The gist of the email was that even though the words themselves may not in fact harbor any negative connotation by strict definition, it’s their accepted use that is the overriding determination of their definition. This same sentiment was echoed, although not quite so eloquently by a reviewer of my book on one of the leading on-line booksellers, so this got me thinking, maybe I did get it wrong.

But then again, hold on, it wouldn’t be the first time the side of “right” was flying in the face of mass opposition or in this case mass acceptance. After all who is it that actually started the negative usage that many seem to have bought into? Might it be possible to single-handedly change the universal interpretation of these three words? Probably not, but why not try, eh. I’m up for a challenge, come on, let’s take this fight outside.

Getting back to that original email what I did was throw the challenge back out to the writer. And I’m doing it here as well, as I’m sure there are some (perhaps many) of you reading my rants who vehemently disagree with me. But here is my not-so-secret goal. Out of this discussion, I want to have either a firmer understanding of the application of those three words or a better understanding of their application. With new knowledge, I’m open to changing my views.

Here is the challenge; Pick any two songs, and in the most comprehensive detailed manner possible to you, identify why one of the songs you’ve chosen is pretentious, contrived and self-indulgent. That may be the easy part for some of you. Tell us why you would use those three words to describe that song in as much detail as you feel applies to make your point.

NOW HERE’S THE HARD PART. At least I think it’s going to be the hard part.

Take the other song you’ve chosen and again in the most comprehensive detailed manner possible explain why this song is NOT, I repeat is NOT pretentious, contrived or self-indulgent. This is going to be your shining example to others of how an honest composition should be put together.

Now there is no prize here, other than the common value of sharing knowledge. Oh and by the way, length is not as important as detail. In far too many cases I feel critics use these words very flippantly and don’t think very deeply about their application. The words become sort of like “speech-static.” I want to see more than just “Pink Floyd are more self-indulgent than the Sex Pistols”. We need to know the why. You know what they say, “the devil is in the details.” So please tell us more than just “Pink Floyd are more self-indulgent because the songs are longer and they just noodle about with notes and sounds instead of playing.” Explain why you feel playing 37 musical measures, a certain way is more self-indulgent than simply playing 4 measures.

Bottom line here is I’m looking for you to identify what criteria you use to label one song pretentious, self-indulgent or contrived and the other song not. What’s most important here is identifying the criteria you use to make your point.

Oh and I should add that I reserve the right to have the last word on this and would like to use portions of anything you send me in future writings. So if you send it to me, know that I may use it in the future. Of course I will give you credit but I’ll understand if you don’t want your name used. This is going to be fun. At least I think it will be. I look forward to your input.

About the Author:
Jerry Lucky is the author of the book The Progressive Rock Files, now entering its 5th edition. Please feel free to send feedback to Jerry at www.jerrylucky.com.