Let be known that I am a HUGE FAN of posts like this – posts that evoke such intelligent and insightful comments from everybody who reads what I write. Seriously… thanks for all the interaction. Super cool.
I think the best plan in continuing the discussion is to select my favorite quotes from the comments and respond to them. I’ll put the comments in italics and respond to each one individually. Feel free to chime in on the discussion further if you think there’s more to add.
It should also be noted that Pavement, while influential to many bands, was never and still isn’t a “popular” band. The most timeless bands I think have Pavement’s humanness but also Yes’s or Rush’s “otherworldliness” and technical prowess. Bands like Nirvana and the Beatles have this immense accessibility because they straddle that line. That’s a crude oversimplification of why those two bands are what they are, but it still proves my point I think. – Chris Morrissey
I love the logic of Pavement’s influence contrasted with their popularity. A lot of you mentioned Pavement’s sound and approach as a rejection of 80’s over-production, which is probably accurate. That rejection, along with other bands of the time, fueled and inspired a massive shift in rock music, but Pavement themselves are left being largely irrelevant to MOST listeners. My theory is that this irrelevance results from their lack of facility on the technical side of the medium they use to make their art. (Also, Chris made a great point when he questioned my use of the term “musicianship”… he’s right on… “facility” is a better term.)
What I do know is that they (Wheat) were capable, at least in the studio and from what I could tell at the 7th Street Entry, of making a Pop record. For them the other records feel like more of a “decision” as far as the imperfections go – the “why take it again when it feels so sincere?” mentality. – Aaron Ankrum
Aaron’s got a great point here. There are bands that intentionally ignore mistakes and/or “bad playing” because of the sincerity and feel behind the performance. I hear this from many of the folk and alt-country artists I like: Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Wilco, etc. However, it seems like many Indie bands use this not-uncommon “loose” feel as an excuse to be loose themselves, when in reality they lack the ability to do anything that resembles “tight.” This is speculative on my part, but I feel like I can really HEAR the difference between an honest and intentionally-flawed performance, and a just plain crappy one – and I bet a lot of other people can hear it too.
There is something about Indie music that captures me, and the best way I can describe it is that it’s a genre that lives and dies by vibe. If it evokes an emotional response, whether it’s joy or anger, it’s effective. That’s the artistic piece of it. So much of adult pop, modern rock, and CCM is pretty artless. It doesn’t make me feel anything, no matter how good the musicians are. Of course, the best of the Indie bands are the ones that do both. – Lars Stromberg
Yes Yes Yes. Art should affect us on an emotional level, and I think Indie bands know this and try hard to do this. Lars is so right that a lot of the commercial music world has no real artistic value, despite what the sales might indicate. But, does a band have to suck at playing their instruments in order to be emotionally powerful? My gut says no. The transcendent music that results from BOTH potent art and competent instrumentalists seems to be the best goal.
I agree that poor musicianship does not mean bad music, but it takes a rare chemistry/combination of a group of people to make good music with poor musicianship…and THIS is what I think a lot of “Indie Rock” people forget. Just because it’s sloppy and/or executed poorly with bad sounding recordings doesn’t make it automatically cool. – Nate Babbs
Nate again brings up the notion that some bands are INTENTIONALLY sloppy in order to utilize the loose feel in accomplishing the sound they want. But it’s so true that this is far more difficult to actually pull off than one might imagine. I feel like the Free Jazz world also suffers from this issue.
