Don’t get any
Big ideas
They’re not gonna happen

-Radiohead

In my apartment tonight we tackled the DVR and watched last night’s episode of House. Hilarious as always. The patient was a soap opera star with some sort of allergy, or brain tumor, or bacterial infection, or… Hell, they go through so many red herring diagnoses I can never keep track. It doesn’t matter, anyway. What was interesting, though, was that the actor on the show (yes, the actor being played by an actor, how meta) was talking about how he hated his job, that he wanted to be in something important, something influential, a show or film that meant something. Any time one of the doctors told him to just quit his soap opera gig, he said “it’s not that easy.” When pressed for more explanation, he had none.

They never really went into any more detail, but it’s an interesting topic: where does one draw the line with how far they can push their art? Or really, where does one begin to compromise with the line someone else has drawn for their art? Wait, that didn’t really sound right and I don’t think it made sense. Are artists here to entertain or innovate? Either/or, or both? If you’re hoping to push the envelope, but just end up in a comfortable gray area that doesn’t revolutionize but does entertain, when should you resign yourself to be satisfied with what you’ve accomplished? Or should you at all?

When House was over, we watched a live Radiohead performance on the Music HD channel. They performed mostly songs from In Rainbows. They are one of the tightest bands I’ve had the pleasure of seeing live, and it seems like they’re just getting better sometimes. The difference in musical contribution to the world between them and, say, a band like Good Charlotte or Nickelback, is like night and day. But the latter two bands entertain large audiences. Some might call it mindless, still others call it greatness. When it comes down to it, they’re both equally valid. But if the members of Nickelback are in the business to innovate, should they accept their place in the music world (which, for the record, is in a spot completely free of innovation), or should they keep pushing to be something they are most likely never going to be?

These are the kinds of questions someone like me who is still waiting to break into the music scene might ask themselves. I would love to be an innovative, revolutionary musician, but to be totally honest I have no idea if I’m even capable of earning such a label. Do the revolutionary musicians even think they’re revolutionary? Maybe they totally do. Maybe Pink Floyd knew they were making history with each successive album. But like the soap opera star said, it really isn’t quite so simple as quitting what you’re doing and jumping right into something influential. When it comes down to it, all I can do is be completely sure with myself that I am making the best possible music I can make. (This could apply beyond music of course… Just making sure I’m doing the best job I possibly can with anything that is meaningful to me in my life.) What more could I even ask out of myself? And that is being said by someone who is harder on himself than any music critic or fan could ever be. I suppose that when all is said and done, it’s not up to me to decide if my music is revolutionary or not. Hell, it’s barely even up to you, either.