Radiohead and the Journey Beyond Genre

Analysing Stylistic Debates and Transgressions

Julia Ehmann

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429817212
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Art
• Subtopic: Art General

Radiohead and the Journey Beyond Genre traces the uses and transgressions of genre in the music of Radiohead and studies the band's varied reception in online and offline media. Radiohead's work combines traditional rock sounds with a unique and experimental approach towards genre that sets the band apart from the contemporary mainstream. A play with diverse styles and audience expectations has shaped Radiohead's musical output and opened up debates about genre amongst critics, fans, and academics alike. Interpretations speak of a music that is referential of the past but also alludes to the future. Applying both music- and discourse-analytical methods, the book discusses how genre manifests in Radiohead's work and how it is interpreted amongst different audience groups. It explores how genre and generic flexibility affect the listeners' search for musical meaning and ways of discussion. This results in the development of a theoretical framework for the study of genre in individual popular music oeuvres that explores the equal validity of widely differing forms of reception as a multidimensional network of meaning. While Radiohead's music is the product of an eclectic mixture of musical influences and styles, the book also shows how the band's experimental stance has increasingly fostered debates about Radiohead's generic novelty and independence. It asks what remains of genre in light of its past or imminent transgression. Offering new perspectives on popular music genre, transgression, and the music and reception of Radiohead, the book will appeal to academics, students, and those interested in Radiohead and matters of genre. It contributes to scholarship in musicology, popular music, media, and cultural studies.

1 Popular music genre

Genre is a controversial and ambiguous concept that plays an important role in the ways in which popular music is produced and perceived. As a means of organisation, genre is present in many areas of our lives – from the displays of book and record stores to the structures of newspapers or radio programmes. Most people have clear ideas about genre and are able to identify related musical canons. Yet when searching for a definition of the word ‘genre,’ one encounters a multitude of different views. Although genre theory builds on a more than two-thousand-year-old tradition, it also relies on vague definitions and a wide spread of approaches. Ironically, some genre theorists completely forgo terminological explanations and treat genre as self-evident. At the same time, others prefer open-ended and flexible genre concepts. There is an advantage in looking at the methodological differences that arise from the remaining uncertainty. The following paragraphs offer an overview of the available definitions and theoretical approaches and discuss their individual and combined value for a study of popular music oeuvres and Radiohead’s work in particular.

Definitions and distinctions

While theories of genre are well established in the fields of musicology, literature, and film studies, the discipline of popular music studies is considerably younger and has produced less research on genre-related issues. This is due to a number of reasons: the abstract nature of music that complicates the identification of genre traits, as well as a lack of comprehensive research methods and sources. Musical scores can be detailed and insightful, but do not serve to address non-musical features. Notation for popular music is rarely available and often incomplete. While it can highlight musical features, aspects such as the performance or production of music do play as much of a part in the identification of genre as musical recordings do. Fabian Holt (2007: 5) points out that the specific cultural and commercial dynamics of popular music, with tensions between standardisation and originality, and with unique forms of production and marketing, contribute to a condition of constantly changing and transforming genre identities and boundaries. He also suggests that this situation calls for analysis of not just the musical but also the wider cultural and social dimensions of popular music. When studying popular music genre, it is therefore useful to adopt interdisciplinary perspectives and consider the abundance of previous research in other areas of cultural studies – including their dealings with hybridity and transgression.

