Generic

What does generic have to do with genres? Besides both starting with "gen".

Whether they're eytmologically related or not I don't know. But the way "generic" is used tends to relate to "genre" - eg "generic trance", "generic hip-hop", "generic indie", "generic pop". I could have used "cookie-cutter" to avoid confusion, cause what I'm asking is - why is this bad? If you like something why not look for the most correct and standardised examples of it rather than the most variant?

Because, like all of life, things can become stale, and people feel the need to progress. In the case of music, exploring further can prove to be interesting and stimulating and ultimately worthwhile, as you gain further appreciation of what you are listening to, where it came from etc...Although some people just seem to want to be obscurantist.

yes, generic comes from genre. it's an insult because it implies that something is ordinary, ie it is like everything else in that genre and therefore not unique or noteworthy, etc.

as far as insults go it's not the harshest one i can think of.

Generic is insulting because it implies the artist isnt trying, just using a musical template to exploit a genres good points. Its a slap in the face to people with great taste, like me. Its even more of a slap in the face to the discriminating listener when the british press gives tons of praise to an artist that isnt even trying and being generic. ie: White Stripes, see also: Strokes

"as far as insults go it's not the harshest one i can think of..." Well, what is? Sophmoric tripe? Aural abomination? Saccharine milquetoast?

"Boring," I'd say.

I use it too and to mean a similar thing to - not quite "boring" but "predictable" maybe. But it struck me as an odd insult. We like a genre, but then we damn records which conform too closely to its parameters? Then what do we like about it - the parameters or the sensation of their breaking?

"Generic" basically means records have managed our expectations badly - we come to the music expecting some kind of surprise, we don't get it. The tighter the apparent genre boundaries (eg four-to- the-floor dance styles) the more easy it is for something to seem generic. But the greater - for me anyway - the thrill when the unexpected does occur. Early house with its combination of absolute rigidity and bizarre creative risk-taking is the perfect example.

It can be good though too (hmmm....I think) - The Strokes are generic yes but the genre they're doing doesn't exist in a thriving form and so within the genre they find themselves in (indie, broadly speaking) they seem unusual.

i don't really think of generic as an insult. often, those that get termed generic are simply fill in the gaps, and colouring in the spaces, created by the more illustrious trailblazers.

in a lot of, say, dance, music, its all about the generic, because of the lack of trailblazer records (although the music press understandably try and create a buzz around certain tracks that are supposedly new), it means incremental advances so that all records can appear generic.

This fits with the managing expectations thing too, Gareth - the non- specialist dance press sets up expectations that this or that techno record will be 'groundbreaking' and the non-specialist dance listener can't hear the increments involved, plus of course these tracks often have to be mixed so you simply can't afford to genre-fuck too much.