The intriguing trade-off between pop and experimentalism

The concept of genius in art is a dicey one.

What makes an artist truly great?

Is it thrilling originality? Or is it doing something that has already been done so well that no one else can compete. It is especially interesting to think about this in a literary and musical perspective, because so much art has been globalized over the last century, it often feels like all the ideas have dried up from which to innovate.

We will look at this through the lens of music.

Let us take for example the Beatles.

The Beatles had an incredible run of albums starting from Rubber Soul, extending all the way to their last masterwork, Abbey Road. All these albums, in one way or another, blazed a new trail for pop music. The Beatles, more than any other band up until then, made it alright to experiment in pop music.

They introduced a mesh of the avant garde and melody that was often hypnotic and highly listenable. For instance, take the song "A Day in the Life", which is in my estimation, the greatest song they ever made. It starts of innocently enough, with a man singing about reading the news, and talking about how it was tragic. Then it goes into this whirlwind cacophony before introducing another man's voice who merely talks about his life based off mundane, everyday events. But then something kind of miraculous happens. They sing, "I'd love to turn you on," which is a mixture of sexual innuendo and drug induced cravings.

On the face of it, not exactly pop music.

Yet it sold. It sold so much, that the whole 60's era in music has been defined by their contribution to music. Great artistes and the average joe alike could relate to a Beatles song, for two complete different reasons.

And herein lie the trade-off.

On the face of it, making these worlds for experimentalism and pop collide can seem simple. Just introduce new, off-putting sounds and wrap it up in layers of melody. How hard can it be?

It can be very hard.

Imagine you are in a cutting room. You have 5 guitar riffs you are working on. 2 of them are experimental, 3 filled with blissful melody. But you only have room for 2. Which 2 would you choose?

Of course, this scenario is a total over-simplication. But the concept is a hard one to grasp. There have been thousands of bands trying to strike the appropriate balance, the balance of trying to be yourself, but also cater to the audience.

This is the fundamental problem in art. Not only do you have to communicate your expression in a structured way, but you also have to make sure it's a) something of value, b)accessible to the audience and c) something that the audience will return to.

The reason the Beatles, the Beach Boys, Bob Dylan etc. have made such lasting music is because the elements of experimentalism enhanced and did not take away from the music listening experience.

Take a listen to the obtuse lyrics in "Stuck inside of mobile", and you may get my point.

Dylan sings,

"Mona tried to tell me
To stay away from the train line
She said that all the railroad men
Just drink up your blood like wine
An’ I said, “Oh, I didn’t know that
But then again, there’s only one I’ve met
An’ he just smoked my eyelids
An’ punched my cigarette"

The plot is deceptively simple. That the narrator should be cautious of blue-collar workers. But then he says something interesting when he says, he just smoked my eyelids, An' punched my cigarette. The plot is therefore thickened. Not because of what is actually going on, but because how the narrator interprets it. His misuse of language makes it so his distrust for the railroad men morphs into our distrust of him.

Over the years, there have been many bands and artists who have lingered on the more experimental side of things. Years ago, Captain Beefheart, King Krimson, Thelonius Monk, to name a few. But because their sonic landscape is so obtuse, only very niche audiences can appreciate them.

I am not trying to say that it is bad to leer on this side of experimentalism. Indeed, I am grateful for artists that gave no quarter. An album like Lorca by Tim Buckley is absolutely unhinged, and an incredible listen front to back. But it is not for everybody, not exactly something I can show to my friends expecting them to like it.

And then there is the case of an artist being too much of a sellout, on the other end of the spectrum. A lot of the recent Drake sounds like he's been not caring too much about experimenting with his sound; it sounds like he is sticking to what works, making ear candy.

Although making ear candy is something that works to a mass audience in the modern world, I don't think it leads to being respected culturally years down the line. That's why the Kendrick Lamar's of the world will be infinitely more recognized than the Drake's in years to come.

It is one thing to make music that makes you elated and dance, and another thing entirely to make music that is challenging and interesting.

I'm glad that both types of music exist, but I'm kind of sad that over the years, popular music has chosen to lean towards the more corporate side of things and has constantly discouraged experimental music. I would like to see more of a balance again. I want to see more artists like Animal Collective, Death Grips etc. gain more limelight in the pop world.

I understand that the market determines much of this balance, but is it the case that there has been an intense dumbing down of the American audience in the last 40 years or so, or is it just a case of us wanting different things in our music?

What do you think?

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91r3f7RUobL.SL1500.jpg