Challenge versus quality in music

[murlough23]

Does music have to be "challenging" to be the best that it can be? (Also, isn't it true that the more "challenging" music you absorb, the harder it is for music to truly challenge you?)

[bloop]

Does music have to be "challenging" to be the best that it can be? (Also, isn't it true that the more "challenging" music you absorb, the harder it is for music to truly challenge you?)

The best that something can be for what it is does not mean it's the best presently available, period, artistically-speaking.  It's about the best thing out there in the mainstream, though, and that's pretty high praise from me.

As for your second question, I don't know.  I'd have to think about that one.

[murlough23]

The best that something can be for what it is does not mean it's the best presently available, period, artistically-speaking.

But best artistically-speaking is not always best overall. (Obviously it gives it a much greater chance of being your favorite, but this is not the same thing.) The two often go hand-in-hand, but it's not an absolute. Name the best album in your collection. I'm willing to bet there's something else in your collection that's more challenging than that.

It's about the best thing out there in the mainstream, though, and that's pretty high praise from me.

I probably shouldn't look that gift horse in the mouth, but at the same time, that's kind of like saying, "She plays baseball pretty well... for a GIRL." A lot of mainstream music isn't terribly creative; that doesn't mean that having mainstream popularity always necessitates an artistic handicap.

I'm not saying Muse is the absolute best at the genre of music they make, either, but there are moments on that album where I simultaneously think, "Wow, that's pretty creative" and "Wow, that's a smash hit single just waiting to happen".

[bloop]

But best artistically-speaking is not always best overall.

I thought you always thought that speaking of "bests" is kind of nonsense anyway, so why argue with me about it?  *shrugs*

I can't even name the best album in my collection.  There are a lot of albums I would consider to be in the same tier at the very top and, sure, some are more challenging than others.  But, they are all pretty challenging.

I probably shouldn't look that gift horse in the mouth, but at the same time, that's kind of like saying, "She plays baseball pretty well... for a GIRL." A lot of mainstream music isn't terribly creative; that doesn't mean that having mainstream popularity always necessitates an artistic handicap.

Indeed.  There was a time that the most artistic music was also some of the best-selling.  I think those days are behind us, though.  I like "Uprising", but I can't help but think it sounds a bit hamfisted - almost cheesy - too.

I did a bit of pub cleanup, and put up the Moutain Goats's Biblical epic.

[murlough23]

I thought you always thought that speaking of "bests" is kind of nonsense anyway, so why argue with me about it?  *shrugs*

For purposes of this conversation, I'll assume that such a thing hypothetically exists. Or you can just talk about your favorites. I'm flexible.

I can't even name the best album in my collection.  There are a lot of albums I wpi;d consider to be in the same tier at the very top and, sure, some are more challenging than others.  But, they are all pretty challenging.

What I'm trying to get at here is whether it's a direct correlation - i.e. will you always consider the more challenging record to be the better one? If not, then there's some wiggle room for a really good "mainstream" album to exist in that top tier.

Indeed.  There was a time that the most artistic music was also some of the best-selling.  I think those days are behind us, though.

Maybe some of that older stuff also doesn't seem as challenging to us now because we're used to it and used to artists who were influenced by it. It seems most critics consider Michael Jackson to have been a great artist. I can see how many of his biggest hits would have been challenging when they were first introduced... but he was also the King of Pop. (I'm not even that much of a fan, personally, but I can see how art and "the maintream" coincide there.)

[bloop]

What I'm trying to get at here is whether it's a direct correlation - i.e. will you always consider the more challenging record to be the better one? If not, then there's some wiggle room for a really good "mainstream" album to exist in that top tier.

There's a correlation, but the correlation coefficient is not 1.

[murlough23]

There's a correlation, but the correlation coefficient is not 1.

I'd wager that the coefficient is not a constant value at all.

[bloop]

I'd wager that the coefficient is not a constant value at all.

If we're dealing in a single set of data, it definitely is, but that's a lot of work.  Please don't ask me to rate all my music on two axes.

[murlough23]

If we're dealing in a single set of data, it definitely is, but that's a lot of work.  Please don't ask me to rate all my music on two axes.

I would only do that if I thought any of this stuff correlated mathematically at all - and I don't.

[bloop]

I would only do that if I thought any of this stuff correlated mathematically at all - and I don't.

Really, you don't think ambitious creativity/challenge and artistic quality would be related, especially if I'm the one assessing, at all?  Hmm.  OK...

