Should musicians make music to please their audience or to please themselves?

Yes, it's a hypothetical question that assumes they have to choose between one or the other... But what do you think is the most important to you -

- that the artist in question is making the music primarily to please themselves (and if others like it, that's a bonus!!!)
OR
- that they are first and foremost out to entertain an audience (and hopefully have fun along the way!!!!!)

hypothetical? theoretical.

indivisible.

Indisputable.

But, essentially, it depends on what the artist's perception of their own audience is.

is it OK for a baby to see musicians pleasing themselves?

Only an ice ice baby

So essentially this thread comes down to LMFAO v. Robert Fripp

those guys aren't pleasing anyone.

Which of those is pleasing themselves as opposed to their audience?

xpost oh yea they are, just nobody that posts here

My line, if I had EVER BEEN ASKED!! (ahem) was:

"We make music to please ourselves, and if others like it, we get to make some more"

IMO taking the stance of "we make music for ourselves, and if others like it, so be it" = "I don't tweet for my followers, I just jot down my thoughts..."

Think the Frippster pleases plenty o' ILXors

oi, and me too. was referring solely to LMFAO, who has sadly become a favorite of me chums

(cue replies of "WHY DO YOU ASSOCIATE WITH SUCH PPL")

gotta admit tho Fripp does take the occasional middle finger to his fanbase.

And what a talented middle finger it is, oy!

Think the Frippster pleases plenty o' ILXors

― Charles Kennedy Jumped Up, He Called 'Oh No'. (Tom D.), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 12:19 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

jks, i'm not averse to a bit of King Crimso.

i don't thnk it matters at all or is honestly knowable, people's motivation.

wd take LMFAO over a huge chunk of Fripp's work since 1980 tbh

Interesting to see Fripp namechecked so early in this thread, as he was the first name I thought of -- because he would say of the thread question, "Are those my only two choices?" He's been consistent about his sense of a Higher Calling re: music and that pleasing himself or an audience have very little to do with it. Musician and Audience co-exist as a way to let Music enter the world; Musician and Audience are the parents to the music, etc.

Depends entirely on what the individual artist is good at and what's going to get the best work out of them. There's no set rule either way.

Is this essentially a pop vs indie question, maybe?

Is part of indie's appeal down to the audience getting a sneaky-peek through the garage window while X-band have a rollicking good time doing something they themselves love, but isn't necessarily created for wider consumption?

Conversely, does the appeal of pop come from the artist working hard bring entertainment to the audience?

hard to bring

I work solely to infuriate both myself and my audience.

xpost i realise i'm talking in quite polarising terms here. of course there's a blurring of boundaries.

no! it's a question about yr own perception of musical "value". it doesn't refer to legitimate things going on in the world.

(like all aesthetics maybe)

yes, i'm more interested in you guyses' perception here.

If you make music to please your audience, there's a risk that you'll make music that no-one likes, because how can you possibly second guess what other people are going to want to hear? Or worse, you end up making music that is wildly popular, but that you personally can't stand. OTOH if you make music to please yourself, your audience could be just one person - you. But that brings in the idea that you yourself are part of the audience for your own music. If you make music you like, and also find an audience who want kind of the same thing, then theoretically you can have your cake and eat it.

I work solely to infuriate both myself and my audience.

― emil.y, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 7:38 AM (19 seconds ago) Bookmark

http://hotmusicbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Axl-Rose.jpg

Thought that was a picture of Mick Hucknall for a second there.

honestly I used to have the debate ITT because I'm a metalhead by origin and they tend to fixate on this topic to the point of obsession. I do believe there are probably some artists out there that may not love what they do, but that's no different than athletes who don't love the game they play...some people do what they're good at because it makes em a buck, some do it because it makes em a buck AND they love it.

but as NV says you can't really know so either choose to rock out or throw cabbage

it's maybe sometimes a willing suspension of disbelief in some areas of fandom. Bo is right, it's a metal thing, but definitely applies across other genres, hip hop and indie being obvious examples. and for those types of fans where "authentic artistic expression" (slapping my head) really matters they will basically choose to believe it's happening unless an act pushes them to the point where they can't ignore the ugly commerce any more.

If you make music to please your audience, there's a risk that you'll make music that no-one likes, because how can you possibly second guess what other people are going to want to hear?

These could be applied to DJs as well as musicians. Part of a good DJ's job is to pre-empt what your audience will react to. As a p/t DJ I'm often asked to play parties and pub gigs where, y'know, I often have to play "I Gotta Feelin'" more than once in a night because birthday girl was in the toilet and it's her favourite song. Then again, if it's my own night where I have free reign, I can technically play anything I like. That said, if I play nothing but obscuro footwork and kwaito tunes, I'm at risk of alienating my audience and getting bored myself because no one is dancing...

I guess once a DJ gets to a certain level of credibility, his/her audience will be loyal enough to give them a wider berth when it comes to benefits of the doubt.

