Do you like any bands that people often think are pretentious (even though you don't think so)?

Do you like any bands that people often think are pretentious (even though you don't think so)?

If so, do you ever consider that band as being pretentious or do you immediately ignore what the people are saying?

sorry - this is sort of a trick question but I had a band in mind

i dont mind pretension as long as there's talent to pull it off. people say this about of montreal (my favorite band) but i never really gave that any thought

the word "pretentious" is the most misused word in music criticism

I like Chimney Factory, a band so pretentious they don't even exist yet.

it's pretty funny how some people despise any pretensions in music at all

Also I like girls that wear Abercrombie and Fitch.

And I like to move it move it.

Now a word from our sponsors

http://www.createforless.com/InterchangeData/images/2/2005/0420/2007051803574942005-0420-8621.jpg

You know son, a funny thing about being pretentious is that it's better to be pretentious about something you have done than it is to be pretentious about something you haven't done.

One more note of seriousness before this thread plunges into the vortex: the art itself cannot be pretentious, and the artist can only be pretentious if (s)he makes false claims for the artistic value or effect of her/his product. Some like to infer such claims from the music itself, but I think that's a very dangerous thing to do, and that a musical narrative, taken on its own, is entitled to do whatever it wants.

I haven't heard a band called "pretentious" since 1987 or so. That was before gay ass pretentious bands sold millions.

I am sorry that people are so slow to catch on.

country matters lecturing on the subject of pretentiousness = event horizon before the vortex

you know, in a likable way or whatever, but just sayin

Actually, I think whiny poor me bands are pretentious, so where do I get off?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/noodle_vague/_41281854_orla_guerin.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/noodle_vague/gina_mckee_gallery_1.jpg

Much of the music I like is often labelled as "pretentious", generally by people who don't know what the word means. Bands who cultivate an image of despair and self-loathing when in fact they're loaded party-freaks with decent PR behind them ARE pretentious, as are keening anthemic blusterers such as Bono, Chris Martin or Johnny Borrell, but, and here's the thing, their music isn't.

Bands like Yes who were always truly sincere about their artistic visions, and always honest as to their beliefs, spiritual or otherwise, were not pretentious in any way, shape or form, and I hold that as gospel. So, "Gates Of Delirium" is a musical adaptation of "War And Peace". It is a personal interpretation of some of the book's themes by a band making music entirely on their own terms. The pretentious ones, they are the ones who make music to fulfil quotas, to cynically display artistic signifiers which they have absorbed without ever stopping to consider the meaning of.

I'm thinking of 'imo great' art-rock bands being labeled as pretentious because their experimentation is merely "improv" and the lyrics are too "self-centered" (and I just think they sound cool). But perhaps there are similar art-rock bands that I don't like and are criticized as being pretentious. In which case I wouldn't care if people call them pretentious, and I may even agree. The problem is that both bands (the one you like and the one you don't like) may have the same grounds as being labeled pretentious.

But there is a valid point here:

One more note of seriousness before this thread plunges into the vortex: the art itself cannot be pretentious, and the artist can only be pretentious if (s)he makes false claims for the artistic value or effect of her/his product. Some like to infer such claims from the music itself, but I think that's a very dangerous thing to do, and that a musical narrative, taken on its own, is entitled to do whatever it wants.
― Young Chizzy (country matters)

So when can we infer such claims? When does our opinion on whether a band is genius or not (even though "self centered lyrics"...) hold any credibility? Only when popular vote is that the band is awesome (and not pretentious)?

I think most of my favorite bands are considered pretentious, and usually deservedly so.

http://www.progreviews.com/reviews/images/Mag-MDK.jpg

dittos!

When does our opinion on whether a band is genius or not (even though "self centered lyrics"...) hold any credibility?