In contemporary genre theory, two types of genre definition prevail – a technocratic and a more abstract, reflexive approach – that appear either separately or in conjunction. Most frequently, genre is defined in the technical sense as a concept of classification that relies on a number of interrelating rules and characteristics. It is used as a system of organisation, which enables listeners to identify and navigate between a vast range of musical canons. Writing for the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Jim Samson (2001: 657) explains genre as a “class, type or category, sanctioned by convention” and states that genres rely on “the principle of repetition. They codify past repetitions, and they invite future repetitions.” Genre thus exists on a temporal scale and is deeply rooted in social traditions. The discrepancy between a mere repetition of genre rules and their eventual transgression makes it possible to observe how genres evolve over time. Like Samson, most popular music theorists emphasise the role of social and historiological factors in the negotiation of generic meaning. A previous knowledge of genre rules and traditions determines the ways in which music is produced, encountered, and perceived. Genre guides interactions between different groups of people. It affects the processes of communication and works as a shorthand language in conversations (Negus, 1999: 4). Popular music genre is therefore not solely comprised of musical features, but also includes social aspects, events, and relationships. David Brackett (2002: 66) describes genres as “ways of categorizing popular music so as to create a connection between musical styles, producers, musicians and consumers.” This way genre audiences, critics, and industries play a major role in forming and defining popular music categories.

It is interesting to contemplate the relative importance of different genre elements when studying specific musical oeuvres. Which aspects are at the heart of a genre? And what is less important to note? How are all generic features weighted against each other? One aspect that complicates the study of popular music genre is the extent of details found in different accounts on specific genres. It is often said that the more rules exist for a genre, the harder it is to find musical works that fulfil these conditions. Similarly, the fewer rules there are, the harder it is to define a genre in the first place. While one can thus distinguish between detailed and open-ended definitions of genre, it is important to stay aware of their advantages and disadvantages. A large number of common features can be beneficial for the validation and stability of a genre. Meanwhile, an open-ended definition accommodates inter-generic hybridity and genre transgression more easily. It brings with it a sense of flexibility that accounts for a wider range of works. Flexible notions of genre are specifically useful for addressing instances of genre transgression in individual oeuvres. Keeping a balance between the different takes on genre and evaluating genre according to circumstance is important when tracing stylistic developments and transgression in musical works.

Not every definition of genre relies solely on a catalogue of rules and shared features. In recent years, there has been a tendency to view genre not only as a means of classification, but also – in a more abstract sense – as a form of discourse, that exists in the actions and interactions of its users and determines how music is made sense of. Brackett’s earlier statement about genre audiences is just one example of a genre concept that is shaped by individual understandings and interpretations, rather than a mere list of musical features. Abstract genre definitions do include a technical understanding of generic categories, but they also provide an additional dimension to the study of genre. They position genre as a subjective concept and describe the ways in which meaning arises and evolves. John Frow (2006: 10) explains it like this:

Genre, we might say, is a set of conventional and highly organised constraints on the production and interpretation of meaning. In using the word ‘constraint’ I don’t mean to say that genre is simply a restriction. Rather, its structuring effects are productive of meaning; they shape and guide, in the way that a builder’s form gives structure to its materials. Generic structure both enables and restricts meaning, and is a basic condition for meaning to take place. I take it that genre theory is, or should be, about the ways in which different structures of meaning and truth are produced in and by the various kinds of writing, talking, painting, filming, and acting by which the universe of discourse is structured. That is why genre matters: it is central to human meaning-making and to the social struggle over meanings.

Genre is not only part of a text and its context; it also shapes the meaning that is created within and through the text during the process of production and interpretation. Generic constraints are as much present in our minds as they are in the music or any text for that matter. Frow’s definition focuses on the functionality of genre, as do many of the more abstract definitions. While genre is often regarded as a principle of organisation, he goes one step further by describing genre as the meaning that is created from such processes of structuring. His understanding of genre theory is to explore how exactly this meaning comes to be. Applied to music, genre plays an equally important role in the creative process as it does in the course of analysis. Without genre, we would be hard pressed to locate meaning in specific works of music. Would punk, for instance, be the same if we were unaware of its do-it-yourself ideology, its quick chord progressions or subversive attitudes? How would our understanding of the music change? Would it bear the same meaning? And what happens if the music does not conform to what we have come to expect of it? Writing about film genre Steve Neale (2003: 161) touches upon this matter and says that

genres are not simply bodies of work or groups of films, however classified, labelled, and defined. Genres do not consist only of films: they consist also, and equally, of specific systems of expectation and hypothesis that spectators bring with them to the cinema and that interact with films themselves during the course of the viewing process.

