How Do You Know Which Genre You Write In?

When I uploaded my pieces yesterday, I was asked to select a genre and a sub-genre for the pieces I'm uploading. But the thing is, that's not something I consider at any point when I'm composing, nor after, so I don't know. I took some valid guesses and labeled some of it minimalism, and the other modernism. But the truth is that I'm not sure which specific genre it's in. And maybe especially for us not following specific, aesthetic guidelines (that would be you neo something, something), we might even write in a genre that has not yet been labeled as something. Now I'm pretty sure that doesn't include me, but maybe some of you are so good you actually write in a unique style incomparable to established genres.

So this question mostly goes out to those who haven't already labeled yourself as a specific kind of composer, and write music based on established formulas. How do you label your music? And can anyone relate to how I feel, when I say that I don't really like labeling my music? I think it's something other people should do, not myself.

I think labeling yourself is a huge danger. Its pretentious and limits your creativity.

For that reason I don't use the labeling option so much.

I hope this doesn't kill your discussion...

I think labeling yourself is a huge danger. Its pretentious and limits your creativity.

For that reason I don't use the labeling option so much.

I hope this doesn't kill your discussion...

Yeah me neither, but I mean, I can't upload music on this board without doing so :/ So I guess that leaves plenty of room for discussion

I have described myself as 'mostly Romantic'. What does that mean? Is that statement kind of an unbreakable 'Pledge of Allegiance'? No way. It's just, as Composer Phil stated above, a label "used to group composers throughout history... organize them and associate them".

Alas, there's a ton of different composition approaches that can be classed as 'Romantic'. There is the Mendelssohnian, quasi-classical feel. Or the deepness of expression of the late Beethoven-Schubert-Schumann-Brahms. Or perhaps a virtuosistic Paganini-Liszt approach. Or the nationalistic take of Chopin-Smetana-Dvorak-the Russian Five. You can also give a shot to the energetic grandeur of Berlioz & Verdi, to the monumentalism of Wagner & Bruckner, the overly emotional and moving approaches of Tchaikovsky-Mahler-Puccini, or even the eclectic synthesis of Sibelius-Rachmaninov-R. Strauss-Elgar-Holst.

Yet I don't feel like hopelessly tied to any of those. I belong to another era, where I can feel as free to go Haydn or Bach as to experience an itch for experimenting with a tone-row the next day (believe me :w00t: ), as long as I'm being true to my tastes and artistic ideals. I'm just acknowledging what I think influences my style the most (if you listen to my works you'll have a measure of it as well).

And even that is continuously changing, since one can never truly avoid being influenced by everything you listen to (I've only recently discovered that Berlioz is a bigger influence in me than I previously thought, and have also being deliberately exposing myself to the music of Lutoslawski, Penderecki and Messiaen, among others). But I don't think labeling myself as 'Romantic' is pretentious at all. On the contrary, I would be pretentious if I thought I already have a genuinely personal voice or that I deserve a compositional style school named after me or my city.

Bottom line: I don't feel uncomfortable under a label - nor bound by it.

The genres and forms etc. on this site are laughable and will be changed in due time. I always leave mine blank forever.

Why do you say that?

Because... they are?

I don't understand what makes genres "laughable", though.

Not the genres, the way its organized on the site currently. Its not entirely relevant to the discussion of the genres themselves. But I thought I might as well bring that up since someone mentioned categorizing pieces on YC by genre.

OHHHHHH.

Ok. hahahah. I thought you disagreeing with the literal terminology.

I think there are certain features which can be described as a potential style of composing or "genre".

If you like long, passionate flowing melodies you are definitely at least a little bit "Romantic" in style. If you like colouring (in music) and have a lot of "Klangfarben" elements, you are a bit of impressionist. If you like punching rhythms (with or without syncopation), you could be fond of neoclassicm or neobaroque. If you combine any of this "style" with some more modernist techniques (aleatorics, microtonal music, clusters, tone fields, extended instrumental or vocal techniques) you are a post-modernist. But I don't think this is a bad thing.

My less favoured "styles" are minimalism and polystylism. Minimalism usually sounds "cheap" (not always, of course, John Adams and Lepo Sumera are great examples and their minimalism is not so "minimal" at all while I am more reserved to Philip Glass) and makes you think the composer needs less time to compose it than it would last, while polystylism sounds confusing - like the composer does not really know which path to follow. Alfred Schnittke is therefore not exactly a composer I would really like even though he has written some very interesting and exciting works - I prefer his Requiem for choir and orchestra to most of his other works.

The Finnish composer Mikka Heinio has a better explanation and I like it: "You are not writing in a specific style, but you use several features of this specific style. You are not Neo-romantic composer in general, but you have some features of Neo-romanticism audiable and visible in your music."