Pretentiousness in musical acts

Cafe Society
1

From the thread on terrible musical acts:

I’ve heard the label “pretentious” used to describe plenty of bands, and it seems as though most of them I’ve liked. To name a few: Emerson Lake and Palmer, Yes, Radiohead, Jethro Tull, Rush. It looks to me as though the label “pretentious” is thrown on absolutely anything complex or thought-provoking enough to be beyond the grasp of the average music listener, then dismissed as tripe because “no one” listens to rock music to think. Since labels like “intellectual” and “complex” have too many good connotations, it seems to me that people who don’t like music that could be described as such refuse to describe music in those terms and instead use a pejorative term that suggests that they themselves understand everything about music and know exactly what bands are trying to do and failing at.

I would like to know why my favorite artists suck, in objective terms. It is no good to just call them “pretentious” and be done with it, for it implies there is something that they have tried to show themselves to be and yet failed at. Those who consider any of the above artists “pretentious”, please take a well-known work from them and describe what you think the artist was pretending to be, then describe how they actually are/were not. Mere complexity or intellectuality is not enough; work that tries to be complex and actually is is by definition not pretentious! You must show how the supposed complexity is faked.

I sincerely hope that people have actual things in mind when they call things “pretentious”. I am definitely willing to change my view on things, but what I don’t want is a bunch of anti-intellectualism without solid reasoning. You are not allowed to take the statement “complexity for its own sake is bad” (or a similar statement) as an axiom. I’m willing to entertain arguments for it, but that statement is not self-evidently true for “self” = “glowacks”.

2

Good point. In general these days, artists who try to more than just three-minute songs are automatically dismissed as pretentious or self-indulgent. I can see the contempt for progressive rock because they tried to bring classical influences into rock.

As for the ones you mention, ELP did tend to get overblown toward the end of their careers; Yes and Jethro Tull were both fine groups. I don’t care for Rush’s music, mostly because I find it uninteresting (I’ve heard it all done much better by other musicians).

3

“Pretentious” is one of those words. “Arrogant” and “elitist” are others. Words like that say far more about the speaker than they ever say about the subject.

Getting up on a stage and performing is all about putting forward a certain image or an idea. Is everyone who does that supposed to be as dumb as Billy Ray Cyrus?

4

From my last.fm profile, you’d hardly call me antagonistic towards complex music. I like Pink Floyd, Porcupine Tree, Genesis, Yes, King Crimson, Peter Gabriel, Kate Bush, David Bowie, The Police, Roxy Music, Talking Heads…

By “pretentious” I mean that groups like The Cure and Radiohead seem to want to project an image of being deeper and more insightful than I think they are. That’d be forgivable if their music didn’t sound like nails down a blackboard. I think Roger Waters, Sting and Jon Anderson all overreach quite often as well, but as least the music’s good.

Anyway, I was at pains to indicate in the other thread that it’s just my take on things. I’d rather there be more artists that don’t appeal to me but have a strong following than a glut of lowest common denominator pablum.

5

I can remember listening to some Rush fans about the time of Exit Stage Left … complaining because they changed the sound of their music, more or less.

Rush has to me, a pattern. They seemed to put out about 3 years of albums, then a live album, then they would sort of change their music style slightly. Then they would do another 3 years and then a live album …

Some people love how a band can grow and change due to other influences in their lives, and some people want the band to only sound in one way.

Rush changes how they sounded, Pink Floyd changed how they sounded over the years, Grateful Dead have 2 songs, one fast one and one slow one, they just change the lyrics periodically and go on playing them for 40 years …

Neither styling is good nor bad, you just have to accept groups for being whichever one they are, changeable or stultified. Some people like change, others hate change. It always seems like the ones who hate change are the ones that will call a group pretentious <shrug>

6 
                          --  **Sting**, aka: lute-playing*, pretentious twit, "Wrapped Around Your Finger"

Or, at Keith Richards once referred to it “elevator music” (can’t find the cite; read it in an interview years ago)

*lutes, by themselves, can be incredibly cool. Worn like a pair of thick horn-rimmed glasses, they are the tool of twit.

7

Up front: I was a HUGE fan of the Seventies art-rock bands that have become synonymous with “pompous” and “pretentious.” And, to a somewhat lesser extent, I still am a fan (as my iPod would clearly show).

Do I see ANY merit in the charge that my favorite prog-rock bands were pompous or pretentious? Occasionally. When you try to make Art rather than to entertain, and when you try to make a Big Statement on important subject rather than just write catchy, serviceably clever lyrics, you’re raising the stakes, and you deserve to be judged by a tougher standard.

