>I think you're basically right with the idea of a cycle,
>except that we really don't need to think of the popularizing
>of a genre as its "dumbing down" ... I think it suggests that
>there is some sort of genre-purity to begin with, genre police
>that set the rules for a sound when that's just not true.

I agree my statement was incorrect. Popularizing music does not dumb it down. But dumbing down music usually popularizes it. I am not talking in absolutes. Of course there is the great song here or there that is popular and amazing. But in general, popular music is simple, catchy, and predictable. It is not a secret, in many interviews artists will say things like "After my first album, I had to learn to write songs in verse-hook-verse-bridge-format." I am not saying that is necessarily bad, but it is true.

>Genres are imposed frameworks, they do not possess an inherent
>absolute coherence. They are collections of discrete elements
>that, when taken together, may be identified as this or that -
>but those elements are never guaranteed to be always present
>all of the time, or to section themselves off from other
>elements.

I do not agree with this statement. There is an inherent quality that is necessary when a genre is created. like I said in my first post, it is usually a cultural need. It is usually voice with a specific message that needs to be heard. Hip Hop is an excellent example. You can pin point it to a specific neighborhood. The innovation
(among others) was using records as instruments. The culture is defined by rapping, DJing, Break dancing, and graffiti art. The message was about poor kids in the projects, needing their voice to be heard, using art to express the pains in their lives. I am not saying that all of these things need to be present in hip hop. I am saying that when they are all gone, it is no longer tied to its roots, and in my opinion when music is no longer tied to its roots everything after it is either "retro" or something creative all over again that should get a new name.

Looking at it this way creates no need for "genre police." It just is what it is until it's gone. And its gone when it is no longer tied to its roots.

>I don't think they should be called "sub-genres" though. They
>can be, depending on how closely they sit to their "parent"
>sound, but why should we let the parent sound dictate the
>sound of those who emulate but expand or explore?

I agree, I don't really like to call them "sub-genres" either, but I didn't know of any other way to make the point.

>From what exposure I've had to earlier "indie" groups and
>labels, I really don't feel like it can be pinned to a sound -
>as a result, I really wouldn't consider it anything like a
>genre. It seems like it was more an indicator of its relative
>position to mainstream radio and culture, more a
>characterization of how the music is produced/distributed than
>who is doing the creation and execution.

This is a great summary of what Indie really means. I would agree that it is not a genre at all. Some people could still argue for the "indie" sound, and they could be right that there is a sound that isn't really definable by another word, but that's just the fault of the choice of words.

I think a lot of this confusion would be avoided if we weren't so careless about choosing genre names. Indie - means independent and it doesn't. Independent from what? Any kind of sound can be independent. Alternative? Alternative to what? When your alternative becomes the mainstream what is it alternative to? Neo Soul. Neo means new, so is all new soul neo soul, or does neo soul have to have soul chords with the rhodes sound, funky hip hop influenced drums, and a smooth vocalist to qualify? It's all way too confusing.