From Tradition to Style: The Life Cycle of a Music Genre

It’s a debate that everyone’s familiar with, regardless of the specifics of the actual genre: what constitutes the “real” version of that genre? And by this I mean – is it how the music sounds that determines how it should be defined, or is it the process by which it is made, and the background from which it has emerged? It’s a phenomenon which has repeated itself across various different genres throughout time, and in each case, the result is that we emerge with two distinct varieties of a particular musical style. I’ll illustrate precisely the ways in which this has played out through five examples, starting with the one I’m most familiar with – as I wrote about this specific instance extensively throughout my PhD – jazz.

I’m not going to go thoroughly in depth into precisely what defines jazz – that’s another post for another time – but it should be quite obvious to anyone that there are two very distinct approaches to jazz in the present day. The first is the approach that views jazz as a specific method or attitude – a process which is then reflected in the resultant music. In this instance jazz is experimental music, that pushes against boundaries, and breaks with tradition. Think of a musician like Miles Davis, who continually changed his sound with each and every release. This is the position that treats jazz as a tradition (perhaps a rather ironic phrasing considering its determining aspects of breaking with such a tradition). Contrastingly, many contemporary jazz clubs will present musicians performing so called trad-jazz (again an ironic phrasing). In this instance, the music is simply a reconstruction of the classic jazz songs from their particular era. Whilst enjoyment can certainly be gained from such musicians, the response is far more akin to listening to pop music – simply a familiar style – than listening to music that reflects the true, innovative spirit of jazz.

In speaking of pop music however, this is another example whereby one can consider the genre in two distinct ways. What is pop?, one might ask – and it’s a very good question. A young music fan would likely point to a distinctive sound that is characteristic of modern pop music, represented by artists such as Lady Gaga, Beyoncé, Bruno Mars. The style of music made by such musicians has come to represent pop music in the modern age, but of course – the phrase “pop” originally emerged simply as shorthand for “popular”. Interestingly enough, a musician could happily play this “pop” music without experiencing any popularity whatsoever; and similarly, many musicians who have experienced immense popularity perform music that couldn’t be further from this style. But – by this definition of popularity – anything could be pop. The Beatles were pop. Pink Floyd were pop. The Sex Pistols were pop.

I can practically hear many punk fans regurgitating at the suggestion that the Sex Pistols were pop musicians, which only serves to illustrate how punk music also falls victim to this phenomenon. Punk is analogous to jazz in many ways, in that the music originally sought to go against the grain, and was defined by its rebellious, individualistic attitude and ethic which underscored the music. Punk was the music that people made when they didn’t feel welcomed by any other style or subculture. And as with jazz, over time, punk in the public eye became less about this attitude, and more about a particular sound that came to define the style. Many emergent bands may now describe their sound as punk as it resembles this sound aurally, despite sharing none of the situational or circumstantial characteristics that defined the original music. The modern acts who would fall into the punk tradition then, would be acts such as Sleaford Mods (who I reviewed last month), whose sound is quite far removed from that of the original punk music, but whose approach is practically identical.

Another genre that has seemingly become a style, despite having deep-rooted traditions – especially so in this case! – is folk. Folk is defined by these traditions, music that was typically unrecorded (even in score), passed down through generations, and played in local communities. By this description, folk could not – by definition – have a particular sound or style, as the music is defined by the particularities that make it representative of its respective region. Yet, as with punk, many members of the public would recognise a particular musical sound as “folk” – particularly the music that has emerged out of the American folk tradition. Thus, contemporary acts such as the Lone Bellow – who like the previous trad jazz acts should perhaps be considered pop – tend to get categorised as folk due to their idiosyncratic sound, despite not originating from this tradition at all. The original folk tradition is still certainly alive however, and can be found in many local communities across the world.

And speaking of music that has been with us for generations, the last genre I will speak of is Classical. Note the use of the capital C here, for Classical most specifically refers to the music of the Classical period, roughly 1750-1810 (Haydn, Mozart, early Beethoven etc.). Yet today, classical with a small c is used loosely to refer to any Western art composition, regardless of era, or if the music is actually representative of the Classical period. The term is employed for everyone from Pachelbel (1653-1706) to Shostakovich (1906-1975), as well as contemporary composers such as Ludovico Einaudi. So as with jazz, pop, punk, and folk, when one refers to Classical it is often unclear what they are referring to: whether it be the specific music of this period, or simply any piece that has come from the vast sea of compositions of the past 300+ years.

I’m sure there are many more examples from a whole variety of genres. Ultimately, the argument of what constitutes the “real” version of a genre almost always boils down to this distinction. Where one fan may listen only to the music that imitates the original style without caring for the tradition, another may only follow the acts keeping up the tradition, disregarding those acts for not utilising this approach. In the end, both fans can be seen as somewhat misled. There are advantages to be found in the combined elements of both attitudes, and great music has been made in every example for each case. As I noted at the start, what often seem to happen is that we end up with two very distinct variations of the original genre. Whether one chooses to pick a specific side, or to acknowledge and appreciate the benefits of both, is up to the individual listener.