Pretentiousness or Self-indulgence?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Are they the same thing?

If not, what's the distinction, and why are they almost universally condemned?

As a non-musical example, I loved the movie Magnolia although it was (justifiably, perhaps) labelled self-indulgent. What makes it so?

As for music, Sigur Rós ( ) is pretty much loathed on ILM for its preceived pretentiousness, but I still find it compelling.

Why? It's not like I don't also listen to (or watch) more gritty, naturalistic fare, but I'm often drawn to the less tangible too (ethereal, marginal, precious, as AMG might portray it). This may be a flaw.

I don't want to get stuck discussing Sigur Rós in particular, as that seems to have been played out on ILM, but just the notions of pretentiousness, self-indulgence. Are they different? Are they bad? If so, why are they "bad"?

― David A. (Davant), Sunday, 9 March 2003 20:18 (twenty-three years ago)

music crit assumer pretentiousness to be anything outside the old love-rock-n-roll/drugs/dancing axis. which aren't to be belittled, but they aren't all there is. saying something like, "we're bringing intelligence and glamour back to pop music!" whist being a lousy old tart who's read a book is pretentions. responding to a book with style and verve isn't. nor is being long and complicated, if its sustained. and ( ) has lorgic running right through it. self indulgence is pleasing yourself and offering nothing to other people. later morrisey is self indulgent, nothing but reassuring himself in idioms he's already exposed before. 'cemetry gates' isn't, cos its an argument between learning and feeling.

― matthew james (matthew james), Sunday, 9 March 2003 20:32 (twenty-three years ago)

I would think something like the Ruins is completely self-indulgent but not pretentious in the least. But then I think self-indulgence is classic anyway. I like the idea of music made specifically for the artists themselves, which I may happen to enjoy as well. And if I don't, I move on.

― original bgm, Sunday, 9 March 2003 20:51 (twenty-three years ago)

I dislike both terms, as they are both negative terms, and I see nothing wrong about being musically ambitious.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Sunday, 9 March 2003 21:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Those two terms are overused to the point of my not being able to grasp what the writer/critic is beefing on 90% of the time.

― gazuga (gazuga), Sunday, 9 March 2003 21:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Yep. They've both devolved into shorthand for "I don't get/like this." Just a way to say it without sounding like they're being close-minded boneheads.

― Matt Maxwell (Matt M.), Sunday, 9 March 2003 22:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Do people hear dislike Sigur Ros for being pretentious? I don't like them for the same reasons I don't like coldplay. Both bands are so bland they can't even pull off being pretentious.

― sammy, Sunday, 9 March 2003 22:23 (twenty-three years ago)

saying something like, "we're bringing intelligence and glamour back to pop music!" whist being a lousy old tart who's read a book is pretentions. responding to a book with style and verve isn't.

Yes, I get this. Thanks. It's the difference between thinking you're doing something Important and Significant, and just going ahead and doing it ("it" being a three-chord thrash or a symphonic sprawl based on some obscure novel or whatever) without a nod to the wider world.

― David A. (Davant), Sunday, 9 March 2003 22:24 (twenty-three years ago)

Both bands are so bland they can't even pull off being pretentious.

Yeah, but that's just opinion/taste, which isn't what I was getting at here. Sigur Rós was just an immediate example, I didn't want it to be about them, necessarily.

― David A. (Davant), Sunday, 9 March 2003 22:26 (twenty-three years ago)

I was hoping this was a Taking Sides question.

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Sunday, 9 March 2003 23:04 (twenty-three years ago)

gazuga nailed it - both of those terms are thrown around way too much. as for me, i find that appreciating some of the things that might qualify as "self indulgent" requires patience and open-mindedness, which every serious record colelctor / music freak should have by the age of 10 anyway. Charlemagne Palestine and Elaine Radigue CDs rock my living room just as hard as Master of Reality, if not harder.

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Sunday, 9 March 2003 23:06 (twenty-three years ago)

Charlemagne Palestine and Elaine Radigue CDs rock my living room just as hard as Master of Reality, if not harder.

but what about your car stereo?

― your null fame (yournullfame), Sunday, 9 March 2003 23:28 (twenty-three years ago)

hahahah actually i don't think i'd attempt it. A friend of mine (and current member of Faust, which is only notable becuz Faust are one of the greatest bands on the planet) said that one time, he had to keep awake on a road trip, and brought Merzbow - but he said that it actually put him to sleep. In the car, I'm all about Swans, dude. and classic rock radio.

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Monday, 10 March 2003 00:40 (twenty-three years ago)

To me it sounds like 95% of Sigur Ros' effort went into the overall presestation of the music (window dressing via strings/pianos/glockenspiels, overly long builds, slow moving as hell), with the remaining 5% (maybe less) dedicated to any sort of musical substance. This appears self-indulgent to me, because instead of having any sort of emotional response to the music, what I get instead is a sort of self-congratulatory "isn't our music grand and immense and powerful??" statement. So it sounds forced as hell to me.

― xnelio xx (xnelio), Monday, 10 March 2003 01:29 (twenty-three years ago)

agreed. 100%. bland as shit.

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Monday, 10 March 2003 01:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, I get this. Thanks. It's the difference between thinking you're doing something Important and Significant, and just going ahead and doing it

Corollary: correct usage of the word "pretentious" requires telepathic abilities (except where you're critiquing yourself).

― kieran, Monday, 10 March 2003 02:01 (twenty-three years ago)

i don't believe in "pretentious". why are we to fault an artist for trying something?

this line of thinking probably developed as a defense of peter greenaway.

― john fail (cenotaph), Monday, 10 March 2003 15:38 (twenty-three years ago)

I think they are related but different.

Pretentious = affecting to be something you are not in an attempt to impress.

Self-indulgent = making bad aesthetic choices because they flatter your ego or allow you to do things you find pleasurable.

― ArfArf, Monday, 10 March 2003 17:29 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.