Divides rock into hundreds of subgenres

>divides rock into hundreds of subgenres
>unironically uses "classical", "jazz" and "electronic"

Why do you care?

Why don't you?

But I also divide classical music, jazz, and electronic into subgenres.

Not autistic.

Rock musicians tend to stick to whatever their own niche is. I could divide jazz into Hot Jazz, Cool Jazz, Bebop, Hard Bop, Post-Bop, Free Jazz, Modal Jazz, Third Stream, etc, but most artists tend to dabble in different fields.

three of those things have dozens of subgenres but classical is only filed under 4 periods so i dont know why you included it

Not an argument.

Rock has more variation in 10 years than what classical (Hallmark channel of music) achieved in 4 centuries.

>classical is only filed under 4 periods

Low quality b8

>only filed under 4 periods

You're autistic enough to think rock deserves to be split into more than 2 or at most 3 categories.
Not to mention rock music has been dead for over a decade now, why this board pretends it's still alive is strange to me.

well you can't seriously claim that classical has anywhere close to the amount of subgenres those other ones have

Look up just the RYM page about Classical Music. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you actually believe that Classical is "only filed under 4 periods".

There is more distinction between hard rock and psychedelic rock than there is between all of bebop, post-bop, hard bop and modal. If you tell someone you're a fan of jazz they get the gist, if you tell them you're a fan of rock you need to elaborate. The fact that rock is the more popular of the two and people are more aware of their subgenres is also a contributing factor.

>both have dates instruments
>both have whiney generic and indistinct white boyvocals
yes, so different

It's just names mang. Why would I care whether someone who doesn't listen to classical music knows academic taxonomy? It's unreasonable and unnecessary to expect them to. I'd be slightly annoyed if someone who's a fan doesn't know the nomenclature cause it makes it harder to talk about the music, but it's really not a big deal at all.

It has and most rock genres are similar and overlap. In fact there is a bigger distinction between two composers of any same period than the majority of rock music

>If you tell someone you're a fan of jazz they get the gist, if you tell them you're a fan of rock you need to elaborat
Maybe because most of the people listen to rock so they know the subgeneres, and since most of the people don't listen to jazz they just think all jazz sounds the same.

why would you post a response before finishing my post, do you have ADHD?

... Well, looks like I do, sorry for that.

>unironically LISTENS to "classical", "jazz" and "electronic"

lol

In classical music, music for different ensembles and functions are filed under different genres. You have symphonic music, string quartet, string trio, string quintet, Lieder, madrigals, motets, oratorios, sonatas, and so on and so forth.

And every composer dabbles in each of those formats. Am I really supposed to split up a suite into four different genres because it starts with a Fugue and ends with a Mazurka?

I just call all classical music orchestra

Gee, if only there was someway to be able to tell what type of composition I'm looking at without needlessly splitting a composer's work.

You would call it a suite because suites are just a set of movements that may or may not have any relation to each other. Don't act like rock albums don't genre hop either.

But not all Classical music is performed with an orchestra.

Hot jazz?

>Only specifies and subdivides genres they actually listen to

yeah it's usually in the title. not sure what you're getting at here

I really don't care

>genre: suite

Do you even listen to classical music

>without needlessly splitting a composer's work.

Truly, it takes an advanced mind to decipher my point.

I presume he means dixieland. Hot Jazz isn't the best name for it nowadays cause it implies it's the antonym of cool jazz. Which it deffinitely isn't, if anything, bebop is.

>rock is dead
>classical isn't
sorry but in this case either they are both dead or neither are dead.
pop is a direct result of rock not classical.
and a genre isn't dead until 0 good albums have been made in it within the past 10 years

The baroque suite is a genre, yeah. Because it is a musical tradition to compose a set of dance movements that many composers choose to follow.
As for just a general "suite" it depends, as I said before on function and instrumentation. If you wanted to trace the development of ballet suites you would look solely at ballet suites and not Holst's suites for band or Schoenberg's suite for piano.

Are you referring to tagging music? Because you can tag music however you like.

those are called meta-genres user. it's perfectly fine to say you listen to them, it just implies that you listen to a wide variety of subgenres in those meta-genres

I don't sort music by genre period

Because I know people who listen to shoegaze but not prog. And people who listen to metal but not indie. The only preferences people tend to have in classical music are:

Renaissance / Baroque / Classical / Romantic / Modern

Chamber music / Orchestral music.

Any further subdivisions are not necessary to define your taste.

>What Genre are Metallica?
Metal
>What Genre are Nirvana?
Grunge
>What Genre is Beethoven?
Sonata, Concerto, Symphony, etc.

Sounds retarded.

It's not about defining musical taste, it's about grouping music together. But if you want to make it about taste, you can say "oh I like piano sonatas but not so much symphonies" as easily as you can say "oh I like dream pop but not noise rock."
>what genre is Beethoven?
Beethoven composed in these genres but I agree that saying Beethoven IS those genres is rather stupid because it's much more illuminating to say that he is an early romantic/late classical composer. Classical music is unlike rock music because it is a musical tradition while the popular music of today is not part of any tradition. Sonatas and string quartets extend across multiple centuries. ultimately I would say that they are separate genres because you can follow the development of each completely separate from each other.

If a jazz artist stuck to exactly one style of jazz, they would not be known as a blunt jazz artist. They would be called a free jazz artist if they only did free jazz, for example. But since most jazz artists change and develop as they age, it ends up being more like "X was a tenor saxophonist and jazz bandleader, most famous for his third stream works".

If a rock artist was extremely diverse in his discography, he would just be known as a rock artist, but if he just did progressive dreamfunk (and most rock artists stay within their own limited niche, and if they try something new, they use a new pseudonym), he would be known as just a progressive dreamfunk artist.

Rock
Metal
Punk
Alt-rock

Techno
House
Breaks
Garage
Downtempo
Hip hop

Swing
Free
Bop
Vocal

Symphony
Chamber
Choral
Opera

Works for me.

why is alt-rock separate from rock when it sounds literally the exact same

I have 1985 as the divider.

Deal with it.

classical music is usually associated with the time period it was composed but subgenres are more a 20th century marketing phenomenon imo

so classical
baroque
renaissance
modern
post modern
i cant remember the others off the top of my head

>no one ever cares about r&b, funk, soul and disco.