Is this chart good as an introduction to the different genres of music? Are there any better/new/updated versions of it?

Is this chart good as an introduction to the different genres of music? Are there any better/new/updated versions of it?

It's good
As an introduction, yeah
It's good

It's way better than the fucking pitchfork mucore chart. The fact that this isn't our main chart is evidence that the general intelligence level of an mu poster is pretty low.

That's fair. Some people have said that it's missing certain big genres (like rockabilly and trance) and that it's too focused on English-language music.

I guess
But I don't use those type of charts anymore so I don't really
care

I remember seeing the picture for the first time and thinking "oh great, another Sup Forums meme chart", but then I actually looked through it and all I could think was "actually, this chart seems pretty good". Apparently there are a million different versions of it though, and most of them are shit.

I think the Classical and Jazz selections are too big. While they are undeniably significant, they are much less discussed here as opposed to popular music.

The chart isn't just for what's most discussed on Sup Forums, though. If you want to be musically aware, you have to listen to nearly all of the classical and jazz included.

Well then change it from "What Sup Forums deems essential" to "What i deem essential"

Seriously not hating but it's misleading.

I think the Hip Hop section needs revamping. An introduction to a genre like that would need a good glimpse into all the styles. You'd need East Coast, West Coast, Hyphy, South, Trap, DJ Screw, Horrorcore, as well as non-American genres like Grime.

Instead, we get way too much East Coast, no Bay Area, no UK rap, and a "Contemporary" section which features albums as old as 15 years, rather than the several trends and sounds that the Hip Hop community has embraced.

If you used that as an introduction, you would be wholly out of touch with current Hip Hop.

I agree that the hip hop section needs to be expanded, as it's become one of the most important genres of American music (practically at the level of jazz and rock)

Also no Ready To Die, which imo would be a lot better as an introduction than 36 chambers, which is a bit more raw. Not saying it's better, just better as an introduction.

Tbf only like three or four sections of the chart include any music from the last decade.

Bump.

My gripe with it is how often it lists greatest hits collections. Like i get that artists often released singles as opposed to albums during a large portion of these eras, but denote years then, like "singles 1962-1964" or something. Just seems like it would lead it to be better currated. God knows that most (though not all) greatest hits compilations just get ruined by trying to make them sound contemporary via remasters/remixing. Like it came out in the 60s, it's an artifact of it's time, so it should sound like it came out 50 years ago.

It has a lot of flaws, but it's miles better than the Sup Forumscore chart, so that great.

Trance is missing, not really rockabilly.
It lacks additional traditional folk genres.

I too think they are too big, but not because of that reason.

No.

Nah

I actually think the classical section is a bit too small, but whatever.

>Hardcore Hip-Hop
>Paid in Full
you clearly don't listen to hip hop

Don't get me wrong, It's miles above the Sup Forumscore chart for sure. But i do think it could use some more selective choices in favor of albums over greatest hits compilations. Even non-album single compilations (like Modest Mouse's Bulding Something Out of Nothing, or the Beatles Hey Jude) would be better

>American football in the post hardcore section

Is the creator fucking braindead

>Intelligence
>Of An

Smooth, Get off your high horse faggot.

Sup Forums is pronounced em you

It also says emo.

Is this an older or newer version than OP's?

It's much smaller and uglier so I assume it's older.

The one thing I prefer about this is that it has Schnittke on it.

I like that it's smaller, it looks more polished with so much less stuff to go through.

How do you guys make these kind of lists ?
There's a site or what ?
Pls don't be mean I'm new :c

photoshop

gotcha

I read on Sup Forums some time ago that the classical section is messed up here due to weird choice of recordings of pieces. I don't know how true that is. Also, there was some controversy concerning electronic music - some said the guy who made this had absoulutely no idea about this genre.

>no space/cosmic black metal
You'll forever be missing out on the best the metal genre has to offer.

I can confirm the dance music section is total horseshit. It makes me doubt how good the other sections are if they're just as poorly researched.

What would you change?

This is false.

>5 slots to list the most well known and influential "classic" metal albums
>picks Blue Oyster Cult

It's pronounced like the greek letter, mu

It's pronounced "muh", like the meme.

Well, the nature of dance music is that the turnover is extremely high, compared to other genres or "scenes". For example, in the past three years grime has gone all over the fucking place. Another problem is that focus is on singles and records with 2-4 tunes on. As such, representing styles and/or subgenres within 5-8 *albums* is stupid. Personally I'd have the chart focus on mix CDs instead of albums.

The techno/glitch section is decent enough, I guess, but omitting Jeff Mills is a crime that deserves death. The breakbeat one is fucking awful. Timeless is undeniably amazing, but it simply cannot represent hardcore and jungle, and Doll Doll Doll being on there is someone's idea of a bad joke. I don't even know where to start with "Downtempo/trip-hop/dubstep". Dubstep being lumped next to those two meaningless umbrella terms is questionable enough, but the fact the chart dude put Untrue there to apparently represent the style tells you everything. Let alone placing it next to Bjork. Someone actually sat at there computer and thought, "oh yeah, this is fine." Fuck off.
I won't even start on the House section. I'm getting pissed off just writing this.