It doesn't. It's your opinion, it's not calculus.

so why is magma pretentious, out of curiosity

i forgot about this word! great word imo im going to start using it more

xp Mulvaney: people have considered them pretentious because they are a) a prog band and b) singing songs in a made-up language.

yeah but is it a pretend language?

but how is any of that a pretence? xp

When you possibly CAN infer such claims to pretention through the music itself, is when the music appertains to a certain already-recognisable and easily-defined style (i.e. "the blues", or "soulful indie piano ballad")* and fails miserably to convey the thrust or purpose of these styles...but then, this is dangerous, because subjective interpretation of style is always to be trusted, and inference of pretention can only be exercised if the artist is nakedly attempting to play it right into the hands of a marked style, and is just not cutting it.

*Even then, there's so much variation in both of these categories, that in a way the artist has to be almost covering something else and doing it worse for the word "pretentious" to be applicable

Mulvaney - what band did you have in mind?

Also, remember, if a band produces improv experimentation, it's still artistic expression! It's still even composition, just more immediate and inevitably rough-edged than something worked out on paper. There are arguably even fewer grounds for pretention when you don't have time to think about it! Besides, a band can still select the best bits from a large improv session and mould them into a tune. Although maybe accidental, the song will still consist of a genuine musical narrative, and one the listener must trust.

you're bonkers, lj. like, what are you even talking about?

I'm thinking of 'imo great' art-rock bands being labeled as pretentious because their experimentation is merely "improv"

A lot. I mean, prog in general.

dudes i have met people that think any and all jazz/instrumental music is pretentious by definition ie this question is retarded

Yeah the question is retarded. The answers don't have to be.

I was hoping this topic would go somewhere cool..

I wrote it after reading a bad review in The Rolling Stone. Damn you ROB O'CONNOR. Grow a pair of ears.

wtf, this guy uses "top 25" lists for self-gratification
Yahoo Music Blog: List of the day
I suppose assholism and music criticism go together like peas in a pod

i've been a fan of tool for years, and they're a band that constantly gets mis-labelled as pretentious. in this instance 'pretentious' is music critic shorthand for "i don't like this but i'm not articulate enough to say why," and it seems like it's a symptom of that whole "art/prog" rock thing. but what is it about that kind of music that causes journalists and non-journalists alike to label it as being pretentious? is it the "high concepts," unconventional structures, or an overall lack of sense of humour (tool is certainly not guilty of the latter)?

i don't care if you don't like tool, a lot of people don't, but at least validate it with something constructive.

All of them

L0u1s i think you're confusing 'cynical' for 'pretentious'

when in fact most bands that can be labelled 'pretentious' need more than anything a healthy injection of cynicism (or maybe some focus)

fwiw when i read the word "pretentious" in a record review i tend to translate it into "not really into this because it strikes me as humorless and/or 'too' complex and tries my patience instead of exciting me"

I like jazz, which is probably pretentious enough without going into details. Of which there are pretentiously plenty, of course.

oh I see gbx covered that already. Sorry.

i was going to give kevin k's answer (right at the top of the thread) but he did it for me.

from that review I posted:

"It's amazing how quickly inspiration turns to parody these days. During the mid-'80s, the earsplitting feedback and dissonant tuning of a Sonic Youth record sounded inventive, branching off into uncharted territory. Now bands seem to play a game of who can out-hip whom with their disaffection, who can sing farther off-key to prove how tired and jaded they are, and who can write the most disjointed lyrics."

"three singers who can't find it within themselves to hit a note on pitch ... It's riff rock but with a solid refusal to allow the riffs access to their anthemic potential. The result is music that revels in its insularity, its innate ability to turn outsiders off while indulging insiders with self-conscious nods to indie-rock influences Pavement, Lou Reed and, of course, Sonic Youth... a lackluster collection of half-baked songs, unexplored melodic ideas and self-obsessed lyrics"

"_______ try to substitute cleverness for passion, but they don't care enough to take risks. Why should we care enough to listen?"

If you don't like lo-fi then why the hell are you reviewing lo-fi for the rolling stone?

This thread should have posts of bad album reviews in which the critic goes off on hipsters. So yeah, bump this thread whenever you read a review like that.