ZMech Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) I've though it myself when listening to Jimmy Page's 30 minute bowed guitar solo on their live album. As much as I love led zep, that did drag on and seem self indulgent to me, but I guess there must have been some audience members who were in awe for the whole duration, which would prove me wrong. I know I've been guilty of being musically self-indulgent occasionally. Surely most of us have had the occasion during a jam/performance when you're thinking more about your own enjoyment from playing the song than that of the audience? If not, guess i'll grab my coat... Edited June 21, 2011 by ZMech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='ZMech' post='1277632' date='Jun 21 2011, 08:08 PM']I've though it myself when listening to Jimmy Page's 30 minute bowed guitar solo on their live album. As much as I love led zep, that did drag on and seem self indulgent to me, but I guess there must have been some audience members who were in awe for the whole duration, which would prove me wrong.[/quote] I always loved that album, but detested that side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted June 21, 2011 Author Share Posted June 21, 2011 I just don't get it. If anything is self indulgent and has no audience, there will be no gigs, no recordings, no videos....etc. If Steve Howe had an audience that consisted solely of Jon Anderson, Bill Bruford, Rick Wakeman and Chris Squire, then he was not self indulgent. The fact that a zillion people also bought the records and went to the gigs is just further evidence that it was not self indulgence. It was a product, it had an audience. As for the 'students only liked it because their mates did' argument, the same could readily be said about any form of entertainment. Its all about communication. If Coltrane's 20 minute solo communicates to 1 person, it has purpose. Self indulgence is booking a venue to play to an empty room, making a video of yourself that noone else ever sees, recording your own stuff at home and never playing it to anyone. If it gets you one gig, sells one download or one ticket, or even if it is watched once on Youtube, it immediately ceases to be self indulgent. Even if the only person who likes it is your old Mum, its worth it. So can we leave the term out of criticism, please. Its meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Bilbo' post='1277643' date='Jun 21 2011, 08:16 PM']I just don't get it. If anything is self indulgent and has no audience, there will be no gigs, no recordings, no videos....etc. If Steve Howe had an audience that consisted solely of Jon Anderson, Bill Bruford, Rick Wakeman and Chris Squire, then he was not self indulgent. The fact that a zillion people also bought the records and went to the gigs is just further evidence that it was not self indulgence. It was a product, it had an audience. As for the 'students only liked it because their mates did' argument, the same could readily be said about any form of entertainment. Its all about communication. If Coltrane's 20 minute solo communicates to 1 person, it has purpose. Self indulgence is booking a venue to play to an empty room, making a video of yourself that noone else ever sees, recording your own stuff at home and never playing it to anyone. [b]If it gets you one gig, sells one download or one ticket, or even if it is watched once on Youtube, it immediately ceases to be self indulgent. Even if the only person who likes it is your old Mum, its worth it.[/b] So can we leave the term out of criticism, please. Its meaningless.[/quote] Yes yes, we have already established it is called [b]non-self indulgence[/b]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Academy Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='ZMech' post='1277632' date='Jun 21 2011, 08:08 PM']I've though it myself when listening to Jimmy Page's 30 minute bowed guitar solo on their live album. As much as I love led zep, that did drag on and seem self indulgent to me, but I guess there must have been some audience members who were in awe for the whole duration, which would prove me wrong. I know I've been guilty of being musically self-indulgent occasionally. Surely most of us have had the occasion during a jam/performance when you're thinking more about your own enjoyment from playing the song than that of the audience? If not, guess i'll grab my coat...[/quote] Jimmy Page bores me to tears, especially the bowed stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beedster Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Bilbo' post='1277643' date='Jun 21 2011, 08:16 PM']The fact that a zillion people also bought the records and went to the gigs is just further evidence that it was not self indulgence. It was a product, it had an audience.[/quote] I hear similar arguments in favour of the Sun and the Daily Mail and find them equally unconvincing. Product is all too often a function of marketing, not necessarily of need, taste, preference etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairyhaw Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Happy Jack' post='1277410' date='Jun 21 2011, 05:55 PM']I just thought that Yes had nothing left to say.[/quote] You mean you [i]listened[/i] to the lyrics?! As it is, Yes may well have agreed with you; their output from 75-80 is pretty different from Tales... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveK Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Beedster' post='1277534' date='Jun 21 2011, 07:22 PM']I think condemning an entire genre is questionable (especially one as problematic to define as 'punk', let's not forget that early Jazzers were considered punks by their more conventional peers). But hey, pursuing that debate gets us back to matters of taste and to irreconcilable opinions, so it's another question probably best left alone [/quote] I don't have a problem condemning punk and don't think it's too difficult to define...certainly, in the context of this discussion. Many promising, up and coming bands and great musicians were dropped like the proverbial "hot brick" by record companies. Even already established bands struggled through that period - simply because the punk loud mouths kept on about "dinosaur" bands being boring and crap. Of course record companies and kids alike bought it [i]hook, line and sinker.[/i]. Those bands became uncool overnight. I'm kind of embarrassed to admit that I somehow found myself involved in punk (albeit, a kind of cabaret version) 1980-82 touring the UK, USA and Europe, doing TOTP and numerous other telly shows. As sildx says, it died a death... and thank f**k for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beedster Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='SteveK' post='1277726' date='Jun 21 2011, 08:50 PM']I don't have a problem condemning punk and don't think it's too difficult to define...certainly, in the context of this discussion. Many promising, up and coming bands and great musicians were dropped like the proverbial "hot brick" by record companies. Even already established bands struggled through that period - simply because the punk loud mouths kept on about "dinosaur" bands being boring and crap. Of course record companies and kids alike bought it [i]hook, line and sinker.[/i]. Those bands became uncool overnight. I'm kind of embarrassed to admit that I somehow found myself involved in punk (albeit, a kind of cabaret version) 1980-82 touring the UK, USA and Europe, doing TOTP and numerous other telly shows. As sildx says, it died a death... and thank f**k for that.[/quote] Hey Steve. yes I know your CV and, depending on definition, you did play with a punk band or two! Point taken above, but whilst some bands with 'great musicians' were dropped, others with less great musicians were taken up, and they made a contribution, albeit one that many folks don't like. Yep, some were crap, but having spent the weekend listening to The Clash, Public Image, Magazine, The Jam and The Stranglers (long story), punk and punk's influence was at time powerful, and subsequent music would likely be less rich without it. I think the punk loud moth was McLaren, and yes, in his case you're right, he was a marketeer with no interest in music, and in shoutng about dinosaurs was simply getting free press for the Pistols and his other business interests etc. Shame a lot of easily led people jumped on that bandwagon (although again, it's a matter of taste, and at the time I certainly hated prog as much as the average punk), and in doing so, tied punk too strongly to that idea. Many of the punk bands were however passionate about what they did as musicians, 'formally' musically talented or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4000 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Cosmo Valdemar' post='1277344' date='Jun 21 2011, 05:07 PM']I don't know why the term 'self-indulgent' has become so derogatory - as far as I am concerned, the finest music is self-indulgent, i.e. composed for self satisfaction and for the sheer joy of it, rather than for a target audience. When I shut myself away and start working on ideas, I'm not thinking of anybody but myself.[/quote] It's not just me then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4000 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='RhysP' post='1277589' date='Jun 21 2011, 07:50 PM']Music SHOULD be about being true to yourself & playing what you want to play, regardless of whether anyone else wants to hear it or not. If pleasing an audience comes before that then you shouldn't be a musician IMO - become a clown or a f***ing juggler or one of those c**ts that pretends to be a statue or some other such "entertaining" bollocks.[/quote] Good call. I like this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4000 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='skankdelvar' post='1277499' date='Jun 21 2011, 07:00 PM']Skank strokes chin thoughtfully. WoT prods a sticklebrick uneasily. It commences to rain. As for doing things for one's own satisfaction [i]or[/i] indulging one's audience, well, I think the best artists are those who can do both at the same time. Mind you, that is [i]such[/i] a crashingly obvious statement. Sorry, chaps. [/quote] But as always, Skank talks the most sense..... EDIT: Reading back through the thread am I the only person who loves jazz, pop, rock, punk etc etc pretty much equally? I sincerely hope not. Edited June 21, 2011 by 4000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 If it weren't for punk most of the bands I listen to wouldn't be around. Punk did what it needed to, give music a kick up the backside. It did it, we moved on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='BurritoBass' post='1277530' date='Jun 21 2011, 07:20 PM']I'm confused.... ....there's a *third* chord? You crazy Jazz cats! [/quote] What's a chord? Is that when you play with more than one finger or venture off the E string? Nuts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFRC Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Bilbo' post='1277301' date='Jun 21 2011, 04:50 PM']A musician who can [b]take you somewhere emotionally[/b] without having to tell you in monosyllabic terms where they are going is a lot more interesting than the 'painting by numbers' drivel of most pop and rock music.