The only standard for judging an album by the Village People is, “Does it have a good beat and can you dance to it?” The only standard for judging a song by Celine Dion is, “Does it have a pretty melody, and does she sing it well?”

But when you aim high, as King Crimson and ELP did, you’re evaluated evaluated in a tougher manner. Pete Sinfield’s lyrics are trying to make bold, artsy statements about the world… a critic has to ask, "Does he succeed? ARE his lyrics brilliant, or are they just serious-sounding nonsense? " Some of King Crimson and ELP’s songs go on a very long time. It’s not unfair for a critic to ask, “Did this piece NEED to go on ten minutes, or is there a lot of pointless wanking going on?”

Critics almost ALWAYS answered “Nonsense” and “Wanking.” That wasn’t always fair or accurate, but it WAS fair and accurate from time to time. When you’re a precocious 14 year old boy, Yes lyrics may seem profound. By the time you’re 25, you’re likely to realize that Jon Anderson is no genius, and many of his lyrics are mere New Age cliches with some pot-inspired imagery.

Back to the original words: “Pompous” and “pretentious.” I think both words reflect ATTITUDES and states of mind, rather than styles of music. You’re POMPOUS if you convey an attitude that says, “We’re better than those other silly bands out there, because we’re ARTISTS. WE have complex music and insightful lyrics. Listen to us, admire us, and hang on our every word.”

And “pretentious” implies that you’re claiming virtues and talents and knowledge you don’t have. If a rather dim singer writes lyrics about the Meaning of Life, he’s pretentious. He’s writing about things he doesn’t understand and isn’t qualified to make any statements about.
Thing is, those attitudes are hardly unique to art-rock. NOBODY has ever been more pompous or pretentious than Bruce Springsteen, and he’s at his MOST pretentious when he plays with just an acoustic guitar and a harmonica.

8

I didn’t follow ‘the terrible music acts’ thread because I find it rather pointless, because to each his own and all that, but I’m guessing that the ones calling those acts pretentious are mostly fans of the straight 3-minute, 2-guitar, bass and drums basic rock doctrine. This musical divide is as old as rock itself, and basically the reason that genres like punk rock evolved. For someone with a broader spectrum, there can be merit in both genres, as well as awfully dull music. In the end, it’s all a matter of personal taste.

9

One word : prog.

I can stand (and I love) “A Plague of Lighthouse Keepers” and “Theme One” by Van Der Graaf Generator and the In the Court of the Crimson King album by Crimson King , but the whole rest of prog… uuurgh. (Dream Theater especially)

10

If you like A Plague… I’d think you’d like Lemmings as well! :wink:

11

Stevie Nicks.

12

I present for you a great song. If the video showed a bunch of guys playing the song in a warehouse, not pretentious.

But instead it looks like this. Fucking pretentious wankers.

13

Full of her gypsy-witch self, certainly. But pretentious?

ETA: **don’t ask **- good lord yes. I love early R.E.M. but I preferred them unintelligible so I wasn’t confronted with articulate pretention I couldn’t move past as easily. Everybody hurts, indeed.

**astorian **- I am struggling with your Bruce reference; I mean, I hear you - the ragged, dust bowl bazillionaire can ring hollow. But I have to say that in many ways, he has earned it. He’s really invested in that style of play and the emotions in those songs. I am more willing to buy that vs. Twit-Boy Sting romancing me with a madrigal on a lute, but get that YMMV…

14

All music is pretentious from some point of view. I think you could go so far as to apply that to all art and possibly all artists. What makes it good or bad is whether or not it evokes the intended feelings. That will depend to some extent on your audience - and the sensibilities of your critics.

15

I can definitely understand how “Tales from Topographic Oceans” can be seen as the most pompous and pretentious piece of music ever recorded. And while I may even agree with that statement, I still find the music interesting and engaging. Anyone who gets into Yes for the lyrics is looking at their music incredibly wrong. It shouldn’t take a genius to see that most of Jon Anderson’s lyrics are not meant to make sense, they’re meant to evoke a feeling and interplay with the music, yet there are plenty of people too focused on the fact that they’re a “rock band” and with that territory comes certain preconceived notions of what type of presence such a band should have. Because of this, they are then judged at a higher level despite the fact that they really still are a rock band, just one that’s different than normal.

