Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Moogmodule]

Pretentious is an easy word to throw around. But it is a bit harsh to use it on musicians who just want to do things differently to more standard pop/rock.

If a band consciously makes their work overblown or obscure with the intention of confounding even their own fans and doing so thinking they're creating some superior art to other music then I suppose you could call it pretentious.

But if a group genuinely just wants to explore different forms and stretch some boundaries I don't think they're necessarily being pretentious. Anymore than Mozart or Beethoven were by expanding the scope of operas or symphonies.

To me that means you might not be able to identify pretentiousness on the music alone.  It comes down to the intent and attitude of the artist. And that's harder to discern.

[nimrod]

Pretentious is an easy word to throw around. But it is a bit harsh to use it on musicians who just want to do things differently to more standard pop/rock.

If a band consciously makes their work overblown or obscure with the intention of confounding even their own fans and doing so thinking they're creating some superior art to other music then I suppose you could call it pretentious.

But if a group genuinely just wants to explore different forms and stretch some boundaries I don't think they're necessarily being pretentious. Anymore than Mozart or Beethoven were by expanding the scope of operas or symphonies.

To me that means you might not be able to identify pretentiousness on the music alone.  It comes down to the intent and attitude of the artist. And that's harder to discern.

There are certain artists that I 'blame' for the pretentious label

Emerson Lake & Palmer each had their own massive truck cruising the highways of America each with a zillion bits of equipment that they didnt need, Rick Wakeman with his daft golden capes and 30 odd keyboards, he once flew his hairdresser 1st class on concorde to America to get his hair done etc etc etc

I dont blame bands that were playing the college circuit in England like Supertramp, Soft Machine or Caravan, these guys were seriously exploring the possibilities of popular music, without the posturing.

[Moogmodule]

 

Emerson Lake & Palmer each had their own massive truck cruising the highways of America each with a zillion bits of equipment that they didnt need, Rick Wakeman with his daft golden capes and 30 odd keyboards, he once flew his hairdresser 1st class on concorde to America to get his hair done etc etc etc
.

Yeah that's pretty pretentious 

[oldbrownshoe]

To avoid, at a conservative estimate, 95 per cent of pretentiousness in pop music, just knock the ol' collection on the head after '69.

It saves SO much time, and allows you more scope to explore the non-pretentious rock 'n' roll and soul of the Beatles' era.

In these days of 20 CD box sets of ELP, Yes and King Crimson et al, it also saves SO much money.

[Mr Mustard]

I think there's a difference lads between "pretentious" and "extravagant". Rick Wakeman was very extravagant. But so were loads of others - didn't Elvis once fly his whole entourage across the States on a whim just to indulge in some favourite burgers or soda shakes or something? Wakeman, in common with some of the other great eccentrics of the Prog Rock oeuvre (step forward Ian Anderson) has a wry sense of humour and I've always felt a lot of what he did was with tongue very firmly in cheek. I applaud the wearing of those "daft gold capes" because he kept one eye on the fact that they were still entertainers and not just musical virtuosos.... the pretentious ones are those who forget they're in showbiz and look down their noses at what they deem to be such shallow trivia, convincing themselves they are instead "serious artists". Like po-faced Jon Lord and his "Concerto for Group and Orchestra"- pretentious load of old codswallop!

Call me shallow but I still lament the passing of the era of the extravagant/flamboyant, proper rock star... you know what I mean, togged up like an alien, TV sets hurled from hotel windows, driving your Roller into the swimming pool, scattering your jewellery along the M1 etc etc.

By contrast look at somebody like, say, Phil Collins. He might claim to be down to Earth but to me he looks more like a minicab driver than a rock star. When did it all go wrong? (Not straight after 1969 obs!! there were plenty of good examples until well into the seventies!)

[oldbrownshoe]

Nope, the cut off point is '69. Golden Age over.

Any Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Dylan collection cut off then won't be missing a great deal.

The few exceptions to this rule (various funk stuff, 'What's Going On', Nick Drake, folk/pysch LPs) sure as, eggs is eggs, doesn't come from the land of prog.

[Moogmodule]

the pretentious ones are those who forget they're in showbiz and look down their noses at what they deem to be such shallow trivia, convincing themselves they are instead "serious artists". Like po-faced Jon Lord and his "Concerto for Group and Orchestra"- pretentious load of old codswallop!

