Music opinion/question of the week...

[Flex]

I'm vibing with Jon here. For me, at least, it's not a set of rules but more a sense of several spectrums. And obviously there's a caveat that we don't have perfect knowledge, maybe something that feels insincere to me was actually the most soulful, meaningful thing to the artist. But, like the pornography standard, I think "you know it when you see it" can sort of apply here.

And if you get the sense that something is done sincerely and with artistic or creative intent, even if the results are poor, I'm more inclined to judge it less harshly than, say, a disposable musical nugget that felt like it came from a place of the creative or sincere subsuming itself to pure commercial interest/trend chasing/what have you.

That said, pure commercial can produce good results! A good tune is a good tune. Something earwormy or otherwise engaging enough can be a good quality result even if one suspects the artist is just in "fuck it, let's get some cheddar" mode.

As a listener, I think it's not worth worrying about setting hardline rules but at the same time I think we're richer for at least considering the full spectrum of how we value music (aesthetic, political, etc.) rather than pretending we aren't socialized to value honesty, authenticity, creativity that isn't motivated purely by material gain, etc.

But I also usually prefer to think about it I the abstract. Outside of, like, Mike Love I don't love going around and judging the sincerity of specific songs and artists and making personal indictments.

Addendum: I think as a listener the main thing is I don't want to feel like the artist has contempt for me (unless that's part of the shtick).

[Marky Dread]

Okay, you seem to be someone who judges results alone, regardless of motivation … tho perhaps there's still some ambiguity or wiggle room as your examples aren't of artists who were bandwagon jumpers. We need to bring in Heston to assess "I Was Made For Lovin' You."

Yeah, a lot of Costello’s jumps were frankly non-commercial moves. He certainly would’ve sold a lot more over the years if he revisited This Year’s Model style material at key moments. His missteps come off as being in over his head stylistically but being sincere about trying it.

So, for you, sincerity counts a lot?

I'm kinda pushing this inquiry, I think, because it speaks to what we're consuming—experiences, values, both? And does it change depending on genres or where we're at in our lives?

I think there are a lot of different factors at play. Like how much music do you consume and how open are you to different musical styles. If an artist you like tries something new are your ears open to change. How long has the artist been making music and how much are you invested in that artist. What exactly do you expect from the artist. How long should an artist keep churning out the same thing before it becomes boring and is it possible to match the very same music you liked them for in the first place.

[Dr. Medulla]

As a listener, I think it's not worth worrying about setting hardline rules but at the same time I think we're richer for at least considering the full spectrum of how we value music (aesthetic, political, etc.) rather than pretending we aren't socialized to value honesty, authenticity, creativity that isn't motivated purely by material gain, etc.

This is my position on most everything in the world. Be conscious of your likes and dislikes and interrogate them. Is it just instinctual? Is there a moral underpinning? Something crudely political? Are you compromising or contradicting in some way? And what does all that mean? Just feed intellectual curiosity whenever you can. It doesn't need to be heavy, tented-fingers stuff, but we should be interrogating ourselves constantly.

[eumaas]

If I like the end product, I don't care about the motivation. If I dislike it, then maybe the motivation comes into play, but as a secondary consideration.

[Dr. Medulla]

If I like the end product, I don't care about the motivation. If I dislike it, then maybe the motivation comes into play, but as a secondary consideration.

[Wolter]

Okay, you seem to be someone who judges results alone, regardless of motivation … tho perhaps there's still some ambiguity or wiggle room as your examples aren't of artists who were bandwagon jumpers. We need to bring in Heston to assess "I Was Made For Lovin' You."

Yeah, a lot of Costello’s jumps were frankly non-commercial moves. He certainly would’ve sold a lot more over the years if he revisited This Year’s Model style material at key moments. His missteps come off as being in over his head stylistically but being sincere about trying it.

So, for you, sincerity counts a lot?

I'm kinda pushing this inquiry, I think, because it speaks to what we're consuming—experiences, values, both? And does it change depending on genres or where we're at in our lives?

I do think intent matters, but only as it influences failed outcome. A good song is a good song and I can’t fault an attempt to cash in that succeeds artistically. But if the cash in fails, then I forgive it a lot less than someone who loves a genre, but doesn’t quite grasp the intricacies of it as an outsider. If that makes sense.

[Dr. Medulla]

Okay, you seem to be someone who judges results alone, regardless of motivation … tho perhaps there's still some ambiguity or wiggle room as your examples aren't of artists who were bandwagon jumpers. We need to bring in Heston to assess "I Was Made For Lovin' You."

Yeah, a lot of Costello’s jumps were frankly non-commercial moves. He certainly would’ve sold a lot more over the years if he revisited This Year’s Model style material at key moments. His missteps come off as being in over his head stylistically but being sincere about trying it.

