I find the nomenclature discussion very interesting. I wonder why "modern" music has so many genres?

I listen to a lot of "classical". People will generally dump centuries of music into that label, or into the slightly better "baroque/classical/romantic/etc" bins.

But composers often have phases where their music can change considerably. Even with in a work (say, Dvorak's 9th symphony) individual movements can be very different. Yet I don't see classical music enthusiasts trying to place every single work into tiny bins (or maybe they do?). They just enjoy them.

I actually find that aspect of classical music really frustrating, subgenres are really useful to identify the particular elements of music that you enjoy.

I've come across plenty of classical music that I enjoy but I don't know where to begin to find more of it.

If I am being charitable it is probably partly to do with how much music is coming out, it is basically impossible to listen to all new DnB releases so it helps that they get categorized so you can find what you want.

If I am being uncharitable, some people just want to differentiate to feel special. Elitism in genres is nothing new either, rock and jazz have their own blend of genre snobbery and I am sure even Classical had people trying to look down on others from adjascent, equal height high horses.

> Plenty of people are able to enjoy music without getting caught up in nomenclature. The idea that those people aren't real fans always feels very snobbish.

If you can't differentiate between neurofunk and liquid, you're probably not a big dnb fan.

That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, but enjoying something and being a fan of something can be quite distinct things.

> If you can't differentiate between neurofunk and liquid, you're probably not a big dnb fan.

I'll be honest with you, I thought this was satire before I read the next line.

That's fine, maybe you don't care about being able to differentiate between the stuff you listen to, a lot of us do.

The word “fan” has become really watered down over time. Didn’t it used to be short for “fanatic”? If someone isn’t deeply familiar with the landscape of a genre, then it seems logical to say they aren’t a fanatic.

It may just come down to whether one uses the watered down meaning of “fan” or the original.

Pretty much everyone is a fan of music in general or some kind of music in particular. But I would counter that being able to name and differentiate a genre is a valid minimum standard to be a "real" fan of that genre.

I also reckon that being a fan connotes something different from merely enjoying the sound when you happen to come across it. But I guess there's room for disagreement there.

I highly disagree. I'm not going to say someone isn't a a true fan of Bach and Vivaldi because they refer to the music as "Classical" instead of "Baroque." Saying they "merely enjoying the sound when [they] happen to come across it" because they aren't interested in how other people have decided to name these things seems incredibly dismissive. Enjoying music is entirely unrelated to being interested in where other people have decided to artificially create divisions and the names they give to those divisions.

ok.

I have had a hard time articulating this too. I really like trains, I travel to go ride them, but I don't sit on the internet researching trains in my spare time and I don't know thr minutae of the different train models. I just know what I experience, and love it when I do.

When I tell this to normal people they think I'm a superfan, but I am not even in the same conversation as actual train fans. I doubt I could even hold a conversation about trains with a train fan.

It is the same for music, and I have the benefit of having been both a superfan and now later just a regular person who loves the music. I have an in depth love for the music, and no one can take that from my heart. But I don't give a lick about genres anymore.