Neale’s words suggest that genre exists on various functional levels: it resides in the work itself and is imposed by its creator, it is used for production and marketing purposes, and it shapes the reception of a work and its future impact. When we encounter genres, we bring with us preconceived ideas that influence our ways of thinking. These expectations are similar to what Frow calls ‘constraints’ because they are at work in our minds. Previous understandings shape the ways in which genre texts are encountered, experienced, and perceived. While the idea of genre rules and structures can be quite restricting, Neale’s words underline the relevance of individual audience reactions. No audience member watches a film in the same way. Every reaction is personal and subjective and therefore genre needs to be flexible and accommodate different opinions. A look at genre discourses helps to get an impression of the wide range of interpretations available and opens up new analytical views.

Studies of genre reception are amongst the newer approaches to genre theory. They are common in film studies, where the interpretation of audience and media responses often provides an alternative or complementary approach to text-based genre analyses. By comparing different opinions on genre, one can get a good grasp on how generic diversity and transgression affect genre interpretations. Barry Langford (2005: 11) points out that audience responses always need to be understood in relation to the kind of spectator that a genre text implies. Langford is referring to film genre, so the question of whether the same could be said about music genre is of considerable importance. An awareness of audiences affects various areas of music making and marketing, and it is important to consider the different ways in which audiences experience genre in music as opposed to film or literature. Even though individual degrees of concentration may vary, readers and spectators tend to encounter genre texts in an active manner by giving them their full attention. In music, passive encounters are equally common, which effectively broadens the spectrum of resulting genre interpretations. Whether we hear a certain piece of music in the car, in a shop, as soundtrack to a film, or on headphones influences our perception of it and has consequences for our ways of understanding. In this way, the reception of popular music genres is based on a particularly wide range of competing opinions, which needs to be taken into consideration in an analysis of genre.

There are considerable differences between genre structures – and hence genre theories – in music, literature, and film studies. An interdisciplinary perspective is then useful to develop a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of genre. Holt (2007: 4 f.) states that genre theory is more strongly entrenched in film studies than it is in any other field. He argues that the fluid nature of popular music genres makes it hard to establish accurate genre theories. Popular music differs from film not only in terms of its reception contexts, but also with regard to its formats, medial roles, and as Holt rightly points out, the nature of its production, signification, and performance. Moreover, films rely almost exclusively on visual or iconographic aspects and storylines to convey their meaning. This knowledge has shaped genre theories by film scholars for decades. Neale (2000: 10) states that film genre theory first emerged as a critical tool based on a “desire to complement, temper or displace altogether the dominant critical approach used hitherto – auteurism.” A shift to genre criticism meant a move away from the interpretation of films as the artistic and individual expression of directors – just as a focus on music genre can deflect attention away from its creators. Looking at genre transgression in individual oeuvres thus proves beneficial for highlighting authorship and compositional meaning alongside questions of classification. The brief discussion of film and auteurism draws attention to the role of popular music artists. Factors such as the individuality of performances, the demeanour and appearance of musicians, and the audiences’ live experience shape the formation of genres and affect perceptions. The lines between creators, performers, narrators, or protagonists of popular music thereby overlap or become blurred. Musicians are inevitably linked to their musical output and consequently to particular genres. An awareness of the individualistic and artist-centric nature of popular music genre is crucial for comparing it to other types of genre.

