"self-indulgent"

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
The term seems to imply "unconventional, in a bad way", or that an artist "repeats himself" too much. Is there anything more precise that you would attach it to?

armf, Tuesday, 12 November 2002 22:45 (twenty-three years ago)

Whenever I hear music that sounds like it was more fun/interesting to make than it is to listen to, that's usually when I think "self-indulgent".

Nick Mirov (nick), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 22:57 (twenty-three years ago)

But Nick what about the Boredoms -- So so fun to listen to but probably even more fun to make!

What are you up to, anyway? (off-list, how about)

Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 23:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Most music is probably more fun to make than to listen to.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Wednesday, 13 November 2002 00:09 (twenty-three years ago)

The way most people here write about music and indeed "everything" is at least as self-indulgent as any music that is criticised for being so.

I suppose I should admit I am using "self-indulgent" here in the utterly-souless-yet-oh-so-hip-and-decadent-and-ironicallyunironic-hoity-toity-&-more-avant-garde-&-technically-gifted-than-thou-&-bytheway-did-I-mention-my-Phd-thesis-on-wittgenstein-and-what-a-hedonistic-down-to-earth-crack-addict-I-am-when-I'm-not-dispensing-casual-metaphysical-wisdom-on-the-internet-and-getting-paid-for-it-thankyouverymuch sense of that phrase.

leonard milton, Wednesday, 13 November 2002 00:13 (twenty-three years ago)

getting PAID for it?

mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 13 November 2002 00:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Whenever I hear music that sounds like it was more fun/interesting to make than it is to listen to, that's usually when I think "self-indulgent".
>>

What aspects of the music give you this impression? (For example, some will call any form of improvisation self-indulgent.)

armf, Wednesday, 13 November 2002 02:05 (twenty-three years ago)

leonard I think you're on to something......great description

webcrack (music=crack), Wednesday, 13 November 2002 02:29 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah if you gotta way to get paid for this then let me know cuz I can use the extra support for work on my dissertation

Josh (Josh), Wednesday, 13 November 2002 02:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, yes, as with all things, there's a continuum of music enjoyment, and a band that appears to be having a good time on stage certainly adds to the audience's enjoyment of the band's performance... as long as the music is good. There's a critical tipping point somewhere along the x-y axis, where the downward slope of the "enjoyment of audience" line intersects with the upward slope of the "enjoyment of musician" line. Everything past that point is what I'm talking about. Let's take, oh, I don't know, Metal Machine Music as an example. I'm sure Lou Reed had a fucking blast making it, but rare is the individual who can actually listen to the entire thing in a single sitting and appreciate it. (I don't want to get off on a big anti-MMM tangent here, because I actually do like the album, albeit in extremely limited doses.)

Also: Anyone whose massive knowledge of music theory gets in the way of making listenable music, like 70s prog-rockers, or Steve Vai/Blues Saraceno/whatever other geetar wizard who gets featured way too often in Guitar World.

Also also, for no other reason than I feel like being mean: Jim O'Rourke. Parts of his catalogue, anyway.

Nick Mirov (nick), Wednesday, 13 November 2002 04:36 (twenty-three years ago)

Self indulgence is, I think, putting your style and image above the music produced--The Locust being the best example I can think of at the moment, but it might also apply to any of those garage rock revival bands who concentrate so much on looking hip that they forget to write any unique songs.

Ian Johnson (orion), Wednesday, 13 November 2002 04:44 (twenty-three years ago)

if there are people who like music like you're talking about, then 'self-indulgence' seems to have disappeared. your criteria instead sound more like 'anyone should be able to like your music' or 'anyone with good taste should be able to like your music'. those are probably unfair ways to put it, but... lots of 'self-indulgent' music actually HAS fans.

Josh (Josh), Wednesday, 13 November 2002 04:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Self-indulgence=vanity=navel-gazing=laziness=in-jokes=ego overload=my enjoyment as a musician is more important than yours as a listener=DUD.

But! Sometimes it works, but usually only when the artist in question is inherently likeable/talented in the first place, thus the listener cuts them the requisite slack, cf. Radiohead, cf. Magnetic Fields, cf. Death In Vegas, cf. 24 Hour Party People (the movie) etcetc.

Charlie (Charlie), Wednesday, 13 November 2002 05:02 (twenty-three years ago)

I think The Boredoms point (though I don't know much of their stuff) is a good one - a lot of music is great for the very same reasons as it is "self-indulgent". Also since every musician will always say "we're doing this for ourselves; if other people like it that's just an added bonus", technically all music is self-indulgent. As it stands I find it hard to imagine musicians not imagining an audience who will appreciate the decisions and approaches taken when making a particular piece of music.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Wednesday, 13 November 2002 08:44 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.