Yes, yes, I know, it's the "G" word again!
I'm bringing it up because I want some ideas on how to tackle the problems of categorising bands without misrepresenting them. Specifically, the current format of the bands page is a mess and unless you're looking for an already known band, it's not very user friendly. It would be very useful to be able to have some kinda Yahoo! style category system so that fans of particular genr... styles of music could find out about more bands that exist in that particular gen... area (ahem). It would also help enormously with the display and loading of the bands page itself.
Now, the big problem: how to create categories which are accurate, fair and indentifiable, yet general/specific enough to accomodate to each band's style, personality and music?
"Rock" is obviously too big, as is "Dance" or "Electronic", but they may be serviceable as "top-level" categories, with sub-cats for "Hard Rock", "Punk", "House", "Drum 'n' Bass" etc
Bands needn't be stuck in just one category, we could allow each band to pick several, to mix'n'match styles and give a more accurate description that way? Of course, we'd have to have a huge list of possible categories, but I can't see that being a problem?
Does anyone have other suggestions about how to group bands into some system that allows people to find their music accurately? Is genre the only way?
Length of guitar straps? Amounts of pedals? Haircuts?
Influences? Preferred drinks?
What we need is a big cap that when placed on a musician's head, will announce his genre.
use drop down menus and popular cliches.
search: [band] ON [drug]
the system on the nimusic site is quite good.
Splits it into 4 catagorys:
Bands/electronic Producers/DJs/Solo Artists
then into what county they're based in.
Although it ain't perfek, it's a good stab at it.
hmm band and country doesn't say much when your trying to find out, say, who's in the current punk scene or if there are any people out there who could do a DnB remix of your latest demo tho?
EPK suggested using a set of keywords which sounds like a decent plan, any others?
Have ur main categories like:
Pop & Rock
and stem them off like inside alternative you kan have:
alot of ge...oh yeah....styles for ppl to go into but hey the world is complicated just like macy grays hair.......
@#%$ it if you are really stuck for styles go to mp3.com theyll help ya all the way
You could use those intersecting circles that you had to do for maths GCSE (venndiagrams?) for all those bands who cross genre boundaries.
Or maybe not like.
Has it ever struck anyone that with all the other genres supplied in these lists, that Pop/Rock get stuck in together?
As a rock musician, I might find this vaguely misleading/misrepresentative.
precisely, which is why I'm crying out for other ideas, 'afore I embark upon this mighty quest for categorisation
I like the sound of the keywords idea. Just like a webpage, give each band 3 or maybe 5 slots into each they can stick a keyword.
Some nifty CGI would even allow drop down menus containing all used keywords, or a box to key in and search by genre.
This way you end up with a nice dynamic system, and if a band decides even changes its keywords, Rog doesn't have to move them from one genre into another.
To bulletproof it a bit, you can provide a list of keywords for bands to choose from, say 4 out of your 5 have to be on the list, and then you've one spare to allow for a bit of artistic licence.
YEah, this sounds good. I never use the band page. It's annoyingly big and full of bands I don't want to hear about.
This could be a big fastfude improvement.
But how hard it'll be to pigeonhole Panda Kopanda.
No, wait - it's frickin simple.
Keep it simple.
yes, this is getting somewhere, although I might expand the number of open vs fixed keywords, say three open ones and three fixed (in fact, forget exact numbers for now, it'll probably need to be decided at the end, once an engine's built and we can see how it "feels"), but keep the fixed ones "optional" in case nowt fits closely enough? To balance it, it might be worth putting slightly more "weight" on the fixed ones when calculating a search though.
I say stick to the mid ground, not to broad and not too specific. Loads of bands would like you to think that they inhabit some "other" or "oddball" category. It is as simple as this: if they want to be on a band listing, let them choose a category or none at all.
I would certainly include any metal band in NI inside a "metal" categroy, whether they be Death, Black, Heavy, True, Power, Thrash, Hardcore... I doubt they would complain. People need quick categories.