Back to pub.

[murlough23]

Really, you don't think ambitious creativity/challenge and artistic quality would be related, especially if I'm the one assessing, at all?  Hmm.  OK...

Oh no, I thought I had already acknowledged that they were indeed related. What I'm trying to establish here is that I believe:

1) Not all creativity is necessarily challenging.
2) More challenging music is not always guaranteed to have greater artistic quality.
3) The phrase "often, but not always" applies to the above two statements. I'm simply pointing out that counterexamples do exist, therefore these patterns which are generally observable are not set in stone.
4) Therefore, it is possible (however unlikely it may seem) that "mainstream" music, which is more accessible and therefore more likely to be popular, can sometimes be great art. Art often challenges us, but this is not a hardcore prerequisite.
5) Whether a work of art "challenges" somebody is subjective to the individual and their previous experiences with/knowledge of art. (We can perhaps generalize about what challenges the mainstream.)
6) All above the above being said, I still prefer for art to challenge me. But sometimes I find great art that appeals to my sensibilities right off the bat - given that my sensibilities don't line up exactly with the mainstream, it's reasonable to expect that not every piece of great art would baffle me at first.

Does that make a little more sense?

[bloop]

Sure, if it makes you happy, I'll assent.

[murlough23]

Sure, if it makes you happy, I'll assent.

You don't need to make me happy, silly; I'm just trying to figure out if my conjectures make any sense. Either I'm wrong, you're wrong, or we're both right and I'm just not communicating very well.

[bloop]

I think you're likely not too far off the mark, but you're arguing against a straw man as I never said that more challenging work is automatically better in every situation.

[murlough23]

I think you're likely not too far off the mark, but you're arguing against a straw man.

Then I must have misunderstood you. Either that, or I abstracted incorrectly from the specific case that started the discussion. (In other words, maybe it's true that for Muse to make a great album for its genre is less of an accomplishment than some "challenging" album made by a lesser known artist in a less popular genre - but is "challenging" the only scale on which we should measure art? Is it less of an accomplishment to be an artistically viable performer in a mainstream genre?)

(P.S. I'm bringing this discussion to the mods' attention because it really should be a separate thread at this point.)

[Vlad!]

[Thanks for letting me know. Sorry if the new thread title doesn't accurately depict the discussion anymore. I'm afraid I didn't feel like reading a discussion that hearkens back to our fracas in the Radiohead thread.]

[bloop]

Why, oh why, did you have to link to the Radiohead thread?  That thing is just dizzying.

[Vlad!]

To adequately explain why I didn't feel like diving into this one

[bloop]

To adequately explain why I didn't feel like diving into this one

I don't think any of us are very surprised when you don't feel like diving into any music-related topic.  It's a pretty rare event you get involved here.

[Ian]

I thought the Phoenix, The Dream, Andrew Bird and Animal Collective releases from this year were all really good.  New Yeasayer sounds really good.

[murlough23]

I thought the Phoenix, The Dream, Andrew Bird and Animal Collective releases from this year were all really good.  New Yeasayer sounds really good.

We split the thread. Was this meant for the Music Journal thread?

[bloop]

We split the pub thread, though.

[murlough23]

We split the pub thread, though.

I meant that. Sorry, long day.

[murlough23]

In other words, maybe it's true that for Muse to make a great album for its genre is less of an accomplishment than some "challenging" album made by a lesser known artist in a less popular genre - but is "challenging" the only scale on which we should measure art? Is it less of an accomplishment to be an artistically viable performer in a mainstream genre?

The discussion apparently got stalled out when the thread was split (I figured it best to do that before someone griped about us turning yet another thread into the same old abstract debate), so I still haven't seen a response to the above question.

[bloop]

but is "challenging" the only scale on which we should measure art? Is it less of an accomplishment to be an artistically viable performer in a mainstream genre?

Sorry about that.

No; Maybe.

[Ian]

We split the thread. Was this meant for the Music Journal thread?

No I just think those are some excelkent non-challenging albums that are as good as anything else out there.

[murlough23]

No I just think those are some excelkent non-challenging albums that are as good as anything else out there.

Good to have concrete examples; that gets us somewhere. I can't speak to the first two since I haven't heard them.

Andrew Bird was mildly challenging for me when I first heard The Mysterious Production of Eggs; I'm a little more used to his shtick now, so when I get bored with him, it's because I think the music's not unique enough to match the whimsical nature of the lyrics on some of his mellower songs.

