Most-tolerated Genre?

[donkey tugger]

hope she doesn't need the loo in the night

Surely the course of true love could not be diverted by a triviality such as having to squat over a bucket?

[vurt]

hope she doesn't need the loo in the night

Surely the course of true love could not be diverted by a triviality such as having to squat over a bucket?

she may not have trained herself, to only evacuate the rear at work?

[donkey tugger]

hope she doesn't need the loo in the night

Surely the course of true love could not be diverted by a triviality such as having to squat over a bucket?

she may not have trained herself, to only evacuate the rear at work?

Perhaps there would be certain, shall we say, 'specialist', proclivities involved?

[vurt]

i reckon there is a toilet anyway, he's just scared to go in there, because, spiders/australia.
i for one don't blame him.

[vurt]

id be angry a lot, if even the bloody snails could unalive me.

[neverbefore]

The original Latin verb is 'probere.' To 'test.' It is interpreted both ways, but paradigms must change when there are enough exceptions. I think Popper asserted that.

'test' is the interpretation I often use - in combination with the defn that the exception, by nature of being rare/uncommon/'exceptional' shows the rule to hold on most occasions

[neverbefore]

tons of hit songs are made by uncompomising people

[Constructed Identity]

Most-tolerated Genre?

There IS no genre! This word just comes from music-press and neub producers who are copying something they like. Think back to when you where a kid, did you hear a song you liked and think 'oh yah that genre is so right for me' lol NO! You liked it for some magical combination of tones and lyrics of sequence of notes that worked together.
I think that once electronic music became all about what a genre something was it lost it's creativity. I can even remember when it was, in the late 1990's or mid-to-late '90s with the advent of junge, D'n'B, hardcore, gabber, industrial-techno, happy-hardcore, chip-tune, deep house, gospel house, etc. etc. etc...
The first techno I heard I hated, but later I heard techno I liked, it's more complex than a copied formulaic style.

[Bunny_boy]

Most-tolerated Genre?

There IS no genre! This word just comes from music-press and neub producers who are copying something they like. Think back to when you where a kid, did you hear a song you liked and think 'oh yah that genre is so right for me' lol NO! You liked it for some magical combination of tones and lyrics of sequence of notes that worked together.
I think that once electronic music became all about what a genre something was it lost it's creativity. I can even remember when it was, in the late 1990's or mid-to-late '90s with the advent of junge, D'n'B, hardcore, gabber, industrial-techno, happy-hardcore, chip-tune, deep house, gospel house, etc. etc. etc...
The first techno I heard I hated, but later I heard techno I liked, it's more complex than a copied formulaic style.

Techno's a genre

[osiris]

Rap. Created so people with no voice could record music. Example: 'I'm a venereal disease, like a menstrual bleed.' Rogers & Hammerstein eat your hearts out.

[ghettosynth]

Genres are labels that we apply to a cluster that is formed based on attributes of the music. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, it provides a useful tool for communication. Even the excessive lableing of the 90s. House is a broad genre, I love house, but I don't love everything that's labled house.

That said, there is nothing stopping people from expressing their preference in terms of a different set of attributes/features that would lead to a different clustering, even a trivial clustering of "like", "don't like." It's absurd to assert that one must be loyal to some particular feature set based cluster, this is where genre discussions go wrong. Moreover, many pieces will straddle genres. Long winded arguments about whether a track is house or techno are tedious. Some tracks will fit well in either type of set and will be perceived as belonging to that genre in that context.

I gave a good example, I like minimal music, across many genres, I dislike busy music, across many genres. Some genres have very little room for minimalism, e.g., Tehano music, Polka, Happy Hardcore. So I tend to not like those genres. My appreciation for minimal isn't universal, as should be expected. Minimal is a feature, I like/dislike other features as well and any attemp to build a usable model of this over many people will undoubtedly lead to incorrect predictions for some people. There are a couple of HHC tracks that I find charming, most likely because they're connected to some experience. This kind of apprecation is tough to model because we all have different experiences that drive our taste, and if that's not enough, they're not static.

