Something has occured to me while reading the comments on the song i recently posted, a mix of positive and negative- but thanks for commenting to everyone.
this is an old issue of course but as far as some of the criticisms (some of the praise too!) it was clear to me that the person writing it just has a very different taste in music than myself. or, as one person said him/herself "maybe i just don't get it." ok, bear with me here, but first a musical example and then a geographic example.
when i first heard sonic youth's daydream nation i didn't like it at all. i thought it was totally unlistenable and a bunch of noisy garbage. the way thurston moore, kim gordon and lee ranaldo sang raised the hackles on the back of my neck. i really just could not stand their voices. to put it simply, i thought they sucked. the music too. i thought it was just a bunch of guitar smashing unskilled noise that anyone could do if they plugged in their guitar, turned it up really loud and threw it down the stairs. at the time i thought this i was really into classical music, the smiths, echo and the bunnymen, and some grunge rock type stuff. in general though i leaned much more toward much more "poppy" music, the type of stuff you hear on the radio all the time, at the time that meant deftones, pearl jam, etc. sonic youth were just too much for me. i didn't get it. it was like black, black coffee you know- i thought it tasted terrible. for quite a few years now my opinion has been just the opposite and i think sonic youth, especially on daydream nation, have given music lovers some of the most inspired, the most transcendent, the most unbelievable guitar work that ever was and ever will be. yeah, i'm a big fan. still, you can't deny the effect they've had on indie music, it can't be underestimated.
BUT- at the time, when my tastes were different, if a sonic youth song appeared on here i would have given it a one. get what i'm saying?
as far as geography, would everyone agree that musical tastes and preferences, generally speaking, diverge quite a bit from say, New York City, where I am, and say, Alabama? Here in NYC experimentation is more of a norm and the darlings of the town are broken social scene, tv on the radio, the liars, the yeah yeah yeahs, the list goes on and on. country music for example is not so well recieved, unless of course its done ironically, and a much larger portion of music lovers here are not as well disposed toward the typical poppy stuff you hear all over the mainstream radio. in alabama i'm willing to bet that musical tastes and preferences are different. its all about perception right?
based on what i've gotten back so far, i would love to see the response that an even more experimental but totally established and respected band like broken social scene or the liars would recieve here- and what would that mean exactly- that these bands are lousy or that that black coffee is an acquired taste?
i hope that this post might start a decent discussion about the issue of musical taste, preference and perception, and not just a bunch of responses like "yeah, whatever, you're just all bitter because some people said things you didn't like egomaniac, get over it, you suck" etc.
Last Century there was a band out of Berlin that did experimental music called Tangerine Dream. 'Bout the same time in 1969ish +/- there was another group from Germany called simply Kraftwork.
Wikipedia.org defines "experimental music" as: "...any music that challenges the commonly accepted notions of what music is."
For most "experimental" musical groups, sonic youth included, the road has been paved for them. John Lennon said, "... nothing you can say that has not been said."
So why try? Because some individuals are driven to be experimental. Lyle Lovett(Texas), Frank Zappa(Maryland) and Marilyn Manson(parts unknown)are each individuals that developed a branded "experimental" sonic backdrop that worked and was totally against the grain of the current musical establishment.
Do musical tastes differ city to city, state by state, country to country? Not even a little bit.
Do they differ person to person often regardless of station in life, economics, etc? Yes they do.
If I may address the olive branch handed for discussion:
When you consider the percentages of peoples that listen to a specific genre of music just using the basics(jazz, classical, rock,easy listening,country,classical, pop, etc.) there is not much left for the experimental band with the experimental work because for the most part people like and seek out structure in thier life and it can be reflected in thier choice of packaged and processed music.
Now compound that with the age of listener. Some age brackets will only listen to classic rock while other brackets may only like to be spoon fed Britney Spears. (I'd like to spoon feed Britney myself;> )
Chances are slim of getting the right ears at the right time to hear our music as we have intended it to be in this world. Much less on the world wide web.
Anyway, if only a lean amount of overall listeners will actually suffer a "musical challenge" then let's see how we can represent that at AW.
I'll use 30 as the equation root for no good reason other then I like 30 year old chicks.
