Nice to see the place back again.

I've wanted to discuss this for a while. Something occurred to me, reading yet another love/hate thread about Backspacer. It was a question:

'As a listener, do we have any responsibility towards an artist's work?'

If we don't love a work right away, do we feel any sense of responsibility to TRY to like it, spend time with it... or do we feel we've a right to brush it off... because, 'I know what I like, and this isn't it.'

Other genres of the arts expect the viewer/listener to work fairly hard to appreciate what's being offered. There is some thought process and reactions which the artist expects the viewer/listener to go through... and only after they have thought hard and digested, to come to a conclusion about the work.

Arguably, these areas of the arts include visual art, poetry, fiction, dance, and drama. Classical music (and anything 'avant garde') is also a genre which expects the listener to put some work in. Why don't we have the same feeling about 'pop' music? Why don't we ASSUME we'll have to 'try to like something' our favourite artist puts out? Why is it that we don't want to? Are we getting lazy?

So, to put the question another way:

'I don't like Backspacer. I've heard it once, don't like it, won't listen to it again. I know what I like.'

Is this a lazy position to have? Thoughts please. I thought this would be an interesting discussion.

I don't think it's a responsibility, it's a choice. The listener can choose to put in as much work as they are willing. That doesn't vary by listener so much as it varies by what the listener is listening to. For example, if Binaural had been put out by any band other than Pearl Jam, I wouldn't have given it a second chance. That album requires some effort. Because it was Pearl Jam, I determined to spin it a few times and it opened itself up a little bit more.

The comparison to other art forms is appropriate. No one has to read James Joyce. If you flip open Ulysses and read the first page and it makes no coherent sense to you, you have no responsibility (to Joyce or yourself or anyone else, unless perhaps it's been assigned by a professor) to turn over to page two. But if you do, if you choose to put that work in, it will be rewarding.

Stepping outside your comfort zone on a regular or semi regular basis makes you a better human being. Not saying or relating this to listening to backspacer...just generally speaking.

Huh?

Great thread idea. I think it depends upon presentation. If you're Britney Spears, you sell your product like soda and expect the same thought.

Pearl Jam, over the years, has basically asked for their material to be thought about a little more profoundly, which is one reason why their popularity went down. By presenting their work as cohesive albums, not kissing soda cans in commercials (*Target ad does not qualify cause they are advertising THEIR music), and making sure that image doesn't overshadow the music, they've earned the right for their music to be consumed with a little more thought.

So, short answer - yes, we've gotten lazy. Overall, the general music listening public has grown accustomed to downloading music for free, and just as easily discarding it. There is something to be said for how things have evolved in the industry over the years, how "selling out" doesn't means anything anymore, how downloading for free is "okay". It's all hurt how the public consumes music. Time and dedication is less of a factor, and those that don't play the game get pidgeonholed as "irrelevant".

I don't think I have any responsibility towards any artist. Plus, where would you draw the line? At 5 listens? At 10? You probably can brainwash yourself into enjoying anything if you try hard enough. That's what radios and advertisers do.

I think it's myopic to say some music isn't more of a "difficult listen" than other music, or that some songs don't reward relistening. I guess it all comes down to patience and personal preference.

I agree with mray10. It's all about choice.

I'm not sure that "putting work in" is quite the right way to put it. I think that we've discussed this many times before. I think that are multiple ways of appreciating art. If you have a history with an artist, you tend to judge any new work by that artist in relation to all of their previous work. And their previous work resonates through the new work. Sometimes it takes a few listens (even many listens) to come to terms with this aspect of following any given artist. Often people drift away from an artist over time. I don't think that listeners have a responsiblity to keep up with that artist if the artist's work no longer excites the listener or is moving in a direction that the listener dislikes. This holds true for musicians/composers, visual artists, choreographers. The only thing I hesitate to say is that something is bad because it didn't capture my fancy.

Some work requires many listens in order to tease out the complexities of it. That doesn't mean that it wasn't enjoyable from the first listen. It just means that you haven't formed a personal interpretation until you have many listens under your belt. I don't consider that work. That's recreation.

