Breadth Or Depth?

I sort of scanned through your reply and I'm puzzled by this thinking in terms of "or", breadth or depth? Maybe I'm naive but doesn't depth come with breadth? Or maybe that's because I'm from the connection school of thinking (ie pile up on everything and than start looking for interesting connections/differences)? Also: black *or* white music, what is that shit? I've been under the impression that sort of thing went out of the window with acid house...but I may be mistaken on this (maybe due a Eurocentristic outlook). Looking forward to other thoughts (though not as much as the upcoming discussion on the new Daft Punk album ;)

Oh for heaven's sake, why are you giving this silly man such thought? He's bonkers.

.

I find TWAS entertaining, if only in order to fuel speculation about what Glenn MacDonald must be like. I find his writing periodically entertaining, but the music he covers is invariably dire. His favourite genres seem to be Tori Amos, Tori Amos clones, New England-area indie bands (preferably vinyl-only releases, girl singer preferable), Roxette, Marillion, new prog, 80's prog, Big Country, Run Rig and Guided by Voices). What a chamber of horrors!

I usually know that if Glenn likes it, with few exceptions, I won't. But maybe I'm being as close-minded as him. Why shouldn't I send off for the Boston Frat 7-inch on Whippersnapper records which he's devoded 5,000 words to? The answer is that I think it's very likely that it won'be worth the effort. So I'm not all that different from Glenn?

I'm as comfortable with electronica as I am guitar bands, after all I 've been listening to Cabaret Voltaire as well as Television since 1978. I love dub reggae, the Kinks and Motorhead. So I'd like to think that I'm open to hearing just about anything. Except that it's not really true. There are some areas where I'm not buying stuff , my knowledge is limited, and I don't plan to go there, probably ever. One of these areas is Hip-Hop. I'm not losing sleep over why this should be, I just haven't liked most of the the limited amount of hip- hop I've heard.

Whilst it's unlikely that I'll get into Hip-Hop, there is absolutely no chance that I'll get into prog-rock (70's, 80's, 90's or current). I've heard enough to know.

For me the breadth and depth thing is a sort of complex multi- dimensional model of priorities and current mood. Generally speaking I'll go as deep as anyone wants to take me into a FEW bands and genres (for example I'd buy anything scraped up from the cutting room floor by the Kinks, Joy Div, Magazine , XTC...). Mostly though I'm aiming to figure out what's the BEST of a band/genre/label and whilst I may love one album by a band I'm unlikely to try and get EVERYTHING by that artist. Indeed, I may not buy anything else by them, for example the great 'Exit the Dragon' by Urge Overkill. The reason is that breadth and depth are competing for my disposable income, and breadth normally wins. The safe bet would be to buy 'Saturation' as I know I'll like it, but more often than not I'll take a risk on something new. So maybe I'm not like Glenn after all.

I was quite amused by his comparision between liking differeing types of music and restaurants! "I've never heard anybody seriously argue that falafel maki or gefilte fish burritos would constitute cultural progress." Maybe because it tastes crap!??!? (Which could make it a little like the foody equivalent of funk-metal?!?!)

"I think it's pretty clear that social diversity is best served by ethnic cuisines being more true to their own heritages and constraints." This is bollox- in fact, ethnic cuisines, and even multinational restaurant/fast food chains, tend to adapt to local tastes- at least over here they do. For example, most Indian restaurants in Glasgow, Scotland tend to cook for a specific Glasgow "taste" pioneered by the successful Ashoka chain, leading to unique Glasgow style of Asian food.