So again, all models are wrong, some models are useful.

[Constructed Identity]

Most-tolerated Genre?

There IS no genre! This word just comes from music-press and neub producers who are copying something they like. Think back to when you where a kid, did you hear a song you liked and think 'oh yah that genre is so right for me' lol NO! You liked it for some magical combination of tones and lyrics of sequence of notes that worked together.
I think that once electronic music became all about what a genre something was it lost it's creativity. I can even remember when it was, in the late 1990's or mid-to-late '90s with the advent of junge, D'n'B, hardcore, gabber, industrial-techno, happy-hardcore, chip-tune, deep house, gospel house, etc. etc. etc...
The first techno I heard I hated, but later I heard techno I liked, it's more complex than a copied formulaic style.

Techno's a genre

So do you like Tressor techno or Warp records' techno?
They aren't the same. It's almost like everyone has their own style...

[Constructed Identity]

Genres are labels that we apply to a cluster that is formed based on attributes of the music. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, it provides a useful tool for communication. Even the excessive lableing of the 90s. House is a broad genre, I love house, but I don't love everything that's labled house.

That said, there is nothing stopping people from expressing their preference in terms of a different set of attributes/features that would lead to a different clustering, even a trivial clustering of "like", "don't like." It's absurd to assert that one must be loyal to some particular feature set based cluster, this is where genre discussions go wrong. Moreover, many pieces will straddle genres. Long winded arguments about whether a track is house or techno are tedious. Some tracks will fit well in either type of set and will be perceived as belonging to that genre in that context.

I gave a good example, I like minimal music, across many genres, I dislike busy music, across many genres. Some genres have very little room for minimalism, e.g., Tehano music, Polka, Happy Hardcore. So I tend to not like those genres. My appreciation for minimal isn't universal, as should be expected. Minimal is a feature, I like/dislike other features as well and any attemp to build a usable model of this over many people will undoubtedly lead to incorrect predictions for some people. There are a couple of HHC tracks that I find charming, most likely because they're connected to some experience. This kind of apprecation is tough to model because we all have different experiences that drive our taste, and if that's not enough, they're not static.

So again, all models are wrong, some models are useful.

House is worse. There is house that I love and House that I hate.
We have to add descriptors like Deep House or Tech House or Jazzy House
...and still everyone is a little different.
How about this kind of retro-inspired-classic-house-that-is actually new :

[vurt]

Rap. Created so people with no voice could record music.

[BONES]

Your assertion is without evidence; regardless, context dependent does not only mean emotional state.

The evidence is there for all to experience, you're just too lazy/disinterested to go and look.

People prefer different music for different activities, e.g., driving, dancing, working, etc.

Why should that involve different genres? You persist with this absurd notion that a genre can only satisfy a single need/desire. I listen to exactly the same music whilst doing any/all of those things. The one time I might want to put on something a little more specific is on a lazy Sunday morning but, even then, I will still turn to Post Punk music, something like It's Immateria's Life's Hard and Then You Die or Fischer-Z's The Iceberg Model, or maybe John Watts' Thirteen Stories High.

If you'd even looked at the links that I provided, this should have been obvious.

None of them are relevant to this discussion. They are about the population at large, most of whom have far less interest in music than we do, so of course they are going to conform to statistical norms. As a subset of that data, KVR members are likely to inhabit only the top 1% slice of that data, perhaps an even narrower slice than that, but all at the top end of the scale. If they had restricted input to people with some kind of threshold, say a collection of more than 500 albums, the results would undoubtedly have been very different. As it stands, none of the interpretations are going to reveal anything meaningful that we can't observe for ourselves.

Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not arguing with you.

Certainly not effectively.

There's nothing to argue with. That's why I posted the links, you should read more.

You should think more. Honestly.