Interviewed Kurt Wagner the other other day and asked whether he would make music if he no longer had an audience. He said yes, but then he didn't really think of his audience as the people who bought his records or paid to come to the shows - he considered his friends to be his audience. I wonder if that's true of quite a lot of musicians, especially those who aren't stars - that those they like and trust are the ones whose approbation they want.

i suppose the more interesting question might be "should this stuff matter to you, the fans?" to which my answer obv wd be FFS NO but what can i do, it's a magical thinking world?

he considered his friends to be his audience

Eh? First I've ever heard of that. Think friends are a fairly unreliable audience.

i suppose the more interesting question might be "should this stuff matter to you, the fans?" to which my answer obv wd be FFS NO but what can i do, it's a magical thinking world?

― dayove cool (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 12:53 (8 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

But sometimes it does matter. Sometimes, with some artists, much of the appeal is that you get an insight into their private artistic world - i.e. this is the product of somebody doing something because it pleases them, and it just happens to have been released so you can hear it too. Like overhearing somebody playing the piano beautifully from another room or something.

god no never

appeal of the alien is that it's alien - wanting to understand it = kills the alienation = kills the appeal

but that alienation is in you and your fantasy of The Other.

I think from an early age, once I'd become conscious of my own tastes I always felt that "art for art's sake" was the most "noble" cause, and used that as a benchmark for my listening, rejecting anything that was obviously trying to sell itself to a wide audience. I think this must be a common reaction for a lot of people, particularly those attuned to the concept of "selling out", i.e. Doing something you don't want to do for the sake of capital gain.

This is obviously a dangerous route to follow, because of course you risk ignoring huge swathes of excellent music that is at once commercially appealing and aesthetically valid. It's often easy to forget that those who do appeal to a large audience and making a lot of money, also consider themselves to be craftspeople who enjoy their work.

to me that pair of blinkers is something that people shd strive to outgrow. and it feels like you end up, in some strange way, looking for some hidden value that doesn't reside in the artwork itself?

before we even begin to point out that pleasing an audience isn't the same as "motivated only by money"

Art for art's sake is selfish and egotistical and stupid.

Eh? First I've ever heard of that. Think friends are a fairly unreliable audience.

― Charles Kennedy Jumped Up, He Called 'Oh No'. (Tom D.), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 12:53 (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

suspect that most of dude's friends are probably musicians tho

And infantile.

Most of dude's friends are in his band.

xposts, obviously.

imo TALKING about what songs you refuse to play makes it even more dickish

what is it with audiences and fans that they're so fucking needy?

Poll on 'playing an album in its entirety' please.

imo TALKING about what songs you refuse to play makes it even more dickish

yeah but if you just do a gig and don't play your One Big Single people will bitch that they've paid to see you under false pretences, i was just trying to take that gripe out of the equation

Really, music you make should be only to please yourself. My definition of a musician can include an audience or not. However, the moment you step out in public the rules are changed. You can make music for the audience or for yourself at that point, but if you are doing it solely for the audience and they aren't buying it, you will feel very shitty. Don't put all your eggs in one basket is what im saying.

what is it with audiences and fans that they're so fucking needy?

Money has changed hands, for a start

Poll on 'playing an album in its entirety' please.

Shit idea, imo

Money has changed hands, for a start

yes. but if i buy a tin of beans i think i'm entitled to expect it to be full of beans. if i buy a concert ticket either i want to be surprised or i want my tummy tickled. in the latter case, fuck me tbh.

If you want to make music, you can sit at home or play music with friends only. It is not an invalid option. Some of the best music ever played was probably performed with no audience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCm1MT5hnM

introductory ramble otm

Another scenario is that of: "This new album by Band-X (let's call them Of Montreal) is a fucking mess, even by their usual standards. Even their audience, who are generally attuned to the band's schtick, think it's over the top and self indulgent. But it IS what the band wanted to do, and it DOES achieve what they set out to do in the first place and they are therefore very happy with it."

So in this case - is it a shit album? Who is to blame - the band for alienating their audience, or the audience for failing to understand the band's direction?

Dunno, some bands are better at surprises than others, I suppose. Also lots of old bands re-forming and touring in order to tickle our tummies.

yeah but if you just do a gig and don't play your One Big Single people will bitch that they've paid to see you under false pretences

Not as long as it's generally known that you're not averse to ever playing it. There was this whole myth about Radiohead not playing "Creep" any more, which was daft as they did use to play it on occasion. but to never play it would have been kind of dickish imho

The band for making a shit album surely? (xxp)

not gonna touch "things Radiohead could do that would be kind of dickish"

The band for making a shit album surely? (xxp)

― Charles Kennedy Jumped Up, He Called 'Oh No'. (Tom D.), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 14:44 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So by that rationale, would you say that musicians should make music primarily to please their audiences?

