|
|
Post by nicola on Oct 21, 2009 22:05:57 GMT
Due to running a website that offers free promotion to new artists, I receive many e-mails from performers who want to feature. There are two types - an artist that has a manager and deal, and those that are struggling to even be noticed.
The main difference between the two is that the artist with the deal and manager is young and attractive. The ones that are struggling look over 35. Strangely, this rule doesn't seem to apply for male artists, who can be any age, with any image.
It is the general rule of thumb in the entertainment business, but as Katherine Jenkins outfits get a bit more ranchier, and Vanessa-Mae's outfits become less and less, I worry about crossover becoming just like pop.
I have always known how the business works, but seeing so much of it every day really depresses me, that the very talented will never get a shot.
How does an image of an artist effect you buying their album? I know that I do judge an album by its cover if I know nothing else of the artist.
This post doesn't really have a direction. I'm just whining about the unjust world, I suppose.
/ramble
|
|
Jillian
Global Moderator
Posts: 3,050
|
Post by Jillian on Oct 21, 2009 23:43:58 GMT
Hi Nicola,
This is a really interesting topic. From my limited knowledge of Classical Crossover, one thing I have noticed (and appreciated) is that it in some cases it does lack the thick lashings of show biz image obsession -- most likely in some cases because there mightn't be enough money floating around for it.
It's inescapable that image is a big part of music -- the whole package etc. I guess it does depend on the degree to which it operates. The best thing about Classical Crossover is that there is always a solid dose of talent to go with it -- unlike in pop where image is EVERYTHING and talent is often very low down on the list.
As you've probably noticed, I do love a bit of the tizz when it comes to singers. I'm always very interested in what dresses Hayley is wearing and how she's done her hair.
But on the other hand, I really can't stand it when image is relied on to the expense of everything else. Take Cheryl Cole and that XFactor routine where all the costumes, dancers and slit up the side pants were there to disguise a lack of any singing ability whatsoever.
With most Classical Crossovers, image is sort of like the icing on the cake of their talent. Take Katherine Jenkins for example -- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that she's obsessed with hair, makeup and clothes -- and that a part of her appeal is her highly styled image. BUT it isn't the sole basis of what she does -- that girl can wail like something else.
But that really isn't sex in the more obtuse form of marketing that's regularly used in show biz, now is it? It's more like 'sexy glamour' --- which is something else entirely.
As for Hayley Nolan -- well, that just makes her look incredibly desperate. I'm not sure how much of a market there would be for that kind of image in Classical Crossover as it tends to attract a slightly more conservative demographic.
|
|
|
|
Post by scoobedoo on Oct 22, 2009 0:24:48 GMT
Hi Jillian,well said I couldn't agree with you more. I would find it hard to add to your post  Well done, cheers Rodders CH CH NZ. |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Oct 22, 2009 17:14:52 GMT
I think we can trace this back to the advent of televison, followed by music videos, and of course the personal computer. All of these things served to bring entertainment into the home, and more importantly, made mass entertainment visual. Any chef will tell you we eat with our eyes before we ever taste the food. I think the major challange for any aspiring artist to succeed is simply to Get Noticed in an extremely competitive environment. Some artists like KJ have broad appeal (pun intended) - they are both talented and visually appealing. It is no coincedence then that she outsells the competition in classical crossover by quite a large margin. Note however, that her image has never been as "Raunchy" as say Britney Spears - in part because it doesnt have to be, but also a reflection of the demographicsof that market. I would personally shy away from classifying them exclusively on indexes of talent and visual appeal however - for one thing are they singers or entertainers. I suspect that the answer to how talented we perceive someone to be is largely determined by how we answer that question. Britney isnt much of a singer - but many people do find her quite entertaining  |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Oct 22, 2009 21:00:18 GMT
I agree with your comments Jillian wholeheartedly. I actually hate the use of sex to disguise lack of talent, as with the Cheryl Cole example you mentioned. Hoping the image will distract her listeners enough to not notice how awful her singing is. Perhaps I am unusual in that a sexy image in a female singer actually turns me off (no, I'm not gay).
Perhaps it is a bit old fasioned of me, but I tend to expect a singer to actually be able to sing.
Then we get someone like our Hayley, exactly what I love in a singer. Someone who appeals because , of her wonderful singing, and refuses to go the raunchy route despite pressure on her to do so. It just makes me respect her even more, for relying on her musical talent and not trying to hide behind a sexy image, and having the determination to stick to that principe. Hayley doesn't hide behind anything, she lets her singing say it all. If it is music that we love, that should be enough to make her a global superstar.