WordMan provides a decent example of lyrics that could easily be found to be pretentious, but just presents them as such and says that it’s true. I know this is probably asking way too much, but the “rules for this thread” are when you claim that something is pretentious you must show exactly how it fails to be what it strives for or claims to be. If you think something is merely pretending to be profound or deep, explain why it isn’t, not just that you say it isn’t. Certainly in most of the conversations about music you wouldn’t be asked that, but I’m looking for concrete evidence of pretentiousness, not gut feelings.

I definitely agree that a lot of it is a divide between people who want straightforward rock music and those interested in more complex things, and perhaps I’m dwelling too much on the root meaning of “pretentious”. The word has come to mean more than pretending, and really can be used more-or-less accurately to describe anything done in music that’s the least bit complex but doesn’t fully live up to the standards of classical music. I’m fine with a shift of usage, if that’s what it is, but I’m not convinced that these acts are actually pretending anything. They don’t claim to be classical composers; they’re first and foremost rock artists. That they’ve decided to use ideas from classical genres does in no way mean that they should be judged on that level.

Perhaps I am influenced by the introduction to “The Story of Art” by E. H. Gombrich. In it, he claims that there is never a bad reason to like a piece of art, but there are bad reasons to dislike it. It’s certainly possible to have no reason to like certain pieces, but that’s no reason to actively dislike them. In this light, it seems to me that claiming pretentiousness is merely stating that one does not find a reason to like the music; using it to claim that the music is automatically bad is incongruous - it just means that you don’t find it enjoyable. Or maybe that’s what people are saying with it, yet they fail to fully realize the implication of “De gustibus non disputandem est” (literally, “about tastes it must not be disputed”) and automatically label anything they don’t like as garbage. I personally don’t understand Jackson Pollock or a certain Russian Abstract Expressionist whose name I can’t remember, and I actively disliked them when I took art history in high school. Reading Gombrich’s book (years later) didn’t make me understand the pieces any better, but I did come to appreciate that there are reasons for other people to like them that I don’t share and that I didn’t have a reason besides “I don’t get it” to hate them.

16

“Between Scylla and Charybdis” is an ancient Greco-Roman way to say “between a rock and hard place.” Ancient Greco-Roman phrases no longer in common use have no place in pop and are pretentious.

“I will turn your face to alabaster” is a pretentious way to say “I will shock you” - this is not a common phrase, nor is alabaster commonly equated with turning white with shock.

QED

Does that help?

17

The only times some of my favorite bands smacked of pretentiousness was on stage. Usually when they began championing their latest charity or how I’m responsible for saving the planet. For the most part the crowd became restless until they started playing again.

Santana comes to mind recently as the lead singer had found God or some such and wanted everyone to listen to his spiel. Annoying.

18

Don’t let Scylla hear you say that.

It sounds like you’re saying pop music should be dumbed down and should never have allusions or references to anything remotely obscure. If so, I disagree.

19

Nah - I love a good overblown word - heck, I’m WordMan! :smiley: What I hate is a usage that feels forced, like Mr. Sumner’s quoted above. I have to run into a meeting and my memory is feeling rushed so I can’t tumble out a few examples but I love a good big word in a rock lyric used well.

That works - there are complex words and ideas here, but none trotted out for ego purposes - they’re the best words for the job…

20

In all fairness, this is the same guy that cut his teeth in a three-piece band, with gems like “What can I do?/All I want is to be next to you.”

As a 12 year old, Sting got me to pick up an encyclopedia and dictionary more than once. That’s hardly a capital offense, is it?

He’s a former jazz musician and teacher… I expect it gets boring belting out the same three-chord songs every night. And one thing I will say about Sting, he isn’t ashamed of the old songs - every show I’ve ever seen him do, he plays “Roxanne” and “Message in a Bottle.” Now if you want pretense, it would be those acts that refuse to play songs from the early days when they were broke and unknown.

There does seem to be a limited understanding of what a pop/rock star is. I think it’s great that Bono, Bob Geldof, and others educate and alert their fans about pressing issues in the world. I do think, however, those artists have earned that right by putting in years of hard graft before getting preachy. (Okay, Bono always seemed to be preachy.) What irks me is the band that can’t laugh at themselves, that never just play for the love of playing, but are always on “message.”

Funnily enough, I suppose I am a fan of a lot of bands/acts that others would consider pretentious: The Smiths, Midnight Oil, Sting, pre-Beautiful Day U2, etc. But they seem quite comfortable in their respective skins. The Nickelback video I saw with the MLK footage interspliced with the gurning singer’s face? That’s pretentious.