While both music and literature genres share film’s emphasis on artistic expression, they differ in other areas. Literature theory precedes all other genre studies and thus gives direction to genre theory as a whole. It works with long-standing traditions and ingrained hierarchies. Literature genres are more stable and precise than other fast-lived genres (Fowler, 1982: 20 ff. and 216 ff.). This is mainly because their taxonomic structures have developed over a much longer period of time. While literary genres are by no means static, popular music genres evolve more quickly and their hierarchies are fluid. At the same time, popular music genres can be deeply affected by lyrical structures and contents that allude to literary and poetry genres, works, or themes. This is often the case with Radiohead’s music that includes references to works by Douglas Adams (“Paranoid Android”), George Orwell (“2+2=5”), and Dante Alighieri (“Pyramid Song”) amongst many others. There is also a distinction to be made between the different levels of popular music genres. Subgenres develop at a fast pace and form highly branched systems of micro-classification, the likes of which are rarely found in other fields. Metagenres – wide categories such as rock or pop – exist on a higher level than genres and subgenres (Shuker, 2012: 147 f.). Working with these hierarchic levels is useful when trying to navigate the vast field of popular music categories. A brief discussion of genre terminologies shall provide further insight into popular music classification and its hierarchic structures.

Etymological debates

Many texts about genre attempt to explain the word with the help of such replacement terms as ‘category,’ ‘type,’ ‘kind,’ ‘mode,’ ‘form,’ or ‘style.’ In doing so, they mainly address the functional aspects of genre or its characteristic dimensions. A reference to replacement terms is by far the most common approach to defining genre and therefore warrants further discussion about the terms’ implied meanings, interchangeability, and individual merit. The confusion about terminologies has etymological reasons. The French word ‘genre’ derives from the Latin term ‘genus’ that translates as ‘type,’ ‘kind,’ or ‘class.’ The structuring function of genre and its hierarchical dimension are implied in the word origin. While ‘type,’ ‘kind,’ and ‘class’ highlight the connections and structures behind different bodies of music, they do not come with the extensive list of connotations that genre nowadays entails. Similarly, words such as ‘mode’ or ‘form’ emphasise single characteristics within the broad spectrum of features associated with certain genres and are thus equally narrow substitutes. In contrast, the term ‘style’ presents a more open-ended alternative. It can include a large number of features and is often used to address the character of a genre-text rather than its context.

Style frequently appears in writings about popular music, and its relation to genre is highly debated amongst academics. Allan F. Moore (2001: 432 ff.) discusses the topic in depth and argues that both terms are “concerned with ways of erecting categorical distinctions, of identifying similarity between different pieces.” He questions whether these similarities exist on the same hierarchical level and states that style and genre could almost be used interchangeably were it not for the fact that most texts insist on using both. Moore finds that both musicologists and popular music scholars place style and genre in a hierarchical relationship, but while genre often appears subordinate to style in musicology and hence classical music, in popular music studies it is the other way around. The works of popular music scholars Franco Fabbri and Philip Tagg are cited as examples of pivotal genre theories that position style as only one part of the whole genre spectrum. Stating that there is no single understanding of both terms in the wide field of cultural studies, Moore proposes four ways in which genre and style can relate to each other:

First, style refers to the manner of articulation of musical gestures and is best considered as imposed on them, rather than intrinsic to them. Genre refers to the identity and the context of those gestures. This distinction may be characterized in terms of ‘what’ an artwork is set out to do (genre) and ‘how’ it is actualized (style). Secondly, genre, in its emphasis on the context of gestures, pertains most usefully to the esthesic, while style, in its emphasis on their manner of articulation, pertains most usefully to the poietic. Thirdly, in its concentration on how meaning is constituted, genre is normally explicitly thematized as socially constrained […]. Style, on the other hand, in its emphasis on technical features and appropriability, frequently simply brackets out the social […] or at least regards this realm as mini...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
•   Introduction
• 1 Popular music genre
• 2 Genre and transgression in the music of Radiohead
• 3 Challenging genre: Radiohead and the music press
• 4 Scholarly perspectives on Radiohead
• 5 Genre online: Wider audience and fan perspectives
• Conclusion
• Appendix
• Index