Sturgeon's Law

[michael]

I've been thinking about Sturgeon's Law lately, particularly how it's applied to music.

Generally it's used as an anti-genre-snobbery call, when you get kids going on about how some genre fucken rules and is so much better than everything else. So in that context it's taken as "90% of the genre you're loving sucks, same as 90% of the genre you think is shit".

While I like the intent, this really suffers from the fallacy that there's some kind of objective (agreed?) standard for assessing the value of music, doesn't it?

The thing is, it's very likely that the characteristics of a genre actually preclude my liking it. If I like downbeat, noodly sounds with lots of detail (hypothetically, of course ) I'll certainly think that 100% of gabba is execrable and probably think the same of Tresor's catalogue. Oh wait, there's some intersection there.. scary.

So while the law might be fair enough - I only like about 1 in 10 things I hear, if that - it doesn't mean that will be nice and evenly distributed across all styles of music.

Meh, I'm probably thinking too much about this... as I say, I like the intent - encouraging people to listen broadly and not get territorial about what they admit to liking. Or at the least encouraging people to see the value in things they don't like.

 

[redcrescent]

"90% of the genre you're loving sucks, same as 90% of the genre you think is shit".

90% shit, 10% gold... sort of like the Ram's Horn catalogue, then?

 

[Melchior]

Meh, I'm probably thinking too much about this... as I say, I like the intent - encouraging people to listen broadly and not get territorial about what they admit to liking. Or at the least encouraging people to see the value in things they don't like.

Almost certainly you are, but that's what places like this are for.

The problem is that I like catagorisation. So often when people tell me off for over catagrising music, they're missing the point. Arguing about the difference between (ay) grime and uk hip hop isn't about running either down, it's abotu better understanding whats going on in each type of music.

Equally, when musicians get into the whole 'It's not really (x genre which spawned me), it's just music' lark, it drives me up the wall. Whatever dude, calling it grime/dnb/mathrock etc doesn't mean that I'm trying to pigeonhole you, it means that I'm trying to get my head around it.

What I'm trying to say is that the concept of genre has value. I know you weren't saying it didn't michael, but just call this a very early tangent.

That being said, there are genres I really dislike (all country music, even Johnny Cash), but I just don't see the point in running down types of music. If I ever feel tempted to do it, all I have to do is imagine what I'm about to say in my dad's voice, and I know that it would annoy me if he was saying it to me.

Then i stop.

Most of the time.

Michael, you;d better hope no psecreters find you here, or they'll feel terribly unloved!

 

[simon]

Genre's can be a terrible refuge for an unthinking engagement with music or can be a useful tool <i>a la</i> Melchior's suggestion, which goes to your point about judgement being relative. Not only is the assessment of what is crap (gabba) or not relative, but so is what fits into what genre, or what constitutes a genre at all.

I certainly agree with you that the 10% of goodness (under Sturgeon's law) is not evenly spread, but I like the law (now that you have told me about it) as a way to shut up people who are being dicks about music.

 

[Melchior]

Hold on.

Is there any good gabba?

 

[simon]

Hold on.

Is there any good gabba?

Whoa there, steady on. That's not what I meant at all!

 

[michael]

Teehee, this is funny discussing things on a forum in the UK with friends in Melbourne!! Ah, simple pleasures... The psecreteers will deal!

Mr Melchior, you and I both know a fan of grime in New Zealand who swears black and blue that Mark Acardipane is absolutely fantastic and he is most certainly gabber. I think Simon Reynolds loves him too, from memory? You know, it's all rushy rushy with lots of mentasms...

 

[Melchior]

Mr Melchior, you and I both know a fan of grime in New Zealand who swears black and blue that Mark Acardipane is absolutely fantastic and he is most certainly gabber. I think Simon Reynolds loves him too, from memory? You know, it's all rushy rushy with lots of mentasms...

Yeah, but that friend loves really dark and extreme muic. He likes the dubstep/fwd sound much more than what I call grime (talking of genres)...

But I like rushing and mentasms.

I'll give it a look.

 

[Woebot]

yeah i dont really agree with the assertion at the heart of sturgeons law. some genres are just right. obviously this is limited to their existence within certain windows of time so we could say punk "proper" 1976-1978 was right whereas punk 1983-1985 was pretty crap. i think you could argue that with certain genres within certain timeframes everything clicked into place.

however, to be a little more subjective maybe "sturgeons law" applies most accurately to genres you dont actually have much time for. so fr'instance a microhouse fan might only 10% of grime and vice versa.