Maybe I can add one thought to the studio player mentality. I don’t think it’s totally a mindless, come in and play well and put no creativity into it thing. I believe the creativity is coming out in different ways. The effort is put into finding “appropriate fills” that fit the song. Not fills that drummers will appreciate. Also, the feel is creativity on every note to create the right vibe. – Kevin Holvig
I agree with this, but I think this is only what GOOD session players do. Not all session players do this. In fact, this is a big issue because it’s basically the heart of the whole thing. Every genre and sub-genre has a different game… a different target to aim for. The GOOD studio player should make sure he gives the music what it needs, while also being true to the nature of art, which is creative. My main point in this whole topic is to ask Indie bands to do the same thing, but in the opposite direction. Good art should (in my opinion) be both creative/emotional and controlled/intentional. The end result suffers when either side of the spectrum is overly stressed. Which leads me to the last comment quote…
Like people have been saying, there are many great indie bands who find ways to explore new things in music and still be excellent musically. – Danny Warnock
Bingo.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 21, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Ryan
No comments on this? I just commented on the first article in this series here. My favorite statements here are
“I feel like I can really HEAR the difference between an honest and intentionally-flawed performance, and a just plain crappy one – and I bet a lot of other people can hear it too”
“The most timeless bands I think have Pavement’s humanness but also Yes’s or Rush’s “otherworldliness” and technical prowess. Bands like Nirvana and the Beatles have this immense accessibility because they straddle that line.” – This is very true. Also i’m a huge Rush fan, favorite band.
“does a band have to suck at playing their instruments in order to be emotionally powerful? My gut says no. The transcendent music that results from BOTH potent art and competent instrumentalists seems to be the best goal.”
This is some great dialogue about music, I appreciate those who can appreciate both potent art and competent instrumentalists. Great blog Steve!
September 21, 2010 at 10:01 pm
stevegoold
Ryan… thanks for your kind words and thoughtful comments! right on man.
February 4, 2013 at 9:57 am
Tyler Shenk
Let me say again that I love this blog! You make me rethink what I assume to be correct, and I love that. For example, here’s a question after reading this post:
If you agree that “Art should affect us on an emotional level, and I think Indie bands know this and try hard to do this,” and you also agree that “a lot of the commercial music world has no real artistic value, despite what the sales might indicate,” but you also think that “the GOOD studio player should make sure he gives the music what it needs, while also being true to the nature of art, which is creative,” than where is the disconnect? I can’t disagree with any of those statements, but I have trouble resolving the dissonance created by their combination. If a lot of pop is without artistic value, but good studio players bring creativity to records, yet [I personally think that] it’s hard to write off pop’s top session musicians as being less than good… what’s missing here?
February 4, 2013 at 2:24 pm
Steve Goold
Interesting point. Perhaps the dissonance only SEEMS to be there. For example, I don’t find anything wrong with a pop artist like Michael Buble (I know he’s “jazz” sometimes, but I’d put him in the pop category). His records are recorded well, with great musicians who demonstrate both facility and creativity, and the music is often very moving to me. Is it as moving as Jonsi? No. And Jonsi has incredible musicians on top of it. So… Jonsi is definitely MORE creative and has a deeper art going on. But Jonsi’s not as broadly popular, because Buble is more accessible (though slightly less creative). So that puts Buble firmly in the pop category but with moving songs and stellar (and even somewhat creative) performances from the band.
So that’s the ideal then. That’s the goal. Many pop artists (and session musicians) don’t attain this, though in a perfect world they would. But the other side of it, the thing I was originally addressing in these posts, is the uber-creative Indie artist who also don’t attain this ideal. The music is creative and moving but also sloppy and amateur. Are the latter two aspects essential to the first two? Would their music still be creative and moving if recorded without the sub-par performances?
February 4, 2013 at 7:50 pm
Tyler Shenk
Okay. So maybe pop artists are really trying to be creative, just so a long as they stay in the realm of “accessible,” the latter goal being most important to the artists. I’m not sure that I can respect this order of priorities, but I can certainly understand it. Everybody’s gotta eat, right?
I think this issue comes down to a fundamental difference between you and I as far as finding value in art goes. Perhaps in contrast to your position on the matter, I value subjective creativity completely and objective technical skill not-at-all. As a sophomore in college majoring in Civil Engineering at one of the top engineering schools in the country (at least that’s what they tell us…), I have come to find nothing but coldness and absence of beauty in [academic] Engineering, which seems to be one of the most analytical studies out there. Art, to me, is the releavingly beautiful opposite of my experience in engineering. I have seen some of the most brilliant masters of numbers and science, but I can’t bring myself to desire their knowledge at all compared to the creativity that music offers.