So, for you, sincerity counts a lot?

I'm kinda pushing this inquiry, I think, because it speaks to what we're consuming—experiences, values, both? And does it change depending on genres or where we're at in our lives?

I do think intent matters, but only as it influences failed outcome. A good song is a good song and I can’t fault an attempt to cash in that succeeds artistically. But if the cash in fails, then I forgive it a lot less than someone who loves a genre, but doesn’t quite grasp the intricacies of it as an outsider. If that makes sense.

Yup, that's exactly what I was thinking about when I posed the question. If you fail, fail from love of song rather than lust for money or fame.

[WestwayKid]

Okay, you seem to be someone who judges results alone, regardless of motivation … tho perhaps there's still some ambiguity or wiggle room as your examples aren't of artists who were bandwagon jumpers. We need to bring in Heston to assess "I Was Made For Lovin' You."

Yeah, a lot of Costello’s jumps were frankly non-commercial moves. He certainly would’ve sold a lot more over the years if he revisited This Year’s Model style material at key moments. His missteps come off as being in over his head stylistically but being sincere about trying it.

So, for you, sincerity counts a lot?

I'm kinda pushing this inquiry, I think, because it speaks to what we're consuming—experiences, values, both? And does it change depending on genres or where we're at in our lives?

I think there are a lot of different factors at play. Like how much music do you consume and how open are you to different musical styles. If an artist you like tries something new are your ears open to change. How long has the artist been making music and how much are you invested in that artist. What exactly do you expect from the artist. How long should an artist keep churning out the same thing before it becomes boring and is it possible to match the very same music you liked them for in the first place.

I read this and the name R.E.M. popped into my brain. I got into them around the time of Green, so just at the end of their classic period. This was the point where they started to really depart from the "jangle pop" sound of their earlier music. There was artistic growth from Murmur to Green, but the music was more alike than it was different. I didn't like Out of Time when it came out. Where was the 12-string? Where were Mike Mills' awesome harmony vocals. They weren't gone (listen to Near Wild Heaven), but Losing My Religion featured a "lead" mandolin. I was relieved when the opening single off Automatic for the People (Drive) featured an actual electric guitar.

Anyway, my point being for whatever reason, with this band, I resisted their musical leaps as a listener. I eventually came around to their new sound, now considering New Adventures in Hi Fi to be maybe their best ever, but then with Up they really started changing it up, drifting further and further away from what (at least in my opinion) made R.E.M. who they were.

I'm not against bands going in new directions, so to Marky's point - yes, I think there are a lot of factors at play.

[Dr. Medulla]

I read this and the name R.E.M. popped into my brain. I got into them around the time of Green, so just at the end of their classic period. This was the point where they started to really depart from the "jangle pop" sound of their earlier music. There was artistic growth from Murmur to Green, but the music was more alike than it was different. I didn't like Out of Time when it came out. Where was the 12-string? Where were Mike Mills' awesome harmony vocals. They weren't gone (listen to Near Wild Heaven), but Losing My Religion featured a "lead" mandolin. I was relieved when the opening single off Automatic for the People (Drive) featured an actual electric guitar.

Anyway, my point being for whatever reason, with this band, I resisted their musical leaps as a listener. I eventually came around to their new sound, now considering New Adventures in Hi Fi to be maybe their best ever, but then with Up they really started changing it up, drifting further and further away from what (at least in my opinion) made R.E.M. who they were.

I'm not against bands going in new directions, so to Marky's point - yes, I think there are a lot of factors at play.

R.E.M. is a good example, too, for me in that their failures—defined here pretty much by me finding them really fucking boring—weren't driven by trend-riding (well, maybe on Monster) but following their own muse. Which, good for them, but find a better muse! I could never muster anger or betrayal or anything like that with R.E.M.'s post-IRS bulk. They weren't chasing an easier audience, they were chasing a … I have no idea who their audience was supposed be post-Berry.

[WestwayKid]

I read this and the name R.E.M. popped into my brain. I got into them around the time of Green, so just at the end of their classic period. This was the point where they started to really depart from the "jangle pop" sound of their earlier music. There was artistic growth from Murmur to Green, but the music was more alike than it was different. I didn't like Out of Time when it came out. Where was the 12-string? Where were Mike Mills' awesome harmony vocals. They weren't gone (listen to Near Wild Heaven), but Losing My Religion featured a "lead" mandolin. I was relieved when the opening single off Automatic for the People (Drive) featured an actual electric guitar.

Anyway, my point being for whatever reason, with this band, I resisted their musical leaps as a listener. I eventually came around to their new sound, now considering New Adventures in Hi Fi to be maybe their best ever, but then with Up they really started changing it up, drifting further and further away from what (at least in my opinion) made R.E.M. who they were.