Song title needs to be strong, hint at something the listener will be peaqued by and/OR selected genre to the listener taste because you will lose listener ears:)
That being said, now we are left with five listeners who will actually give you some noise about your musical offering. Out of that five, who is best suited to say what it is they like or dislike about an experimental piece?
All five of them!
Like I said, you can't fool the public and they don't like people wasting thier time.
It's like the act of loving your significant other. Find ways to make it interesting. If you want to be loved for a long time your work will reflect that. If you do not, well, it will reflect that as well.
Experimental music of todays musician is not, in mho, something you can generate from a computer. The computer is only a storage medium that can have an awesom pallette of sonic blends, depending on creative wants and moies willing to be spent, to be used to convey an idea.
It is most likely a scent in a persons mind, a sexy dream recalled at the most inopportune time or a thought that makes a musician laugh long enough to want to capture and convey that emotion to one other person to validate.
To quote Ray Charles, "it gonna do what it gonna do-baby."
ah, thats a lot to address. i'm not totally stuck on the idea of tastes differing by geography, but i do believe that they do, to a certain extent. tastes and preferences don't depend on and can't necesarrily be predicted by geography but geography can and does often inform tastes and preferences. do you really feel that the musical culture and the tastes and preferences of that make up that musical culture, generally speaking, of miami or nashville or kansas city are no different than that of new york? there's a difference even between new york and philadelphia and they're so close. i've lived in both cities. of course if you're talking about niches then i agree. but thats what finding your audience is all about right? they're are certain groups of people who like certain things in music, that find certain kinds of music resonate with them more than others, and yes, they are hearing things in a way you would like to be heard, you could say, even, that they get it. i myself don't really feel like i can give an informed opinion about opera or bluegrass for example. its not my thing. i can't appreciate it. i'm just not "into it." i don't get it basically as its so far from my own particular tastes and preferences you know? you can't deny the reality of the jackson pollack "thats not art its just a damn mess sort of scenerio. not that i'm saying i'm a musical jackson pollack or something. i have to watch it really with this conversation- it would be easy to be mistaken here for just saying something along the lines of "my greatness is not being sufficiently apprehended by some of these people" sort of thing but thats not it at all. i'm seriously wondering about personal taste and how it relates to perception and criticism in general. is it possible to give useful, and i emphasize useful or constructive criticism about something that is significantly out of the orbit of a particular persons particular tastes? i myself would have absolutely nothing useful to say to someone a contemporary r&b vocalist. i do love motown but thats a different thing altogether. if i'm forced to listen to hot 97 or something in h&m in midtown the only thing that keeps running through my mind is that to me the vocals are just so (again, just to me) comically, ridiculously sacharine and over-emotive to the point of being patently false and devoid of anything i would consider to be real emotion. it totally turns me off. now thats just my personal taste at work. would this be useful information for an aspiring contemporary r&b singer who posts their song here? not so much. this is not criticism. its my personal taste at work. on the other hand, unless i'm really not in the mood for it, robert fripp can drone on and on for twenty minutes doing some guitar loop or other that doesn't change that much over the course of the whole twenty minutes and i enjoy it. philip glass can go on and on with the same arpeggio for 10 minutes and i think its fantastic. richard d. james of aphex twin can go on for 15 minutes with a bunch of screeching noise over completely chaotic, frenetic and aurally harsh drum programming and i think its great. but i've had more than one girlfriend, roommate or friend or whatever who has emphatically begged to differ and basically thought it was a bunch of screechy crap, or that it was insufferably boring. you couldn't understand the words and it didn't have a hook, so it just sucked because it didn't conform to their particular ideas of what makes music music, or what makes music good, etc and what makes music music or what makes music good is a whole other can of worms. i think you get what i'm going after. as far as being experimental, i don't really put much worth to the usefulnes of that word, its just easy to use, like "indie" or "alternative" or "minamalism." its just easy to use. sure john lennon, tangerine dream and kraftwork helped to pave the way. the practicioners of french musique concrete helped pave they way for john lennon and the rest too. revolution #9 is pure musique concrete. but, so what? i'm not sure what you were getting at there- are sonic youth, for example somehow "less" because john and yoko's feedback/screech fests helped pave they way i'm not sure if i'm understanding you correctly there. as far as being able to be "experimental" musically on a computer i wholly disagree and many, many highly respected musicians, from really "art house" stuff like ryoiji ikeda and steve reich and alvin lucier to kraftwerk to autechre to dj spooky swould as well. a computer and the music software in it, especially the open ended and user configureable max/msp, is simply a tool to be manipulated and to manipulate. just like tape and tape loops, the manipulation of which created revolution #9, alvin luciers "i am sitting in a room," steve reich's early work, etc, etc. you just don't have to thread the tape out across three rooms anymore to get what you're trying to do accomplished. saying you can't be experimental on a computer is like saying you can't be improvisational on a guitar. its just not true. sorry to end on a combative note but i can't even believe how long this is already....
