Shock value is overrated

There are a couple of blogs that I read that I really appreciate. I don’t agree with everything I read on them, but the authors are thoughtful and great writers, far better than I will ever be.

If I had any complaint about their writing style, it is that they tend to overuse shock as a technique to get attention. For example, one of them recently wrote a very thoughtful review of Les Miserables (the movie) from a Christian perspective. In discussing how the Christian community was objecting to certain crude sexual language in the movie, he elaborated a bit more than he had to. He got what he wanted: more attention and a bit of controversy. I have seen that article being passed around Facebook.

Online, using shock as a technique for getting attention is common, and probably some writers think they almost have to go there to get readership. It is tough getting readers online. I understand that perspective.

But on the other hand, I would respect those writers more if they could do their thing without pulling out the shock technique. It cheapens what they write even when what they write is good stuff.

I see the same technique used in music. I was recently playing an octavo and ran across some harmony that was just jarring. It made no sense. It seemed to be there just to shock.

Again, there is nothing wrong with that I suppose in itself. But I respect music more if it does not stoop to using shock just for cheap attention. (I am leaving myself some wiggle room here lest you guys start pointing out that Beethoven did that kind of thing sometimes.)

Yes, I know that artists need to have the freedom to shock people. But there needs to be a purpose to it. Picking a dissonant chord at random to offend an audience’s ear will get their attention but what is the point?

And in church, I do believe that musicians need to balance artistry against other factors. Since musicians are not the focal part of a church service, they should be especially careful in using shock as a technique to generate interest.

What that means is artists in church need to limit their artistry somewhat. They need to work with a slightly smaller palette, a palette that fits into that church and culture.

Sticking with that dissonant chord example for a minute, this means that a musician might choose to use more “boring” chords. I certainly do. In fact, someone wrote on one of my YouTube videos a few weeks that my harmony was boring–too oriented around the circle of fifths.

I understand exactly where that person is coming from. He is undoubtedly a jazz musician and sees what I do as predictable. And to tell the truth, while I am hardly a harmony genius, I could get a lot more complex in what I do.

The reason I choose not to go there is because while it might get people’s attention, it wouldn’t be in the right way. It would shock them more than resonate with them. My audience (those that hear my music recordings) is not a jazz audience and they are not used to hearing overly-complex harmony.

In some ways, limiting yourself as an artist may be harder than working with a full palette. But it really is necessary most of the time and especially in a church music situation.

So be careful about doing things solely for shock value. It is often a cheap way to get attention, and in church, it might be especially damaging and distracting.