fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2654 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2654 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

[Ioan Gruffudd/Fantastic Four 2005]

__________________________________________________

02.

[Laurell K. Hamilton]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Bates Motel]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Sherlock]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Korn; Breaking Benjamin]

__________________________________________________

06.

[American Horror Story]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Gwyneth Paltrow, Iron Man]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Kino's journey/Kino no tabi]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Roxy Music]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 019 secrets from Secret Submission Post #379.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Shit, this is as bad all the definitions of sexuality/gender/etc. etc. etc.

It's rock.

Relax.

You are perfectly willing to plot out some incredibly in-depth spectrum about which kind of ROCK MUSIC you like, but, for goodness sake, it's still ROCK MUSIC.

This might be a stupid question, but what would you consider relaxing? To put that a different way, would you not consider me relaxed so long as I continued to dislike bands like Korn?

No, you should totally dislike whoever you like. I don't like either band you listed, actually. It's the need to shove everything into tiny sub-categories that...seems exhaustive.

I get the feeling it's kind of a hobby for real music enthusiasts. Nothing wrong with it if it floats their boat. (I love music but have never thought about genres to that extent.)

It's nice to be able to say, "I like this" or "I don't like that".
I like progressive metal and I don't like numetal, and it's nice to be able to say that, instead of just saying I like metal and then having you think I like music that I think is horrible.

Because OMG if someone thinks you like a band you don't like! The end of the woooooooorld! AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Well, if we're talking about what music we like, it is rather nice to be able to communicate accurately.

"I like music like what X Band does. You don't know it? Let me play a song."

There! So much easier than having to explain "post-mortem-fudge-choco-metal" bullshit.

Use words, children! Not "edgy" labels.

but if the other person knows what the label means already they don't have to explain it...?

Labels are words...?

Also, music labels don't exist to be "edgy." They exist for clarification and classification. For people who like to talk about music in general rather than specific terms, it's far easier to reference a common lexicon than to have to describe or play individual songs/bands. This isn't exactly an unusual thing. Other types of media are similarly given labels and sub-labels.

For example, how do you feel about book genres? Do you think it's childish for someone to say, "I like military science fiction," "I like high fantasy," "I like Gothic horror," or "I like Victorian literature?"

Except we're talking about new invented bullshit.

Let's look at older and more established music subgenre labels.

Say I really like turn of the century English art songs, so I went to the second page and asked for recommendations of "classical composers". I'd get lots and lots of recommendations, everything from Vivaldi to Philip Glass (the only thing Vivaldi and Glass have in common is that they're both considered classical, their music is nothing alike whatsoever), and and somewhere buried in all that would be the one thing I was actually looking for.
But if I went and asked for British art song recs, I'd get what I was looking for, and stuff that's similar.

Adjectives are your friends.

[ SECRET POST #2654 ]

no subject

OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP