Convergance

Some food for thought... Genre tags were once handy labels with which one could compare bands which had similar sonic and stylistic (and in some cases, geographic) signifiers in their sound. These terms could also help to define new bands in such a way that set them apart from their formative musical influences. Taking as an example the varied world of heavy metal, a term like "death metal" could be used to describe a musically complex and extreme form of metal distinct from its closest cousins; black metal, grindcore and thrash. But to today's metalheads, these are merely umbrella terms, each of which incorporates a myriad of sub-styles and micro-genres such as deathgrind, goregrind, death doom, progressive black metal, deathcore... you get the idea. What I want to know is how far you can subdivide music into hard categories before such terms lose all meaning.

It seems like in the last decade, most rock music being produced has been a product of either straight rehashes of static genres (the 00's garage rock, thrash metal, stoner rock revivals) or genre-splicing experiments. Without a doubt this is a result of the growth of the internet and its ability to break down genre barriers. This is not a bad thing. Rock has subdivided into so many different categories by now that there really is a ton of fruitful music made simply by combining styles to see what happens. What does have me wondering is what will happen when we've exhausted all possible combinations? Admittedly, this will take a very long time. There are so many possible permutations that haven't even been considered yet. A friend recently mentioned his own idea for a new band to me: A garage-blues-rock band with a rapper. Sounds crazy enough to work. How about Manwich, the industrial-space-funk project led by Johann Grenier? And I've always thought I'd love to hear a band that combines psych drones with trip-hop. Sometimes these experiments are crude, but given some time to refine their ideas, creative musicians can find a way to make it work and create something new along the way.

So will all genres eventually become static forms of cross-genre Frankenstein experiments without new ones emerging to take their places? Most genres tend to follow a similar pattern in which a group of pioneering artists come to define a style. A few of these bands come to be seen as leaders of the style, and a 'scene' will develop, increasing media exposure and fan base. Soon after, a second wave of followers emerge playing music that falls within the style as it has been defined by the pioneers. The 'rules' of the style now become codified, and mainstream exposure to the style reaches its peak and then begins to wane. Eventually most of the fans of a genre will move on to others and many of the bands break up, go on hiatus or change their style to keep up with the times. At this point the genre becomes static, as only a core group of long-term survivors or younger revivalists continue to play the music as it was originally defined, and only die-hard fans of the genre and its bands are still around to care. This cycle generally takes about 7 to 10 years to complete, although mainstream attention may wax and wane independently of the artistic fortunes of a style.

My guess is that micro-genres will continue to emerge and multiply, so it shouldn't be a problem finding new music. What does concern me is the relative lack of true innovators, bands that come out of nowhere and completely change the game with something that is entirely new. The last time I remember hearing something like that was the first Battles record, which came out almost three years ago now. But hey, maybe I'm just jaded.