Yes, tastes vary regionally, I'd bet that the conjunto artists of eastern new mexico would have a tough time here, but they are very experimental by nature! It's important to keep an open mind when listening to others! find anothers' perspective and you find the song!
I don't know that there's any music out there that is truly "universal," so at least in that respect music is regional. The fact that bands like the yeah,yeah,yeahs are gaining in popularity nation wide does throw a bit of a wrench into the discussion. But I agree that a NYC band sounds like an NYC band and an LA band sounds like an LA band. There is a distinct sound that comes about from just living somewhere (I developed my NY sound through a strict regimine of Two Boots pizza and mugs of McSorleys). More to the point, a song like tar pit is certainly not trying to be universal -- not even widely appreciated regionally. It's targeting a small niche which is no less noble a goal. You have to figure that out of 100 randomly selected listeners, you may have 10 people who "get" the song and enjoy it. Out of those you may only have 3 or 4 who are crazy about it, and those people become your die-hards. This site reflects society pretty well, so you can expect to see more negative comments than positive. Here's the tricky part: if you only listen to the positive, you are doomed. Likewise, if you dwell on the negative. I think the key is to enjoy the positive feedback, but also to at least keep an open mind about the not-so-positive critiques, and understand that even if they don't "get it" they may still have something to contribute.
hah, mcsorley's, what a joint. were yer pints light or dark? i've been informed by the irishman who asks you that at the door that the saw dust/woodchips in there haven't been changed for at least 15 years ;)
well, i don't think i would say the national success of the yeah yeah yeahs throws a wrench in to it. they're pretty accessible really, much more than a band like broken social scene, as interpol are as well wouldn't you say?
i hear ya, and i agree wholeheartedly with pretty much eveything you said. i really appreciate constructive criticism. thats really what i want to hear, whether its recordings or shows i've done. the last thing i want to hear is "it was great" and nothing further, no critique, no criticism. thats not helpful at all. On the other hand, sorry to say, the sort of negative comments i've recieved (not to make it sound like its all negative, its not) have 90% been completely unconstructive, totally useless and just proceed from the persons musical taste and preferences. for example "i'm not much for disonance." well. ok then. don't listen to twelve tone music, or any russians at all then or you may melt. "i like a more understandable/clearer vocal." well, i don't. its that way deliberately, as one person said they figured it was. i am not comparing myself to these people but mick jagger deliberately made himself hard to understand, elizabeth frasier of the cocteau twins, thom york of radiohead are all difficult if not impossible to understand, just to name a few singers of this "school." well, i guess i made my point enough already. in theory i totally agree with you but in general i do think the whole issue of taste and preference as it relates to the arts and criticism in general is pretty nettlesome. thank god for aesthetic theory/philosophy huh?
I'd always order 2 & 2 (2 light and 2 dark), a sleave of crackers w/cheese, onion, and hot mustard, and I was always waited on by Tom (the irish dude). I loved it when my wife and I would come in on a crowded night and Tom would kick a couple of "bridge & tunnelers" out of a table for us.
