You know when you hear a song and you’re immediately obsessed with it? Like it gets in your head, you want it on repeat right away, it “scratches and itch in your brain just right”? Let’s say that the “commercial” aspect here represents music that is built with that effect in mind. Like down to the science of it, the melodies and the production and the chords chosen and the level of complexity of the lyrics and every part of what is making the song, it all comes together to do its best to get into the heads of the most possible people. So that’s the “sellability”—if it’s catchy, it’s because it’s built using the elements that make it more easily pleasurable to the most amount of people. Because that means it’s got radio appeal, playlist appeal, and the potential to be a hit, which ofc means it will make everyone more money.

Let’s define the other side, the “pretension”, by saying it’s the side where people don’t inherently place value in how much money they desire to make with the music. Instead, they have another, more creatively artistic goal—it could be one of experimentation with a new genre, one of expressing their personal creative vision, of pushing themselves and other people’s boundaries, etc. Whatever their purpose, the purpose itself is waaaay more important in determining how the music is going to be made, and in what the end product sounds like. And if they’re really far into that (which creative types often are, bc they LOVE it, and like, why else would they care so much?) then it often comes across as off-putting, obnoxious, arrogant… or pretentious.

Now, this is very much a venn diagram situation where the circles DO overlap—toooons of time, artists walk the line between their purpose and also wanting to sell the music, because they have to. Because music is a business, and for you to make music your job you need to be able to pay your bills. (I know that for the biggest celebrities in the world they make a shitton of money, but the smaller artists who aren’t celebrity millionaires still count in this.)

SO. To offer you a concrete example: one of my favorite artists, Tinashe, was at one point signed to a big label. Back in 2013/2014, she released an album that performed extremely well in the pop/r&b space, but by the time she dropped her next album, it was clear it just wasn’t her strongest work. It was a little more conventional in its sound (which isn’t a bad thing inherently, but the thing about conventional is that it can also mean it’s often forgettable, which means it doesn’t have a strong impact, and imo it never hit the zeitgeist because of that). She then left her label and went independent so she could have complete creative control, and the output since then has been more nuanced and experimental (though not entirely! look at Nasty).

There’s an interview she did earlier this year where she actually described the tension between “artistry vs commercial” as any kind of working artist, and how much more pressure there usually is to aim for the latter when you’re attached to a big label that really just wants the money at the end of the day. She found that creative control was more important. If you want to see how it plays out for yourself, listen to her Joyride album (her second album attached to her label) and then follow that by listening to Songs For You or, hell, anything that she did after that. Although you’ll probably see that she still has a lot of pop/r&b bangers made to be immediately likeable, I think you’ll also see that she experiments with her sound a lot more and isn’t afraid of taking those risks, even if it means losing out on more revenue.

(cont. in comments!)