So where does that leave "giving something a chance?" It should be a matter of pleasure, not work. You're giving it a chance because something about the work has struck you as interesting to you personally, not a host of critics who don't know you. Sometimes the very unpleasant can be fascinating.

Anyway, I don't think that listeners have any responsibility to try to like something that they have taken a dislike to. There's more music out there than anyone can listen to in a lifetime. Why get bogged down with things that don't interest you?

I would reiterate the presentation. No matter how challenging something is, there's got to be something on the surface to pull you in. If there's not, than that is a flaw of the art. On the other hand, if something is only good on the surface, and there is nothing after that, it is a flw as well. A well-balanced piece of art has both of thise elements, where there is enough to draw you, but not in a cheap and disposable way, and enough to keep the listener there.

Slightly adrift but I'm kinda forced on a weekly basis to 'step outside my musical comfort zone' what with having to listen to pop/dance music 'cos the gay brethren seem to be obsessed with that, and I used to dismiss all of it directly without listening to it(as most gay people seem to do with anything that isnt the aforementioned or musical numbers ) but I've come to be able to appreciate if a pop song, say like Womanizer by Britney or whatever, if it is a good song or not.

With Pj, they kinda come with a new record and people project their baggage/opinion/nostalgia/whatever onto the band and the new one and then you get the whole 'it's not Ten' blah blah bit.

I think we do have a responsibility if we want to have a considered and well thought out opinion of whatever it is. That's why i like RM 'cos it's rarely 'that's just shit'. The best albums take time and repeated listening to uncover what's in there I think.

As long as people have invested some time and thought about the piece I'm happy to listen but the outright 'i hate it, i heard it once' thing is ridiculous.

Maybe that wasn't well phrased. I wasn't saying classical music IS 'avant garde', but it's often poo-pooed in today's 'entertain-me-quick-or-GTFO' culture. So I compared it with 'avante garde' because it calls for a deeper appreciation than 'give me some rockin' beats and a guitar riff.'

That said, one man's 'rockin' beats and a guitar riff' is another man's 'atmospheric strings and deep tuba'.. so, I understand your 'Huh?'

Maybe I was also lazy with the term 'responsibility', but I'm still not sure. What I mean by that is.. other art forms ask more from the listener than that they find them 'entertaining.' I'll go to the beach and eat hot donuts if I want 'entertainment.' When I go to a poem, I want more... and the writer, if he/she is a good writer, asks that I make an effort to take more.

I agree 120% with everything that is written in this post of yours.

Don't you think that different elements might pull in different listeners? Is a piece of art flawed because it didn't pull you in?


That's a good point. But there is a difference between being a listener and being a commenter. As a listener, you have no responsibility to the artist. As a commenter, you have a responsibility, not to the artist, but to the people who are reading or listening to your comments to say something substantive. I've got no patience with the "this sucks" crowd. And I hear it about classical music the time. Not many people will give your opinion much weight if you can't explain why you think it sucks.

I don't think that's true. Chopin was a rock star in his day. Opera began as a popular medium. Shakespeare was an artist with mass appeal. Paradise Lost was the equivalent of a best seller. A Beethoven symphony can be listened on many levels, one level is as a showcase for catchy tunes. If you've grown up with a genre of music, or a style of theater (television shows), they are easily accessible to you. If you haven't, then you have to get used to differences in style that you're not used to. That doesn't mean that the art itself is asking for something more from you. There are many people who find great depth and nuance in sitcoms and pop music. Don't underestimate the skill that it takes to produce something that appeals to a mass audience.

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thinks this worth thinking about.

I agree with all of you who've said that in order for someone to WANT to delve deeper into something, find all its complexities before disgarding it, there HAS to be something which grabs them right away... That, I think, is the subjective part.

It's my opinion that Pearl Jam, over the years, has earned the right to ask this of their listeners. Keep listening, spend some time, make an effort to understand what we're attempting here, and THEN if you still don't like it, no problem. You've tried.

