put things in categories... just by doing it you're almost guaranteed to misuse it. ESPECIALLY when you're talking music.
Posted by Kizzy:
I think calling most of these so called entertainers musicians is the biggest misconception of all.
Posted by loose Ass:
because i go around singing songs about love...
Posted by Narkguy:
sub- HAHA thats too funny
Posted by SubXavier:
I thought Dylan was the name of that baby on Rugrats.
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
No, No, No. Dylan is strange kind of rabbit thing in the Magic Roundabout
Posted by someone else:
come on roxane everyone knows who Dylan is how could you not know who Dylan is.Dylan is the lead singer of the wallflowers
Posted by rocky racoon:
You are joking arnt you Roxanne.
Posted by Roxanne:
i totally think that these misused labels are so right. the label "Boy Band" has been used just to classify groups such as N'Sync and The Backstreet Boys, but they aren't even bands, so in the same sense you could call Korn and Static-X boy bands just because they play their own music and are all guy groups. WHO IS DYLAN?
Posted by rocky racoon:
O.k we will agree to disagree athough i do find it strange that you can have an opinion on Dylan without listening to his best music, at least that gives hope that one day you will join as and become a Dylan fan.
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one rocky. Obviously we both could go on for days about this particular subject, but my opinion is biased anyway because I really don't like Dylan. I don't know which album I like better either, I haven't listened to them.
Posted by Soul Survivor:
I think the most misused music label is "alternative". When it started in the 60s alternative rock was the name given to groups that went against the mold(like the Velvet Underground). Now the label of alternative rock is given to EVERYTHING. How are unoriginal, pretentious, maistream as hell groups like Creed and Three Doors Down called "alternative" when they're the kind of thing you look for an alternative to. It's just shows how record company marketing's ruined the industry.
Posted by rocky racoon:
I ahve Dylan down as doing releasing 32 albums not including greatest hits , complimations or live albums. And when i talked about Dylan having an impact on music i was talking about popular music and was not comparing him to Bach or Tchaikovsky. One last question Mr underpants i was wondering which album you thought was better Blonde on Blonde or Highway 61
Posted by iamsocool:
hendrix has admitted that dylan was the reason that he went into the musical industry. And i never said all 43 were good, i kinda work at a music section of a site, and that was recent news i remembered.
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
So do you think that Dylan had a larger or smaller impact on music than Bach or Tchaikovsky or maybe Stock, Aitken and Waterman who had a massive impact on the music scene with their seeminly neverending supply of manufactured artists? Once again, I submit to the fact that Dylan was a great songwriter, but as a performing artist, forget it.
Posted by aG:
Dylan had a huge impact on music directly and indirectly. You have to remember he was the one who turned the Beatles on to pot and that had a huge impact on their music!
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
Wow, what an amazing response. (iamsocool) I don't really thinks it's fair to say that all the artists I know would not exist if it weren't for Dylan. I appreciate that Hendrix (among others) did very popular covers of Dylan songs, but was also a very talented songwriter and musician himself. I don't think his career would have been so drastically different if he didn't do All Along The Watchtower. 43 albums is impressive, but how many of those are just compilations, the best of or badly recorded live ones? I know Jimi Hendrix catalogue stands at over 30 albums, although strangely enough he only recorded 3 (Are You Experienced, Axis Bold As Love, Electric Ladyland). The rest were all released after his death and are mainly compilations of the original three. (rocky racoon) Again, you also maintain that music wouldn't be the same without Dylan. OK so Dylan could write (some) lyrics, but he certainly was not (is not) the fountain of all music.
Posted by rocky racoon:
Dylan is amazing and music wouldnt be even close to what it is without Dylan. As much of a Beatles fan as i am, i have to admit that the Beatle early lyrics were nice, fun and not really much more-the same as every pop group around that time, very basic lyrics(the beatles did do it better then most however). Then Dylan came along singing protest songs, unusual worded love songs and storytelling songs that are proberbly the funniest songs ever writen. Dylan was also one of the first popular artist to not really worry about selling records-he just wanted to make his own type of music, thats why he didnt care how long his songs were or what the songs were about and went on making songs that you couldnt really dance to. Put that together with the brilliant moody melodys and lyrics of his electric albums and the genre of country rock that he created and its impossible to overlook Dylan. His vioce is also something that will grow on you and proved to the rock world that you didnt need a perfect voice to make it in the charts
Posted by eagles:
bob dylan is so overrated in the mainstream. at least here most people recognize him for the crap he is.