I find that people with a tolerance for a broad range of music are not normally people with any real passion for music.

That's a very general statement that you have taken to mean something more specific, for no reason.

People like grannie songs. That's why he made them, I reckon.

I read somewhere recently that someone who spent time in India with The Beatles said that ballads just fell out of McCartney's head all the time. I can't imagine ever being able to write a ballad so it makes sense to me that the opposite might also be true. But the cynically conceived songs were the ones he wrote to prove that he could write something other than ballads. He said he wrote Back in the USSR as a specific response to a journalist saying he could only write ballads.

Exceptions test the rule. How can an exception prove a rule as it is ipso facto an 'exception?'
In the original Latin, of course.

In a legal sense, exceptions prove that a rule exists. For example, from wikipedia:

Dog! You people are f**king dumb. It's a proverb, like "a watched put never boils" or " a poor workman always blames his tools". It is not axiomatic, you don't need to look it up in Wiki-f**king-pedia, FFS. It's largely meaningless, except that it sort of fits every now and then. It's like trying to have a conversation with 8 year olds sometimes.

I've got nothing to add to this debate, but as a point of order, Led Zeppelin didn't release any singles in the UK, so StH would've made the top 40 on imports alone.

According to their Wikipedia discography, it was a promo single, so they probably gave it away.

One imagines a young antipodean chap, perhaps called 'Jones' or something, making his first fumbling forays into the seduction of a young lady. The scene is set; the lights low, the candles lit, a nice meal is cooking, the piss bucket has been emptied over the side of the barge.

Our protagonist, seeking to complete the picture, turns his mind to the soundtrack for this soiree of passion, but then stops.. He turns to the object of his desire, the apple of his eye, his Venus, and pipes up with;

"CONTEXT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE IN MUSIC. WE WILL BE LISTENING TO HEADHUNTER BY FRONT 242, YOU f**king IDIOT."

Honestly, I wouldn't want to f**k anyone who had a problem with that, although I'd have Killing Joke's Fire Dances on for anything as primal as coitus, not F242. Context is important. And it would have to be loud! That said, I'd probably not get past Fun & Games before I was done, so maybe I could just put a single on.

hope she doesn't need the loo in the night

She wouldn't be staying the night, she can use her own f**king loo when she gets home.

not all hit songs compromised integrity
for example, pink floyd's "another brick in the wall"
that reached #1 in billboards chart
and pink floyd isn't exactly a band that compromised?
tons of hit songs are made by uncompomising people
but not all uncompromising people can make hit songs
hit songs are difficult to achieve...

... i mean even paul mccartney didn't/doesn't always have hits

You're living in the past. When he was talking to Brian Johnson, Nick Mason said that there is no way Pink Floyd could succeed in the context of the current music industry. It's a familiar sentiment I've been seeing/hearing for 20+ years in a lot of interviews with artists who were successful back in the day.

But I was only talking for myself, I'm sure the vast majority of Top 40 artists really love the music they make and have no need to compromise at all. I am quite envious of that but success would only mean something to me if it was on our terms. i.e. If the music industry changed to allow us the opportunity for success, as was the case so much in the early/mid 80s. Can you imagine if The Stranglers released Peaches today? What are the chances a song with a lyric "is she trying to get out of that clitoris" would make the Top 20 these days? And yet Peaches is a song you still hear being used on TV commercials today.

Think back to when you where a kid, did you hear a song you liked and think 'oh yah that genre is so right for me'

No but I definitely knew for a fact that Country & Western and Jazz were definitely NOT for me. But music was a lot less diversified back then. What did we have in the 1960s and 1970s? Rock'n'Roll, Pop, Disco and that was about it for mainstream music outlets (radio/TV).

Rap. Created so people with no voice could record music. Example: 'I'm a venereal disease, like a menstrual bleed.'

That's just ripping off Alice Copper from the mid-70s. And besides, Country & Western was allowing talentless singers to make a living a hundred years before Rap.