overly self indulgent albums by an artist

[CJ Shearn]

I was thinking about this the other day that some musicians put out albums that are overly self indulgent or are for the benefit for certain audiences, or sometimes reach for concepts that don't quite get there. Here are a few albums I've thought of that may fit that category:

Keith Jarrett: Spirits what is going on with this record? I watched via a webcast receive a prestigious musical award in I think Denmark, where there was a modern dance piece set to "Spirits 17", which was Keith "moaning" all these chants and playing soprano sax, and it really did not make much sense. I only have heard that one piece from that record, and it seemed overly self indulgent. Apparently he lived on Native American land and wanted to make some music that would reflect the heritage. That one piece however included more than a gratuitous amount of what we already hear on his albums. Why not choose to play a tape of a real chant instead of that horrible stuff Keith was doing?

Pat Metheny: Zero Tolerance for Silence I love Pat, and actually I find this album quite interesting, even though I don't own it (heard it) but I think the whole mono chromatic density thing didn't come off that well with some people who heard it, or were maybe used to the melodic PMG, and I actually wonder if it was something he maybe released for himself and other guitarists as a sort of research into that sort of playing. Hasn't Buckethead done playing like that as well? But it's not something I completely dislike either although it's not something I'd play all the time.

Jsngry, would you mind reposting your hilarious rant on the over indulgence of Ron Carter's album where he plays Bach, from the BNBB if you archived it? or if not could you paraphase what you said about it?

[7/4]

Pat Metheny: Zero Tolerance for Silence I love Pat, and actually I find this album quite interesting, even though I don't own it (heard it) but I think the whole mono chromatic density thing didn't come off that well with some people who heard it, or were maybe used to the melodic PMG, and I actually wonder if it was something he maybe released for himself and other guitarists as a sort of research into that sort of playing. Hasn't Buckethead done playing like that as well? But it's not something I completely dislike either although it's not something I'd play all the time.

I didn't get this when it came out. About a year later, I'm driving down Rt. 1 (meanist road I know) and I hear this on the radio, I thought "this must be Zero Tolerance for Silence". The next day I found a used copy and it was. I never really listen to it too much.

Self indulgent? Maybe, but I'm glad Pat released it. He has a history of making "safe" albums like the PMG albums and then doing a project that might not sell as well: Zero Tolerance for Silence, Song X (love it, they should do another) or the set with Derek Bailey.

I wouldn't want him playing it safe like Kenny G.

[CJ Shearn]

yeah, "Spirits 17" wasn't all that interesting.... "Spirits" does seem like a very personal project. Part 1 of ZTFS after that heavy strumming it starts with does move into a melodic territory after a while, you just gotta find it. I think it was either Part 2, or 4 that very nearly came close to sounding like a complete tune. Thanks for the info on KJ's album, I wasn't aware of that.

[CJ Shearn]

7/4, I wouldn't agree that the PMG material is safe (except mebbe Letter From Home) so much as melodic, and the goals of each album done with the Group in my mind, serve to expand and investigate ideas that have been created in their own universe. Albums such as "Quartet" and "Imaginary Day" are anything but safe. "Speaking of Now" returned Pat to the melodic base of his earlier work but there are specific things with form (Proof) and rhythm (The Gathering Sky) on that record (and especially evident live with these pieces) that were never addressed before to the extent that they were on this album, and from what I've heard about the new PMG album forth coming, it's really going to take advantage of the new group in a way SoN really only hinted at. But yes, I'm also glad Pat puts out some of these more experimental projects as well. BTW, I think a more fully realized version of the concepts found on ZTFS were more fully realized and refined upon on the free tune "Faith Healer" from "Trio Live".

[danasgoodstuff]

Pat said something in print about how he didn't hear ZTFS as all that different from the PMG albums, but his audience sure did. I was working in retail when it came out and being the good guys that we were we would try to warn people who would ignore us and buy it anyways just to bring it back the next day. "Shipped gold, returned platinum", as we used to say at the Electric Fetus.

