The School of Feedback Guitar Blog

This is the final part of a three part series on Genres and Creativity. This post is about better understanding how genres and originality really just want to pick a fist-fight with each other.

Read the rest of this post »

This post is part two of a three part series on Genres and Creativity. This post is about what can happen to a band that chooses a genre first, and then creates music to fit it. This post also gives a clear example about what happened to a band that played music first and didn't care how it was received.

Read the rest of this post »

When you think of the musical genre commonly known as Funk, who is the quintessential funk artist? In my opinion, no one is quite as funky as James Brown. The question that piques my interest is which came first: James Brown or the genre commonly referred to as Funk? Seriously think about this for a second. Which came first: The artist's music that defined what we commonly refer to as "funk," or the name of the genre? This could be a silly thought, but I highly doubt James Brown meditated on music one day and decided: "I hereby name a new style of music called 'Funk,' and I have decided to write an entire body of work that typifies this new style, even though I've not even dived into it yet." I am also highly suspicious of anyone who says that he did.

Going on the assumption that James Brown didn't originally state that his music was Funk, who did? If he had nothing to do with the naming of the genre "Funk Music," who on earth did and WHY? I also feel the same way about any genre, as it were. Metal, folk, etc.

I am a tad weary of how music can commonly be described by genre. It kind of bothers me. "It's a combonation of Shoegazing Britpop with a touch of Psych thrown in." So, is what this basically means is that you marry My Bloody Valentine with Blur, and throw in a little dash of The Magical Mystery Tour? The reason my eyes start to glaze over when music is described this way is because I am really thinking, "Oh, it won't sound anything like the picture I have in my head."

Why do people use genres to describe music? Simply to better explain a band's music to another person. Communication. Connection. Critics love genres too. Genres help them communicate their ideas of what a band's music can be compared to, presumably to help the listener become informed about the music they want to buy. People who depend upon using genres to describe music however are put in their place when a band completely transcends these labels.

If you were to give Radiohead a genre, what would fit best? Rock and Roll? Perhaps in the case of OK Computer but not in the case of Idioteque. Electronic then? Perhaps in the case of Kid A but not in the case of Videotape. Interesting thought isn't it? It's great because all of their albums stand out as something different. I like every single one of them because each has it's own signature. Radiohead never stopped experimenting, and somehow they've always seemed to find their way. The fascinating part is that I think that neither Radiohead with In Rainbows (or The Beatles with Sgt. Pepper) had the foresight to pick a genre first and create the music to fit that genre. I have a strong hunch that they would find that incredibly constricting. Basically, I think they pick music over genre.

In the next blog post, I am going to steer the discussion to the way bands operate in regards to genres. A central question: What happens when bands pick a genre first, and then create the music to fit that genre?

Guitar is a fascinating instrument. So few instruments have been used in as diverse a way. Few other "mediums" offer as many interesting configurations as guitar. So it comes as a bit of a surprise to me, sometimes, that the guitar itself is often seen as the end as opposed as a means to an end. In other words, playing guitar just to play guitar is cool but using it to create a song, a noise, a whatever, yields even cooler results.

To take the idea further, there is a difference between a guitarist who uses a song to play a blues solo and a guitarist who creates an entire song that features a beautiful guitar solo. The first example demonstrates that the song is basically nodding to the guitar. The song comes second because the guitar comes first. The second example demonstrates that the song comes first. True, people do remember guitar solos (if they are memorable), but we all remember the alphabet song mostly because of the melody and how catchy it is. Adding a guitar solo to a new version of the alphabet song would accentuate the song. Wow. As a sidenote, that sounds like quite a fun idea. Hmmm.

What if the guitar could be used to create a song first, and even become more memorable? What if it could even, dare I say, become disposable for the sake of the song? What if the guitar could become the medium that a person uses to create as opposed to the only reason to play music? No judgements on either approach of course, but it's worth thinking about if it means more fun could be had.