I wouldnt go doing layering of categrories Roger, its work you dont need for people who are just being pedantic. If they want listed, make em pick. The benefit to the casual surfer will be worth it.
Black metal? Hardcore metal?
I'm really f*cking scared.
yeah i agree with fires of hell, make em choose or lose out.....make the 2 categories pop and dance.......
or combine the 2 and call it pants......
put kapitol 25 under............punk
and field-ix under..............i dont kno
i need my bed............
i should cocoa.
I imagine we can rustle up a fairly big list that covers most major styles for the preset keywords, and leave the custom ones for more specialised description?
Sounds good. Well to me anyway.
Rog, if you do that, every d*ck will invent a custom word on you. I stick with my earlier point... choose or lose.
Yeah. Otherwise there'll be genres like
And stuff like that.
Ciaran's right - everybody will end up inventing their own keyword, but if you limit the drop down menus to only those keywords that are hard coded, you won't end up with a huge list of custom keywords that are meaningless.
Searching by typing in keywords will search the entire database of keywords, so if a band decides to use a really obscure or anal keyword, they will be shooting themselves in the foot, wheras if they really *need* to use a keyword that doesn't exist in the database, and it perfectly describes their sound, then the facility is there.
I'm just thinking that if I had to sit down and force FHO into categories I would find it a painful process, but I could do it no problem if I had just that bit more room to maneuvure.
I envision it as 5 boxes, 4 with drop down menus, and the fifth as a manual keyed entry text box, labelled 'optional'.
The first box lists the main general genres, each box therafter progressively splits it into sub-genres, and the fifth is an optional manual entry.
When you hit the 'GO' button, whatever is selected in each box is stuck into the list of keywords for that band. You don't even have to have a keyword for every single sub-genre.
I might be making this sound very complicated, and I hate the term 'sub-genres', but I may knock together a mock up and upload it somewhere to see how it feels.
I'm also thinking that the huge task of deciding upon the genres and sub-genres may already be done - I'm sure somebody on the net has already got something like this.
I advocate a "Miscellaneous" category.
for sore heads like me, who would detest being described as any of the above.
Just introduce the suffix "-ish".
No, really. Edited by: die the flu at: 3/28/02 5:48:31 pm
sad but true
but anto, if you classify your band as "misc", when Joe Punter comes along to search for summat, (s)he's nat likely to go "Hmm, I feel like rocking out to Miscellaneous Genre today!" It's got more to do with classification for the benefit of the searching user than the band, so that they can find you. Hence generic categories, while probably insufficient to describe any one band's exact sound, will go a long way towards giving a user a starting point that custom keywords can then whittle down.
I think adding "-ish" to 10 or so genres is a brilliant idea.
Original, unique and...workable?
The -ish thing would be cool.
Any progress made, then?
Yes but after a while "Misc" will be its own whole musical and social movement, which will advocate global revolution, and unlike many of the other genres actually succeed due to the fact that we cannot be classified.
Thus defeating the istacratic media and enemies of freedom.
Hasta La Victoria Sometime...
go with the ish thing
ish is good, if you use a keyword system and say everyone has 5 words they can choose from/enter then you're gonna get people putting down
when they might just be a cliff richard cover band and are going to suck in 5 categories worth of hits due to this little scheme of them.
VOTE ISH!!! Edited by: Skapocalyptic at: 7/25/02 1:27:53 pm
A 'location' category would be fairly handy for us media types, who like to know where a band is from/ based.
Ok, how about a poll beside each band profile asking people which genre they think suited the band.
bring your áss
blah blah blah
Which genre suits this band most?:
Then, you could display the percentages:
OUT OF 35 VOTES, PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THE DANGERFIELDS WERE:
b. 90% Punk
1% Blues Edited by: Eamonn Evangelists at: 9/10/02 12:31:33 pm