[CJ Shearn]

Pat had said something also about ZTFS that it was closer to the way he heard music in his head. I can see his point about to him maybe the music not being that different to him from the PMG stuff in terms of melodic and some harmonic elements used but I think for people casually into his music it's probably quite jarring to hear how that came out at first.

What about that album "Adult Themes for Voice" by Mike Patton? I don't believe I've ever heard Mr Bungle, probably Faith No More somewhere on the radio, but his album with random noises in hotel rooms (I had d/l several tracks from this) seemed to me to be an act of extreme silliness. Are strange noises a common thread in Mr Bungle and some other stuff Mike Patton participated in?

[Rooster_Ties]

[Sundog]

Not jazz, but I've always found Pet Sounds to be self indulgent. Of course this designation doesn't necessarily mean bad in my view.

I've never actually heard it, however Coltrane has a live version of My Favorite Things that clocks in somewhere around 57:00 minutes. I'm curious what others "in the know" think about this particular version. Did he really need 57:00 minutes to make his musical statement? Just asking, not judging.

[CJ Shearn]

hmm, never heard that MFT Sundog, but is it possible it felt so good Trane kept it going? I wonder what those 3 hour solos were like, a man trying to get all of the ideas he could possibly think of, out.

[danasgoodstuff]

Isn't "overly self-indulgent" overly redundent?

[JSngry]

Jsngry, would you mind reposting your hilarious rant on the over indulgence of Ron Carter's album where he plays Bach, from the BNBB if you archived it? or if not could you paraphase what you said about it?

Didn't save it, but it boiled down to Cater royally fucked the music up, and he knew better. Shame on him, and shame on Blue Note for allowing such an abomination to be released!

That's a case of somebody not putting forth a sincere and/or serious effort, which is, I think totally different than the examples given here so far.

I'd be more than a little leary of labeling somebody's work "self-indulgent" everytime they go for soemthing a little different, difficult, ambitious. Of course sometimes it is, but the knee-jerk reaction I see often enough of labeling something, anything, that doesn't offer itself up to "fans" as a warm, moist, friendly hole for the listener to frolic in without any questions being asked as "self-indulgent" runs the serious risk of asking the artist to serve up plate after heaping plate of the same old shit, with only superficial differences in seasoning to differentiate one serving from the next (and some folks are VERY creative when it comes to serving the same old shit disguised as something different!). If that's what the artist wants to do, fine. But if it's not, it's very VERY easy to fall into the trap of giving the people what they want with the only personal satisfaction coming from how many different ways you can serve it up. This breeds cynicism and resentment towards the audience, which is something I've seen happen more times than you might imagine, if only "behind the scenes". Don't believe everything you read, or everything people tell you to your face.

I'd much rather somebody go where they want to go, and if it fails, so be it. And if nobody buys it or digs it, well, so be that as well. That's the price you pay to be free. Better that than having to feel trapped by other peoples' lack of imagination or personal adventurousness. Not that anybody in this thread is that type of fan, I doubt it very seriously. But we all know the "type", right?. Even that's cool, really, as long as the cry of "self-indulgent" isn't the reflexive reaction to everything that doesn't register with them on first listen. Common ground should be found and celebrated willingly and joyously, not under duress from market pressures and fan expectations. And certain types of audiences should consider the possibility that their "demands" for certain expectations to be met everytime out of the box are at least as, if not more, self-indulgent than a musician wanting to explore differnt territories.

Servitude & service share a common root, but they are not the same word, dig?

[Chuck Nessa]

Isn't "overly self-indulgent" overly redundent?

Isn't "overly redundent"....................(and misspelled)?

[CJ Shearn]

Overly self indulgent, when I typed that, I was thinking of something that was so far off in another place that it doesn't communicate to anyone else but the person who made it, or groups of people. I wasn't thinking about redundancy there, sorry guys .