Beautiful women who are prepared to prance around half naked are ten a penny, and really very very boring. The ones who do that and can actually sing a bit are better. I have seen Vanessa Mae live a couple of times, and consider her a very talented player, I just wish she wouldn't use that image. For me it is all about the music.
Perhaps that is unusual. I have always been a person that thinks in sounds, and words rather than pictures. I have poor eyesight and exceptionally acute hearing, even now. So music has always been my favourite form of entertainment, and I am much more interested in what a performer sounds like than what they look like.
Music should be about music, surely!
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by BenCMitchell on Oct 22, 2009 21:51:32 GMT
Perhaps that is unusual. I have always been a person that thinks in sounds, and words rather than pictures. I have poor eyesight and exceptionally acute hearing, even now. So music has always been my favourite form of entertainment, and I am much more interested in what a performer sounds like than what they look like. Music should be about music, surely! Martin Hi Martin I entirely agree with you on the fact that music should be music, and not associated with the image that most teenagers now see as being music, thanks to, as you mentioned, Cheryl Cole. It is amazing how Simon Cowell could sit in his chair and declare to an out of breath Cheryl (the song wasn't that demanding - my flatmates can sing much better) that she was undoubtedly going to be Number 1 just shows that he knows little, or has little care for the actual music involved. I bet his opinion of her performance would have changed if he had closed his eyes and listened to the so called 'music' with an unbiased mind, instead of just eyeing up the image. This is the argument that I put across to those who mock me for closing my eyes when I attend concerts. My opinion is all about the music, and nothing about the image. If someone who is performing a solo instrument with an orchestra performed with the talent and dedication to his craft, then I wouldn't care if they were dressed in a shirt and jeans! (I probably wouldn't notice anyway - my eyes would be shut!  ) - all about the music. If music was all about the music and not the image, then Cheryl Cole would be out of a job and Hayley would be a global megastar. Cheers Ben |
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Oct 22, 2009 23:26:10 GMT
I have to disagree with completely disregarding the image. Different forms of entertainment requires different talents. I would be quite baffled if someone closed their eyes during a Sarah Brightman concert. She's about the music, but she integrates it with imagery as well, and I don't think that's a talentless concept. I think it takes great vision. To match pictures to music takes a creative mind. There are so many forms of music that use imagery to enhance performance, and I take no issue with that. Simon Cowell was certainly right to say that it would be number one - not because it's an amazing song, but because it was just watched by 14 million people. I actually thought that Cheryl Cole's performance was very good. No, she can't sing well, but that's not the point. Pop stardom is not about singing ability. It's about giving a "performance", in dance, in image, and to draw in an audience. She did exceptionally well for what she is. Comparing her to Hayley - a completely different type of entertainer, is entirely unfair. I don't think Britney Spears, Madonna or Rihanna can sing, but I still think they are a bunch of talented lasses for very different reasons. They have an audience that enjoy their work, and that's what matters. My issue is classical crossover turning more towards what pop does in a more intense way. Crossover certainly stems from pop, and it's marketing, and whilst it is generally believed that crossover artists have some talent at least, that's not always necessarily true. I fail to see any record deal worthy talent in Myleene Klass, Joseph McManners and Elizabeth Marvelly but here they are or were (a matter of opinion, of course). I think it's important that Hayley poses in a winter get up for her winter album - that makes sense, always will, I only hope that not too many crossover artists sexualise themselves the way that pop does. My original post and title has been edited - my point was never about image - it was about... sexualisation, if I may say that. Of course, feel free to discuss image if you find that more relevant/interesting.  |
|
|
|
Post by BenCMitchell on Oct 22, 2009 23:57:19 GMT
I have to disagree with completely disregarding the image. Different forms of entertainment requires different talents. I would be quite baffled if someone closed their eyes during a Sarah Brightman concert. She's about the music, but she integrates it with imagery as well, and I don't think that's a talentless concept. I think it takes great vision. To match pictures to music takes a creative mind. There are so many forms of music that use imagery to enhance performance, and I take no issue with that. Simon Cowell was certainly right to say that it would be number one - not because it's an amazing song, but because it was just watched by 14 million people. I actually thought that Cheryl Cole's performance was very good. No, she can't sing well, but that's not the point. Pop stardom is not about singing ability. It's about giving a "performance", in dance, in image, and to draw in an audience. She did exceptionally well for what she is. Comparing her to Hayley - a completely different type of entertainer, is entirely unfair. I don't think Britney Spears, Madonna or Rihanna can sing, but I still think they are