Which brings me to the "nobody is especially alarmed by the observation that Chinese-food chefs are disproportionately Chinese" Well, most of the chefs in the Ashoka are Asian, but they're nearly all born in Glasgow, and as such have more than "just" an Asian cultural background. Let's not confuse national differences (which are some distance away, and have less effect on each other) with cultural and ethnic differences, which can exist next-door to each other. (And thus effect each other more)

"[Maybe] music isn't supposed to bridge our cultural gaps by morphing into hybrids, either" Hmm... I think this is where the restaurants/music analogy really falls down. Restaurants tend to be specialised and have a maximum capactity, so can allow for very specific tastes. So can music, but popular music (ie pop) appeals a much wider range. By making tunes which appeal to a wide range of people, even if unintentionally, one could argue that not only does pop bridge cultural gaps, it is neccessary for it to do so in order to be pop in the strictest definition of the word. (At least here in the UK, anyway- maybe a bigger market like that of the US can allow genre segregation in a way that the UK market can't.) And when it does so, then, due to the different cultural influences of the people inspired by it, it will morph into various hybrids, some of which will be sucessful, thus continuing the process.

Like Tom said in his response, I'm worried Mr McDonald is procastinating. I mean, I didn't exactly listen to tons of James Brown or Marvin Gaye when I was growing up either, but that doesn't mean I can't give Outkast or Ludacris a listen because of my "cultural upbringing"...

Old Fart!!!!!!

I'm with Omar on the breadth-vs-depth thing, if not the black/white music thing (hey, hip hop is black, indie-rock is white, and that don't mean whites can't be decent rappers and blahblablah). I can't fathom Glenn McDonald's tastes at all - he seems to consistently go for the 3rd rate in every genre he touches, and his musical reviewing usually consists of song-by-song analysis along the lines of "this one sounds like King Crimson playing polka crossed with The Corrs if they were 3-legged Martians". But the ridiculously long set-ups to his reviews are usually very thoughtful, and I enjoy reading them. I think it was pretty gutsy of him to address the extreme whiteness of his tastes, even if his line of rationalization is rather weak. I'm sure he could take that money and time he reserves for his 27th Japanese Big Country CD single and try, you know, something else.

I found Glenn Mcdonald's piece rather confused: as Old Fart points out, there is a BIG difference between 'national' and 'ethnic' difference, if you believe in such things. No identity is homogeneous, whether predicated on racial or cultural grounds (or on that dubious equivocation between the two which is 'ethnicity') -- and identity is always posited polemically, i.e. in opposition to something, which means there is a BIG difference, again, between Scottish and English identity. Moreover there is a further BIG difference between a culture seen from within, and seen from without. What 'Scottish' cooking means in the London press, for example, (basically Irn Bru and deep fried mars bars) or in some theme restaurant in the US, is going to bear little relationship to what people in Scotland might actually cook or eat, or what those restaurants in Scotland that feel the need to label themselves 'Scottish' sell. So not only does McDonald's choice of examples trivialise the issues, but as Omar points out, McDonald makes the assumption that there is 'black' music and 'white' music: this is *not* a fact, but a *choice* on his part. A choice I choose not to make, for example, even when I stop to think about the skin colour of the fingers making the music I listen to.

To answer Tom's question about breadth and depth, I think it's another non-starter. It all depends what kind of knowledge we're talking about. The simple recitation of 'facts,' whether across a wide range of fields, or in one field, is always going to be fairly useless, if it's not accompanied by critical awareness. If it is, I don't think breadth or depth is better. Breadth of knowledge would also be an awareness of the limitations of that knowledge, and might make possible some interesting comparisons. Depth of knowledge would enable a profound reflection on one area which might (or might not) be applicable to others. Either way it's *how* the subject is 'known' not the width of the field of focus that makes all the difference. I'm prepared to believe someone who had only ever listened to one album could write just an interesting article as someone who had listened to thousands, to take the argument to absurdity.

Breadth AND Depth! But it's costly and time-consuming, I fear.

Obviously though the distinctions blur - you could take an almost linguistic/semiological view that listening to a broad range of music helps you to understand each part of that music by its difference - the sound of a song being defined as much by what is *not* as what it is eg. has my appreciation for house music increased because I've listened to more house music, or because I've listened to a lot of different types of dance music and therefore have a better understanding of what house provides that those don't?

