In the ongoing debate as to the relationship between genre and style there is no set answer or definitive ruling on what each really encompasses. While there are many opinions out there Franco Fabbri’s ideas strike me as most reasonable, although other thoughts from Moore have very relevant arguments on the subject.
Moore begins by pointing out both words are quite unclear in musicology. He points out that when describing works of Beethoven and Brahms one may say they are in the “same genre, while inhabiting different styles” yet when it comes to different works of Beethoven they may “use different conventions of genre, but are written within the same style” (Moore 1). Moore does not believe the two terms should be understood as hierarchically related.
Moore acknowledges that Fabbri’s definition of genre has more to it than musical relevance, such as cultural factors that surround certain types of music, but doesn’t believe Fabbri says enough about style (1). He suggests many examples as to what goes into style such as patterning. When the definition of style and genre become too similar he believes there is an obvious contradiction that can only lead “three opportunities: acceptance, refutation, and resolution” (2). In efforts to resolve this confusion Moore suggests one possibility that the terms differ because of their etymology. Genre comes from gender, which had the old connotation “type”. On the other hand, style came from stylus, which described “a manner of discourse” (4). Moore uses this to suggest the sharing of the same musical techniques may imply similarity in style, although the distinction in subject matter creates difference in genre.
Compared to Moore, Fabbri has put together more distinctive definitions. To him, genre is more defined by how a certain music’s culture comes about from the music. Genres are about more than just the style and composition of a piece of music. He suggests style is a “recurring arrangement of features in musical events, which is typical of an individual (composer, performer), a group of musicians, a genre, a place, a period of time” (Fabbri 8). Fabbri’s definition of style is related to genre however does not seem to stretch as broadly. He distinguishes that “style implies an emphasis on the musical code, while genre relates to all kinds of codes that are referred to in a musical event” (9).
This is what I personally find to be the most reasonable in thinking about style and genre. Personally I don’t know too many properly defined styles, but recognize that they may be found in many genres I will listen to. These genres, which I think are developed from not only a group’s music, but also from their following and culture they bring forth performing, all may feature the same styles that someone better trained in music could more easily recognize. The styles that can be identified in very different music may carry over, but I don’t believe this is the only thing to consider.
Moore begins by pointing out both words are quite unclear in musicology. He points out that when describing works of Beethoven and Brahms one may say they are in the “same genre, while inhabiting different styles” yet when it comes to different works of Beethoven they may “use different conventions of genre, but are written within the same style” (Moore 1). Moore does not believe the two terms should be understood as hierarchically related.
Moore acknowledges that Fabbri’s definition of genre has more to it than musical relevance, such as cultural factors that surround certain types of music, but doesn’t believe Fabbri says enough about style (1). He suggests many examples as to what goes into style such as patterning. When the definition of style and genre become too similar he believes there is an obvious contradiction that can only lead “three opportunities: acceptance, refutation, and resolution” (2). In efforts to resolve this confusion Moore suggests one possibility that the terms differ because of their etymology. Genre comes from gender, which had the old connotation “type”. On the other hand, style came from stylus, which described “a manner of discourse” (4). Moore uses this to suggest the sharing of the same musical techniques may imply similarity in style, although the distinction in subject matter creates difference in genre.
Compared to Moore, Fabbri has put together more distinctive definitions. To him, genre is more defined by how a certain music’s culture comes about from the music. Genres are about more than just the style and composition of a piece of music. He suggests style is a “recurring arrangement of features in musical events, which is typical of an individual (composer, performer), a group of musicians, a genre, a place, a period of time” (Fabbri 8). Fabbri’s definition of style is related to genre however does not seem to stretch as broadly. He distinguishes that “style implies an emphasis on the musical code, while genre relates to all kinds of codes that are referred to in a musical event” (9).
This is what I personally find to be the most reasonable in thinking about style and genre. Personally I don’t know too many properly defined styles, but recognize that they may be found in many genres I will listen to. These genres, which I think are developed from not only a group’s music, but also from their following and culture they bring forth performing, all may feature the same styles that someone better trained in music could more easily recognize. The styles that can be identified in very different music may carry over, but I don’t believe this is the only thing to consider.