No, they should make good music!

people who approach creative work with consumer issues shd gtf imo

he considered his friends to be his audience

this is totally otm, i think it's true of most musicians & writers that i know. not in a literal sense, but that you periodically think of a couple people whose opinion you really respect. if they're not your friends then they're your idols.

but consumer issues ("you should play more old songs") are also value judgements. let's face it, most artists wrote their best songs early in their career when they were flush with creativity. seems daft to exclude them

xp

have enough belief in your shit that people will come to you instead of chasing after them

Chasing after them is fine as long as the chase produces good music

maybe some kind of contractual deal when you buy a ticket giving you a right to certain expectations being met

and a promise from the artiste not to make bad music

Chasing after them is fine as long as the chase produces good music

― Charles Kennedy Jumped Up, He Called 'Oh No'. (Tom D.), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 14:57 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Cue "Yakkety Sax"..

you know, sometimes music has a purpose other than to sell tickets or drinks, and the band has a very specific duty to please the audience, ie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNSFZWMnomM

obviously artists can get sick of songs they like or are proud of, but I kind of feel like a lot of times the "I don't want to play this song people want to hear" thing happens BECAUSE maybe they weren't totally creating something to please themselves all the time. it seems like a lot of times the hits that artists disown are the ones that were written for them or that they thought shouldn't be on the album but the label thought it should be a single, etc. makes me wonder if situations like that could be avoided if artists just make sure they're 100% confident in everything they make before it goes on a record or even gets put to tape.

when i saw radiohead in... 2003? they played both 'creep' and 'the bends', except thom yorke kinda made a joke of both of them, preening his way through the former and mumbling his way through the latter. that is a good example of falling into that horrible void wherein no one is pleased.

on the matter of of montreal, iirc hissing fauna wasn't even intended for release, but eventually kevin barnes was pushed into it. and thus the spiral into ever more incomprehensibly personal albums began.

... then they wouldn't be making those songs that lots of people actually like? (xp)

merdeyeux - i did not know that about hissing fauna.

Musicians shouldn't make music, we have enough as it is.

fair point, really

But... Hissing Fauna is the best album they ever did.

otm. when I see some new band I just want to ask them "why are you doing this? for the love of god STOP"

xxp

Young bands is fair enough, it's when you get old geezers still forming bands

xposts - I had a conversation years ago with a band in just that
situation; an old hit, which had been dropped for the setlist for
years and which was a 'late addition' to their debut album with the
help of a name producer, slotted back into the setlist when they made
a comeback. It was rapturously received, and they loved playing it
again for another round of touring.

makes me wonder if situations like that could be avoided if artists just make sure they're 100% confident in everything they make before it goes on a record or even gets put to tape.

LOL.

Part of being an artist is agonizing over shit, of never being totally sure, of never thinking anything is perfect and that is why you have to keep working and make it better. And failing that, then you go on to work on something new, and you are living in that, and when someone comes along and says "Hey this old thing you did is awesome" you have already moved on.

Also part of being an artist (im just speaking for myself personally) is self-destructive. You have high standards for yourself and what you are creating, and at some level you think nothing you do is good enough. Maybe this is the main reason for the performer-audience disconnect around popular songs.

yeah i can't even wrap my head around the idea of being 100% confident in something before it gets put to tape, or after it gets put to tape.

also it seems like the common cycle for artists is to finish something -> think it's amazing -> think it's terrible and nowhere near as good as what they're working on next -> leave it alone and eventually think "i did that? that's actually pretty alright."

I think it's mainly a modified step 3. "think your old work is terrible and what you're working on now is great". This is why once you finish something it sucks and you constantly see the flaws in it. But while it's being worked on you are only seeing the sublime perfection that is ever in the future.

there was some interesting discussion on this topic on some thread a while ago, don't remember where, about musicians taking live requests/play the hits on tour

true, i guess the "omg this is the best thing i've ever done" feeling of creative bliss usually comes before you're finished, and in the rough early stage before the editing/polishing/self-recrimination/"this sucks - but i can fix it!" part.

false dichotomy. it's all but impossible to create art without at least some sense of how it might interact with the world and how the world might interact with it - unless you're an isolated crank like henry darger or something. we're social creatures, and to the extent that we create art, we're typically attempting not merely to do or make, but to communicate, to say. meanwhile, we have no way of evaluating the quality of what we do other than by measuring it against our own standards. to have a sense that you are is doing "good work" is therefore to have pleased yourself on an artistic level, even if you're deliberately attempting to fill a market niche.

honestly, i think "making music to please myself" is a load of horseshit, at least in the way it's typically constructed. for one thing, everyone does it, pop stars no less than metalheads or indies or w/e. for another, it denies the obvious fact that anyone who puts their art out there for public consumption obviously cares on some level about pleasing an audience.

this really just isn't an either/or thing. when a musician is making music "for" an audience, it's still just the idea of that audience that exists in their head, and what kind of audience they choose to pursue also becomes an artistic decision in and of itself.

― some dude, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 2:31 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

good and useful point IMO.

One thing I'm surprised doesn't get talked about more (mostly when it is talked about, it's in reductive terms like "music for hipsters") is what idea of an audience the artist had when making a particular piece of music.

should musicians pleasure their audience or pleasure themselves

and what should the audience do?

lie back and think of England

Let england shake.