Perfectly legit to do so, and I actually admire artists who are able to do so, especially when their vision is really strong and unique.
It becomes a problem when the artist gets a little too concerned about it, to the point where it dilutes their vision.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree that it's always elitism and not legit art.

One example that comes to my mind : the band Spacemen 3 had a clear vision on what their artistic statement would be right from the start. They played shows specifically to alienate people. When most of the audience left, the remaining few were those who got it. Today they're considered an extremely influential band to the 90s psychedelic indie rock revival.
And there are many other bands who did similar stuff.

Then there are artists who attract people who specifically like antagonistic stuff lol. I'm not a fan of noise music, but I live right next to one of the most important noise music venues of the world. I went a couple of times out of curiosity, even with earplugs it was painful. But people seemed to enjoyed it, for the weirdness if nothing else.

One last example, although from a very different perspective : some artists put barriers and obstacles to hide the real meaning so only those who are committed enough may one day discover them. There could be different reasons for this kinda practice. Historically, the main reason has been to escape censorship (when your financial backer is the church, but you don't believe their bullshit, you may hide layers that would've never been accepted had they been more explicit). That's basically the origins of esoteric works (which, if I'm being honest, are a bit elitist lol).
But it can also be just the artist challenging themselves. Stanley Kubrick's movies are a great example of this. Every movie he did after 2001:ASO included has several layers of meaning, and almost always, the hidden narratives contradict the surface narrative, so his real intentions are discovered only upon meticulous analysis -for example, in his version of A Clockwork Orange, the brainwashing procedure doesn't work, Alex only pretends it did to get out of jail. This isn't just interpretation, the movie is littered with clues that point to this.

Which brings me to a very important point : you can add all the layers of hidden meaning in the world, if your work isn't appealing on the surface, nobody will give a shit. Kubrick's movies don't lose their appeal if you're only aware of the surface narrative.

(ok, I'm getting a little too distracted here lol, but I hope you get my point)

I absolutely don't do that lol. Like I said, I do it first and foremost for myself, and I don't like having my ears hurt lol.
But, I'll share a funny anecdote with you (yeah my ADHD meds kicked in, I can't stop typing).

I have a dear friend whose musical education came from me -at the time he didn't know any bands, so he asked me to recommend stuff cause he knew I listened to a billion different things. For a few years I bombarded him with stuff. But after a while he started resenting me for it cause he felt like he was listening to music just to please me. So he went on his own journey and developed his own taste (which turned out to be almost the opposite of mine lol). As years went by he got more "commercial" and I got more experimental.

Thus, when I started to properly record my music, which is too weird for most, he was mostly dismissive.

One day I recorded a modular jam that I happened to be really proud of. I sent it to another friend (who is a bit more open to weirdness) and he told me it tripped the fuck out of him -to use his words, it was like getting a brain synapse massage.
So I sent it to my dear friend, telling him "I know this is not your cup of tea, but please, just put on your headphones, lay down and close your eyes, it will be like a brain synapse massage" (lol).

He said that he felt the massage thing for the first few minutes, but after a while he couldn't take it, and he thought I had made it to torture him LOL. He literally thought my main goal was to make people hurt.

I'll PM it to you so you can check if you're interested. I don't want to share it publicly.

ANYWAY, I don't aim to hurt the listener purposefully. He just didn't meet me halfway

(sorry for the long story)

And sometimes they do (cf. Spacemen 3)

I think the second part of your answer is the most important. An artist tries to convey something to themself first.

We're on the same page then.
Although I will say, sometimes that repulsion or damaging can be an artistic statement in and of itself. Whether you agree with the statement or not is a different thing.

 

This is, um, absolutely not true? I'll let Fanu say it.

tl;dw Inspiration relies on discipline and skill.

Almost.

At the very best, it perpetuates trauma. At worst, it's simply a crime. No thanks.
I read everything else, but chose one most important thing IMO to address, otherwise we'll be here for looooooong

 

Maybe I should've said potentially damaging.
Seeing Sunn O))) without ear plugs would be extremely damaging to the ears, and I doubt many take that risk.
However their deafening loudness is what makes them unique, and their shows almost religious experiences.

