I couldn't be happier than if the phlegMTV headquarters spontaneously exploded, killing everyone inside. Well, I could be happier if all the teenybopper image groups were inside at the time...
I wonder how much video has played a role in the image versus talent issue?
I had access to Satellite TV earlier this year and noticed how much more I enjoyed watching videos of songs that I would normally have passed on, if just hearing the audio on the radio. I found many of the videos to really capture my attention. I downloaded some of the songs I enjoyed WATCHING and noticed that a few weren?t nearly so good to LISTEN to. And of course sexual imagery can sell just about anything and is very heavily used in videos. I sometimes think that there is only One rap video and the video editor just splices in some footage of whoever is rapping, over the scene of butt shaking by the pool
Maybe people who grew up prior to the Video generation, don?t equate musical enjoyment so much with the visual component! It?s as if there is a new medium now, which exists somewhere between music and cinema. And therefore a whole generation of new ?artists? and a new audience that dig that. Okay, it?s entertainment really but let?s not be snobbish about it. I think it?s okay in itself but the fear is that it?s seriously damaging the ability of ?serious? musicians to get access to the public.
My take on the life forms on this planet, are that most of them are sleep walking. Pop videos are very dependent on TV for exposure, which of course is an excellent tool for marketing consumerism. People who are sleep walking are very suggestible to external forms of manipulation i.e. advertising. Visual forms of adverting are much more compelling than the purely audio as they work on more senses. It?s a form of hypnotic suggestion really. I don?t think people are inherently stupid, but looking at some of the successful major worldwide brands, I have some sympathy with people who take that view.
In the words of a famous deceased ?musician?, ?When I die, keep on playing the music?. I can?t imagine pop videos having the same longevity, but that could always be a limitation of my imagination!
SC
I had access to Satellite TV earlier this year and noticed how much more I enjoyed watching videos of songs that I would normally have passed on, if just hearing the audio on the radio. I found many of the videos to really capture my attention. I downloaded some of the songs I enjoyed WATCHING and noticed that a few weren?t nearly so good to LISTEN to. And of course sexual imagery can sell just about anything and is very heavily used in videos. I sometimes think that there is only One rap video and the video editor just splices in some footage of whoever is rapping, over the scene of butt shaking by the pool
Maybe people who grew up prior to the Video generation, don?t equate musical enjoyment so much with the visual component! It?s as if there is a new medium now, which exists somewhere between music and cinema. And therefore a whole generation of new ?artists? and a new audience that dig that. Okay, it?s entertainment really but let?s not be snobbish about it. I think it?s okay in itself but the fear is that it?s seriously damaging the ability of ?serious? musicians to get access to the public.
My take on the life forms on this planet, are that most of them are sleep walking. Pop videos are very dependent on TV for exposure, which of course is an excellent tool for marketing consumerism. People who are sleep walking are very suggestible to external forms of manipulation i.e. advertising. Visual forms of adverting are much more compelling than the purely audio as they work on more senses. It?s a form of hypnotic suggestion really. I don?t think people are inherently stupid, but looking at some of the successful major worldwide brands, I have some sympathy with people who take that view.
In the words of a famous deceased ?musician?, ?When I die, keep on playing the music?. I can?t imagine pop videos having the same longevity, but that could always be a limitation of my imagination!
SC
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
Interesting, smilingcrow..
That's another thing with me. I do not argue that Christina has some amazing vocal talent, but unfortunately look how it is put to use. Her songs seem so uninspired and unimaginative that she might as well be singing the words from a dictionary.
That's another thing with me. I do not argue that Christina has some amazing vocal talent, but unfortunately look how it is put to use. Her songs seem so uninspired and unimaginative that she might as well be singing the words from a dictionary.
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
It is not simply pop and rap though, almost every rock band dresses a certain way, specifically to their genre. Emo's dress like metro's, heavy metal bands have long greasy hair and the "tough guy" appearance, etc. Hell even country falls victim to this. Show me a band that doesn't seem to dress their genre, or hell even one that seems to dress "normal" at all.
I don't take image over substance. I really don't pay attention to visual things much at all, I seem to be weird, but I never see things on the surface, I usually walk through the world acknowledging the presence of things, but image never strikes me, or even entertains me. When I look at a picture I focus in and glance at certain things, but I never see the whole picture and feel visually engaged, much like how manyof us disect writing on a screen in the digital age. What I do pick up on is sound and how things sound. After watching a movie twice, I practically have it memorized, and can recite long parts with 100% accuracy and with similar emphasis." probably comes from sitting in the dark and listening to music all the time when I was a teen."
So that being said, I do think most of the word judges things on the surface and I find that odd. Usually it's a load of BS when people say they don't judge people by appearances but that is just a lie for several reasons, the first being that if you don't know someone, you have nothing else to go on. And if someone is a pop star, you really have no clue who they are, no matter how much you adore their image and aspects thereof.