Posted by SubXavier:
Thank you, Mr. Unterpants... I don't agree with you on Dylan, but I always thought the Beatles were a bit overrated. *dons a flame-retardant suit, douses himself with gasoline, and prepares for immolation... hehe*
Posted by iamsocool:
well, if it werent for bob dylan, there probably wouldnt be any of the artists you know. There'd be no Hendrix, for one. And his voice was not bad back in his day, but his drug use got the best of him, and his voice is screwed for life. Speaking of Dylan, i think hes putting out his 43rd album tommorow
Posted by Paranoia:
Wow...you're completely right about that...
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
Bob Dylan - are you mad? So maybe he wrote some good lyric, but man he couldn't sing worth a p1ss. He goes down in my top 10 overrated artists along with the Beatles and Oasis.
Posted by rocky racoon:
Underrtaed bands would be interesting, maybe if you made it the most underrated artists at this web site. That way you would include the kinks and bob dylan both of which didnt make it onto the 100 greatest artist of all time on this site.
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
I think we need some new material here!
Posted by Paranoia:
Hardcore is a big mislabel - if you asked anyone in my school what they would define as "hardcore" they would say the typical response of this completely corporate garbage that's fallen upon us in the past few years. Speaking of RATM, I really do feel sorry for them. They really did kick ass, and I guess now they're sort of over with, which I also feel bad about...but look what they've inspired...and totally unintentionally. Limp Bizkit and their legion of imitators. That really must be infuriating, I suppose. And by the way, aG, I really do suggest that next month's top 5 should be the most underrated bands. That really would start some controversy.
Posted by Ronny Z:
Here are some other misused labels! Hardcore: Any music that is aggressive and serious themes. It's been applied ti rock and hip-hop. It's been misused because it been applied to mainstream rock acts and power pop(aka punk). Another misused label is Nu-Metal. It's traditional heavy metal/hard rock mixed with other genres of music. That has been misused alot. A another misued music label is New Wave. It was punk music acts lighten their music for radio play. Pop has been a misused label in itself. Pop music meant popular music(rock, pop, r&b, hip-hop, punk, reggae, etc). Pop music is also a musical genre. It now used to describe boy bands, girl groups, teen queens, and any musician who don't write their own songs or have control of their own music, image, etc. Now, we can put any band in this category.
Posted by Aron:
Here's another misused label! Nu-Metal: bands which include Korn, Deftones, Coal Chamber, Limp Bizkit, Powerman 5000, etc. Bands who use toned down guitars, fused rock with other genres of music like funk, rap, reggae, Techno. In addition, they take the anger of Rage Against The Machines, and the rebellious nature of Guns N Roses to make a form of rock that most people call crap. It's marketed to an audience tired of bubblegum pop, and it unnecessarily puts newer groups who music is the opposite of the sound from the ones I mentioned above like Kittie, Nothingface, Step Kings, etc. I feel it's misused because any new heavy rock band that comes will be pigeonhole in this category. That denies a bunch of great bands their chance to separate themselves from the pack!
Posted by SubXavier:
*attacks the "n="*
Posted by SubXavier:
Hey, we should n=make a pop-rock-alternative-indie-garage-folk-thrash-Gregorian chant band.
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
It would be possible to label thousands upon thousands of bands as pop/'something' if you take pop as meaning popular. Pop being such a huge generalisation, the same as Indie, Alternative and Hardcore any one of these general terms could be applied to most bands. When it comes to actual genre, I certainly wouldn't class Korn as rock/rap. Surely rap is a vocal style which, as far as I am aware, the singer from Korn (i don't know his name, David Thingy or something) is not familiar with. I would class his vocal style more as 'moaning'. So bearing all this in mind, Korn could actually be classed as pop/rock/moaning.
Posted by rocky racoon:
The Ramones were able to combine the raw sound and energy of punk with the fun, the hooks and intellegence of pop. So in many ways they are a punk/pop band
Posted by rocky racoon:
The things youve got to understand about labelling bands and puting them into genres is the fact that most bands can be put into more then one catogory. I think Korn can be called a rock/rap band and Ramones can be called a punk/pop band.
Posted by the max:
"Mallcore" is a pathetic person's label for music that is too popular for him/herself. It is probably the most unintelligent word that has ever been used on this site. Slipknot is Slipknot, that is all that can be said about them. Here's a few other supposed rap rock bands that don't quite qualify for the label: Slipknot, Linkin Park, Disturbed, Mudvayne, Staind, and System of a Down. All have been accused, but not a one falls into it.