And GG Allin assaulting the audience and throwing feces at them is criminal, but it was his artistic statement (that I really don't care for) and people who went to see his shows knew the risks. For many it was the main attraction.

 

I think its important to know your audience, and as long as each track maintains elements of the artist's signature and authentic personality/sound - genre-hopping can be a lot of fun for the listener. I think of people such as Ween, Beck, Mike Patton, Beastie Boys. The 90's had a lot of great examples of this. Ween could put an rnb/soul track immediately after a country ballad, and then follow that up with a funk song. It worked because it still felt like Ween.

 

I wasn't referring necessarily to the general quality of the work but the wow factor, the extra something that lifts it above the level we normally work at - that quality that makes people want to hear it again and again. That's rare. That's what I meant by the Muse.

Talent is another unquantifiable quality. Music isn't like football where talent gets you so far but you will be overtaken by a less talented player who puts more hours in. Art can't be defined in a measurable way.

Generally we will all improve with study and discipline but it won't necessarily make us good enough, you can't make people like you just because you practiced your Malmsteen speed picking for 30 years. There has to be something extra, something unique to you. So you make your music and you hope people like it, no matter what level of skill you're at.

'If I knew where the good songs came from, I’d go there more often.' - Leonard Cohen

L Cohen is an exception to the general direction of the discussion in this thread because he had a solid work ethic coupled with a wonderful talent, his songs didn't come easy to him but they were great.

https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/07/15/leonard-cohen-paul-zollo-creativity/

 

Last edited: Aug 18, 2023

To me a musician who can be considered as belonging to a certain genre gets boring very quickly. I'm not a fan of genres.

 

Genre restrictions to one album was invented by the record companies. The concept of 'album' is also slowly becoming obsolete with the nowadays streaming platforms. Unless you have a concept that should group together certain songs there is no reason to publish 'an album' anymore. Why should an artist release an 'album or an 'EP'? Why not just release songs one at a time?
So You can just publish songs of any genre at any time as you see fit.

 

A cohesive "album" is quite a bit more difficult to make than one unrelated song at a time. A lot of people will also buy a full album, when they would pass on one track at a time, if they like the artist. it's already a playlist for/to them. Along those lines also, an album can often create "fans" of a band/artist. Most casual music buyers do not like one song, buy it, and then track down someone's entire discography. But if they can buy 3 or more "albums"; they can easily end up buying all of them.

If it's just a bunch of unrelated songs, presenting it as an "album" is pointless, and actually turn away listeners by seeming too random.

 

The question is not how difficult it is to make a coherent album. The question is how important is it to make a cohesive album?

A lot of people don’t buy albums anymore and just listen to Spotify playlists composed of different songs and artists. So a lot of them don’t even realize what songs comes from what album.

That was in the old days.Today Spotify can offer them ‘similar’ songs to listen to. ‘Buying albums’ is not on the mind of most of these listeners.

While I agree with you that an ‘album’ should be cohesive? I feel the demand for albums is declining. Most people are listening via streaming platforms like Spotify and compose their playlist with a song from here and a song from there without even knowing from what album it originates?

I’m afraid that’s the future of music and how listeners consume music nowadays?

 

I think an artist should practice art the way he wants. Art is subjective and personal. Some will consider an album like a repository of tracks that are somehow quite alike, same categories, sound kind of the same while being different so the ears are not going everywhere. Everything remains consistent. Others will consider the whole album as a journey with its lows and highs, changing tempo etc, while still keeping coherency (with the overall mix, but also instruments or boundaries set for the creation of the tracks).
In the end, for me at least, it is not so much about the consistency but rather the coherence.

But for an artist to release unrelated stuff, they should probably use different aliases. After all, an artist sees and feels the world quite differently, so you can't expect others to follow you blindly in your own trip. Guiding them, giving them a taste for sure, but they'll always feel things through their own perspective