Anyway, interesting view, Jim, as always, and I'm also rethinking about what "self-indulgent" is. I certainly agree that self indulgence probably shouldn't be the first thing that comes to mind when a particular artist, say Metheny or Jarrett releases something that isn't immediately accessible the first time around, it just shows depth on their part and also that they have garnered enough of a reputation be it positive or negative, to freely pursue creatively what they want.

[JSngry]

Overly self indulgent, when I typed that, I was thinking of something that was so far off in another place that it doesn't communicate to anyone else but the person who made it, or groups of people.

Well, if it's the former (it doesn't communicate to anyone else but the person who made it), there's a good chance that it really is self-indulgent, but there's also the chance that what's going on is either so "advanced" or otherwise "different" that it'll take time for people to figure it out. Don't know that I could call that "self-indulgent", at least not in a perjorative sense.

But if the music communicates with a group of people, even a small one, why is that "self-indulgent"? There's certain music(s) that attract a minescule audience, but it's often enough an audience that feels the music sincerely, and that goes for the players who make the music as well. Lots of people, massive quantities of people in fact, might not like it, and may even outright hate it. But is being true to yourself as a listener and/or a musician being "self-indulgent", or is it just being who and/or what you really are?

The tricky part is that there's always the posers and pretentious sorts who will attach themselves to such "minority" music as an affectation. But - there are those who aren't like that. Then again, you find that across the spectrum of humanity, right?

I definitely agree that there is such a thing as "self-indulgence" in music. I'm just not so sure that it's as easily and accurately identified as some would have us believe. Like all things that are in the eye of the beholder, what you want to see is usually what you get!

[Chuck Nessa]

I definitely agree that there is such a thing as "self-indulgence" in music. I'm just not so sure that it's as easily and accurately identified as some would have us believe. Like all things that are in the eye of the beholder, what you want to see is usually what you get!

Music like this may be very interesting - depends on your point of view. Armstrong was "guilty" of this by emphasizing the solo. Ellington was criticized for "Creole Rhapsody", "Reminiscing in Tempo" and endless other pieces.

On the other hand, Keith drove me nuts 'til I stopped listening about 20 years ago.

To each his own.

[chris olivarez]

Made the mistake once of picking up an album by this singer Cathy Jean. The sole subject of this entire albun semmed to be a tirade against some guy who dumped her. Yeesh!!!

[CJ Shearn]

Chris, I guess in that case that album could be self-indulgent if the whole thing is based on trashing someone who dumped you. This whole conversation has been interesting though, instead of using the term self-indulgence if an artist decides to take their music in another area that some do not get, would it be then better to say that the artist is expanding their pallette? For example, going back to Metheny, when he recorded "Secret Story", it was a deeply personal work which investigated areas fueled by personal emotion in addition to musical ideas (which drive most of his music, rather than something borne out of a statement of a personal feeling about something, e.g. A Love Supreme) and there are some who felt that the album was really too heavy, though IMO it is one of his best. I can see with something like that, b/c there was something other than the language of music itself motivating him at that time, that the intent of that work could get interpreted in ways that may not necessarily have been intended. Don't know if that made much sense, but that's my thought on it.

[chris olivarez]

That's a good point CJ. I was going to bag on Pharoah Sanders "Jewels of Thought" because side 2 was something I had no use for but I thought better of it because I like side one and I could be guilty of not "getting" side 2. Thanks for the insight.

Edited January 13, 2004 by chris olivarez

[CJ Shearn]

thanks Chris.

