Why do we both reward and punish musical self-indulgence without regard to the quality of the work?

GuitarBizarre

Scenario 1 - An underground artist records an album and takes massive pains in order to isolate himself from his audience, perhaps going so far as to not actively market the album and release it only in limited numbers through anonymous sources. Fans find this album and praise the creator for his will to follow only what he wanted during its creation, with no regard for his audience whatsoever.

Scenario 2 - A band pour hundreds of hours of work into creating an album that they believe genuinely contains fantastic music, as good as they can make. When its released, the album is derided as being musically self-indulgent and its panned.

Whats the deal? In my experience the albums in both cases can be good or terrible, why do the artists intentions matter? Who gives a shit?

Bob

People are stupid.

You act like this is something new.

Wicked223

In my experience the albums in both cases can be good or terrible, why do the artists intentions matter? Who gives a shit?

Because there are certain qualities to be found in music that people perceive as being self-indulgent, regardless of what the musician actually intended.

Example: I've heard lots and lots of complaints leveled at prog rock and jazz musicians for the complex and extended solos they tend to play, calling them "masturbatory and self-indulgent". Personally, I'm more inclined to think they actually like how they sound, rather than them simply wanting to show off how good they are.

randomtropeloser

I've never heard of the first scenario even happening, and already I want to punch the person in it.

GuitarBizarre

Bob - Actually, no, I'm not doing that. I'm asking if there is a behavioural pattern that can explain why elements extraneous to a work can have such a profound effect on peoples reactions to what is essentially the same exercise undertaken by two entities independently.

Saying that people are stupid does not provide an answer to that question. There is no logical link between "Stupid" and "Liable to judge things based on external factors" in this instance, and to imply that there is is silly. On a purely logical level it makes no sense but it does happen and I was asking whether there is a plausible explanation, as the behaviour perplexes and irritates me.

RTL - Its an extreme example, but artistic autonomy is basically mass-approved self-indulgence. David Bowie has it, Radiohead have it, lots of very popular artists are encouraged by critics and fans alike to disregard their audience in favour of self-indulgence in their works.

Conversely, Dream Theater, Steve Vai, or any number of other artists, both musically complex and musically simple, are derided and  discouraged from applying the same approach to creation, and I have never once seen a convincing explanation of why.

Bob

It was more of a shitpost than anything else.

At any rate, I think it's just a generational thing. Everyone wants to be the person who knows all of the cool things no one else knows about. They want to feel like they're tastes are fresh and obscure. Not to mention, it's considered "cool" for whatever reason to dislike anything popular or mainstream.

GuitarBizarre

Thats not relevant. Radiohead are far more popular than Dream theater or Steve Vai, but under the implicit rules of your statement, they would be the ones for whom derision would be the response to their self-indulgence. This is not the case.

Wicked223

Argh, ninja'd.

Vorpy

In my experience the albums in both cases can be good or terrible, why do the artists intentions matter? Who gives a shit?

Most fans will explore the creators of the music they are interested in to identify with the ones who made the music? Kind of like how you research the artist who made a painting you really liked? It doesn't matter if you only like the music, and not the band or genre itself. Most people don't think that way though. Not sure why either.

GuitarBizarre

Vorpy - Thats not an explanation of what I'm asking. At all. Get out of my thread.

Mod edit: It's not your thread like that.  Don't tell people to get out of it.

Vorpy

Okay.

Wicked223

Hey, Guitar, scroll up a bit, I think you might have missed my post

GuitarBizarre

Wicked - I saw it, I just don't see what that explains about why people do it.

Wicked223

You're asking why people use "self-indulgence" as a criticism when it has nothing to do with the music's quality, right?

I'm saying it's because there are certain elements that people think are self-indulgent. It's got nothing to do with what the musician actually intended.

GuitarBizarre

Yes but there are elements which are LAUDED that are also the very definition of self indulgent.

Schitzo

Crispin Glover in a nutshell

DonZabu

I was hoping somebody would say something about this.

Honestly, I think fiction could use a little self-indulgence once in a while.

Deboss

Sticking it to the man maybe?

Khwarizmi

I think it's mainly a question of what's fashionable.  Radiohead and Dream Theater could both be termed "experimental" or "progressive", but Radiohead's songs are based on still-mainstream alternative rock and are of radio-playable length.  Dream Theater's songs are based on the somewhat older styles of prog rock and metal, which have since fallen out of fashion, and are often far too long to play on the radio in their unedited states.  They are also less lyrical and more instrumental, which makes them less accessible to the mainstream.  Finally, Radiohead (whether intentionally or otherwise) have a certain aesthetic which appeals to the modern liberal/hipster audience, while Dream Theater simply don't, so they're less marketable to mainstream audiences.

So I'd say it's less a question of how self-indulgent the band actually is, and more a question of whether that self-indulgence is accessible to the average consumer.

BonSequitur

Well, two things. First, differences of opinion exist. I personally think Venetian Snares are self-indulgent chucklefucks, and Jethro Tull is genius. There is a consideration of, you know, whether you're sexy-solo-porn-video wanking, or just wanking. Succeeding at creating something great matters. If you ignore what everyone says and wins, you're uncompromising. If you fail, you're stubborn.

Second, there is the reality of self-indulgence, and the appearance of self-indulgence, and most music critics and listeners hate the second one. Most audiences don't want to feel like the performer doesn't care about their presence. Radiohead, for example, doesn't really sound self-indulgent; they don't sound like a solipsist exercise in the same way that Dream Theater does.