Do you equate talent with image?

[UglyCasanova]

It seems to me that there is a growing trend in the music world (and I'm sure it extends far beyond that, but the music scene will be my focus in this thread) of image over talent, looks over substance.

Take rap for example, and allow me to do some stereotyping (we are dealing with mainstream pop culture and not the "underground" scene). It seems to me that every single song is about someone's image. They rap about how expensive their vehicles are, how many "b!tches" they can pull, and even go so far as to put others down. Why has this become popular? Has music truly been reduced to hearing about how much money someone has? How thugged out someone can make themselves out to be?

The pop scene is equally disturbing, with every single artists doubling as a model. Again I ask, why has this become popular? Are Americans insecure about themselves and imitate and idolize these artists as a way to bring themselves up? Do people actually perceive the boy bands and Britney and the gang as genuine musical artists? Well, whose to say they aren't, but why do we listen to it? If some fat chick with a great voice decided to pursue a career in pop music, do you think she would be equally accepted?

To me it seems that people are starting to view music as nothing more than entertainment, not wanting to have to search for meaning and substance in a song but rather just have something with a catchy beat and lyrics to sing along to. In that case, are they even "artists" anymore or simply entertainers? I find it disgusting the way these corporations sell an image to people these days in the guise of an artform, and everyone simply gobbles it up. Unfortunately many artists that lack a flashy image go complete unnoticed because they are not marketable.

Anywho, what is your take on this?

 

[StageLeft]

Rap is almost entirely devoid of skill. I'd say that popular rap/hip hop is 90% image. Pop is like 60-70% image. Although it relies on it almost entirely to be successful, at least those at the top do have SOME skills. Britney is dumber than crushed stone, but she does have a good voice, for instance (I mean it may be annoying to you, but she can hit notes).

Rock still allows ugly people to do well. They have their own image of course, but I think that talent makes up a greater percentage of it.

Arguably higher forms of music like classical, opera, and all the other stuff I'm personally too stupid to enjoy, are more about music/talent than anything else

I find it disgusting the way these corporations sell an image to people these days in the guise of an artform, and everyone simply gobbles it up.

The public is stupid. They've always been stupid, but it seems like they have more outlets for that stupidity these days, so we have more evidence of it.

I suspect that artists who rely heavily on image are less prone to have longevity. People get more tired of looks/style perhaps than actual talent? Surely Britney won't still be doing very well in a decade? God willing, anyway.

 

[clamum]

There's plenty of "artists" that are in it for money and/or fame who are just an image and don't have any passion for their music. OTOH, there's many artists that are passionate about their music who are very talented... they're just harder to find.

EDIT: Many people don't really care that much, as long as there's a catchy chorus or good beat to a song that's good enough for them.

 

[tomtomberry]

seems that way.

but to threadjack...

check out my band: por nada

 

[vi edit]

90% of the stuff I listen too won't make anything more than a random slot on headbangers ball. Very anti-image.

 

[rh71]

"Take rap for example" ... well that's all you really had to say. I'm not biased against rap but the reality is... well just look at all the bling and barenaked @$$ they have in the videos. Most of them don't even rap on the strength of their own voice. Please tell me there's underground artists that are better than what they show on tv and play on the radio.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: UglyCassanova
Take rap for example.....

The pop scene is equally disturbing....

Anywho, what is your take on this?

I haven't considered rap or pop to fall under the realm of "music" for a long time.

It's pure, packaged dog vomit.

 

[jcwagers]

Well, here is my take on this whole thing. I think that there are still some VERY talented singers and musicians out there. I think that their talent is being somewhat overshadowed by technology though. There are lots of bands who perform live and they really don't sound very good, yet their albums sounds great. I guess I feel like the record companies are saying "oh...it doesn't matter if you can sing or not....we can always fix any notes that you mess up". That is rather uninspiring for the musician because they don't have to put forth the effort to make it as high quality as possible. They can sort of "muddle" through and everything is fine until they start touring. If you want a good example of this, take a look at music in the 40's, 50's, and 60's.....specifically country music. You had artists like Patsy Cline and Loretta Lynn who didn't really do "recordings". They did their music LIVE....so if they messed up....they were just out of luck. There were no "pre-recorded" shows and such......everything happened right there as you watched and listened to it. And the amazing part was.....those singers NAILED their music. They knew every note and managed to hit them all. That was part of their talent.....they knew how to match pitch and how to really sing! I guess I'm just odd...but it seems to me that those musicians back then were the total package. They could sing just as well on a record as they could live and in person. There don't seem to be as many people out there today that are capable of doing that.....or if there are.....they don't seem to get discovered very much. As far as vocal strength goes.....there is a good distinguished list of singers that are very strong. Christina Aguilera, Celine Dion, and Amy Lee are just a few of the many who have a great deal of talent, in my opinion. As far as how they use their talent......especially live......is harder to tell. From the couple of "late night" shows that I've seen of Amy Lee....she doesn't perform all that great live. I don't know about the others but I do think that they could learn a lot from the older generations who didn't have all the technology. They knew how to sing on-pitch, in-key, and from the heart. I wish there were more out there that knew how to do that!

jc

 

[RedPickle]

too many words in this thread.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Originally posted by: RedPickle
too many words in this thread.

