>Genres have become so convoluted over the years that people
>are now exhausted with trying to follow them and figure them
>out. But they weren't always that way. If you look at history,
>genres are not made-up boundaries that people impose on you.
>They come from real life people, real life experiences, and
>they make a movement. They come from a group of people that
>are mostly influenced by what they are doing in a certain
>place and time.
>
>In a time before internet, radio, tv, and even the phonograph
>people were mostly influenced by their own surroundings, after
>the phonograph more influences start seeping in, and even more
>with the radio. Now everyone has access to anything and as a
>result we are influenced by everything. So in that sense you
>can say that there are no longer genres.

i agree with the sentiment but would instead say that there was more agreement between people on genre. the more you add on, be it from what jakob calls "outside influences" or just technical innovation and trying different things from within, the more convoluted it gets. nonetheless, it's always just an idea, always conceptual, always subjective, always an attempt to evaluate art. everything came from something and leads to something else.


>But saying that genres don't mean anything is pretty
>disrespectful to the people created a new sound and a cultural
>movement. People who's entire lives revolved around the
>culture of a musical experience. That's some pretty real shit.

i really don't think the average musician or songwriter, let alone an innovator, aspires to be put into a box (genre). there's fitting into a scene and adhering to musical forms, but i don't consider that to be the same thing as genre.