Animal Collective was very challenging for me at first. A few songs were quite catchy and stuck right away, but the vast majority of that album took a while to grow on me.

I'm only speaking from my own experience, which is clearly quite different from yours, so maybe others can chime in. Does past experience affect the things that will be considered "challenging" to you, and if so, then how can music be judged objectively using this as a parameter? Are we judging "challenging" based on a prototypical listener whose only experience is with radio-friendly music? (If so, I submit that both Andrew Bird and Animal Collective would be quite challenging for such a person.)

NP: "Porcelain", Sleeping at Last

[bloop]

For the sake of argument, I think it would be best to define it objectively rather than subjectively.  There are obviously some people that you just can't bowl over so easily.

Speaking subjectively, though, all other things being equal, I'll take the more innovative, off-kilter, unhinged album over the very competent vanilla pop/rock 19 out of 20 times (at least).

[murlough23]

For the sake of argument, I think it would be best to define it objectively rather than subjectively.  There are obviously some people that you just can't bowl over so easily.

So what would that definition be?

[bloop]

So what would that definition be?

For the sake of argument, your definition seems fair enough.

[murlough23]

For the sake of argument, your definition seems fair enough.

So quality art has to challenge the mainstream. Seems fair in theory, but the mainstream is constantly shifting (probably as a result of quality art... and not-so-quality product, too.) I think my Michael Jackson example is pertinent here.

Are we basically boiling it down to, "This isn't good art unless it stymies the average Joe"? That just seems smug - we get to offer accolades to stuff that might be right up our own alleys because we envision some other person being baffled by it, or radio stations saying "Hell no, I won't touch this!"

[bloop]

I don't think I like anything just because it confuses others, but there's a part of me that enjoys that part, too.  The best art has teeth, IMO.

[murlough23]

I don't think I like anything just because it confuses others, but there's a part of me that enjoys that part, too.

I'll admit to being amused by it, but I think demanding that or else putting it on a lesser tier is a bit pretentious. However, basing it on whether it challenges you makes it harder and harder to be satisfied with new music as time goes by. Either way, it's a bit of a dangerous road to travel if this becomes an absolute requirement.

The best art has teeth, IMO.

I think a lot of it does. But I think a case could be made for the odd piece of art that has mainstream appeal as well, even if a lot of the stuff with mainstream appeal generally isn't good art and often isn't even trying to be.

NP: "At the Last", Thrice

[bloop]

I'll admit to being amused by it, but I think demanding that or else putting it on a lesser tier is a bit pretentious. However, basing it on whether it challenges you makes it harder and harder to be satisfied with new music as time goes by. Either way, it's a bit of a dangerous road to travel if this becomes an absolute requirement.

Taking it away from oneself makes it a bit more objective.  Generally, though, if it's challenging to the mainstream, it'll still challenge me to some degree.

I think a lot of it does. But I think a case could be made for the odd piece of art that has mainstream appeal as well, even if a lot of the stuff with mainstream appeal generally isn't good art and often isn't even trying to be.

I don't think we disagree all that much here.  There are some albums (more in the past, sadly) that I would regard as challenging, risky, 10-rated albums AND they're very, very popular.  There was a time that some of the best-selling music was also some of the best art available.  I'm not trying to make a hard and fast rule that something can't be pleasant to the general populace and awe-inspiring artistically, though.

[murlough23]

Taking it away from oneself makes it a bit more objective.  Generally, though, if it's challenging to the mainstream, it'll still challenge me to some degree.

I feel like there are lots of things that might challenge the mainstream, but that don't mess me up all that much. I don't regard Muse as completely mainstream by that rubric, despite their popularity. I think they change things up enough that even some of the guaranteed hits have some unusual aspect about them that stands out from the average radio song.

I also didn't feel particularly challenged by In Rainbows, which is definitely not a "mainstream" album, but also not terribly out there by the standards previously established by the band. (And I don't see that as a lesser accomplishment - it's not my favorite album by them, but the fact that it didn't completely baffle me at first isn't something that I hold against it.)

I don't think we disagree all that much here.  There are some albums (more in the past, sadly) that I would regard as challenging, risky, 10-rated albums AND they're very, very popular.  There was a time that some of the best-selling music was also some of the best art available.