Posted by Trendkill138:
Living Colour aren't a hair band. They were actually alternative. They were one of the alternative bands that made it big before Nirvana exploded.
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
So Korn are Rap Rock are they? Interesting choice of label. So what are Slipknot classed as, Folk Thrash or maybe Heavy Hard Punk House Thrash Garage Death Crossover? And what the f$ck is mallcore, it sounds like some kind bird food.
Posted by :
Living Colour - hair band is a deragatory term like mallcore
Posted by althepal:
So would Poison and that band who did "Cult of Personality" be Hair Bands?
Posted by Trendkill138:
There is a lot of hip hop influence in Korn's music, which is probably why people call them rap rock, although Jonathan Davis doesn't rap.
Posted by i agree with paranoia:
it is true, they are not boys nor bands. most of them are in their 30S!! do you want your little 7 year old drooling over some 30 year old fart who likes little girls??? SICK
Posted by the max:
aG, You forgot about Rap Rock. It's at least No.6, this is a genre that also gets bands thrown in that have almost no rap at all. Probably the most sad example is Korn. Anyone who is going to tell me they are Rap Rock needs to get their heads out of their bumm.
Posted by Me Unterpants:
t ... that's the one I missed out!
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
I don't really want to get involved with arguing about who started punk - all I know is that the majority of major punk bands (including the Ramones) all started to release records in 1976. And while I'm at it - YOUR MOM - nice bit of stereotyping, so according to you, any rock bands from the eighties are not worth listening to. Just out of interest, tell us all what your tastes are so that we can sereotype you.
Posted by DK:
The Ramones came first
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
Dr Fever, although I totally agree that the Ramones are plain old punk, I don't really think that they were responsible for the entire punk 'thing'. What about UK Subs, GBH, The Clash, Sex Pistols, 999 etc etc, I'm sure they had a hand in the popularity of punk as well. And by the way, Oxymoron - a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness).
Posted by Trendkill138:
The Ramones were definitely not a "pop punk" band. They were a pure punk band who made damn great pop music. (Pop under certain definitions, of course.) For the record, I'm male.
Posted by Dr Fever:
a couple points..first; the jagoff towards the bottom that calls The Ramones "pop punk". my god man! back up and put the pipe down. The Ramones were and still are plain old PUNK. if it weren't for the Ramones, PUNK wouldn't exist. period. no argument accepted. so, don't even try. Second, as much as it pains me to say this, a really over used label is HARDCORE. I mean, this very site tried to convince me that there was such a thing as MAJOR LABEL HARDCORE in our little "best of" poll last year. Look, saying the words 'major label hardcore' is the definition of Oxymoronic. I work in a record store and i cant begin to tell you how many people I hear refering to bands like Slipknot, Mudvayne, System of a Down, etc, etc. as "hardcore". wrong. get your facts and your shyt straight. hardcore is bands like Snapcase, Bloodjinn, All Out War, Candiria, Hatebreed, Converge, etc etc. And, finally, anyone who classifies bands like FAITH NO MORE, The Cult, Anthrax and even (yes i've heard this statement made with my own two ears) SLAYER as 'hair bands' just because they debuted in or had the most sucess in the 80's is friggin braindead for starters. and a complete waste of my oxygen. ok, enough from me. i'm stepping off my soapbox and going back to work. later kiddies.
Posted by your mom:
hair band music is the annoying rock music of the 80's that all sounded the same. They all wore the leather pants, had long unruly hair and the dumbest music. Be glad u dont know what it is.
Posted by althepal:
I've never heard of "Hair Bands" before. Is it another expression for Glam Rock?
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
As Trendkill138 correctly points out, a lot of 'Labels' are merely a mass generalisation. His/her example 'Alternative' I take to mean any type of music differing to the mainstream. Another example is 'Indie', which by definition means persons or bands currently signed to independant record labels. The most confusing and frustrating thing about labels is that some are these generalised terms, some seem to be utterly meaningless (house, garage) and some are more specific to the actual music genre (genre - a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content). With this in mind, it becomes impossible for artists to be labelled at all, as each label is really a releflection of an individuals own opinion of which category they should fit in to. Specific boundries cannot be established, AC/DC regard themselves as Rock 'n' Roll, so did Elvis. The two have no comparisons. So where does that leave us?
