|
Post by andrewwerdna on Oct 4, 2017 7:04:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lusitano on Oct 4, 2017 10:03:33 GMT -5
Schulte's stuff, yes, very much so, even if it seems to be done in a DAW mostly. Derek's stuff seems to not be dungeon synth at all, it would fit in that bastard category of Idyllic dungeon synth, but all idyllic ds is, is fantasy vgm. That's just my take.
Aren't you the one guy who made the dungeon synth blog 6 years ago, you're probably more qualified than I am to answer your question.
|
|
|
Post by thekeeper on Oct 4, 2017 10:41:53 GMT -5
The title of 'fantasy music' as separate from 'dungeon synth' is quite a predicament. I suppose we'd have to define our terms. I want to say that fantasy music is more of a blanket category, where DS is fantasy music but not all fantasy music is DS; I've yet to encounter DS that I would not call fantastical in at least one respect. It becomes even more difficult if you wish to take the leap and say that DS no longer requires that BM root to be classified as DS. So take Fiechter's stuff, it's not black metal derived (at least not noticeably), so it's possible to say "it's not DS", but then if you use that qualifier I think that would take a handful of DS projects that are active out of the equation or canon (I think the majority of DS fans are BM fans, but I would say there are quite a number of DS projects that don't take direct influence from BM but rather from other DS artists, games, movies, dreaming etc).
But you're right, these two projects have concepts that are quite in line with the philosophical and contemplative aspects of DS.
"Enter a medieval world of knights and peasants, wizards and kings."
"One of my hobbies growing up was Dungeons and Dragons. A lot of my music has been inspired by my gaming experiences that began in 1980. This first collection of music is inspired by nostalgic gaming days long past during a very simple time before complex video games, cell phones and internet when friends gathered and used their imaginations for amusement for hours on end. Take a journey back to the old school days of AD&D; to the original escape."
Fantastical transportation and nostalgic remembrance of imagination, two things I would say are quintessentially DS. I think it might come down to presentation. These two works aren't presented as DS releases typically are, at least aesthetically, but it could even be as trivial as not including DS in their genre tags. Would people agree that Fiechter's music is DS if he were to put that in his tags? Would people say his music is DS if he made a xerox cassette card scan and put that as his album art? I would say so, but I still wouldn't feel that it's all that DS, personally. But this might lead into a quantifying scale of 'DS-ness', how 'dungeon' something is. For one example, Raevjager says that he doesn't consider his music to be entirely DS, yet nearly everyone approaches it as DS. Why might that be? What does 'dungeon' mean as an adjective, and what exactly is it describing? If Fiechter is only somewhat dungeon, who is the most dungeon (probably Mortiis), and what makes something less dungeon? Context might matter, too. Is the Legend soundtrack DS? Is the Golden Axe OST DS? I think even new artists like Digre could toss that up. Digre is popular among DS fans, but is it chiptune or is it DS? Perhaps its both, and perhaps not everything made using game soundcard instruments is chiptune (obviously there are different sounds in old game composition).
Ultimately, I think it's worth asking again what DS is, since its becoming difficult to say what DS is not, and I think this genre is definitely one of the more nuanced and sophisticated in its definition, comparatively, so this might just be perpetually difficult.
|
|
|
Post by andrewwerdna on Oct 4, 2017 22:01:04 GMT -5
Schulte's stuff, yes, very much so, even if it seems to be done in a DAW mostly. Derek's stuff seems to not be dungeon synth at all, it would fit in that bastard category of Idyllic dungeon synth, but all idyllic ds is, is fantasy vgm. That's just my take. Aren't you the one guy who made the dungeon synth blog 6 years ago, you're probably more qualified than I am to answer your question. I am, yes. And I used to include this Dan J. Schulte album on my list of DS albums (he is now using the genre tag, which is cool). I included this album thinking of DS as a sort of zeitgeist phenomenon, that DS appeared in many places seemingly disconnected from any association with black metal. But though Schulte's work seems to particularly parallel the DS vision, there is so much more stuff that could be considered DS based on this criteria, included numerous video game soundtracks, so in that sense DS loses quite of bit of meaning and has little difference from just "fantasy music." So these days I'm leaning toward thinking of DS more strictly as a direct lineage to black metal. I don't think this necessitates that the artists come from black metal, for instance I don't think anyone would say Erang isn't DS, however I think to be DS one would have to be able to draw a line of influence back to black metal. For example, if an artist is only influenced by Erang that artist would still be DS because Erang was influenced by Mortiis and Mortiis was influenced black metal. But this would mean that many artists that are considered DS by people these days in fact are not, a notable example being Jim Kirkwood. It's hard to take a firm stance on this because for most people this kind of fantasy synth music will be indistinguishable from DS, especially compared to a lot of the high-production DS that is so popular at the moment. A lot of these Derek Fiechter songs are collected on a youtube video that has a whopping 5 million views, and is the first thing that comes up if you search "medieval music," which suggests a different and larger audience for this kind of music. If the idyllic synth style takes off I think it has the potential to eclipse traditional DS because I do think it has more in common with this unrelated general fantasy synth music than traditional DS.