That's interesting.

you're either shitposting or legitimately retarded.

Why can't I be both?

...

Bump.

I'm not even the person who asked but you didn't answer his question specifically at all. It's easy to point out what is wrong with stuff. Much harder to actually post specific replacements under the same restrictions.

Whenever I ask about electronic music recs I always get this same response. The original point of this is to post timeless classics, and that is easiest to agree on when using a challenging format to produce like albums; it's easier for someone to get lucky with a great single than to make an entire album on that level. Similarly, why complicate things with very technically-defined subgenres? Only the people really into each one will know enough about it to judge, and all the space will be used up instantly. How can everyone, nevermind Best Of lists, keep up with genres that spring up every half year?

I was curious what an expert would change to have it in the same format and you just gave vague gripes.

I'm also curious.

god I thought these fucking threads disappeared

The entirety of European folk only gets "Celtic folk" when there's like four separate categories for blues.

I guess whoever made the chart is only interested in folk music as it relates to American popular music.

>American Football under hardcore/post hardcore

It should at least be in math rock. But really emo deserves its own section.

>The entirety of European folk only gets "Celtic folk" when there's like four separate categories for blues.
>I guess whoever made the chart is only interested in folk music as it relates to American popular music.

Yuropoors think their folk music is more relevant than what is literally the foundation of the first music to dominate the entire globe for a century?

European folk music is a huge part of the foundation for blues.

>But really emo deserves its own section.

It doesn't, it's just a worthless teenager fad with the significance of Nu-metal

>Dance/Electronica
absolutely embarassing

In its early years the blues was wholly African American. It has been suggested that it existed before the Civil War, but this view has no supporting evidence. Influential in its development were the collective unaccompanied work-songs of the plantation culture, which followed a responsorial ‘leader-and-chorus’ form that can be traced not only to pre-Civil War origins but to African sources. Responsorial work-songs diminished when the plantations were broken up, but persisted in the southern penitentiary farms until the 1950s. After the Reconstruction era, black workers either engaged in seasonal collective labour in the South or tended smallholdings leased to them under the system of debt-serfdom known as sharecropping. Work-songs therefore increasingly took the form of solo calls or ‘hollers’, comparatively free in form but close to blues in feeling. The vocal style of the blues probably derived from the holler (see Field holler).

Blues instrumental style shows tenuous links with African music. Drumming was forbidden on slave plantations, but the playing of string instruments was often permitted and even encouraged, so the musicians among slaves from the savanna regions, with their strong traditions of string playing, predominated. The jelli, or griots – professional musicians who also acted as their tribe’s historians and social commentators – performed roles not unlike those of the later blues singers, while the banjo is thought to be a direct descendant of their banza or xalam.

not him but the space given to electronic music on this chart is absolutely dismal. you can really tell that the person(s) who put this together had zero clue about it or didn't like it for some archaic reason. if I made this chart, I would:
>rename the section. nobody who listens to electronic music calls it electronica.
>move glitch out of the techno section (not that it's even represented there anyway!)
>if the point was to make a section JUST for dance music, it would be a good idea to make another section for the other things that synthesized music can do e.g. electroacoustic, musique concrete, progressive electronic (yes I know it's in the "experimental rock" section lumped in with ambient, it should not be)
>and if the point was just dance music, synthpop should be moved as well.
>get michael jackson out of disco. replace him with patrick cowley.
>downtempo, trip hop, and dubstep being together is especially silly. split them up.
>and get bjork out of there too. homogenic is neither downtempo, trip hop, or dubstep.
>add a section for ambient techno, IDM, drum and bass, trance, garage, and post-industrial.
>also: no richard d james anywhere on this chart? seriously?

and this is just for starters. I don't consider myself an expert in any means on electronic music but even I could fix this.

Archaic?

yes; it's just speculation but I feel like the maker(s) of this chart might dislike/have no interest in synthesized music because it hasn't had a chance to be "influential" yet.

Ok so what this chart needs is

1. More folk music from different countries
2. More non-English language music in general
3. Improved/expanded prog rock section
4. Split and expanded dance and electronic sections
5. Expanded hip hop section

Anything else?

maybe it would be a good idea to rearrange ambient, industrial, glitch, and noise into a specified "experimental" section. maybe add sections for drone and sound collage as well. it always weirded me out that these genres were under "popular music".

Good point. Certainly Russolo and Schaeffer don't belong there. They might even be more at home in the classical section IE with Varese and Stockhausen.

In fact there could be an experimental/electronic/noise section under classical that goes Varese, Russolo, Schaeffer, Cage, Stockhausen

I like this.

There could also be a section for spectral music to the right of it that includes Grisey, Murail and Radulescu.

This is the newer one. The newer ones took off some more esoteric albums and replaced them with ones that are more generally accepted as classics. The jazz section in particular is much better in this regard but most of the sections have been made more in line with consensus acclaim.
The albums that were taken off that original in the op are mostly pretty good and worth hearing but this is better as a taster chart, even though it's smaller.

Don't like how it condenses the romantic and contemporary classical sections, and how it cuts the rock section in half (doesn't even include Zappa, wtf). The somewhat trimmed jazz section is understandable, though.