a bunch of talented lasses for very different reasons. They have an audience that enjoy their work, and that's what matters. My issue is classical crossover turning more towards what pop does in a more intense way. Crossover certainly stems from pop, and it's marketing, and whilst it is generally believed that crossover artists have some talent at least, that's not always necessarily true. I fail to see any record deal worthy talent in Myleene Klass, Joseph McManners and Elizabeth Marvelly but here they are or were (a matter of opinion, of course). I think it's important that Hayley poses in a winter get up for her winter album - that makes sense, always will, I only hope that not too many crossover artists sexualise themselves the way that pop does. My original post and title has been edited - my point was never about image - it was about... sexualisation, if I may say that. Of course, feel free to discuss image if you find that more relevant/interesting. I'm sorry if this is off topic for your original intentions for this thread Nicola, but if pop music is more about the image and giving a performance rather than singing ability, is it even fair to call it music? Music seems to be a by-product, and kids these days, under the influence of performers like Cheryl Cole, are believing that the image conveyed is music. Its a performance, like you said, but not music based, which is the message that is being put across to the younger generation. As for the whole 'closing the eyes' business, that is how I listen to a live concert. Maybe I'm a freak because of it, as others have said, but I believe that if you 'shut down' one of the senses it heightens the awareness of the others. Its my own way, and i have never expected many people, if any, to agree with it. Even Hayley was puzzled by why I was doing it! Cheers Ben |
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Oct 23, 2009 0:07:24 GMT
Ben, I don't think you are a freak for closing your eyes. I can actually understand why you do it, I was more just making a point about dismissing imagery altogether.
I think dismissing pop music as not music is going a bit too far. You can have your opinions on it, and that it's not very good, that it's quite mindless and numbing, but I find such opinions a slippery slope, mainly because who has the authority to say what is music or not? Classical purists suggest that crossover isn't music? How far does it go?
Pop music is music. In the pure definition of the word. The pop song can work without the music video. People do just "listen" to pop music on their MP3 players. Furtherstill, what kind of pop music do you think constitutes 'non-music'? Is 'Hurt' by Christina Aguilera not music? Is much of what crossover covers, such as Coldplay, U2, Bryan Adams, Whitney Houston, Robbie Williams and the list is endless, not music?
Unless you are using the "singer" as a means of taking the definition away, for example, if they can't sing, they aren't creating music - but that's not true either, is it? Even if they use auto tune they are still singing a melody over a landscape of sounds. That's what music is.
The attitude that "young kids are growing up thinking that pop music is real music" seems to be an elitist one, if I'm brutally honest. It is music. Even if kids were educated into classical music, it doesn't mean that they will necessarily like it? I would just like to know what you meant by that statement, because I think I must have read it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by BenCMitchell on Oct 23, 2009 0:17:44 GMT
The attitude that "young kids are growing up thinking that pop music is real music" seems to be an elitist one, if I'm brutally honest. It is music. Even if kids were educated into classical music, it doesn't mean that they will necessarily like it? I would just like to know what you meant by that statement, because I think I must have read it wrong. I suppose you are right in that my views are expressed through a 'classicist' view, making them biased, but what i meant was that music focused more on image (like Cheryl's performance on the X Factor, which is a prime example) to me doesn't seem to be the best way to show to kids what music is. Music is a lot more than what Cheryl portrayed it as. Kids watching her perform would be more focused on what she was wearing, and the choreography of her and the other performers. Also, I don't know whether this is true, but she apparently mimed that song. If this is true, then thats not a great message to send to kids either. On a different note, what message is that sending to those she is helping to coach?? |
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Oct 23, 2009 0:27:05 GMT
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, kids will learn from what they see. But it's been like that for decades since the invention of the music video. It's not new. And whilst I would like people to open their minds to more music outside of the mainstream, many people are just happy to take what they are given, and choose and select from that. Music is not as important to everyone as it may be for you and me.
I know when I signed up on a music theatre board and I haunted the ALW threads that an elitist member picked me out and hounded me for not listening to more "sophisticated" music theatre. She went on to declare how sad and empty my life is because I only listen to ALW. She suggested that I was stupid and that I was a sheep. Of course, to her, music theatre is her world, and it clearly annoyed her greatly that I hadn't put effort into it. But why should I? I am really not that interested in music theatre. I'm a casual listener. I have other interests that are "my world" as music theatre is "her world".