 

[Melchior]

yeah i dont really agree with the assertion at the heart of sturgeons law. some genres are just right. obviously this is limited to their existence within certain windows of time so we could say punk "proper" 1976-1978 was right whereas punk 1983-1985 was pretty crap. i think you could argue that with certain genres within certain timeframes everything clicked into place.

But i know piles of people who are completely uninterested in 76-78 punk. And I'm sure that for all the buzzcocks etc who sprung up in the wake of seeing the sex pistols or the ramones, there were a pile of awful bands who really couldn't play!

 

[xero]

however, to be a little more subjective maybe "sturgeons law" applies most accurately to genres you dont actually have much time for. so fr'instance a microhouse fan might only 10% of grime and vice versa.

yeah it's that genre-skimming thing where you skim a few things that have come to the surface, that fit within your own skewed taste, off the top of genres you aren't really into wholeheartedly. A lot of 'eclectic' type djs are like this (I'm thinking of coldcut axis, say) where the tracks they hammer are not really representative of their genre, or perhaps the genre has moved on and no longer fits within the djs taste-regime so these same tunes get endlessly recycled. Actually the whole balearic continuum is also an example of this isn't it?

 

[droid]

Hold on.

Is there any good gabba?

Yes Yes Yes!

Im no Gabba head, but the 'alternative' or maybe 'intelligent' gabba scene: Hellfish/DJ Producer/Deathchant end of things is all top stuff, and quite a few breakcore/Electronica heads flirt with 4/4's at 250bpm. Theres also a few gems in early Dutch gabba from the early and mid-90's from labels like ID&T, Rotterdam, and Terror Trax, although the majority of Dutch gabba is awful, tunes like : The Dreamteam/"Killer Machinery" have to be heard to be believed.

I was always interested in the Dougal + Slipmat/Slammin vinyl axis of Happy Hardcore, as there was a period of about a year there in 92/93 where they were pushing the tempo up AND leaving the 4/4's in.. great for mixing with 95+ era D+B.. it really confuses the junglists!

 

[michael]

yeah i dont really agree with the assertion at the heart of sturgeons law. some genres are just right.

To go a bit further than Melchior, determining something to be right does not equate to enjoying it or wanting to listen to it.

To go on my own tangent, I think there are two separate processes at work when talking about music being good, and for a lot of critics (armchair or pro) the two sometimes get conflated entirely... the first is enjoying what you hear (or not), the second is assessing the music for its worth - trying to get it, trying to see where it fits, trying to establish whether it works (on its own terms or on yours).

I think what I'm finding over time is that finding people who I agree with on the first is more important than finding those who I agree with on the second. At least in practical terms I get better recommendations. It's fun to talk/write shit about the second, but sometimes it seems utterly pointless.

Bah, am I just going back to the whole dancing about architecture thing?

 

[Omaar]

Gabba Apologia

I think we need to clarify some things here to get anywhere with this discussion.

Firstly, we can talk about genre purely on the level of classification. This requires placing a genre in a musical, social, political context and understanding the genre for what it is in this context.

Sturgeon's Law would then apply to this as identifying the canon in a particular genre, identifying the tracks that exemplify key musical or thematic elements in the genre in a more reasoned way, and identifying the genre filler.

Of course, the genres boundaries may be pretty loosely defined, and highlights of a genre may occur at the borders where you get this kind of cross fertilaztion, on a musical, social, political level or whatever.

Secondly, we have a personal evaluation of genre which is basically a changing relationship between a subject and the social/musical world around them.

This is basically what you're saying Mike.

So if we're trying to apply Sturgeon's law, we should consider it from these two angles. Macro and Micro Maybe.

On a macro level then, some genres may have merit socially or politically, but fairly bland musically. or the converse might be true.

Genre is a pretty good system for making the huge volume of music available navigable, but it can blind you to some things.

For instance, i had completely discounted gabba until I heard a rotterdam records tune from 93 that I had on 12" from my rave days, had forgotten all about it, coincidentally had a listen at the weekend ... it's rush. Awesome. i may be on a new gabba tip.

Back to Sturgeon's law, this may be related to the idea the relationship between signal and noise in information theory, tendencies to entropy.