I'm sorry.

 

[Encryptic]

I don't even really pay attention to mainstream stuff anymore. When I was in high school, I listed to stuff like Stone Temple Pilots and whatnot, but after a while I gravitated towards industrial and other electronic stuff.

It interests me a lot more since a lot of it is just about good beats and sounds, rather than some "image" or selling 30 million copies worldwide.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Side note: Do you think that the number of records sold by and artist or his/her/their popularity reflects their talent? When person A says that such and such band is crap, I always hear the argument from person B that "They've sold so many million records, they must be somewhat talented". Do you agree or disagree with this?

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: rh71
Please tell me there's underground artists that are better than what they show on tv and play on the radio.

Definately is... I don't listen to a whole lot of rap but here's a few.

Binary Star
Del tha Funkee Homosapien (especially Deltron 3030 album)
Jurassic 5
Zion I

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: rh71
"Take rap for example" ... well that's all you really had to say. I'm not biased against rap but the reality is... well just look at all the bling and barenaked @$$ they have in the videos. Most of them don't even rap on the strength of their own voice. Please tell me there's underground artists that are better than what they show on tv and play on the radio.

There is much much better rap underground.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: UglyCassanova
Side note: Do you think that the number of records sold by and artist or his/her/their popularity reflects their talent? When person A says that such and such band is crap, I always hear the argument from person B that "They've sold so many million records, they must be somewhat talented". Do you agree or disagree with this?

Commericial success does not mean that you have talent. Take the Backstreet Boys for example.

 

[axelfox]

Hell no

 

[DaveSimmons]

Nope, I grew up hearing my folks' music, all the hippie change-the-world stuff and art rock from people like the Moody Blues. So for pop I mostly listen to singer-songwriters like Evlis Costello, Tori Amos, Peter Himmelman, Richard Thompson, etc. many of whom are older, balding, and/or odd-looking.

Part of my problem is that I actually listen to the lyrics, and if they're too stupid I can't enjoy the music. I downloaded Katy Rose's CD (from the new legal Napster) after seeing her ring tones commercial, and while she has a nice voice (after studio processing?) her lyrics are cringe-inducing.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: UglyCassanova
Side note: Do you think that the number of records sold by and artist or his/her/their popularity reflects their talent? When person A says that such and such band is crap, I always hear the argument from person B that "They've sold so many million records, they must be somewhat talented". Do you agree or disagree with this?

Commericial success does not mean that you have talent. Take the Backstreet Boys for example.

Yep. Often now, commercial success can approximately equal marketing success.

 

[Gurck]

Lately, music sucks. Thank god for mp3s.

 

[Anubis]

no

most people with "image" have no talent

 

[Fingolfin269]

But the thing is that groups like Backstreet and N'Sync actually did/do have talent. Singing talent anyway. The image is why most of us hate them.

To be honest, I rarely see the bands or their music videos, so for me it's all about the talent. For instance, my current favorite album is a guy named Gavin DeGraw. I saw a music video when I was at a Bailey's one night (Fox & Hound to some of you) and ended up buying the CD. The guy's voice is freaking amazing. However, he could be a teenie bopper magazine cover guy and I'd never know about it.

 

[chrisms]

The N'Sync effect has also reached rock music, with bands such as Hoobastank and Incubus getting where they are because of their image. I saw a PBS special where David Crosby talked about this, and how MTV made it so there will never be another popular musician who looks as ugly as he does.

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: chrisms
The N'Sync effect has also reached rock music, with bands such as Hoobastank and Incubus getting where they are because of their image. I saw a PBS special where David Crosby talked about this, and how MTV made it so there will never be another popular musician who looks as ugly as he does.

Gimmie a break. Incubus has been around for years. They just happen to have talent to go along with the image. Their old stuff was much better tho.....

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: chrisms
The N'Sync effect has also reached rock music, with bands such as Hoobastank and Incubus getting where they are because of their image. I saw a PBS special where David Crosby talked about this, and how MTV made it so there will never be another popular musician who looks as ugly as he does.

Gimmie a break. Incubus has been around for years. They just happen to have talent to go along with the image. Their old stuff was much better tho.....

I agree Incubus has been around for like 6 years, SCIENCE and Fungus amoungus cam out when i was in HS

 

[chrisms]

That's great. The music industry had the same problem in 1998, and I seriously doubt Incubus would have got anywhere if the lead singer looked like David Crosby.