This is really a Great Debate, but since it’s about Art, I’ll put it here.
Often a band or movie I really like gets slammed by the critics as “pretentious.” It’s supposed to be a negative slur, but the was I see it used it’s extremely subjective.
Case in point: Yes. IMHO, Yes produced some of the most excellent, creative, beautiful, stimulating, gratifying music ever performed. They had masterful chops on their instruments, they experimented with new song structures, and they expanded rock music beyond its previous boundaries into undreamt-of realms of wonder. They provided a terrific aesthetic experience for their listeners that has never been equaled.
So the critics in Creem magazine or whatever, who hate this kind of music, dismiss it all as “pretentious.” I say it’s just laziness on the part of these critics who can’t be bothered to understand the word’s proper meaning, or come up with a reasoned explanation of why they hate Yes. “Pretentious” ought to mean pretending to be something you’re not. I don’t think that could apply to Yes because they set out to be excellent, innovative musicians, and they succeeded. They weren’t pretending to be able to play good music, they really did play it. “Pretentious” could only apply if you insisted a band can only be allowed to play three-chord head-basher rock, and never expand musical horizons beyond that. But who in their right mind would make music so restrictive and prohibit all creativity?
This is why the misuse of the word “pretentious” really pisses me off.
I’m not a Yes fan (actually, I’m not very familiar with their music at all), but I agree with your point. It sounds like the critics in question would be better served with the word ambitious, instead. Personally, I love it when musicians stretch themselves to the limits of their imaginations and skills, even when the results are less than perfect. Three-chord garage rock is boring, boring, and more boring.
I suppose a fair number of musical acts are both ambitious and pretentious… Sting, perhaps?
Like my post on this thread: ambitious (i.e., attempting to buttress, clarify, and amplify the OP’s argument), yet pretentious (playing Music Critic yet again).
Well having actually been a music critic I’ll weigh in on this one and let you know what it means when I call something pretentious.
It basically means that we are supposed to be so impressed with their musicianship that we ignore the fact that it’s pretty much devoid of emotional impact. Emotional impact is totall subjective, however many times, you can have less notes and make the music flow much better, it doesn’t always have to be this crazy use of music theory that is better suited to a music theory course than late night grooving.
That’s my take on it.
However I do agree that the term is overused, most of my favorite movies are labelled as pretentious.
I don’t know Yes, as I don’t particularly like Prog rock so I cannot offer an opinion on them. Pink Floyd is probably the only prog rock band I will ever like.
I stick more with electronic music and I’ll give an example of “pretentious” Autechre, and Squarepusher. When I hear people trying to convince me how great these bands are it’s usually “They used more than 2000 sounds in that track” (squarepusher) or “They did this particular method of music production first” (Autechre) so in otherwords if I am listening to how well they use their tools of the trade instead of a musician pouring out their soul for me, I’m not going to be interested. In Autechre’s case, a lot of music that is out today would not be where it is without them, however that does not increase my appreciation for them.
Hmm, that’s the first I’ve heard the term actually applied to the music itself. Every band that I call pretentious (R.E.M., U2, Sting, and yes, Yes), I call them that because of their non-musical personas. I like R.E.M. and Sting’s music a good bit, and U2 and Yes are just fine, so I’d not call their talent into question; it’s the way they present themselves as if they’re changing the world or they’re elevating art to a new level. In other words, they have the pretense of doing something more than just popular music.
The problems with that are: 1) There’s nothing wrong with popular music. b) If you’re a musician, and you’ve got something to say, why not express it through your music? Usually, the people who really are elevating art to a whole new level are so busy doing it, they don’t have time to tell everyone that they’re elevating art to a whole new level.
The other kind of pretentious is hipster pretentious. E.g. Cake. I really wish they’d stopped after one record.
Pretentious frequently implies pretending to be more or better than you are not just something you’re not. It can also imply conceited in a petty way. Someone who doesn’t even have enough understanding to be able to see how ridiculous they are. It also connotes being overly self-conscious and artificial. Perhaps that what the critics meant in this case. Though I don’t have any idea myself as I don’t follow pop music.
Seem like Uncle Toby made the key distinction: some artists - Jomo would argue for Yes - are not over-reaching, merely exploring ambitiously, and therefore don’t deserve the insult of “pretentious”. Others - like Sting, IMHO as well as SolGrundy’s - come across, either in their art or their persona, as over-reaching, and therefore pretentious.
I find the same thing with all art, but mostly writers. Someone like Nabokov, who had the chops and used them, was not pretentious, whereas, IMHO, Tom Robbins or Tom Wolfe, if not carefully edited, completely over-extend themselves.
The question is: when is someone ambitious vs. pretentious? With Yes, trying to compare them to their contemporaries the Ramones is pointless for so many reasons. It feels like the move from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian (oh yeah, makin’ the pretentious reference to discuss pretentiousness - lovin’ it!) - the observer, according to Newton, stands outside the world and observes interactions; but according to Einstein the observer must influence and be influenced by what is observed. And so it goes with art - if you are a rock critic steeped in punk, glam and other styles in the 70’s, how likely is it that you will be positioned to look at Yes with an un-jaundiced eye? Not very likely - also, consider this: just how much of what Yes does is really rock music, and therefore should it be critiqued using rock criteria? Is it about teen rebellion built upon blues, country and gospel roots? Not to the same extent that punk and other rock sub-genres are. So maybe this is about looking through the wrong lens, too.