[/quote] I would define this as if it's musicaly self indulgent or not- if it moves someone (and it doesn't have to be emotionally) then it's not musically self indulgent. and there is a difference between personal self indulgence and musical self indulgence. Personal self indulgence is what musicians and artists need, the idea that what they are doing is important/interesting enough to force on the rest of the human race. This isn't abad thing at all and should be encouraged. Musical self indulgence is when things are being done for the sake of doing them. When the artist has nothing to say, and nothing to take anyone anywhere emotionally but still does it. BTW Bilbo love the music on your soundcloud (esp the bass playing) but you've spelt available wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFRC Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 though that could be improv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beedster Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='4000' post='1277907' date='Jun 21 2011, 11:09 PM']EDIT: Reading back through the thread am I the only person who loves jazz, pop, rock, punk etc etc pretty much equally? I sincerely hope not.[/quote] No, I'm one also, and there's many more. Most just wisely avoid these threads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcro Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Hi Bilbo, Further to your Post #79 - My remark about the students was not to argue that Yes were indulgent. I was trying to set some historical context to how I saw them and their audience at the time when the college music scene was booming. At that time, the put-down use of indulgence hadn't been thought up. They were just very new and progressive. Once the media found the need to criticise them and others as indulgent, they, the media, were probably pursuing their own agenda. See the first para to SteveK's post#84. The put-down has stuck. Balcro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_5 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 i love self-indulgence, i really do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakenewmanbass Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='paul_5' post='1277978' date='Jun 22 2011, 12:09 AM']i love self-indulgence, i really do. [/quote] are you referring to *ahem* teenage exercise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_5 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='jakesbass' post='1277982' date='Jun 22 2011, 12:13 AM']are you referring to *ahem* teenage exercise?[/quote] Egad jake, i'm shocked. I'm far too busy these days to indulge in any onanism; that includes double-thumbing too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ficelles Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='RhysP' post='1277589' date='Jun 21 2011, 07:50 PM']Music SHOULD be about being true to yourself & playing what you want to play, regardless of whether anyone else wants to hear it or not. If pleasing an audience comes before that then you shouldn't be a musician IMO - become a clown or a f***ing juggler or one of those c**ts that pretends to be a statue or some other such "entertaining" bollocks.[/quote] Absolutely. I mean let's not fall in to the trap of playing what people want to hear, otherwise they might actually enjoy your performance... ficelles Ps a singer & I played Fever at an open mic tonight - for a double bass player that is both pleasing the crowd [i]and[/i] being self-indulgent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomBassmonkey Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 All music's self indulgent to an extent. No one starts playing music without enjoying doing it. If they end up doing it for a career and playing music they don't like, it still started out with something they did for a hobby and I'm sure they'd still play some music because they enjoy it (another band or writing for example). I play some music because it's what I like to play, I play some because it's what people like to hear. I enjoy doing both live though. If I could pick one to earn a living from, I wouldn't have to think twice about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ficelles Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='LukeFRC' post='1277939' date='Jun 21 2011, 11:39 PM']Musical self indulgence is when things are being done for the sake of doing them. When the artist has nothing to say, and nothing to take anyone anywhere emotionally but still does it.[/quote] Round these parts, people refer to music like that as "crap". Personally I just think it's an art form that refuses to compromise through externalisation. ficelles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4000 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Beedster' post='1277957' date='Jun 21 2011, 11:50 PM']No, I'm one also, and there's many more. Most just wisely avoid these threads [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.