Genre Battles, The Purists Vs. The Mutts

I have been getting into quite a few discussions about genre recently, so I want to voice a few observations.

First of all, there seem to be two main approaches to genre. One school of thought encourages artists to find a sound and stick to it. This works well when bands develop a niche and use it to their advantage...in other words, specialization. The opposition to that is quite simply when bands do not observe the rules of a given scene, transcend (hopefully) the limitations of a certain sound, or mix and match.

Examples of success and failure for both approaches can easily be pointed to. Some bands that come to mind that fall under the "purist" philosophy are Radiohead, The Ramones, Bob Marley, and Simon and Garfunkel. Basically this is any band/artist that develops a sound that can be easily recognized and defined, regardless of how unique it may be to that particular band. There still is a lot of creative freedom in these genres and with these bands, but when I hear a Bob Marley song, I know it's reggae. The same can be said for these other artists, given their respective genres, and many more I have not named.

Then there are "the mutts." Beck, Gorillaz, The Transplants, David Bowie and other similar bands/artists come to mind. These individuals are known for either their ability to combine multiple genres or their constant exploration into the various genres of modern music. They may develop a characteristic sound (for example, most people can point out a Bowie tune when they hear it), but there is not a single genre the majority of their songs conform to.

*Note: one approach is not purely superior to the other, as with most things. Pros and cons exist with both, and given some of the names I dropped, I hope it is apparent that choosing either path does not limit an artist's potential.

A developing artist faces the question of genre time after time. In my opinion, it is answered not at one defining moment in his/her career, but time after time as well. In other words, the artist has little control over it anyhow.

With this said, there are still ways to jeopardize the overall quality of an one's musical output as a result of not understanding interaction with genre. A prime example of this is Green Day. In my opinion (and NOT in the opinion of thousands of other music listeners...however), Green Day committed genre suicide when they released "American Idiot." With the release of this album they shifted their identity as post-grunge 90's punk band to a tweener emo band. They also alienated their devout following in place of prepubescent, Disney Radio-listening, get-dropped-off-at-the-show-by-their-minivan-driving-mom, young children. I saw this happen when I was in high school, and they played a show at the Mellon Arena.

From my understanding, it did wonders for their popularity and record sales, but something was lost by the change. Several problems arose. For example, what do these kids do when a song like "Longview" shuffles into their playlist, and their parents are in the room? My prediction is that Green Day will forever be remembered in music circles as the band that should have stopped when they released their greatest hits, and this is a direct result of abandoning their genre.

Maybe losing your credibility in place of lots and lots of money isn't something bands worry about, but from the majority of people I talk to, it matters. My suggestion would be not to let genre define you but define genres with your music. Understand them and be loyal to them, regardless of whether you are a purist or a mutt. Although genre terms and categories are inherently superficial, they help a fan understand the underlying creative messages in music and get to the deeper levels of sonic enjoyment.