That's pretty much what I have in mind when I think pretentious Mr M. A belief you're somehow doing something superior to all those other popsters and rockers.

In a different way John and George got a bit pretentious after The Beatles with their "my music can change the world" conceit. That manifested itself more lyrically than musically. Similar impulse though I think. They forget they're entertainers.

[Mr Mustard]

Funny you should bring that up Moog, I was thinking along similar lines in that I've always felt Paul & Ringo were the "showbiz" Beatles who are very adept at "turning it on" for Joe Public. I know Paul certainly is a hugely talented and credible musician but he's always been a bit of a ham if we're honest (I mean that in an affectionate way!) - he and Ringo are true entertainers who clearly enjoy interacting with an audience and hearing the roar of the crowd.

Very much a double edged sword of course because you get the serious (=pretentious?) rock critics who applaud John's and George's "evolution" from bouncy crowd-pleasing towards music with a more profound message. Having achieved fame and success I've never felt John or George craved or needed that audience approval the way Paul and Ringo still seem to. I really don't think George especially even enjoyed being famous, he seemed to see it as a means to an end which almost became an obstruction at times. I don't think that makes him pretentious, just very serious about where he was heading. John too seemed like a soul on a mission - and I liked him a lot because flawed as he was he recognised his faults and never stopped trying to improve, not just as an artist but as a human being. He was self critical and his music was usually quite personal and often brutally honest, so more - I don't know - "authentic" I suppose (for want of a better word) rather than "pretentious". He genuinely believed communication and positive projection could change the world and many, including Paul, agreed that he achieved this in his own way.

Neither John nor George lost sight of that power of communication and never scorned the power of entertainment, despite being restless spirits who liked to dabble and explore.

[Moogmodule]

Yes Mr M perhaps pretentious doesn't quite fit the George John attitude after the Beatles. It was more a case of seriousness of purpose disconnecting from the entertainment objective of music as you say.

 

[Moogmodule]

Lots of people for instance think Elvis Costello became quite pretentious. From a lyrically clever new waver to noodling around with the Brodsky Quartet. I don't see it that way. But obviously lots do.

[nimrod]

I think there's a difference lads between "pretentious" and "extravagant". Rick Wakeman was very extravagant.

your probably right there, but Rick styled himself 'the keyboard wizard' which could be taken for pretentiousness

anyway being so extravagant, the young punks took this extravagance for pretentiousness, rightly or wrongly and rebelled against it and every prog, symphonic band suffered, either quit or lost their contract and split, it was a shame

There are many great 3 or 4 minute songs on prog albums that fans of 3 minute pop songs never hear because of their bias against the prog label the band got.

[Hello Goodbye]

Nope, the cut off point is '69. Golden Age over.

Lots of people for instance think Elvis Costello became quite pretentious. From a lyrically clever new waver to noodling around with the Brodsky Quartet. I don't see it that way. But obviously lots do.

Elvis Costello knew the cut-off point...


http://youtu.be/IvusiCUzzbM




Heather Graham   

[Moogmodule]

 Funnily enough HG I don't pay much atttention to Elvis a lot in that clip. 

[Hello Goodbye]

Moog, I wish Burt Bacharach had sung the song himself in that movie they way he did here:


http://youtu.be/d3RlIjj8l-Q

[oldbrownshoe]

In Britain, much of the pretentiousness that 'rock' music fell into after, and it was in the main 'after', the 60s was simply mimicking the pretentiousness that the music press adopted at the same time.

The kind of review 'Eleanor Rigby' would have got in the NME in '66 was 'serious song sung by Paul with an orchestral backing. Quite sad.'
By about 1971/1972, the critics had assumed control of the process and were preaching to the public what they should and shouldn't like via long, unwieldy articles.

It's interesting that when the perceived 'greats' of pop music are brought up, the ones from the 60s had a whole raft of no. 1s and sold records all over the world i.e they were genuinely the pop stars of the era.
After the 60s, and especially by the time of the Clash, the Smiths and the Stone Roses, the perceived 'greats' rarely even got in the Top 10 i.e. the also-rans of the era.
This is the music press creating its own narrative, NOT the record buying public.

