Posts: 3,952
Threads: 645
Joined: Feb 2014
I agree with SteveO and Jerome, but this discussion gets real deep real quick, and it's individually contextual. If you can't relate to a sub-genre or find it off-putting, the majority of that music will sound indistinguishable. For example, ambient to me is generic; to another, hard bop especially the more extreme honk-and-squeak will sound generic. I know that all this is only #3 or #4 on the list of definitions, but it's there somewhere. What needs happen is inventing another word meaning "generic to you" vs. "generally generic". Any wordsmiths present?
Posts: 3,952
Threads: 645
Joined: Feb 2014
"Generic" has an unfortunate kinship with "genre". Generic drugs have no variation from a strict formula...and that's a good thing. Generic music has no variation from a strict formula...and that's a bad thing. You can, as a listener, get led astray by your false knowledge about what a player is about. Prime example--I wouldn't touch his Smooth Jazz emissions with a barge pole (they're pretty long) but trapped in my own prejudice, I ignored his real jazz offerings. When I caught up, I shook my head and said, "Where have I been?" Bob James. Let's face it, a lot of good generic players have real skills but moribund ambitions. And then some are in it for a guaranteed paycheck (anyone of the better house bands in Las Vegas back in the day could've stormed with the right song or the right push...and at least one broke free [Redbone]. And so it is with generic music in every sector (what could be more generic than a symphony ork in a medium-sized retirement city with former good'uns from all over?).