[Nate Dorward]

I think I agree with the sentiments that "self-indulgent" is too often a way to take something ambitious or risky down a peg. Joyce's Ulysses & Finnegans Wake & Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow & Mason & Dixon are nothing if not self-indulgent (in that one gets a sense that vast tracts are produced by the authors merely because they can or because they're enjoying themselves too much to stop...). I have an ambivalent relation to such books, but I'd be sorry to see them written off. Swinburne, Derek Walcott, Richard Crashaw, James Merrill, certain poems of Yeats, vast quantities of Hugh MacDiarmid..... -- The same goes for the self-indulgences of certain musicians--Keith Jarrett, James Carter, McCoy Tyner, DD Jackson, Han Bennink spring to mind for one reason or another. I find all of them exasperating to varying degrees & on varying occasions, but it's not the worst thing for music to be excessive rather than stiflingly tasteful. Ultimately the question is whether it's music that actually has real substance to it, or is just being put out by the musician or label out of cynicism or indifference to quality or complete deludedness. (David S Ware's Threads is, arguably, an instance of the third option....)

[JSngry]

The yardstick I try and use is a simple one - do I get the impression that the artist is doing this just becasue they want to, or, for whatever reason, they feel as if the have to? I'm a lot more sympathetic to following a burning compulsion than I am to recreational jerking off. Even if I don't care for the results, if I have/feel a respect for the intent, that's good for something in my mind/heart.

I'm also inconsistent about applying this yardstick, but aren't we all?

[Joe G]

Interesting discussion guys. Put me down on the side that is leery of the phrase, because it's one of those vague, hard-to-defend-against criticisms that may contain just a hint of truth, but ultimately serve no constructive end, other than to bring the artist or work down a peg, as Nate wrote.

[CJ Shearn]

true Joe, self indulgent can be used negatively as we've all said in this post, and Jim raises another interesting point too: if the artist is doing it because they want or have to... Jarrett's "Spirits" and "The Melody At Night With You" (which I have not heard at all but realize Keith made it is a present for his wife while he was suffering with CFS) I would think are both the results of an artist wanting to release more personal, private, or experimental works to the larger public, since they already have created a strong base.

Joe G, since we're the resident Metheny buffs over here, what is your interpretation of "One Quiet Night"? I see it as an album representing a "research project" that Pat never intended to officially release, something that more or less is finding a way around a fairly new instrument not being fully explored at length in another context, and as a result of listening to it and getting others feedback (as stated in Downbeat) he decided to release it. Now is this something Pat had to release? no, is it something he wanted, yeah... b/c he thought that what he recorded (which were 3 CDR's worth of material) would be worth hearing for a particular audience. I think it's a fascinating window into real time composition and different (for Pat) harmonic choices, but I will say it's a record I like but don't love like some of his others, but like a lot of stuff of his for me, it will probably reveal more in a few years from now.

Jsngry, what projects would you consider "recreational jerking off"? that's an interesting way of putting it. Would that Carter album be classified as such for you?

[JSngry]

Jsngry, what projects would you consider "recreational jerking off"? that's an interesting way of putting it. Would that Carter album be classified as such for you?

I dunno, man. That Carter thing was just a total dis of bach, and Carter, with his not insignificant classical training, should have known better. e doesn't even TRY to play in tune! That's betyond "self-indulgent", man, that's just WRONG.

As for anything else, I'm loathe to come down too hard on something without knowing or feeling what was going through everybody, but a lot of the live Grateful Dead jams I've heard are things to which I could apply the label without feeling too terribly guilty...

But then again, that stuff connects with a lot of people.

[CJ Shearn]

I dunno what's up with some of that GD either stuff Jim. One of my ex suitemate from the fall before last thought that some of that GD jam stuff was some of the greatest stuff on earth. Actually the kid was born in the wrong era, he was a complete stoner, literally, wore tie dye t-shirts, was into the GD, Hendrix, Phish... all that.... tried getting him into some of my stuff, Metheny, Davis, Jimmy Smith, etc..... didn't really work. But he was raving about the GD's long jams called "Space", I heard one of those, it was so freakin boring. And Phish too, I heard a version of "Back at the Chicken Shack" on my suitemates comp, god is was bad.. they turned a simple funky tune to utter garbage.