I'd love to see a few examples of this. I do agree with what you're saying. I think buying an album was the only way to get some of this music in the past, whereas now we have the Internet and a multitude of options (legal and illegal) available to the listener who just likes a song, as well as a much higher number of artists clamoring for the listener's attention. It used to be a guarantee that if an established name artist put out something challenging, it would still sell pretty well. Now it's not even a guarantee that a highly accessible album by an established name will sell. (And that in turn brings to mind the question of whether sales are a good barometer for popularity. I'm all about the cans o' worms today!)

[bloop]

My top album from each year this decade.  It's not going to be the same as my music journal in every instance - albums grow in unexpected ways sometimes.

2000 - Kid A, Radiohead
2001 - Love & Theft, Bob Dylan
2002 - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Wilco
2003 - The Meadowlands, The Wrens
2004 - Funeral - The Arcade Fire
2005 - Illinois, Sufjan Stevens
2006 - Return to Cookiee Mountain, TV on the Radio
2007 - tough one.  In Rainbows, Radiohead.  Boxer and The Shepherd's Dog are so, so close, though.
2008 - Dear Science,, TV on the Radio
2009 - Merriweather Post Pavilion, Animal Collective

[murlough23]

My top album from each year this decade.  It's not going to be the same as my music journal in every instance - albums grow in unexpected ways sometimes.

2000 - Kid A, Radiohead
2001 - Love & Theft, Bob Dylan
2002 - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Wilco
2003 - The Meadowlands, The Wrens
2004 - Funeral - The Arcade Fire
2005 - Illinois, Sufjan Stevens
2006 - Return to Cookiee Mountain, TV on the Radio
2007 - tough one.  In Rainbows, Radiohead.  Boxer and The Shepherd's Dog are so, so close, though.
2008 - Dear Science,, TV on the Radio
2009 - Merriweather Post Pavilion, Animal Collective

Most of those aren't exactly tearing up the radio charts. They all have a decent measure of popularity (some more than others) among critics and music aficionados, but those folks aren't "the mainstream". Bob Dylan might be an exception.

[bloop]

I feel like there are lots of things that might challenge the mainstream, but that don't mess me up all that much.

There isn't much that messes me up at all.  But there's a lot that can raise my eyebrows a bit.

I don't regard Muse as completely mainstream by that rubric, despite their popularity. I think they change things up enough that even some of the guaranteed hits have some unusual aspect about them that stands out from the average radio song.

Yeah, and I think they're the best thing radio has caught onto.  It makes perfect sense.

I also didn't feel particularly challenged by In Rainbows, which is definitely not a "mainstream" album, but also not terribly out there by the standards previously established by the band. (And I don't see that as a lesser accomplishment - it's not my favorite album by them, but the fact that it didn't completely baffle me at first isn't something that I hold against it.)

Some of it would keep the mainstream at arm's length, but it's accessible enough by their standards, sure.

I'd love to see a few examples of this. I do agree with what you're saying. I think buying an album was the only way to get some of this music in the past, whereas now we have the Internet and a multitude of options (legal and illegal) available to the listener who just likes a song, as well as a much higher number of artists clamoring for the listener's attention. It used to be a guarantee that if an established name artist put out something challenging, it would still sell pretty well. Now it's not even a guarantee that a highly accessible album by an established name will sell. (And that in turn brings to mind the question of whether sales are a good barometer for popularity. I'm all about the cans o' worms today!)

Most of the examples I would name are in the "duh" category.  As in, "Really?!  The Beatles were good?  You don't say!"  Many of the (nearly) undisputed classics fall here.

Most of those aren't exactly tearing up the radio charts. They all have a decent measure of popularity (some more than others) among critics and music aficionados, but those folks aren't "the mainstream". Bob Dylan might be an exception.

Certainly, some pattern holds.

[Ian]

So by by non-challenging we're thinking more of the mass produced, stamped and sealed, auto-tune flattened, Warhol ideal come true type of songs?  Those ones are all shit.

[murlough23]

So by by non-challenging we're thinking more of the mass produced, stamped and sealed, auto-tune flattened, Warhol ideal come true type of songs?  Those ones are all shit.

True that they are, but that's not the only music I'd place in the non-challenging category. I think there's a case to be made for profound songwriting coupled with all the classic musical tricks in the book. This is hard to accomplish because many try it, but few do it well. (I'd rather have the profound songwriting coupled with something musically inventive, personally, but a good song is a good song regardless, and there are plenty of bad Top 40 songs and bad experimental songs in the world.)