I now wish to address one of the methods typically employed in this day and age to address the many failings of genre classification – the act of musical association. Any time that I am attempting to get another person to check out a particular artist, I am, I would say about 90% of the time, confronted with one specific question from this person – “Well, who do they sound like?” This “Sounds-Like” phenomenon as I perceive it is an even bigger issue than the many failures of music genre, and as such I feel it be more of a problem than a solution to said failings. While it is an act that many indulge in without a thought to its consequences, I feel these acts of association serve only to detract from the artist’s right to exist in a musical realm they themselves have created – a band’s right to individuality, if you don’t mind the irony. And while you could argue that every band has its influences, does an act of association like comparing the sound of early Incubus to that of a mix between The Red Hot Chili Peppers and Mr. Bungle really serve to capture any of these three band’s true natures? Also, as indicated by my use of the word “early” in the previous statement, there is a fact these acts of association do not take into account – bands evolve, with many producing a wide variety of different arrangements and melodic styles by the end of their run. This is a fact that testifies even further to the nature of a band’s particular sound as a unique entity.
There is one openly apparent counter-point to this argument that I am aware of, and it is one that I wish to address now – the nature of a band or artist as a “concept” in their own right. Concepts by nature are constructed ideas used to help define or capture abstract notions, and since sound itself is an abstract force, it could be argued that a band’s particular sound is a concept in itself, one that may be employed to help describe the abstract that is the sound of another band. This is a very interesting notion to me, and, not to make it sound more epic than it actually is, I have spent a great deal of time mulling over its validity. Ultimately, I’ve come to the conclusion that, while sound will forever remain an abstract (synesthesia not withstanding), the sound a band produces is more of a work of art than anything, and as such deserves by its very nature to be associated with the artist(s) who gave birth to it. This gives way to a band’s right to its own uniqueness, the right to own, both physically and metaphysically, what it has created. I do ultimately feel that music produced is not a commodity that is simply given freely to the public, but is generated from the efforts of individuals. I therefore do not consider it the right of any individual to take it upon themselves to place an artist’s work into a sphere that is not entirely their own, which I suppose is where my problem with the “Sounds-Like” phenomenon originates from in the first place.
So what then is the solution? Is the general public who cannot accurately describethe sound of a band in terms of complex chord progressions or meter forced to label everything as “jangly” or “hard and fast?” I feel the answer lies in a more complex and sophisticated look at one’s music. In my own experience, there is always an opportunity to learn more about my music by listening more intensely to the beats and intricacies that drive its course; thus I can only imagine that there is room for others to do the same. Perhaps by examining more closely what specific features constitute and create the ever-evolving sound of a band we can escape the destruction of a band’s right to its own soundthrough the act of association or feeble classification.