It's Better To Be Easily Recognizable Than Good
Bands: refer to title.
Maybe this is not a popular opinion to have, but that's how I feel. To me there's little point in being good at something artistic if a million others are good at the same thing. Better to be bad at something in ways that no one has experienced before. I'm almost as impressed by a shitty, unique-sounding band as I am by a very-talented-but-not-that-original kind of band.
Let's get philosophical for a moment and look at the concepts of "good" and "recognizable". Whether a band is good or not is very subjective, obviously. But what about a band's recognize-ability (is that even a word)?
Say you have a band with a really unique musical approach. Some people love them, some hate them, but they have a fucked-up sound that's easy to pick out. Anyone who's heard them remembers, and clues in quickly to who it is.
Now, what if you hear a band and think "this is pretty good, who is this? Oh, it's them". You like the band, but you need help picking them out from the rock and roll milieu. I might hear that same band, not like them, and also not be able to easily identify them based on what I've heard.
What I like about recognizability over "goodness" is the fact that it has the potential to unite people who both like and dislike the band. I think that sort of thing is part of what makes a band stick out in the annals of time. I've gone on about audience polarization before; that will happen with a band that takes a lot of artistic chances.
I don't know much about art, but to me this is how things move forward.
Maybe this is not a popular opinion to have, but that's how I feel. To me there's little point in being good at something artistic if a million others are good at the same thing. Better to be bad at something in ways that no one has experienced before. I'm almost as impressed by a shitty, unique-sounding band as I am by a very-talented-but-not-that-original kind of band.
Let's get philosophical for a moment and look at the concepts of "good" and "recognizable". Whether a band is good or not is very subjective, obviously. But what about a band's recognize-ability (is that even a word)?
Say you have a band with a really unique musical approach. Some people love them, some hate them, but they have a fucked-up sound that's easy to pick out. Anyone who's heard them remembers, and clues in quickly to who it is.
Now, what if you hear a band and think "this is pretty good, who is this? Oh, it's them". You like the band, but you need help picking them out from the rock and roll milieu. I might hear that same band, not like them, and also not be able to easily identify them based on what I've heard.
What I like about recognizability over "goodness" is the fact that it has the potential to unite people who both like and dislike the band. I think that sort of thing is part of what makes a band stick out in the annals of time. I've gone on about audience polarization before; that will happen with a band that takes a lot of artistic chances.
I don't know much about art, but to me this is how things move forward.
posted by the baron ash von foolishness at 4:20 PM
4 Comments:
no! it's not a word!!!
It is now! I'd put it in the same class as "sticktoitiveness".
And CC are in a category by themselves... in all respects! Did they move punk rock into a new realm? Maybe, maybe not. But here we are, talking about them now. The coolest thing about them is that they didn't break up after the first show.
CD (roommate) no doubt has a clearer understanding of this topic after his show last night. Perhaps he will eventually write about it here:
http://name__removed.livejournal.com/
The Ramones are fabulous, but a band that sounds exactly like them is definately not.
Gimmicks are better than substance? Style over longevity? I've long thought this to be the prevailing cultural wind around here, but it's interesting to read it articulated that way. I mean, I think it's total bollocks, but it's provocative bollocks.
Post a Comment
<< Home