Any critique of music is subjective and based on personal taste. That doesn't mean it's wrong -- in fact, being subjective, it can't be "wrong."
true, its subjective so can't be "wrong" but can on the other hand find a place along the spectrum of informed and uniformed. i think we could agree on that no? me standing in front of a francis bacon painting saying "its brutal and ugly. i don't like it. its horrible." is different then the intepretation of art critic may give, or, me standing in front of monet's water lilies saying "my god this is boring. what's this dentist office art nonsense doing here?" is somehow different than what an art historian/critic whatever, someone more familiar with impressionism and its place in history would have to say no?
i dunno, i totally know what you mean though, but the idea that all statements that are subjective in nature are equally valid regardless of the degree of their "informedness" seems...... off to me. maybe like the overhwhelming relativity of it all is making me feel like i've drunk a few two many light and darks over at mcsorley's!
thats exactly the way to do it too, 2 lights pairs two dark pairs with the saltines and onions and hot mustard. ah, tim, thats right. gotta love that guy.
I'd like to know peoples perception on using LINE BREAKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Americans did not start the fire. It spread to it. So the notion of an American-centric "perception" must be part of the conversation that I didn't get.
Sorry, I'll try to pay as close attention as I possibly can.
If the date is now in any month of the year 2012, nevermind:)
JD --Good point: There is no "wrong" when it comes to opinion, and all opinions don't hold the same value for everybody. Is the person who hates a Bacon painting wrong? Maybe, to you and me. But I'm sure they could find plenty of people who agree. So who are the experts when it comes to deciding what constitutes good art? Art is subjective by nature, right? I'm feeling an existentialist rant coming on, so I'll pull in the reins.
Since comments on this site are anonymous there is no way of knowing the commentator's value other than by what they write. I made the site this way because I got sick of the songwriter community sites where a bunch of hacks pat each other on the back and encourage fellow "songwriters" to keep churning out more crap -- all because they don't want to piss people off. Well, what if you could give a gut reaction to a song and not worry about reprisal? Enter ArtistWeekly. Because of the unsigned comments, it's easy to dismiss the negatives as coming from idiots and look at the positives as coming from well informed listeners. I think that rationalization is probably our egos talking -- it's just human nature. Of course, sometimes listeners are just idiots.
The best artists seem to achieve a balance between delusions of grandeur and an accurate self perception. When that balance gets out of whack an artist will either assume they're much better than they really are, or they think they will never be good enough. You need to have a good balance to listen to comments effectively. (btw, I'm not referring to you specifically -- just spouting)
I realize that I covered about 5 different topics, and none of them very well. I yield the soapbox.
hey, i would have no problem with an existentialist rant, please feel free!
again i agree with most everything you say and have thought the same myself. i'm my own harshest critic i think, as everyone should be. again, the motivation here wasn't to complain about some negative feedback.
the fact that a good portion of it was just so obviously founded on matters of personal taste and unfamiliarity with genre it just got me thinking about larger issues of taste, preference, etc as they relate to criticism generally. tell me the drums are too static, stiff and just go on and on, which they do. the song's actually not finished and they're just acting as a placeholder. tell me that the whole 3rd verse is redundant and needs to go cause it drags out the song unnecesarrily, which it does, that sort of thing. telling me things like "i'm not much for dissonant tones", as a comment, among other comments proceeding directly from a particular individual's personal taste is just the critical equivelant of pocket lint and got me thinking about some larger type issues, which i though were interesting, more so than what related specifically to the song i posted.
i think i have to say that a reaction to a francis bacon painting such as "its too ugly, violent, etc for me, i don't like it" is subjective of course and you can't say that the person is "wrong." his stuff is of course, ugly and violent and you can't say to someone who says, "i don't like this" that they are wrong not to like it.
if the other hand, they say, "its too ugly, violent, etc for me, i don't like it and it sucks, its not a good painting, its bad art" i think a very strong argument can and should be made that in fact, that based on what they are providing as their evidence that the painting sucks and is bad art, that its too ugly for them and they don't like it, they are, in fact, wrong. you can't simply say that something is bad because it doesn't manifest your own particular tastes in art, music, whatever. one does not follow from the other. statements which fit into the " i don't like it" category are opinions and can not be wrong. "i'm not much for dissonant tones" for example. a patently useless bit of criticism but of course its not wrong.