As far as sales go, for example, George Michael is a far bigger star than Morrissey.
I suspect Wham! outsold the Smiths, worldwide, by at least 50 to 1.

[Mr Mustard]

Obs, you make a valid point about the escalating pomposity of the music press but we can't pin the blame entirely on them. The critics evolved hand-in-glove with the music of the times, it was a fairly symbiotic development I think. The divergence of "twee" pop from "serious" rock took root in your beloved sixties and that chart hits argument can be applied to the sixties just as it can to the decades since. Hit singles are a useful yardstick but by no means the definitive way of identifying the "greats", and statistics, as we all know, can be twisted to tell different tales...

between 1960 and 1969 Herman's Hermits had as many UK top ten hits as Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix put together! they also had more UK top ten hits than The Who, and indeed more than The Zombies, Cream and The Yardbirds combined (Dylan/Hendrix/Who/Zombies/Cream/Yardbirds with not a single UK number 1 between them during that entire decade, incidentally - unlike Peter Noone's boys!).

In the seventies, Slade, Abba and The Bay City Rollers (hardly beloved by "serious" rock/pop critics) had 15 UK number one hit singles between them. In that same timeframe Pink Floyd, Genesis, Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones had 1. Yet I don't think anyone would call them the "also rans" of the 70s.

Same sort of argument runs for each subsequent decade; I've no doubt Wham! vastly outsold The Smiths as you say, even though we both know who gets the critical plaudits.

'Twas probably ever thus though... way back in the fifties, double chart topper David Whitfield had almost twice as many top ten hits as "also rans" Little Richard, Fats Domino and Chuck Berry put together!!!

[Bingo Bongo]

In the seventies, Slade, Abba and The Bay City Rollers (hardly beloved by "serious" rock/pop critics) had 15 UK number one hit singles between them. In that same timeframe Pink Floyd, Genesis, Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones had 1. Yet I don't think anyone would call them the "also rans" of the 70s.

That is soooooooo wrong! 

[Bingo Bongo]

This John Lennon fella will never go anywhere and "The Voice" agree with me: 

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxwHA9kXDKw" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxwHA9kXDKw</a>

[oldbrownshoe]

The chart positions achieved by The Clash and The Smiths are laughable, and yet you know that an apologist for that dire decade will routinely mention those acts as the big players, instead of the less 'hip' Duran Duran et al who actually sold records!

Why don't you think, Mr. Mustard, that the difference between Wham! and The Smiths isn't something like 50 to 1? Wham! sold 45s everywhere, including Japan and China, The Smiths couldn't even shift them in their own country. George Michael, I believe, had a whole load of U.S. no 1s. Did The Smiths even have one U.S. hit?

The five acts I'd choose to represent the 60s would be The Beatles, The Stones, Hendrix, Dylan and one other, probably The Floyd, Who or Kinks.
That's a GENUINE set of artists who shifted product and were recognised by the public, not a musical press approved one.

[Mr Mustard]

I think you may have misread my post obs.

I said that I have no doubt that Wham! vastly outsold The Smiths. I'm agreeing with you. (Don't know about the specific 50 to 1 ratio but I never said I doubted it. You could well be right!)

And yet (again I'm agreeing with you) those music critics will dismiss Wham! out of hand whilst praising Morrissey & co to the hilt.

But my point is that this was going on in the sixties too. During that entire decade Dylan, Hendrix, The Who, Cream AND The Yardbirds put together managed just two dozen UK top ten hits, none of which hit number 1. No critic then or now would regard these acts as peripheral minor players, and no critic then or since would seriously put Herman's Hermits on some elevated artistic pedestal above them, yet they topped the charts, were a significant part of "The British Invasion" and had ten top ten hits in their own right! So you see that dichotomy between record buyers and critics was happening even in those days.

I like your idea of five acts to represent the sixties. You've made a pretty shrewd stab at that - certainly in terms of impact and influence - but I'm sure there were much bigger sellers back then than Hendrix, Dylan, The Who or Floyd. Big sales don't automatically make an act representative though. I love The Kinks but I'd be just as happy to see The Hollies, The Dave Clark 5 or Manfred Mann (all of whom would compare very favourably against The Kinks or The Who in terms of sixties record sales) representing the decade, although I bet most rock journos wouldn't!