The internet is a wonderful thing, and if people really love their music, they will look deeper into it, as many of us on this forum have done. But don't expect the casual buyer to do the same. In short, I definitely agree with you that there is so much more than what Cheryl Cole offers, but that doesn't have to matter to people, and I wouldn't worry myself with it too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Oct 23, 2009 0:37:52 GMT
Sorry missed this part:
She mimed the chorus due to the energetic dance she was doing. She did sing the verses. That would be controversial for a classical singer to do, but for pop, it's normal. Singing and a high energy dance routine do not mix. I know a lot of people have been complaining about Cheryl doing that, but I think these people must have been naive if they did not know that that was common practice. I think Cheryl caused so much noise because of the show she performed on. "X-Factor" is all about singing live, and that's not what she did. But she wasn't a contestant at the end of the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by BenCMitchell on Oct 23, 2009 0:48:49 GMT
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, kids will learn from what they see. But it's been like that for decades since the invention of the music video. It's not new. And whilst I would like people to open their minds to more music outside of the mainstream, many people are just happy to take what they are given, and choose and select from that. Music is not as important to everyone as it may be for you and me. I know when I signed up on a music theatre board and I haunted the ALW threads that an elitist member picked me out and hounded me for not listening to more "sophisticated" music theatre. She went on to declare how sad and empty my life is because I only listen to ALW. She suggested that I was stupid and that I was a sheep. Of course, to her, music theatre is her world, and it clearly annoyed her greatly that I hadn't put effort into it. But why should I? I am really not that interested in music theatre. I'm a casual listener. I have other interests that are "my world" as music theatre is "her world". The internet is a wonderful thing, and if people really love their music, they will look deeper into it, as many of us on this forum have done. But don't expect the casual buyer to do the same. In short, I definitely agree with you that there is so much more than what Cheryl Cole offers, but that doesn't have to matter to people, and I wouldn't worry myself with it too much. Yeah thanks for that. Its just quite strange when i'm at uni completed surrounded by the classical style and all the other music surrounding it, and to then come back to the flat and hear radio 1 - it sounds simple in comparison! Blimey! That person told you your life was 'sad and empty'??  Thats very cruel. Yeah well I bet they havn't started up an amazing website with requests to interview amazing artists! i suppose i was quite nieve about the comments i made. To some school kids music is just a leisurely activity. Cheers Ben |
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Oct 23, 2009 19:25:14 GMT
I am very much in agreement with you Nicola. I very much dislike mediocre but attractive looking singers being heavily promoted by record labels. However- I am heartened by the music buying publics rejection of such artists.
I saw Will Martin being interviewed on televion some weeks ago and it seems Universal dropped him after one album. I think the same fate might have befallen Elizabeth Marvelly as there is no mention now of EMI in her publicity so I think the new album might be self funded. Will Martin said he was also planning a new album, also presumably without the backing of a record company. Neither artist can have sold enough albums to return the investment made in them and it serves the record labels right for treating the public in such a cynical way.
Both these singers hit the media in NZ with screaming headlines about their 5 and 3 record deals with major record labels and I was just amazed at the time that such deals had been given to such average singers. It seems that after talented artists like Hayley paved the way, the record labels thought the public would buy anything by good looking young people. However, thankfully, it seems in the end the public know what they like. Susan Boyle is a prime example of this- people will buy albums by the truckload if the voice is magnificent regardless of the lack of sexy packaging. More albums by genuine artists and less plastic is my heartfelt desire.
|
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Oct 23, 2009 20:01:42 GMT
i suppose i was quite nieve about the comments i made. To some school kids music is just a leisurely activity. Cheers Ben Quite often is it also something designed to be danced to at a party. Songs with a strong backbeat are simply better for this purpose - and the quality of singing simply isnt that big of a deal. There is little that you said that I disagree with Nicola. I might simply add that in the case of pop singers in particular, image does equal sexualization in many cases, hence the topical confusion. There are few notable exceptions to that rule - occasionally they do try to market innocense or wholesomeness but I always suspect that it is just a kind of inverse sexuality with a more conservative demographic in mind. Maybe I am just too cynical The bottom line as to how far classical crossover will go in this direction quite literally depends on the bottom line. There are practical limits given the relative age of the demographic - at the same time they will find it more difficult to cross out of that demographic if they dont push the limits ....... Musicfan - As I said above, the key is "getting noticed" - and once in a blue moon an artist comes along who can get media exposure by exceeding expectations in a contest by way of talent or by some other means (Charlotte Church was 12 years old for example) - this would also apply to Paul Potts I think. Having said this, I suspect she (and Paul) are going to have relatively short lived "novelty" careers - at least as marquee artists. Similarly, an artist may be able to sustain a career without the backing of a label...and in fact recent trends like music downloads (legal or otherwise) are probably reducing the amount of control they have. I still know of no cases of say a platinum selling artist who doesnt have one. Jon |
|
Thats very cruel. Yeah well I bet they havn't started up an amazing website with requests to interview amazing artists! 