I only admire technical skill (be it mastery of an instrument or recording quality) as far as it yields creativity and emotional moving. If an indie band can achieve these two elements completely without pro-level technicality, I would not ask anything more of them; they have already accomplished the entire goal of art in my opinion. I would suggest that if fully emotional, creative music is not technically sound, than perhaps there’s a problem with this definition of technical perfection… or the maybe the music isn’t really as emotional and creative as it could be.
(Food for thought along those lines: Picasso is quoted as saying “All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.”)
So while you might find the work of pop artists who miss the target of creativity within accessibility to still have some worth, I unfortunately would not. Art has the beautiful opportunity to communicate emotion and be new. Why not leave cold perfection to those sad engineers?
February 4, 2013 at 10:07 pm
Steve Goold
I hear you saying that you value the creative aspect of art more than the technical thing, and that’s the way I engage music too. If you’ve heard me say otherwise then I’ve either misspoken or you’ve misunderstood. (On that note, and as an exercise and learning opportunity for me, I’d love to hear you define your understanding of how I find value in art, in that you’ve said we disagree there but I don’t think we actually do.)
Also, I really want to have you expand on what your suggestion that you “value subjective creativity completely.” Maybe paraphrase that statement or something, and include some explanation behind the terms “subjective” and “completely.” And I’m going to humbly and gently challenge your assertion that you “value objective technical skill not-at-all.” Surely you at least value the technical skill required to get a creative idea from the mind of the artist to the ear of the listener? I remember reading in Miles Davis’ autobiography that he couldn’t get behind Ornette Coleman (juggernaut alto player with incredible technique but known more for his creativity) playing violin, because Ornette’s facility on that instrument “got in the way of his ideas.”
February 21, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Tyler Shenk
This response is way overdue. On behalf of the sad engineering professors who made me unhealthily busy for the past two weeks, I apologize.
1. My take on where you find value in music:
I’m convinced that, while you certainly do especially appreciate the right-brained, creative side of music, you still value the left-brained, technical side of music far more than I do. I get the impression that you find legitimacy and worth in “perfect,” but less-than-creative music (especially in the pop category) because you admire the technical precision of the session musicians who so skillfully executed it. Personally, while I would not go so far as to turn my nose up to all of popular music as many jazz-or-die musicians do, I still cannot find worth in this kind of music. Do I understand why someone would make music like that? Yes. The business side of the music industry and the need to earn a profit isn’t difficult to grasp. People need to eat. However, would I go out of my way to listen to music that sounds economically-inspired? No. Certainly not. The turning of one’s body and instrument into a machine that executes perfectly 100% of the time, though surely time-consuming, does not appear appealing or commendable to me. Creativity and beauty and honesty and truth… that’s what attracts me to music.
I will admit that my position on the tech-creative spectrum is influenced strongly by my education. During middle/high school, I took lessons from a JMU student as he got his undergrad, and then masters in Percussion Performance. I did all the school band activities available in middle and high school. And now I’ve suffered through a year and a half of Virginia Tech’s College of Engineering. All that to say: I’ve experienced a lot of the left-brained side of music and of life. It’s not for me. Science does not make me FEEL anything; it is cold and lifeless to me. I don’t find any value in music that is devoid of creativity, regardless of how “perfect” it is.
2. That’s the spirit behind what I said about valuing subjective creativity completely. I love art, not science. If there were any value for myself in science, I probably would’ve found it already. But I haven’t. I probably over-idealize the art of music for this reason.
Do I “at least value the technical skill required to get a creative idea from the mind of the artist to the ear of the listener?” …I can’t say no to that. And I do desire to technically master the drumset, should I ever be blessed with the time with which to do that. But more than that, I want to share and enjoy the art that is in me and the art that is in other people. There must be a line somewhere.
My point (which I seem to have forgotten at some point) was that I get the impression that you appreciate the technical side of music more than I do.
Thanks so much for having this conversation with me!! I appreciate the “gentle and humble” attitude, and what you’re referencing. And again, I’m sorry for taking forever to get back to you.