New Isis Album "Wavering Radiant"

[TheSixthWheel]

Genre is merely a descriptive tool. That is all.

How do you expect music journalists to write about music without the use of genres? Sure, you could describe (for instance) Isis's sound to an extent; but how would you communicate that they have a more doom-sounding distortion than a death-sounding one? You could try to use words like "loose" and "fuzzy" and "woofy" and whatnot, but those words' associations in relation to guitar tone are far less clear and established than simply "doom distortion". (As an example, much of Muse's guitar work could be described as "fuzzy" too, but it's a far cry from how Isis's guitar work sounds.)

The distinction is also academic. Grouping music into genres helps us to map out the history and evolution of music. Realising that Isis shares a framework with Neurosis and Pelican helps us to understand that they likely play to the same audience. Sure, the members of Isis could have taken a bunch of disparate influences and combined them into something utterly new; but then who would their audience be? They would have to at least widely subscribe to the "rock" genre for their music to make any sense to listeners. Genre is a way of understanding that Isis's sound is an evolution of music before it, which helps us to understand that they fall under pop -> rock -> metal -> progressive metal -> post-metal (or however you wish to see it) - meaning that, for instance, we should not expect jazz when we listen to them.

My parting shot here is that ABSOLUTELY NO MUSIC IN THE WORLD EVER is free of context or tradition. Genre is an easy way of describing the context and tradition that a given piece of music relates to. We know for sure that Isis are not going to put down their instruments and sing four-part major-key Xhosa chorales on their next album - even if one song includes such an element, it will be against the backdrop of metal guitars, metal drums, metal bass, metal effects, and a metal voice.

...bear in mind this post was written while at work, lacking sleep and not lacking caffeine. So it's highly likely that I comptlely misworded key arguments or forgot to say important things.

You make great points. And I can't help but agree with you on a couple of them. I see genres like fashions or fads. They change all the damn time. I just don't want a bar of it. I am choosing not to subscribe to this descriptive tool, because I find I don't have to. I'm not going to exacerbate this issue any further, but I can appreciate how it might be easier for someone to describe a band using genres. I'd rather let someone else decide what they want to call a band instead of telling them what it is.

 

[henrebotha]

I'd rather let someone else decide what they want to call a band instead of telling them what it is.

You hit the nail on the head there. When a single artist can so leap between genres on different albums or songs, it's certainly a tall order to expect everyone to agree on a single genre label to encompass all of an artist's music - especially when you get down to the deeper levels of it (as in post-metal vs drone rock, as opposed to rock vs jazz).

The thing to keep in mind above all else is that descriptive tools should never be used as constructive tools. The same way you don't use the "rules" of music theory to construct music, you don't stick a label on your music and then write it to fit that label.

 

[WhiteShadow]

Isis + Adam Jones = Guaranteed bitchin-ness.