Really though I think I was less surprised by Glenn's refusal to engage with "black" music before he wrote the article than I am now. Having such racially-divided preferences seems fairly common actually - my sister dislikes "black" music, my boyfriend loves it almost exclusively (the poor thing's just discovered Sly & The Family Stone and thinks it's the second coming). But all of Glenn's defences merely weaken his position 'cause they're poor attempts to disguise an active desire not to engage with the stuff. In essence he's saying "I don't like black-sounding music, but hey, it's not my fault, and perhaps I've been chosen by fate to record the history of the more insignificant strains of white music!" He should have just said "I don't like black-sounding music" and moved on.

"Breadth AND Depth! But it's costly and time-consuming, I fear."

Not without Napster! Oh wait...

"He should have just said "I don't like black-sounding music" and moved on."

Surely that would have still begged the question regardless.

Much agreed with most of what has been said thus far.

I can't help thinking that McDonald was over-intellectualising everything, as he so often does, and therefore attempting to develop a highly sophisticated / profound explanation of what are basically his instinctive preferences (which are nothing to be ashamed of in themselves) and in the process digging himself into a much greater hole than he would have dug had he said that "black-sounding music" was simply not his thing. Admittedly his tastes are narrower than those of most ILM contributors seem to be, and pretty much the precise opposite of mine, but I wouldn't deny his right to have those tastes. What I would question is the contrived construction of the piece and the highly dubious ideas about "being true to their heritages and constraints" and his dislike for pop "morphing into hybrids" (arguably a statement of dislike for pop itself). I find those far more questionable, and bordering on offensive (certainly signs of a cultural purism I'd run a mile from), than liking Runrig or Big Country, but perhaps they might explain partially why he likes them; proudly confined to their heritages and constraints, and permanently innoculated from hybridisation, they feed McDonald's desire to remove himself from the ever-changing social and cultural milieu of pop itself (which every year takes more from hip-hop). Prog and twee-indiepop are two genres renowned for their self-image of being "above" pop, above change, above the rest of the world. McDonald is, blindingly obviously, more concerned with the depth of his absorption in this, than he is with any kind of breadth, least of all towards embracing "black-sounding music". Which would be fine by me if he didn't get so defensive and long-winded about it.

Oh, and FWIW I actually once had a Runrig fan consider my taste in music to be laughable and risible. Insert your own comments here :).

It was a hard piece to write, and one I've put off several times but felt like finally attempting. I'm not sure how successful I think it was, myself, so I certainly wouldn't argue with anybody who didn't get anything out of it or didn't buy my reasoning or thought I made the situation worse. It's what I came up with in an evening of trying to write about a touchy topic. I'm sure the subject could be done more justice. Or less.

A few comments, though.

- Yes, I could certainly spare the hour to listen to Stankonia, if that was sufficient, but it wouldn't be. I'm pretty sure I don't have enough hip-hop context to make any sense of OutKast beyond "well, now I've heard it". But maybe I'm wrong about that.

- I do think depth and breadth *tend* to be a tradeoff, but there's certainly plenty of room in the middle where you can have some of each. I like to be very obsessive, though, and there's a limit to how many directions you can tunnel at once.

- Although I succeeded in basically convincing myself that there isn't a moral flaw in my selective tastes, the truth is that writing about it made me feel less guilty but more curious, so I went out afterwards and did exactly what I said I wasn't going to do, which is buy a whole bunch of records that aren't the sort of thing I think I like. I'm not going to *start* with hip-hop, and I may not ever get there, but the lines between pop, soul and disco are often blurry, so that's where I decided to begin: Marvin Gaye, Martha Reeves, Smokey Robinson, the Four Tops, the Temptations, the Marvelettes, Gladys Knight, Diana Ross, Donna Summer, M People. So far I'm enjoying myself. In particular, I had absolutely no idea I already knew and liked so many Supremes songs. Maybe this will lead somewhere. Or maybe I'll give up after a couple weeks and go back to progressive metal.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to talk about it, even those of you think my tastes are crazy.

glenn

I'm interested in the idea of taste: in this thread (most obviously Robin's contribution) and in others I get the impression that around here staying 'true' to ones own taste, following ones *instinct* is considered the only honest thing to do.