Now, wether or not the music that is produced in and of itself focuses too much on image, I concur that it does. Kindof art-imitating life-imitating art. All we are fed are sensational images and thus, in turn, our music becomes about mindless surfaces like in rap.
Now i guess you could abstract that all music is about image, the image of music, but that's shaky nebulous philosophical ground.
I do not equate talent with image in music because Rush is my favorite band. not popular, they had a huge surge in the early 80's and made the choice to not become pop rock starts because it felt too weird for them. They could have been another sob story on behind the music but they took the road less traveled, and stayed true to themselves, their families, each other, and their masterful dedication to their love of music. To me that is impressive, and it has nothing to do with image, they are still a sucessful band. And their lyrics are the least about image, in fact they have classified themselves "an anti-image band but not militantly." Very good, philosophical lyrics, which I will leave you with, the opening of grand designs.
"So much style without substance,
so much stuff without stlye,
it's hard to recognize the real thing,
it comes along once in a while."
EDIT: now that read the post above me, go look at rush. They wear whatever they want, and usually black T-shirts. I'd be amazed if you could say they have an image of any kind relevant to this discussion. Pics at www.rush.com
Also, Phish never had an image, they just looked like slobs on stage. But hey, in VT there are no well dressed people, just varying degrees of slob.
So that being said, I do think most of the word judges things on the surface and I find that odd. Usually it's a load of BS when people say they don't judge people by appearances but that is just a lie for several reasons, the first being that if you don't know someone, you have nothing else to go on. And if someone is a pop star, you really have no clue who they are, no matter how much you adore their image and aspects thereof.
Now, wether or not the music that is produced in and of itself focuses too much on image, I concur that it does. Kindof art-imitating life-imitating art. All we are fed are sensational images and thus, in turn, our music becomes about mindless surfaces like in rap.
Now i guess you could abstract that all music is about image, the image of music, but that's shaky nebulous philosophical ground.
I do not equate talent with image in music because Rush is my favorite band. not popular, they had a huge surge in the early 80's and made the choice to not become pop rock starts because it felt too weird for them. They could have been another sob story on behind the music but they took the road less traveled, and stayed true to themselves, their families, each other, and their masterful dedication to their love of music. To me that is impressive, and it has nothing to do with image, they are still a sucessful band. And their lyrics are the least about image, in fact they have classified themselves "an anti-image band but not militantly." Very good, philosophical lyrics, which I will leave you with, the opening of grand designs.
"So much style without substance,
so much stuff without stlye,
it's hard to recognize the real thing,
it comes along once in a while."
EDIT: now that read the post above me, go look at rush. They wear whatever they want, and usually black T-shirts. I'd be amazed if you could say they have an image of any kind relevant to this discussion. Pics at www.rush.com
Also, Phish never had an image, they just looked like slobs on stage. But hey, in VT there are no well dressed people, just varying degrees of slob.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
the music you hear on the radio, see in concert halls, etc has almost always been around looks.
There have always been far more talented musicians in every genre going unheard since they didn't look the part.
Acting is even worse. Same with TV news/documentary type positions.
Seriously, people can't even post a pic of themselves or their g/f here because unless perfect everyone will tear it up. Same way in everything else.
If William Hung had a perfect voice chances are he'd have fared less well than just sounding pathetic but with a good personality.
There are a few 'ugly' artists...but it's rare and usually their 'ugliness' fits into the niche they are filling.
Boy / Girl Bands are merely there to entertain, give hormonal teens an outlet to dream about....and older people as well.
The popular Morning Musume here is also just an ever-changing group of girls although many americans insist it's always been the same line up, and that they are a group representing the most talented girls in Japan :roll: .... fun to watch and stuff but no talent.
There have also been a few of the great looking people with equal skills....often growing old/out of style and writing for other bands/movies/companies.
Most of ATOT as well as the world's general public will bash a whole music category claiming they have 'experienced' it when in reality only sample the bits and pieces from radio or an obscure source. Something like RAP is about as specific as saying ROCK/POP
There have always been far more talented musicians in every genre going unheard since they didn't look the part.
Acting is even worse. Same with TV news/documentary type positions.
Seriously, people can't even post a pic of themselves or their g/f here because unless perfect everyone will tear it up. Same way in everything else.
If William Hung had a perfect voice chances are he'd have fared less well than just sounding pathetic but with a good personality.
There are a few 'ugly' artists...but it's rare and usually their 'ugliness' fits into the niche they are filling.
Boy / Girl Bands are merely there to entertain, give hormonal teens an outlet to dream about....and older people as well.