|
|
|
Post by andrewwerdna on Oct 7, 2017 6:40:10 GMT -5
Jim Kirkwood sure is amazing though. I want it to be dungeon synth.
|
|
|
Post by garvalf on Oct 8, 2017 3:43:40 GMT -5
there are some different influences in this, but it's sounding DS enough I guess! And yes, it's gorgeous music!
|
|
|
Post by nahadoth on Oct 8, 2017 12:04:33 GMT -5
Of the two examples posted above, I hear much more of a dungeon feeling from the Dan Schulte stuff. Maybe it's the use of pure synth sounds alongside VSTs of medieval and percussive instruments? They both have good qualities of course - the Derek Fiechter stuff does seem to be better mixed, at least judging from these two examples.
Very interesting to wonder what it is that separates Fantasy synth from Dungeon synth - I think to a large degree, the difference is instinctual or based on intent. I doubt anybody from this community would look at the covers (especially of the Derek Fiechter stuff) and expect to get a Dungeon Synth album, so the presentation factors in too. Because so many of my ideals for DS are connected to the sounds of bad synths imitating real instruments, I think I often look for these unpolished FM synth sounds as being a distinguishing factor in the sonic makeup.
Take another example - it is usually easy to distinguish fantasy synth music from, say, sci-fi synth music. Whether it is the use of arpeggiators more frequently in the latter, or the slight differences in tone between, say, a more fantasy oriented Synth brass sound and a more sci-fi oriented one, there's usually something that can give you a clue just based on the music. But DS is so governed by aesthetic, that it may be more difficult to do this by ear alone between DS and fantasy music.
|
|
|
Post by andrewwerdna on Oct 9, 2017 22:54:36 GMT -5
What do you guys think of Aardia? Are they DS? Their first two releases, Embraced by Fear and Fairy Tales from Beyond probably are, but their latest album, Conquest of the Ancient Halls, I'm not so sure... It's very soundtracky. But considering the obvious influence by traditional DS in the first two albums, it becomes difficult to definitively say Conquest is not DS. How far can an artist stray from DS to fantasy soundtrack music and still be considered DS?
|
|
|
Post by lusitano on Oct 10, 2017 4:13:02 GMT -5
Schulte's stuff, yes, very much so, even if it seems to be done in a DAW mostly. Derek's stuff seems to not be dungeon synth at all, it would fit in that bastard category of Idyllic dungeon synth, but all idyllic ds is, is fantasy vgm. That's just my take. Aren't you the one guy who made the dungeon synth blog 6 years ago, you're probably more qualified than I am to answer your question. I am, yes. And I used to include this Dan J. Schulte album on my list of DS albums (he is now using the genre tag, which is cool). I included this album thinking of DS as a sort of zeitgeist phenomenon, that DS appeared in many places seemingly disconnected from any association with black metal. But though Schulte's work seems to particularly parallel the DS vision, there is so much more stuff that could be considered DS based on this criteria, included numerous video game soundtracks, so in that sense DS loses quite of bit of meaning and has little difference from just "fantasy music." So these days I'm leaning toward thinking of DS more strictly as a direct lineage to black metal. I don't think this necessitates that the artists come from black metal, for instance I don't think anyone would say Erang isn't DS, however I think to be DS one would have to be able to draw a line of influence back to black metal. For example, if an artist is only influenced by Erang that artist would still be DS because Erang was influenced by Mortiis and Mortiis was influenced black metal. But this would mean that many artists that are considered DS by people these days in fact are not, a notable example being Jim Kirkwood. It's hard to take a firm stance on this because for most people this kind of fantasy synth music will be indistinguishable from DS, especially compared to a lot of the high-production DS that is so popular at the moment. A lot of these Derek Fiechter songs are collected on a youtube video that has a whopping 5 million views, and is the first thing that comes up if you search "medieval music," which suggests a different and larger audience for this kind of music. If the idyllic synth style takes off I think it has the potential to eclipse traditional DS because I do think it has more in common with this unrelated general fantasy synth music than traditional DS. You make good points, and so does thekeeper. Still, a line has to be drawn somewhere... To me, DS will always be a very different type of music than that of fantasy/medieval music. It's very clear to me that the early DS scene/music had a very different atmosphere from fantasy music or medieval music, it was very dark, and even... "abstract", in the sense that you don't have these clean sounding on-the-front easy melodies, like in Derek's case. Also, the mix of DS music was always rough, gritty and dirty, unlike Derek's stuff too. And on a compositional level, the songs tended to be superficially aimless with no obvious payoff or conclusion, they were very much pure atmosphere and dependant on your ability to concentrate and be engrossed by the music, which would envelop you into someone else's land and time, and that experience would be as strong as your ability to imagine and dream. Regardless, I think this question goes a little bit deeper. What's "happening" to dungeon synth, is what tends to happen to most genres that have a link to any "easy-sounding" genre counterpart: it's dissolving into its easiest to digest form. Like how melodic death metal has been dissolving into very corny/cheesy music with distorted guitars and guttural vocals, how power metal is dissolving into pop music with distorted guitars, how dungeon synth is being aggragated by the fantasy music monster... No matter what people tell me, I will most likely never be convinced that Dim's Compendium I is even remotely dungeon synth (for example). It is not dark sounding, it is not rough, it isn't atmospheric in a "dungeon synth way", it's very pretty sounding fantasy music. I am obviously not trying to put DIM down, I am already a fan of his sound and style, and I particularly love the song Ellendrial's Lullaby. I just think that people are stretching the genre constraints of dungeon synth too much, and dungeon synth isn't play-doh, you can't just keep stretching and enveloping every single aspect of fantasy music. Otherwise, we'll have to start to call Antii Martikainen's music dungeon synth because he writes bombastic orchestral fantasy music that is also able to evoke fantastical worlds. Now, this is just me rambling on what I think of dungeon synth, there's no definite way to say what dungeon synth is or isn't, but I think that more people should look at the definition presented in the dungeon synth blog: Dungeon synth is the sound of the ancient crypt. The breath of the tomb, that can only be properly conveyed in music that is primitive, necro, lo-fi, forgotten, obscure, and ignored by all of mainstream society. When you listen to dungeon synth you are making a conscious choice to spend your time in a graveyard, to stare, by candle-light, into an obscure tome that holds subtle secrets about places that all sane men avoid.
I think that defintion transpires one very important aspect that isn't implicitly described: dungeon synth is not happy... It's almost like expecting country music to be dissonant, or death metal to be danceable. Dungeon synth is music that is not happy, it's lo-fi, heavy in sad atmosphere, with a dense sound, fantastical in an obscure dark sense, music to wallow in and ponder, music that you can't dance to or headbang. Then again, I guess that's why we have other names like "Dungeon Noise", "Dungeon Wave", the very loosely defined "Dungeon Jazz". I think people should be more careful in the way they handle the dungeon synth name, it just can't be everything, otherwise, the word will lose it's meaning and dungeon synth will start to mean music that is made with synths. I think, for example, that Winter Synth is a very natural evolution to dungeon synth music and, despite having a different name, it's absolutely dungeon synth music, with the big change being the very glacial and arctic atmosphere. The same thing for what people call forest ambient. These are continuations and evolutions to the genre that make sense when paired with the works of the people that "created" the genre, but this very artsy folksy fantasy music is (again, in my opinion) way too far away from what dungeon synth is, and should not be paired with the genre just because it was made in a computer and is seemingly presented as dungeon synth. This last point, harkens back to my hatred towards bands that present their music as progressive (regardless of being rock, metal or pop), when the music is very clearly not progressive (progressive in the sense on innovation, progressing the genre with new ideas) in any way, shape or form.
|
|
|
Post by nahadoth on Oct 10, 2017 8:37:26 GMT -5
So you don't think of any of the "Idyllic" projects as being Dungeon Synth? Fief? I think there is still a difference between Idyllic stuff and purely happy fantasy music. I would think of, for example, the Shire music in the LOtR movies as being the latter, where there is a playfulness and lots of major keys. I hear something a bit more ambiguous in DIM or Fief, in part because of the modal musical language, that makes the distinction more clear in my head.
|
|
|
Post by crystallogic13 on Oct 10, 2017 12:26:20 GMT -5
I have to say I disagree with Lusitano's opinion on DIM and in general non "raw" (?) dungeon synth. I certainly wouldn't like irrelevant medieval or soundtrack-style stuff tagged or called Dungeon Synth, but the lines are never clear and in any case I would always put DIM's music in DS spectrum before a lot of other stuff that others consider. To understand how subjective views are, in my humble opinion, "Winter Synth" is closer to ambient than DS. As well as Dungeon Noise is usually more of noise than anything else. That Dungeon Jazz never seen it and don't like to be honest the looks of it Anyway I think this is the endless discussion of any genre I've ever listened to that always applies : "is cvxxbvxbxb metal? " "is sdfdsgsd black metal?" " is sdfsdgsdg classical? etc etc . But forums are nice places to discuss such stuff
|
|
|
Post by lusitano on Oct 11, 2017 6:01:09 GMT -5
This is indeed endless discussion, and I do have a very different vision of what dungeon synth is. Call me a purist, an elitist, whatever, I just don't think that artists like DIM, Fief, that Russian dude (Sorry, forgot the name), they just aren't DS to me. Of course, it should go without saying, that it isn't a bad thing, it' just what I think. Plus, there are loads of artists that I don't consider to be DS, even I don't consider myself a DS artist because DS is merely one of the many influences that I incorporate into my music. The real problem is that there are too many "definitions" of what dungeon synth is, even among the creators of dungeon synth, and it just feels too contrived. In a way, it's good because the genre sort of thrives in this ocean of variety, but at the same time, it feels like the genre is slowly losing its identity.
|
|
|
Post by thekeeper on Oct 11, 2017 10:18:53 GMT -5
I agree with multiple points here. lusitano , I agree that there is a discernible difference in say how DS was in the 90s and how DS is now. Much more is considered DS now that may not have been if the term existed 20 years ago. I wonder - take an artist like Ashmadai (not Ashmedi, or actually perhaps him, too) who sounds very pleasant and verdant. His main project deals in BM, but his synth project is rather nice sounding and not very 'dungeon' in terms of aesthetic or atmosphere. It's raw in terms of tape sound, but the composition is much closer to the 'idyllic synth' descriptor that we toss around now, not very dark at all and probably doesn't fit into the original blog description. Part of why I made up many of these new terms like Dungeon Wave and Idyllic Synth is because in some ways I thought they were useful in finding sounds with the DS canon that people may specifically enjoy, but also to point out that the genre has broadened in sound where its actually possible to use different words for things that grew from the DS-base. While we previously only had DS with Winter Synth as its compartmental sub-genre, also Forest Ambient as more ambiguous descriptor, there were things that didn't seem to go into either of those catgeories as the genre evolved in the past few years. There are certainly artists who don't sound 'dungeon' and who don't hold that gritty black metal derived aesthetic like say newer artists like Old Tower do. Old Tower by all definitions is very 'DS'. Dim, while enjoyed by a sizeable portion of DS fans, doesn't have that aesthetic. We could say that they share an escapist and fantasy-constructionist base, but so does any music that deals in fantasy themes, to be honest. I don't know if being fantastically transportative itself qualifies something as DS, otherwise than Fiechter is obviously dungeon synth. It could be a matter of something similar the 'square and rhombus' qualifiers, these sounds within DS (dungeon wave, dungeon noise, idyllic synth, etc) are DS, but these do not represent the wholeness of DS. You can't pick up any DS album and expect to hear something Fief-like. Like with black metal, we have lots of variety and quite a few subgenre descriptors within: raw, atmospheric, post-, despressive, epic, etc. But we still have some BM bands that are just conceived of as BM, like Satanic Warmaster I can't see as being described as anything but simply Black Metal. Maybe this is not applicable though, since all of these subgenres of black metal hold more common ground than DS subgenres do. Idyllic Synth holds little in common with Dungeon Noise, whereas, within BM, something like post-black metal and raw black metal hold much more in common than IS does with DN. The things that link Idyllic Synth and Dungeon Noise are more subtle and conceptual than something like identifiable sonic similarities, they have more philosophical connections in imaginative approach and an attempt at particular, though clearly different, transportative atmospheres. I think we are in fact edging towards just calling fantasy-themed things with synth 'Dungeon Synth' more recently. Because we enjoy some fantasy-based synth music, and we enjoy dungeon synth, doesn't necessarily make it all DS. In this case, the Legend soundtrack might be considered DS, more-or-less. The Conan soundtrack would be DS. I don't bring these up superficially as to say, 'look at these things, it'd be weird if we called them DS so they're not', but what would the argument be for these works being DS or not? Are they not DS because they're soundtracks? What if Old Tower made a soundtrack for a movie? Actually, Warden literally made the soundtrack for the Visions of the Shadow Kingdom film from the label. Where might the line be drawn? Some artists already draw their own lines, like Lusitano and Raevjager, but I think its worth noting that its not too big of a deal if some artists in the community aren't "technically DS based on certain BM-esque qualifiers", since we interact and enjoy each other's stuff regardless of what its called, we've all just come together under the DS banner even if we all don't make DS explicitly. This leads me to wonder the utility of alternative descriptors. Is it worth utilizing the language we've grown to have for these inter-DS genres like 'Idyllic' and broader less DS specific terms like Fantasy Synth? How seriously could 'idyllic synth' be used? I've always used it semi-seriously. Lightly in the way that it shares many ideas with DS, but at times more seriously because it does simply sound different. Even if we all convene under 'Dungeon Synth', does this actually have the effect of blurring the boundaries by use of the term alone to describe a widening overton-dungeon-window, or does it simply show that people are being drawn to DS from many different musical backgrounds and from different areas of fantasy-related interests? For example, DS has a lot of fans now who are very much into VGM and their music reflects that, yet everyone still uses DS to describe themselves. Should they be using a term other than DS, and what effect does it have if they do or don't? Even more ultimately, should we even care what happens to 'DS' if more people use the descriptor more broadly? This might just depend on your values and the type of 'community' you do or don't want. Do shifting dynamics with the DS population, groups and whatever else, move by words and genre-tags alone, or is the widening of sounds within the current DS canon reflective of something else? If everyone started using Idyllic Synth and Fantasy Synth more seriously, what would change? Are those terms even relatively viable in a widespread way at this point?
|
|
|
Post by lusitano on Oct 11, 2017 12:56:16 GMT -5
We can definitely agree that Old Tower is very much DS, and I doubt that anyone would say otherwise, but see, that's exactly my point. We can tell that Old Tower is 100% DS, for anyone who knows the better-known artists and albums, you listen to The Rise of the Specter and bam! You can immediately tell: this is dungeon synth. You don't even need to know a lick of music theory, you just need to have some knowledge and passion for the genre. It's dark, brooding, fantastical, with that slow, foreboding sound, the synth-driven production, chord-based composition, and so on. But then you get to Dim, or Fief, or even others like Soltri's last release, and there's a world of difference between them sound-wise. Even if there are similarities between traditional dungeon synth and idyllic synth, mainly the medieval component.
I'm not saying you disagree with me on this last point, I'm just hammering it harder. Which brings me to the next point: Yes, alternative descriptors are indeed good, they are often very useful. And using Idyllic Synth is mostly fine, it's not dungeon synth, it's idyllic synth, but I simply fail to see the connection to dungeon synth. Perhaps I did not listen to enough dungeon synth to claim these sort of things, but I just can't find any meaningful thread that binds the two together. In your example, all black metal indeed have very clear similarities, couldn't agree more with that, black metal might be one of the best-organized genres when it comes to naming, and the one genre in metal that is still moving forward and trying new things. But whereas the new spawns of black metal are very clearly forms of black metal, this new wave of (self-proclaimed) dungeon synth is so different in sound across all releases that is becomes ridiculous.