I know that when I love a record it feels instinctual, but can it be? Would I be flattering myself if I justified my love for a record with "it just sounds great"? Are all of our tastes no more than an unknowably tangled combination of exposure, prejudice and fetishism? Is the set of ideas which Glenn sets out above and in his piece a shockingly conscious account of what we all do (or at least those of us who choose to believe we have tastes in music or art)? Can I acquire a taste for just anything?

My initial answer to this question is to believe that my taste is a complex set of imponderables but to act as though it were instinctual. I recoil from Glenn's argument, not because he chooses to draw lines but the territory on which he chooses to draw them.

More and more I am beginning to believe that the broadest patterns of genre taste represent a conscious choice, something you adopt for yourself rather than are born into. Listen to enough hip-hop (or house or twee-pop or jazz or maybe even nu-metal) with open ears and you learn to like it, meeting and judging it on its own terms.

If I believe that, the only "bad taste" becomes closed-mindedness, which we all can be guilty of at times -- I know I have biases against nu-metal and folk and jam-bands and all sorts of things.

So I hope Glenn goes out and buys some hip-hop records eventually -- and I'm sure many people here would be happy to point him towards the gems of the genre, past and present.

Glenn, I don't think your tastes are *crazy* (an NME writer would, I think, in the sense you're writing it), but then I don't think anyone's tastes are "crazy"; just different from mine. I like your posting, Glenn. I've liked being as obsessive at you, at various times (and over totally disparate genres). I think you express yourself better in a concentrated forum like this than in your longer pieces, if that doesn't sound patronising.

Tim,

"My initial answer to this question is to believe that my taste is a complex set of imponderables but to act as though it were instinctual."

That's pretty much how I feel. I'm sure that, on many occasions, I've had mental workings akin to Glenn's (I felt that way about street rap once and I still sort-of-hate myself for liking it). I think I still usually want to believe that I like music instinctually, and on a few occasions I do, but I still couldn't get my way to the centre of the imponderables, and I wouldn't ever *want* to.

Ian,

"More and more I am beginning to believe that the broadest patterns of genre taste represent a conscious choice, something you adopt for yourself rather than were born into."

That's *exactly* my own view (rather than an uncertain attempt to work out *why* I like music, which is what Tim's comments are). I think I know what my own personal aesthetic is, but I also know it shifts every day. I don't get the idea that we are "born into" anything, which is not actually objectionable in the sense that Glenn puts it, but when you go any further ... Take the theory to its logical extreme (admittedly even those most concerned with people being true to their heritages and constraints would usually stop before they get there), and what would Tom have started a site about? Marching-band music and Elgar? I guess so. Enough said, I think.

Well, to be charitable, read "raised into" rather than "born into".

am i the only one who doesn't think "everything from slayer to amy grant" sounds mind-bogglingly eclectic? i'm not even sure those two artists represent the outer fringes of 80s/90s western major-label pop music.

That's the most I've ever read of a TWAS piece and I thought it was well done. Most people here seem more interested in talking about the piece than in Tom's original question, which was about breadth vs. depth.

Maybe the two could be thought of as axes on a graph. Let's say I have time to listen to 15,000 more records before I die. Each time I put a new record on, I'll have to make choices about whether I want to hear something I'm unfamiliar with or something that gives me a deeper understanding of something I've heard before. Then there are all the degrees between, sure, but every record can be plotted on there somewhere.

For the most part, these days I'm opting for the breadth. I don't find I'm getting any satisfaction from hearing what subtle changes a band is making on the 4th or 5th record I own by them. Once I have an understanding of what they're all about, I want to move on & see what else is out there.

Mark gets at an important facet of the breadth/depth question, I think. The "once I have an understanding of what they're all about, I want to move on & see what else is out there" approach seems tragic, to me, playing into the very disposability that makes mainstream music so awful, and the music industry so artist-hostile. To me an artist's career is even more interesting than the individual albums that make it up, in the same way that an album is more interesting than the sum of its song. If you say that fourth and fifth albums aren't worth the time to listen to, aren't you effectively saying that they're not worth the time to make, either, and thus that making music cannot be a life-long art?

