"Brand Name Loyalty!"

This is an article which i wrote for The Collegian. This is the uncut version. Unfortunately, i have a tendency to go over my word limit by a bit, so this article was not published in its entirety. Oh well.

"Lou (my editor, whom I love very, very much) and I were talking about how music seems so skull crushingly diverse. It isn’t really out of the ordinary to hear of a band that is “deathmetalcore with a prog/jazz fusion twist” or something to that effect. He told me to write an article about it, and I decided to use our discussion as the introduction for this article because I am a horrible writer. So, what exactly IS the deal with modern music, the radio, and (maybe) God?
The answer: generic labels (i.e.- rock, indie, punk, emo) are really just terms that give a basic idea of what music sounds like. These terms are flawed, but that’s because each individual band has unique ideas. Lou talked about how this was especially true for modern music, but in my mind this diversity has existed since the dawn of rock and/or roll. The difference is that, when it comes to history, people like to simplify the details. Ask any American about the Revolutionary War, and they will talk about how America stood up to England for the sake of freedom, but they will most likely leave out how the Founding Fathers didn’t really care about the rights of women, blacks, and the lower class in general. The same lack of attention to detail applies to music. Let us consider the “grunge” movement from the early 90s. If I had to pick the three biggest bands of that movement, I would have to go with Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden. They’re all grunge, right? Well, then why is it that Nirvana sounds like a punk band, Pearl Jam sounds like a rock n’ roll band, and Soundgarden sounds like a metal band? Oversimplification. Lets go a step further with this: Nirvana sounds sorta like punk to me. The three biggest punk bands of the 70s would have to be the Ramones, the Clash, and the Sex Pistols. The Ramones were secretly trying to be the Bay City Rollers, the Clash had a huge jones for the revolutionary dub sounds coming from across the globe, and the Sex Pistols… well, they were designed to make money for Malcolm McLaren.
Simple genre classifications, in my mind, are designed to make things more easily understood and, therefore, more marketable. You like emo? Well then you will probably like Jimmy Eat World, My Chemical Romance, and Bright Eyes. These three bands sound absolutely nothing like each other. Jimmy Eat World has a pop rock sheen, My Chemical Romance sucks, and Conor Oberst is more Bob Dylan/Jackson Browne than Jeremy Enigk/Geoff Rickley. BUT it is possible to connect them together by the emotional content of their music, and thus a marketing trend can be made. A mass media medium like radio would indulge in these simple labels. Bands will get lumped together, and money will be made. But we are more sensitive to the music being made now rather than in the past, because we are directly experiencing it, not just getting it second or third hand like on a VH1 “I Love The [Insert Decade Here]s!” special.
Ultimately, defining music with words is pointless. It is best to just simply play a band of interest for people, and see what they think of the music. The emphasis should be placed on each individual band, and not just be a fan of certain genres. Like I said before, genres are vague and rarely do bands justice. At the other extreme is the “deathmetalcore with a prog/jazz fusion twist” band. They’re being way too descriptive.
As for God’s role in all of this, I am convinced that Jesus would be a folk singer like Bob Dylan, but once he plugged in he would rock out like a super pissed off Ted Leo/Elvis Costello type, so you better not mess with him"