So yes, it would be great if Idyllic Synth or Fantasy Synth caught on and people started using, even if I personally don't agree that is holds any substantial link to dungeon synth, it would be much better than calling everything dungeon synth. Because what is already happening to me, is that dungeon synth is losing its meaning, just like the word progressive lost its meaning many years ago. Just to make my argument clearer, progressive stopped meaning actually progressive/original/innovative music, to simply mean convoluted structures and time changes and long distended solos. Like how power metal started to mean commercial anthemic pop music with distorted guitars. Currently, like you said, dungeon synth means a ton of things, too many things to be aggregated on the same name. If I present you to some new album and I tell you that it's dungeon synth, what will it sound like? Will it sound like Old Tower? like Fief? like Chaucerean Myth? like Local Portal by Hedge Wizard? like Digre? What will it be? You have literally no idea if I only tell you that it's dungeon synth. But if I tell you that it's an atmospheric black metal album, you have a pretty damn good idea of how it will sound like, or thrash metal, or death metal, or hard rock, or art pop, and so on.
People are free to do what they want and only the future will tell... Heck, I'm just glad that dungeon synth is a thing again, otherwise, I would not have found it at all. But to summarize: Yeah, using dungeon synth this sparingly is simply leading into confusion and I think new words are very much called for, which you have already done so in your very-useful charts. I much prefer idyllic synth music to be called idyllic synth without being dungeon synth, than to be called dungeon synth without being dungeon synth, and we (I) can just begin to see idyllic synth as a bastard brother of the dungeon synth genre.
|
|
|
Post by andrewwerdna on Oct 12, 2017 3:23:44 GMT -5
And using Idyllic Synth is mostly fine, it's not dungeon synth, it's idyllic synth, but I simply fail to see the connection to dungeon synth. You might be able to draw a connection in the sense that maybe they got to the same place by being inspired by the stuff that inspired dungeon synth (and still have at least a vague lineage to BM). So idyllic synth might be strongly influenced by film soundtracks, like Conan, which influenced Mortiis. And in the same way, the more organic analog-sounding DS, like Til Det Bergens Skyggene, is largely influenced by Tangerine Dream, which was also a primary influence on Mortiis. So in that way these deviating styles might be distant cousins but still reasonably share the same name. So yes, it would be great if Idyllic Synth or Fantasy Synth caught on and people started using, even if I personally don't agree that is holds any substantial link to dungeon synth, it would be much better than calling everything dungeon synth. Because what is already happening to me, is that dungeon synth is losing its meaning, just like the word progressive lost its meaning many years ago. Just to make my argument clearer, progressive stopped meaning actually progressive/original/innovative music, to simply mean convoluted structures and time changes and long distended solos. Like how power metal started to mean commercial anthemic pop music with distorted guitars. Currently, like you said, dungeon synth means a ton of things, too many things to be aggregated on the same name. If I present you to some new album and I tell you that it's dungeon synth, what will it sound like? Will it sound like Old Tower? like Fief? like Chaucerean Myth? like Local Portal by Hedge Wizard? like Digre? What will it be? You have literally no idea if I only tell you that it's dungeon synth. But if I tell you that it's an atmospheric black metal album, you have a pretty damn good idea of how it will sound like... Right, but if you just say that an album is "black metal," it could be anything in the same way as calling something just "dungeon synth." However, if like "atmospheric black metal" you were to say "traditional dungeon synth" I think the expectations would be pretty clear. I have my own strict idea of what is and isn't dungeon synth, but these days I'm not really bothered if I think it's being used inaccurately because the roots of the genre are clearly understood, and so that sound will never be lost no matter how broadly the term gets used for new stuff. And if some of these new non-DS artists are just piggybacking on the renewed interest in this type of thing, I don't think that's necessarily so bad either. I mean, after all, DS was piggybacking off of the term "dark ambient" for most of its life, even though it had very little to do with that genre traditionally. But on the other hand, I do miss when dungeon synth was so rare that every release seemed like gold, and really did have a magic purity that was unmistakable. I do think that's largely gone, but I'm not sure that's so much from the criteria being generally too broad as just the sheer number of albums being too broad. But there will always be the 90's roots, and there will always be a segment of the DS community trying to get back to that. All the other stuff is just extra, you can take it or leave it without consequence. But if people saying certain old albums are DS when they have no connection whatsoever to BM, I think that's where we'd start to run into trouble. But I'm glad you're making this argument because the term itself doesn't have solid roots in the past and so it might be more vulnerable to losing its meaning than most genres.
|
|