Avoiding Awfulness

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

"And I don't think she remotely cuts it compared to the Lorettas and Tammys and Dollys she's harking back to, much less the modern-day MOR Deanas and Martinas and Joe Dees and Jamies and LeAnns and Lee Anns and Natalies. But I think she's got talent and I'll guess that she never does the totally sappy dreck that some of my current loves are quite capable of unleashing."

This quite of Frank K's (about Neko Case, but the subject isn't really the important thing) touches on something quite important and related to that Fluxblog post we were discussing yesterday, i.e.

How important is it to you that the artists you love don't produce dreadful stuff along with the amazing stuff?

And do you think the risk of dreadfulness in some cases stops being something you have to endure and becomes a deeper part of why you like something?

(I think these ideas are kind of related to the 'NPR' idea that Frank writes about in his book, maybe, but if you haven't come across that idea don't let it stop you discussing this) (EDIT: I meant "PBS"! - though NPR and PBS are kind of similar things, no?)

Comments

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

I guess what I'm interested in is:

- If someone seals off a particular direction (i.e. "sappy dreck" in this case), are they also sealing off particular risks, strategies, potentials that might go with that direction?

- Or to put it another way, are the impulses that lead someone to regularly produce rubbish (and I think the question is suggesting that there's specific kinds of rubbish that are being produced, not just 'sub-par versions of the good songs') also opening them to things that make their good stuff better?

I wonder now if this *is* a question that's especially related to country music, though it might apply to ballad-rich genres of all kinds. It might also apply to the urge to 'experiment' you find with some indie and rock acts, I guess.

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

It's an update of the "power ballad" question that metal bands faced in the 80s (and few resisted the temptation, I think).

In that case, I don't think there's any question that the decision NOT to seal off those avenues led to richer product by them (at least to the extent you find value in a) hair metal and b) power ballads). The problem there, though, is that those avenues are what opened up financial possibilities, and bands began to limit themselves in other ways as they chased the money. (Aerosmith's promising reunion fairly quickly turned to muck and dreck of the worst kind.)

On the other hand, you have Queen's early refusal to use synthesizers, which arguably pushed them to do quite creative things. And then once they had "exhuasted" those avenues, they started with the synths and found lots of new veins to mine.

[dickmalone.livejournal.com]

I think the assumption with "sappy dreck" / ballads is that going this direction necessarily means that you're being "safe" and so sealing off particular risks and potentials.

I don't know if that's true, though. What risks are there to going sappy?

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Openness to particular emotions or a particular way of emoting?