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
Vote now for the Top Five people making no sense at all. 1. Maxum
Posted by rocky racoon:
Sorry Maxum can you run through that again.
Posted by Trendkill138:
I don't see why Prodigy couldn't be considered alternative. I always considered techno to be a part of "alternative". Alternative is just an umbrella term for lots of different music, like punk, new wave indie rock, industrial, synth-pop, goth rock, punk-funk, Beatle-esque pop, you get the picture. Even some forms of rap and country are "alternative".
Posted by LessthanAXL:
I think the whole 'Hair Band' genre is messed up. People seem to group anyone with long hair in the 80's in that genre. Metallica had long hair and totally weren't a hair band, Guns n Roses did too, but their far from it. Bands like Poison and Bon Jovi were 'hair bands'.
Posted by eagles:
Two cheap trick mentions in one article? I'm not sure if I'm impressed or disgusted
Posted by aG:
Paranoia - that would be sure to start a fight!
Posted by Paranoia:
Next month's top five should be "Top 5 Underrated Bands."
Posted by Maxum:
Some people are so stupid. I totally got what this dude was saying about Pop. Pop is a genre of music.. Some of you people should trying reading things before commenting especially Rocky Racoon this dude was saying the same thing but you come off disagreeing with it and say the exact same thing.
Posted by Brian Moore:
I remember when people were classifing Prodigy as "alternative."
Posted by Paranoia:
Actually, aG, "boy band" is doubly wrong. You're right that a band PLAYS its instruments. But look at these guys...some of them are in their late 20's and early 30's. They aren't BOYS. They're MEN. That's just WRONG to call these guys BOYS. And they all suck, too, as a bonus. You're right about grunge being a misued label. And definitely alternative. The whole alternative thing was just a mislabel waiting to happen, because none of us radio junkies would KNOW about alternative music if it wasn't alternative in the sense that most people classify alternative in. Yes. I know about how much sense that made. Oh well, it's four o'clock in the morning, you can't expect too much from anyone at this hour. Gonna go check out the "Flashback Top 5 Rap Rock Records that will never be made," though I can guess most of 'em from here.
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
Being as Pop is simply an abbreviated form of Popular, surely any band considered popular (i.e. having success in the charts) is considered to be Pop. Therefore, Pop cannot be classed as a music genre, it is simply a reflection of record sales.
Posted by rocky racoon:
Here we go again, pop has nothing to do with bubblegum lyrics and dance groups. Would anyone here argue with The Corrs being pop-there not a dance group and they dont have bubblegum lyrics yet there defintely not classed as rock. You cant have a genre of music that for artists to be included in that genre they must be crap musisians. Theres no doubt that pop is the most misused genre of music. Im worried that a tallented bunch of musisans will come along writing there own songs and playing there own tunes with a similer sound to that of some of the boybands but will get ignored by people because they fit into this definition of pop .
Posted by Mr Unterpants:
Jeff - I know I don't! What the f@?k is a 'Hair Band' anyway? A band made entirely from hair presumably.
Posted by jeff:
does anyone really care??
Posted by Potato:
i was in a really bad CD shop in my town the other day, they had to sections, Pop and alternitive all the hevey metal was lurking around with the rap and punk, and bands like Zeppelin and Sabbath, LInkin park and Limp where in Pop. I went up to the clerk and asked about Industrial music (to see how dumb this guy was) he said if i was intrested in undergroud music i should look on the internet cause they don`t have that type music, i decided to make him listen to some NIN and KMFDM that seemed to be in the Pop section.
Posted by iamsocool:
1. Pop. All rock and roll is pop. 2. Rap. Saying lyrics fast does not make you rap. Bob Dylan is not rap. But if he were out today, he people would consider him rap. 3. Pop punk (offspring, ramones - yes... blink, sum 41- no) 4. Hair metal (Def lappard, Twisted Sister - yes. Guns N Roses, Van Halen - no) 5. Alt Rock (like said above)
Posted by Deviated Rectum:
Right on brotherman. The most irritating of all is truly the Alternative label. What is alternative these days is the people doing new things ie: Radiohead, Bjork, Goldie, P. Diddy...OK scratch that last one. Once again in my perverse little mind it all comes back to The Creature Of The Dark (Mr. Daly) and his minions. Everything without implants and/or a record deal out of a cracker jacks box is "Alternative" Maybe that is a good thing though, that all the lil brainwashed children will see that there is an alternative.