I'm not against bands going in new directions, so to Marky's point - yes, I think there are a lot of factors at play.

R.E.M. is a good example, too, for me in that their failures—defined here pretty much by me finding them really fucking boring—weren't driven by trend-riding (well, maybe on Monster) but following their own muse. Which, good for them, but find a better muse! I could never muster anger or betrayal or anything like that with R.E.M.'s post-IRS bulk. They weren't chasing an easier audience, they were chasing a … I have no idea who their audience was supposed be post-Berry.

They were chasing something, and yes - I can't fault them for that, but to your point, it was just a boring direction.

[Kory]

I read this and the name R.E.M. popped into my brain. I got into them around the time of Green, so just at the end of their classic period. This was the point where they started to really depart from the "jangle pop" sound of their earlier music. There was artistic growth from Murmur to Green, but the music was more alike than it was different. I didn't like Out of Time when it came out. Where was the 12-string? Where were Mike Mills' awesome harmony vocals. They weren't gone (listen to Near Wild Heaven), but Losing My Religion featured a "lead" mandolin. I was relieved when the opening single off Automatic for the People (Drive) featured an actual electric guitar.

Anyway, my point being for whatever reason, with this band, I resisted their musical leaps as a listener. I eventually came around to their new sound, now considering New Adventures in Hi Fi to be maybe their best ever, but then with Up they really started changing it up, drifting further and further away from what (at least in my opinion) made R.E.M. who they were.

I'm not against bands going in new directions, so to Marky's point - yes, I think there are a lot of factors at play.

R.E.M. is a good example, too, for me in that their failures—defined here pretty much by me finding them really fucking boring—weren't driven by trend-riding (well, maybe on Monster) but following their own muse. Which, good for them, but find a better muse! I could never muster anger or betrayal or anything like that with R.E.M.'s post-IRS bulk. They weren't chasing an easier audience, they were chasing a … I have no idea who their audience was supposed be post-Berry.

Ok I'm back from vacation (I missed a lot!). In my musical world, I appreciate ambition more than anything, and i'm predisposed to like something done with that in mind even if it's a failure and i don't listen to it very often. I value the attempt, as it were. Sandinista started this way for me, and then I grew to actually love it.

[Dr. Medulla]

Ok I'm back from vacation (I missed a lot!). In my world, I appreciate ambition more than anything, and i'm predisposed to like something done with that in mind even if it's a failure and i don't listen to it very often. I value the attempt, as it were. Sandinista started this way for me, and then I grew to actually love it.

I've told students that with regards to their writing I respect those who take a running leap off the cliff to see if they can fly. People remember those that went splat more than those who quietly hiked down the hill.

[Marky Dread]

I read this and the name R.E.M. popped into my brain. I got into them around the time of Green, so just at the end of their classic period. This was the point where they started to really depart from the "jangle pop" sound of their earlier music. There was artistic growth from Murmur to Green, but the music was more alike than it was different. I didn't like Out of Time when it came out. Where was the 12-string? Where were Mike Mills' awesome harmony vocals. They weren't gone (listen to Near Wild Heaven), but Losing My Religion featured a "lead" mandolin. I was relieved when the opening single off Automatic for the People (Drive) featured an actual electric guitar.

Anyway, my point being for whatever reason, with this band, I resisted their musical leaps as a listener. I eventually came around to their new sound, now considering New Adventures in Hi Fi to be maybe their best ever, but then with Up they really started changing it up, drifting further and further away from what (at least in my opinion) made R.E.M. who they were.

I'm not against bands going in new directions, so to Marky's point - yes, I think there are a lot of factors at play.

R.E.M. is a good example, too, for me in that their failures—defined here pretty much by me finding them really fucking boring—weren't driven by trend-riding (well, maybe on Monster) but following their own muse. Which, good for them, but find a better muse! I could never muster anger or betrayal or anything like that with R.E.M.'s post-IRS bulk. They weren't chasing an easier audience, they were chasing a … I have no idea who their audience was supposed be post-Berry.

Ok I'm back from vacation (I missed a lot!). In my musical world, I appreciate ambition more than anything, and i'm predisposed to like something done with that in mind even if it's a failure and i don't listen to it very often. I value the attempt, as it were. Sandinista started this way for me, and then I grew to actually love it.

I said the same thing above regards Sandinista!

I've tried to offer up an answer to the question Doc has asked but you simply can't judge people's tastes. As I've said there are way too many factors at play and I would say a lot comes down to musical tolerance.

Nothing more to add.

[BostonBeaneater]

[Marky Dread]

Friday Street, I'm in Love.