I think Backspacer is as complex and interesting, thematically and everything else, as any work PJ has put out before. But it's challenging in a different way than what we've had before. Not only that, but in an age where album artwork is becoming redundant, PJ and Tom Tomorrow have given us complex and meaningful artwork with the album which turns a good album into a multimedia experience.

And yet, there are people who are saying 'Meh, had a listen, don't like it.' And it frustrates me that people aren't listening that hard.

PJ has always (or mostly) given us thought-provoking, inspiring and complex work over the years. What's interesting is that even on a 'pop' album, this still hasn't changed, in my opinion. And yet, certain people are dismissing this album as 'too poppy' and (in my opinion) missing out on what is a fascinating experience of an album, which does everything it sets out to do.

Just a question. What does the term 'anti-pop' mean to you? I'd consider something like Backspacer as 'anti-pop.' Personally.

Some great points and I agree 100%. I guess what we have labelled 'high art' recently, has been done in retrospect. Shakespeare was merely a very popular entertainer. It turns out that we look back on him as an extremely skilled writer, too. I don't know why that happens, and I don't know where that leaves us in relation to the question 'What is good art?'

As for your last sentence (which I have bolded), I think that's my point.. as I have just written above, I don't want to underestimate what Pearl Jam are attempting to give us with this 'pop' album. Whether they have succeeded maybe subjective, but in my opinion, there are depths to be mined here, just as there are in No Code/Vitalogy/Yield/Binaural/Riot Act... Backspacer, despite (or maybe because of) being 'pop', is another challenging, complex album.

It doesn't really mean anything to me personally, but I find it fascinating that it exists as a term. Do you dislike pop music? What do you consider pop music? Is it exclusively stuff that sells well and plays on the radio a lot?

Have you listened to any Asian pop? I'm curious what your opinion of it would be.

I have no obligation to Pearl Jam (or any other band). No responsibility to any art form.

Having said that, since Pearl Jam is my favorite band, I will CHOOSE to give their "art" a chance to grow on me. It's only because I'm serving my own self interest though, since their music is something I really want to love.

No Code & Binaural are two examples of albums where I decided to see if they'd grow on me. They both did, but had they been recorded by some other band, I probably wouldn't have ever reached that point. Maybe that's wrong, but it's just the way it is with me.

Kind of off-topic, but didn't Tom Tomorrow say himself that there wasn't any real meaning behind the artwork and that it was mostly private references regarding the band's members? Sure, people (well, fans) are going to try and find a meaning, that doesn't mean there's one. But maybe that's part of the experience.

Edit: I haven't heard any Asian pop, no. I'd be interested in hearing some.

I think what I've gathered about the term 'anti-pop', and what it means to me is: something which works within the confines and area of 'pop', but subverts those expectations in some way. Musically, this could be something with light and uplifiting, even 'inoffensive' music which has depth, darkness and even death in the lyrics. The Cure might be the epitome of this. All this is opinion, of course, but I think that's what we have with Backspacer.

I don't dislike pop music, no. I happen to have a lot of 'guilty pleasures' musically (not that I like that term, I don't). I guess 'pop' music, to me, would be 1) anything designed and intended to reach a mass audience. 2) something for which 'instant likeability and infectiousness' was its first priority. This could include an irresistable tune you can't remove from your head, or musical hooks with the same effect. These hooks or tunes might be very obvious, designed to provoke emotion very quickly. Certain chords can do this: you've heard them a thousand times but they still reduce you to tears. It's a 'by numbers' approach.

I mentioned The Cure. I would consider them to be 'anti-pop' because they used some of these techniques to make instantly likeable songs, but subverted those by extremely dark lyrics.

A really good point. I listen to mostly instrumental music, so I have no clue what the artists had in mind when they wrote the music. But I develop a personal interpretation out of sheer fondness for the music. What the artist was actually thinking may add to my listening experience but doesn't usually displace my personal impressions.