In my adventure to find a worthy persuasive article, I stumbled upon an editorial titled, “Sub-Genres Ruin Music”, written by Craig Roxburgh, an author associated with the website Mind Equals Blown. (http://mindequalsblown.net/editorials/sub-genres-ruin-music)
In his article, Roxburgh makes the argument that sub-genres of music inherently ruin music and the way people classify genres. His thesis can be identified in the statement, “The answer is that this wide range of genres is in fact destroying music, or rather, destroying musical creativity.” He continues on to explain how bands essentially create new names for sub-genres to classify themselves rather than attempt to create a new sound that legitimately sets them apart from other bands or genres. To Roxburgh, this causes an unnecessary surge of ridiculous sub-genres that could evidently be classified as a broader genre.
The evidence that Roxburgh provides rests in his explanation that many sub-genres are useful ways to classify different sounding bands, but he suggests that it goes too far when bands have, “mashed together a bunch of genres to create some obnoxious sound that you couldn’t find a name before and the decided to create one yourself.” He goes on to make this remark that I found rather entertaining, “Hey, maybe you threw in an orchestra, a noise flute and some gases just so that you could call yourself electronic-orchestral-neo-post-metalcore. (If you could read that without cringing then you have a high tolerance towards pretentious hipsters.)”. Lastly, he states, “The division that genres create results in conflict among music lovers… Sub-genres create an unnecessary division within a genre that already has a tough time gaining recognition.”
Aside from Roxburgh’s explanation, he lists a multitude of genres he considers valid, and others that he believes strays away from appropriate classification. Some of the examples of genres that he feels are over the top are listed as “post-metal, doom metal, acid metal, sludge metal, orchestral metal, nintendocore, math metal, indie metal, pagan metal and so on.” To verify the sub-genres listed, I decided to Google lists of music sub-genres. Under almost every main genre I found lists of sub-genres that coincide with Roxburgh’s list, as well as others. For the sake of entertainment, I found this other article listing the top ten most ridiculous sub-genre names in electronic music. The list consists of Splittercore, Illbient, Hardbag, Yorkshire Bleeps and Bass, Full-On Darkpsy, Orchestral Uplifting, Cybergrind, Complextro, and Clownstep. (http://www.mtviggy.com/lists/beyond-donk-top-10-most-ridiculous-sub-genre-names-in-electronic-music/) Also, if you just look up List of Rock Genres in Wikipedia, an unbelievable amount of genres and sub-genres will pop up. Here is a link to the webpage. See for yourself. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rock_genres)
After reading Roxburg’s argument, verifying the validity of his argument, and analyzing the structure of his article, I’ve come to the conclusion that it was a well reasoned through and thought out piece. He made a statement pertaining to his opinion, was capable of explaining why he feels the way he does, had enough evidence to support his argument, and was effective with his words to convince the reader to at least consider the ridiculous amount of sub-genres as detrimental if anything other than simply agreeing with him.