The popular Morning Musume here is also just an ever-changing group of girls although many americans insist it's always been the same line up, and that they are a group representing the most talented girls in Japan :roll: .... fun to watch and stuff but no talent.
There have also been a few of the great looking people with equal skills....often growing old/out of style and writing for other bands/movies/companies.
Most of ATOT as well as the world's general public will bash a whole music category claiming they have 'experienced' it when in reality only sample the bits and pieces from radio or an obscure source. Something like RAP is about as specific as saying ROCK/POP
It can be tough for musicians who are successful early in their career, in a format that is heavily dependent on image, to move away from that later on.
George Michael made the move successfully in my opinion. I mean that he changed his style and maintained success. That seems to be the hard thing, to take the audience with you, or gain a new one. He came from a time when manufactured bands weren?t so in yer face, which might have made it easier. Also people like his image and I think he?s talented from the limited exposure I?ve had to his music. That helps
Jimi Hendrix was heavily promoted on image and that backfired in the long term, as he felt trapped by the limited expectation of his audience. I think he was sick of people shouting for Purple Haze and Hey Joe during concerts, when he had recorded so much other music since those were released.
He was a consummate showman and exceptional musician, which shouldn?t be a problem if the balance is maintained. I don?t really care what musicians look like, after all I love jazz as a live experience, but I can really enjoy good showmanship also.
Frank Zappa was someone who seemingly cynically created an image to market himself. He played up all the sexual imagery in songs and probably brought in a whole new (young & impressionable) audience because of that. But it was something that he chose and his management or record company weren?t cynically manipulating him. He was the cynic
I got to see Zappa play two shows in one evening. The first was a 90-minute set and contained a number of his more sexually orientated songs and was a good show. The late show was a two and a half-hour extravaganza and the band really stretched out. It was a different class. He could have easily promoted those shows as being aimed at different types of Zappa fans and had the best of both worlds. Maybe that was his intention all along, but it was not explicitly stated!
A problem with image being so important in the marketing of music, is that the cost of promoting artists becomes prohibitive. It moved more towards the Hollywood model, where promotional costs are astronomically high. You can?t exactly very successfully promote an artist fundamentally on image via radio only. Visually orientated marketing is very expensive. And the consumer picks up the tab at the end of that day. What would you rather, cheaper CDs and no videos?
One advantage of legitimate music downloads being more readily available is that it allows people to try out music before buying it, more easily and legally. So you can be seduced by the images of a video, but you don?t need to buy the CD to check out whether it stands out as a separate entity. It?s so cheap to listen to full-length streams of music online, although I guess the quality is reduced compared to the versions that you can purchase. I?m talking about < 2 cents per track.
Enough already
Smiling Crow
George Michael made the move successfully in my opinion. I mean that he changed his style and maintained success. That seems to be the hard thing, to take the audience with you, or gain a new one. He came from a time when manufactured bands weren?t so in yer face, which might have made it easier. Also people like his image and I think he?s talented from the limited exposure I?ve had to his music. That helps
Jimi Hendrix was heavily promoted on image and that backfired in the long term, as he felt trapped by the limited expectation of his audience. I think he was sick of people shouting for Purple Haze and Hey Joe during concerts, when he had recorded so much other music since those were released.
He was a consummate showman and exceptional musician, which shouldn?t be a problem if the balance is maintained. I don?t really care what musicians look like, after all I love jazz as a live experience, but I can really enjoy good showmanship also.
Frank Zappa was someone who seemingly cynically created an image to market himself. He played up all the sexual imagery in songs and probably brought in a whole new (young & impressionable) audience because of that. But it was something that he chose and his management or record company weren?t cynically manipulating him. He was the cynic
I got to see Zappa play two shows in one evening. The first was a 90-minute set and contained a number of his more sexually orientated songs and was a good show. The late show was a two and a half-hour extravaganza and the band really stretched out. It was a different class. He could have easily promoted those shows as being aimed at different types of Zappa fans and had the best of both worlds. Maybe that was his intention all along, but it was not explicitly stated!
A problem with image being so important in the marketing of music, is that the cost of promoting artists becomes prohibitive. It moved more towards the Hollywood model, where promotional costs are astronomically high. You can?t exactly very successfully promote an artist fundamentally on image via radio only. Visually orientated marketing is very expensive. And the consumer picks up the tab at the end of that day. What would you rather, cheaper CDs and no videos?
One advantage of legitimate music downloads being more readily available is that it allows people to try out music before buying it, more easily and legally. So you can be seduced by the images of a video, but you don?t need to buy the CD to check out whether it stands out as a separate entity. It?s so cheap to listen to full-length streams of music online, although I guess the quality is reduced compared to the versions that you can purchase. I?m talking about < 2 cents per track.
Enough already
Smiling Crow
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter