The reason music is categorised was so customers could find it without hassle in their local record shop and record labels could pitch their latest signing to radio stations for airplay. Now the algorithmic streaming services like Spotify and iTunes can format their menus while directing customers to what ‘they may also like’ and your playlists can follow you anywhere. Genres can also provide a template for lazy music journalists allowing broad stroke reviews without the need to accurately describe the sounds contained in the artists work.

What do any of these genre descriptors actually mean? Do they tell you how the music sounds? How might it make you feel? It usually results in comparisons with other musicians. A new band compared to an older band. Genres aren’t helpful to musicians either. Churning out the same sounding record, release after release, hardly inspires musical development or experimentation. Only the brave will change their sound and experiment with other musical styles – David Bowie is one obvious example – to push their art into new pastures and landscapes.

Genre categorisation simplifies the entire musical process. For example, ‘World Music’. What exactly is it? Lyrics in another language, the artist originating from another continent, their skin colour? I have no idea what world music sounds like. Does Peter Gabriel sound like Fela Kuti, does Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan sound like Paul Simon? It’s a vague justification for lumping bands together who aren’t European or American. As David Byrne scathingly remarked, “It’s a none too subtle way of reasserting the hegemony of western pop culture. It ghettoises most of the world’s music. A bold and audacious move, White Man!” It’s a marketing tool, nothing more, nothing less. Labels need to guide music consumers to the exact place and find music they may like as quickly as possible. The chaos ridden digital marketplace drives genre-based categorisation for speed and ease. In my opinion, it’s bad culture. It’s safe, generic. Dialled-down consumer marketing. It’s the antithesis of artistic creativity.

So many musicians successfully cross-pollinate their styles but where does this leave them? Usually discovering that their music is harder to find. As musician Jérémy Labelle argued, “categorisation equals discrimination”. With music now available at our fingertips on the web, it is now a globalised landscape and not merely confined to sections in a record shop. Recently, I was browsing in a record shop, flicking through the ‘World Music’ section and as I studied each artist the ridiculous nature of this description struck me immediately. Turkish psych next to Korean electronic next to Indian Dance next African Techno. It was plagued by an endless and unhelpful catch-all curation of musical styles and artists. All that should matter is championing music, not holding artists back by whatever genre is decided without their consent. It’s just music!!

Terminology also affects western rock. ‘Indie’, ‘College Rock’, ‘Alternative’, ‘Post Punk’. They are all interchangeable and mean very little. Belle and Sebastian are included in the indie rock section along with Gang of Four. Two bands who have very little in common whatsoever. A recent article in a well known music monthly magazine compared Wilco with Neil Young. Ok, that’s possibly not the worst example, but what era ‘Neil Young’ are we discussing here. ‘Crazy Horse’, ‘Cinnamon Girl’, ‘Trans’? This pigeonholing does neither artist any favours.

Now, brace yourself, here is my biggest issue. Progressive/Conceptual Rock. In the 80’s, being caught listening to ‘Prog’ either resulted in your friends disowning you, or worse still, in Glenrothes – then a punk stronghold – a severe kicking. Whilst not avoiding this level of violence, for my personal fashion sense and pin badge displays, I still didn’t care. I will however concede that wearing a tan suede-tassel jacket, a la Roddy Frame, in Glenrothes town centre wasn’t my wisest choice. The blows I took could be argued as deserved.

Syd Barrett era Pink Floyd expanded my musical horizons in the same way Bowie did. I loved the sound effects, the strange indescribable noises and the experimental nature of their music. My mind was opened to Hawkwind, Can, King Crimson, ELP, Gentle Giant, Be Bop Deluxe, Soft Machine and numerous bands labelled ‘Prog’. I really didn’t see any difference listening to these records along with Bowie, Iggy, New York Dolls, Aztec Camera, The Clash, Blondie, Associates, Simple Minds etc. I prefered edgier music and these artists provided me with my fix. The Velvet Underground and Roxy Music sounded as ‘weird’ as Pink Floyd and King Crimson and the spirit of experimentation grabbed my attention immediately.

It became apparent to me, even at that age, the influence of progressive music was everywhere. From New Order and the ‘Factory’ bands, to Cabaret Voltaire, Throbbing Gristle and Psychic TV. Musicians such as Robert Fripp and Peter Hamill, for example, were lauded by new bands and even worked with some ‘PostPunk/Art Rock’ artists. The intellectual approach to music, coupled with a punk attitude created some of the best recordings I’d heard. Complex, proficient and technically gifted musicianship elevated the simplicity of punk to a level I could genuinely appreciate. The possibilities were endless and the disregard and disdain for prog music completely baffled me. Here was the past making the future progress at an exhilarating rate of knots. My friends argued endlessly with me when I firmly stated The Cocteau Twins were prog, Magazine are prog, The Cure, Japan, PIL and others were all either progressive or heavily invested in it.

Robert Fripp once said, “the genre (prog) is dedicated to what it perceives as progress, even if it sounds like garbage to many.” I’m also of the opinion that some prog music did indeed meander into the more cerebral, philosophical meanings of life and musical excesses but all forms of music are guilty of this (jazz is one example). Cape wearing keyboard players, wizard imagery, pomposity and intentionally complex time signatures polarised many listeners, but to how many musicians can you level an accusation of taking themselves too seriously? Quite a few!

Progressive music appeals to me as it borrows from so many different styles. Jazz, rock, classical, folk etc. It has the ability to be whimsical, rather po-faced at times, but at its heart is experimentation, texture, emotion and fearlessness. The list of musicians who grasp these attributes are the ones who endear and endure. The dismissal of the conventional pop format and abandonment of the 4/4 backbeat resulted in experimentation with more complex musical patterns and a broader palette of sounds.

Peter Gabriel explained when asked why prog was derided from time to time, “a lot of extraordinary musicians trying to break down the barriers to reject the rules of music”. Isn’t that what punk did, what hip hop, jazz and many other styles continually do? Take Kendrick Lamar as an example. Classifying his music as hip hop does him a great disservice. It’s dynamic, varied, complex and laden with experimentation. Categorising his work within the narrow confines of a single genre gives no indication to the wider, greater experience of listening to his music.

Simply put, genre is tedious and ultimately boring. Even basic descriptors can do the trick. Romantic recordings or adrenaline fuelled music would enhance any playlist title better than ‘indie rock’.

So, if we dismiss genre, how should we describe it? How should journalists judge the music they review? Here’s something novel; try describing how it sounds. Readers will dismiss an article based upon genre stereotypes, however, encouraging investigation and piquing interest is surely what we are attempting to achieve. Shouldn’t that make you curious enough to listen to more? Don’t alienate a reader when the opening sentence describes the record as ‘country’ or ‘math rock’. If you don’t like these styles you aren’t going to read on. Imagine all the fabulous sounds you will miss out on. And my life is certainly too short to miss out on any good music.

In conclusion, I guess the only two categories that apply are whether I like it or I don’t. Whether my ears decide it’s good or bad. However, I’d encourage everyone who writes or talks about music to provide reasoned illustrations and representations of the music. Don’t resort to lazy stereotypes. You sound like a broken record.