on the other hand statements which proceed further into the it sucks, its bad category etc are better described as judgements than opinions. there's a fundamental difference between the statements "i don't like it" and "its bad" no? the former may or may not imply the latter. you don't know if its not said and the former remains an opinion while the latter is a judgment. judgements which can be considered valid must proceed from something more solid than personal taste and preference. judgements should be informed or, again, they are not valid.
i don't know, i just think this whole sort of thing is interesting. what's also implied in this whole conversation is that i'm a demanding pain in the a$$ when it comes to criticism i guess huh? ;)
i do think these larger issues are fun to sort of toss around think about though. just tryin' to be good to mah boize and keep the higher level of criticism sustain'n on a higher plane, know what ahm sayin' ;)
well, this is from my last post. isn't this the sort of feeback you would want, ideally, as well?
"the drums are too static, stiff and just go on and on, which they do. the song's actually not finished and they're just acting as a placeholder. tell me that the whole 3rd verse is redundant and needs to go cause it drags out the song unnecesarrily, which it does, that sort of thing."
I just listened to your song. The one thing I'd say could have made a huge difference is to put the vocal a lot more up front. I wasn't sure if your intentions for the words sung were to be understood or more as effect.
Do you want it to be popular radio friendly or is there a band that you're influenced by and are trying to get some of their flavor but with your own style?
Maybe that would be one way to give more helpful feedback for you. Listen to band X and then listen to your music and make comparative notes.
Another thing to consider would be not to sit on any idea/instrumental texture longer than minute. Or make your signature with shocking changes. After 30 seconds cut into a string quartet that lasts 10 seconds, than change back to the first idea. Then 20 seconds of that then cut into backward guitar and backward fart solo (I kid not!) for 3 seconds - get people saying "Was that a guitar and fart I just heard?" Then back to 'A' musical idea.
I always thinks there something to be said for 'THE ELEMENT of SURPRISE'. We as people look for it all day long and wish for it for a life time. Music is no different.
hey steve, thanks for this post. i think your suggestions are exactly dead on for moving it more toward being accesible and popular radio friendly and its given me a lot to chew on. my inclination is somewhere between radio friendly and the experimentation and popular radio unfriendlyness of bands like sonic youth, even more radio unfriendly electronic stuff like autechre and transam, tortoise, that sort of thing, but you've definitely got me thinking about being more open to more radio friendly/accesible arrangements, mixes, etc and i definitely thank you for that.
a lot of food for thought and i have to say that your response combined with a really great (and long and detailed) critique i recieved as a comment that gave me very precise mixing suggestions (cut the bass at this hz/khz etc) along with quite a bit of other very useful and informed technically and otherwise sugestions, i've definitely come around to feeling pretty well-disposed toward the AW community.
Of course this was combined with advice (from a different persons comment) that i should lose the vocal fx (there aren't any at all aside from just a bit of verb, there's not even any delay) follwed by the utterly incomprehensible and not a little bit puzzling remark "long live ozzy. i'm just not feeling it" but i guess you have to take the good with the bad, the useful with the totally useless right? ;)
i totally agree with you about the element of surprise also, although, i'm not sure i can totally get on board with the fart solo suggestion ;)
thanks again steve!
j.
I just listened to your song. The one thing I'd say could have made a huge difference is to put the vocal a lot more up front. I wasn't sure if your intentions for the words sung were to be understood or more as effect.
Do you want it to be popular radio friendly or is there a band that you're influenced by and are trying to get some of their flavor but with your own style?
Maybe that would be one way to give more helpful feedback for you. Listen to band X and then listen to your music and make comparative notes.
Another thing to consider would be not to sit on any idea/instrumental texture longer than minute. Or make your signature with shocking changes. After 30 seconds cut into a string quartet that lasts 10 seconds, than change back to the first idea. Then 20 seconds of that then cut into backward guitar and backward fart solo (I kid not!) for 3 seconds - get people saying "Was that a guitar and fart I just heard?" Then back to 'A' musical idea.
I always thinks there something to be said for 'THE ELEMENT of SURPRISE'. We as people look for it all day long and wish for it for a life time. Music is no different.