I went to wikipedia to try and find some info on this, but found the following text which I post below:

""In common usage, "signal-to-noise ratio" describes the ratio of useful information to false or irrelevant information, for example in an online discussion forum.

The term has been used e.g. on Usenet, where off-topic posts and spam are regarded as "noise" that interferes with the "signal" of interesting discussion."

Sorry, I think I just introduced noise into our signal.

 

[DigitalDjigit]

I think there's definitely a difference between genres. I enjoy "good" techno as much as oldskool hardcore, in fact I would much less embarassed to play the techno tracks to other people. They are more "mature" or whatever, more serious, more musical even. There are more tracks which I would label as genius in techno. But I would say that a much larger proportion of techno is just cut'n'paste boring drivel than oldskool.

 

[simon]

[Sounding a bit like a wanker] Maybe we need to employ a distinction between the formal chararcteristics of music and aesthetic judgement.

There might be kinds of music which have a set of formal properties which just work well, which means music in that form is more likely to come together well. Then there might be music with a different set of formal characteristics which are much harder to get to work, so there are far more misses than hits when that approach is taken. (eg. its harder to get noodly electronica to work well than something with a decent break in it). Stugeon's Law would not be the same across all the different form which music takes.

Then there is aesthetic judgement, which is basically subjective, and influenced by all the things which Omaar mentions.

Maybe I should stop thinking about this........

 

[Omaar]

I agree with the split you're making Simon, but i think the definitions need to be broader -

Musical form and the social context of music are too closely linked to be separated out, I think if you start defining musical genres purely formally, you risk taking them completely out of context.

I don't agree with you on the complexity and quality thing though. I think some of the most beautiful music happens when people try and make music in a genre and don't really get it and end up making the most sublime stuff. This is part of the appeal for me of, for instance, of stuff like what's on Morgan Geist's Unclassics -well, a couple of tracks there anyway.

We should be aware too that the quantity and qualities of a genre vary over time too, as it moves through experimental, baroque, ironic phases etc

I expect the relationship between genres and scenes has changed becasue of internet group dynamics and information exchange, and that this relationship will continue to change.

 

[hamarplazt]

Im no Gabba head, but the 'alternative' or maybe 'intelligent' gabba scene: Hellfish/DJ Producer/Deathchant end of things is all top stuff, and quite a few breakcore/Electronica heads flirt with 4/4's at 250bpm.

There's a lot of great stuff in this area for sure, but I think it's somehow too apologetic to talk about 'alternative' gabber, as an exception to gabber proper. For a long time I did the same, hailing the noisecore/avant gabber of labels like Fischkopf and Hangars Liquides. I still think that some of the most mindbending music ever have come out of that particular scene, but really, there's so much great 'stupid' gabber too. In addition to Acardipane/PCP there's obviously Speed Freak/Search and Destroy (Martin Damm), endlessly inventive and shamelessly cheesy, and E-de Cologne/Eradicator (Patric Catani), just as inventive but much more noisy and brutal. And all the rest: Nasenbluten/Bloody Fist, Zekt, C-Tank, Ultraviolence, De Klootzakken, Evo, Kill Out, Things to Come, LFO Demon... and not least Laurent Ho/Ingler, pioneer of funky/groovy indistrial gabber and the road eventually leading to Hellfish/Producer.

I actually think gabber is one of the genres with the least percentage of crap out there. The current 'main stream' of gabber, sometimes called hardstyle, is, to me, easily as exhilarating music as grime. A friend of mine is really into it and sometimes play some mixes for me full of unknown wonders. Imagine industrial hangar darkness a la PCP, mixed with the syncopated filter style of Hellfish/Producer, and add a little hands-in-the-air hard trance-riffs on top of it.

I'm surprised anyone can still (almost) get away with saying "is there any good gabba". Didn't you people learn anything from 'ardcores revenge? Well, gabber will probably never be really trendy, if for no other reason, then because gabber and jazz just don't mix.

 

[Melchior]

I'm surprised anyone can still (almost) get away with saying "is there any good gabba". Didn't you people learn anything from 'ardcores revenge? Well, gabber will probably never be really trendy, if for no other reason, then because gabber and jazz just don't mix.

Hey, it was a joke1 I don't actually know enough about gabba to say if there's any good gabba or not!

 

[Omaar]

I'm certainly up for a gabber-jazz remix project.

But can we start another gabber thread, and return to the sturgeon's law theme?