An interesting post, Glenn, that gets to the heart of what Tom was asking on NYLPM: Why is depth better than breath? One answer could be: It's better if you think an artist's career is more interesting than any individual record. Josh has written something similar to this, come to think of it. Where are you, Josh?

I can understand this viewpoint, though I can't say I agree with it. Something similar was written on McSweeny's, as part of an online dialog between Eggers and somebody else. I always hoped that Tom would read that one and write a piece on it, because it made me curious about what others think about this. In that piece, they discussed Dylan, talking about how critics dismiss huge 10-year chunks of his career. Both agreed that Dylan was most interesting when considered as a whole, not when divided into "phases" or individual releases.

Oddly, with Dylan I can almost agree, probably because I've put the time in to hear most his stuff. I think the differences here are where you want to draw the line in terms of aritsts or genres you want to explore completely. I do it occasionally, but it's rare. Of all the artists I own music by, I can probably only name 10 or so I want to understand in terms of their entire output. And most of those are bands I liked when I was young. In 1985 I owned 30 or 40 records total, and I already had the entire catalogs of Springsteen and The Who. So I guess my thinking on this has changed over the years. Maybe now I feel like more of a fan of "music" in its totality, and not individual artists & I want to know what I'm missing.

Mark gets on to a point right at the end of that last post about becoming a fan of "music". I used to be able to recite my favourite bands as easily as breathing (and as he's written on TWAS, Glenn knows his so well that if he was asked to modify the list at gunpoint he doesn't think he'd be able to) but I can't do it anymore.

Yeah, I love some artists, but these days I'm much more interested in the evolution of music as a whole, as a collection of sounds constantly mutating into something else, something new and different. Compared to that, the snailpace creative development of a single artist would only be worth studying if I was a) disinterested in contemporary music, or b) elevating the status of artist beyond that of merely the creator of music I enjoy to that of an individual with whom I share an emotional bond.

Funnily enough I've evolved in pretty much exactly the same way as you, Tim. Five years ago I liked individual artists ("Tindersticks are an astonishing band" or "Pulp are the most startling and dangerous band in the charts"). These days I'm much more into individual sounds, rogue creations, "music" rather than specific "great artists". I know far less about the people who make the music I like than I did five years ago. That's how I like it, really.

So in a sense I am more about breadth than I am about depth, because to like "music" in the general sense that I do (a crucial paradox: all-embracing yet always aware of what I *don't* want from music) I would have to be. To go too "deep" would be to lose that.

If you say that fourth and fifth albums aren't worth the time to listen to, aren't you effectively saying that they're not worth the time to make, either, and thus that making music cannot be a life-long art?

This is exquisitely tortured logic. "Album #4 and #5 are not worth listening to" and "Album #4 and #5 should never have been made" are not equivalent statements, and "Making music cannot be a life-long art" does not follow from "Album #4 and #5 should never have been made."

Even if I regard a work as a failure and a waste of time to listen to, I can still affirm that its creation was, on the whole, a good thing, if not necessarily for the listener. It's still possible to say of a lousy album that "It introduced his work to a new audience" or "It was a failed experiment that paved the way for the kick-ass Album #6" or "Great remixes were made of the title track" or "It had a nice cover" or "It was at this point that the author realized the subject of his divorce was now tiresome, so he moved on to drill & bass."

As for how making music can or is supposed to be a life-long art...forget it, I don't even know what that fucking *means*.

A career isn't the only context a musical artifact can be placed in, and it isn't necessarily the richest one either, especially in the case of disco and post-disco dance musics. Even if the discerning listener knows nothing about the other records an artist has made, he can always compare and contrast an artifact with other artifacts from the same geographical location, era, record label, producer, etc. Or he can judge the mystery artifact with or against those that share certain formal qualities, shared subjects or emotion resonance. Or he can compare the artifact to the artifacts in other media. Or he can call upon the whole breadth of his experience as a human being. The possibilities for understanding (and for really groovy forms of misunderstanding) are endless.

funny that this should come up because i was just thinking a few days ago that i couldn't think of any popular music artists who have improved after their third or at very most fourth album. i'm still fairly convinced of this. it doesn't apply to other genres -- i'll take later coltrane over earlier; i have as much time for cage's number pieces as for the _sonatas and interludes_; i may take ligeti's _violin concerto_ over _atmospheres_; dr ramani is an astonishing karnatak flautist in his old age. i'm interested why. perhaps acquisition of technique is less of a benefit in pop? maybe most artists only have one or two great ideas which are burnt out within the first couple albums?

after a certain basic level of depth is acquired (which i think gm has surpassed in most of the genres he deals with), i'm with tom and omar that further depth comes with breadth.

Sundar - Generally, I agree with you. Two exceptions that come to mind for me are Flaming Lips and Tom Waits. I didn't like Waits' last one much, but it took him 4 or 5 albums to really get rolling.

Mmm, Can drastically improved after "Ege Bamyasi" (their 4th album) so it can be done. Same with Kraftwerk "Autobahn" was their 4th album, after which they really started to roll. I suspect that nowadays bands come up with a brilliant idea and then there's little room for improvement, whereas it *seems* (It's just an idea) that bands used to have more time to fuck about, release 3 or 4 albums before hitting their prime.

i couldn't think of any popular music artists who have improved after their third or at very most fourth album. i'm still fairly convinced of this

This is generally true. As you say most artists run out of ideas after the first two albums, and many bands don't even get that far. However there must be plenty of exceptions - one that springs to mind is The Who, whose fifth album 'Who's Next' is widely acknowledged as being their best.

Still lots of things to say on this topic. Do few bands improve after 4 or 5 albums? Well that's probably true these days as the 'normal' interval between albums is 2 years at least. You gotta hit the mark within the attention span of the consumer, who really isn't prepared to hang around until you get good. Nor is the accountant at the record company.

I think the further back you look, the more exceptions to the '4th or 5th' album rule you'll find. A great example is the Kinks who really gained a strong identity after with 'Face to Face' (4th album), 'Something Else' (5th) or 'Village Green...' (6th). It only took them 4 years to make 6 albums (and many singles and EPs), so maybe this whole thing is TIME-based. In other words, most bands fail to progress after say 6 or 7 years. (That would take the Kinks up to 'Lola vs the Powerman...') . I haven't thought this right through, so no doubt there are dozens of counter-examples. It's just a thought, and might spark some discussion.

In terms of buying records, inevitably I'll choose something 'new' over 'another solid offering from Tindersticks or The Fall' (or whoever). I don't like it when bands crank the handle one more time. I'd rather they take a risk and possibly fail. Some great music has been made that way.

With me, it usually doesn't come down to an "either or" proposition...I usually end up getting the 5th album and something new.

Dr C is right. I think Sundar's 5th-album rule didn't really apply 30 years ago (think Beach Boys, Stevie Wonder, Rolling Stones, etc.), but what with release schedules nowadays, damn few artists even make it to the 5th album, and when they do, they're 10-15 years into their career. I still think Sundar's statement is drastic, though. I like it when an artist comes up with a great record out of nowhere, after years of doing nothing special, and it happens more often than you'd think.

XTC took until their fourth album (Black Sea) to really hit their stride IMO, and their best were their fifth and eighth (English Settlement and Skylarking).

The Auteurs' fourth album (How I Learned To Love The Bootboys) is IMO their best, and that was only two years ago.

What an interesting thread. Rather than get tangled in the above opinions I'll respond to the simple question. In principle there's nothing between them, but I'll weigh in on the side of breadth. Because I'm human, because I'm a consumer, because I'm restless and need the perplexity of new ideas to lose myself in. But it depends on what the individual wants from the the music: a sense of security, familarity, reassurance or self-abandonment, escape. (I seem to be running away from my musical ignorance (or certainty), rather than looking for anything in particular). For me, depth carries an unappealing suggestion of possession at odds with my current interest in music; reliant on immaterial MP3s and the at the mercy of napster, breadth seems more appropriate. But if the servers go down, or there's atomic war I'm sure I'll change my mind.