|
|
Post by martindn on Oct 23, 2009 22:08:26 GMT
I think your point Nicola about the invention of the music video is important. I have to say, when music vids first started, I honestly couldn't see the point of them. Music is music, sound. It is not really visual, even though if you go to a concert you have always been able to see the performers.
Perhaps the invention of TV has something to do with it too. My parents never had TV until I was 13. Before that people listened to the radio only. Sound.
So because I grew up LISTENING to music, rather than watching it, I still primarily listen to it. And if what I hear is not well performed musically, no amount of visual stimulus will make me like it. Perhaps it is just me.
Perhaps though it was sometime in the 1970s that music became visual. About the time Punk Rock became popular. And at about that time, I lost interest in pop music, having been a big fan of prog rack, which had all of the complexity of the best classical music, using rock instruments.
I would say that between then and the rise of classical crossover, there has been very little popular (in the broadest sense) music I have enjoyed. Perhaps because it became primarily visual.
Most people it seems to me, are primarily visually oriented. Those that are not are much less common, although they include many musicians like you Ben, and me for some reason, and probably Hayley too. It may be that visual and aural intelligence are independent, that it is possible to have high levels of both. I don't know, but in my own case I know that my visual intelligence is poor, I was consistently bottom of my class in art at school.
So visual art does little for me, even though i enjoy photography. And the music always comes first with musicians, even though I enjoy watching Hayley perform for example, I dislike performers like Madonna, who are primarily visual. To me, that is not music. It is a form of entertainment for sure, that many people enjoy, but not music to the purist.
So I enjoyed the weird time signatures and original instrumental effects of the prog rock bands. I neither knew nor cared what they looked like.
Perhaps that sounds strange to a generation weaned on TV and music videos. But that's how it was.
With classical music, an orchestra is an orchestra. So to the visually oriented, all orchestral pieces will be similar. To me there is a huge difference between the symphonies of say Mozart and Berlioz, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky. Because they sound different, even if they look much the same (OK romantic orchestras were larger).
So perhaps it is a question of emphasis. Cheryl Cole's performance was primarily a dance routine with musical accompaniment. The fact that she had a small part in performing the music is almost irrelevant. In that respect it was a bit like ballet. So I find it a bitperverse that her record will go to no 1 despite the fact that it is the music only, without the images. Perhaps her fans replay the images in their heads when they hear it. I can't do that. I can only replay the music in my head.
Iagree with Ben. To judge a piece of music as music, you have to take the images away. Close your eyes if it helps. If you like the sound of it, if the sound is the most important thing about it, it is music. If it does not grab hold of you without the images, it is dance (or something like that).
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 24, 2009 4:07:36 GMT
Image very much sells, yes. It's not the only important thing, mind, but it's the thing that will really catch people's attention. Interestingly, The Look is not always about being good looking, though often good looks can substitute. The right image very much depends on the type of music you are making, too. A good look for a Metal band would likely provoke nothing but horror in a Classical audience, for example. A friend of mine recently commented that any female solo singer who hasn't made it by the age of 23 never will, and that age limiter is dropping all the time. I suspect she was right. The sheer number of young, attractive females with at least a modicum of singing talent (Or, failing that, a willingness to make soft porn 'music' videos) is quite extraordinary. As very few have any hand in writing their own music, they are almost infinitely replaceable. The music industry as a whole is interested in the money, not the music, which means constantly chasing the next big thing. Any artist who doesn't look like they might fill that role very fast will be ruthlessly discarded, regardless of actual talent. As for the guys - while it is true that age and appearance are less important, it is also the case that right now there are vastly fewer opportunities for male singers. They are simply failing to get anywhere in any kind of numbers and I suspect the reason for this is once again down to image. A pretty, personable girl sells to men and women alike. Men fancy her, women want to look like her/be her/be her friend. So she gets a broad potential fanbase. An attractive guy can get women to fancy him, but it's a very rare guy who other men will not see as more threat than potential friend. Which is probably why there have been no truly huge male stars since Robbie Williams (Yes, Americans, I know he's not huge in the US. Just everywhere else!  . So yeah, image is vital. Western society is obsessed with youth and beauty right now and if you have neither you need something like Britain's Got Talent in order to get anywhere. Because talent on its own is just not enough, any more. If it ever was... |
|
|
|
Post by Jono on Oct 24, 2009 9:44:29 GMT
Nicola - I'm glad you've made the distinction between image in general, and the sexualisation of image. Image without a doubt "sells". We make our decisions based on filtered information from our sensory organs - i.e. our eyes, ears, noses, etc.. Most of us have functioning eyes, so of course anything with a positive visual aspect is going to add to its appeal. Like milewalker said, people eat with their eyes first. I don't think image necessarily impacts on the music, it just adds to the overall experience. Everyone on here seems to comment on the album artwork when they get a new Hayley CD, and everyone also comments on Hayley's dresses, etc.. However, the idea that "sex sells" is an entirely different debate.. I'd rather not go there..  BTW, I basically never watch music videos...I'd rather just listen to the music. But I wouldn't write off the impact of image. I do have quite a collection of Live DVDs. |
|
|
|
Post by BenCMitchell on Oct 24, 2009 13:41:53 GMT
I don't think image necessarily impacts on the music, it just adds to the overall experience. Everyone on here seems to comment on the album artwork when they get a new Hayley CD, and everyone also comments on Hayley's dresses, etc.. BTW, I basically never watch music videos...I'd rather just listen to the music. But I wouldn't write off the impact of image. I do have quite a collection of Live DVDs. Hi Jono I think it all depends on the genre of music to determine if it impacts on the music. For example, if you take a rock band like Guns N' Roses, the image that was expected of them in the 80's was that of high energy, 'jumping around the stage' and general crowd pleasing stunts like smashing up guitars and drum kits. They knew this was expected of them, so they would have written songs that accommodated this expectation. Some of their earlier work included a lot of acoustic songs, but their later songs were faster and more 'hectic' in terms of the number of things that were going on in each song. Anyway, I think image affects the music written by rock bands, but not all of the time, if you get my meaning. As for people commenting on Hayley's album artwork and the dresses she wears etc, although she looks stunning when she performs, it has little part in the music for me personally, which goes back to how the music should be all about the music. I don't remember what dresses Hayley was wearing at the Dudley concert for example due to eye closure! i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif I would have to refer back to the relevant thread to remember! I have never commented on the threads concerning what she is wearing or how the latest photoshoot for her new album, events etc have turned out. I am like you in the way that I rarely watch music video's, in that, for me, the images created can sometimes distract me from the music. If I watch a video of a guitarist for example, I am looking at the fretboard to see what chord he is playing, what technique he is using which distracts me from the music. However, it does help if i'm actually trying to learn the piece he is playing!  Cheers Ben |
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Oct 24, 2009 22:23:54 GMT
There was a good example of singer versus performer at the end of this evening's UK X-Factor show... the last two acts were diametrically opposite in almost every possible way.
Lucie Jones sang the standard "My Funny Valentine" in a long red dress, stood at a microphone stand. No dancing, no dancers, no raunch - just the singing and some petals fluttering down. She is a real singer, she did it as Hayley would have done it - and it's all she had to do because the music spoke for itself.
She was followed by the twins, singing... well I have no idea what they sung. They were (and always are) about the visual performance and the image, very little else. They danced on a stage full of twirling raunchy dancers who even managed to sit on them at one point. Yes, it was entertaining (for some) but it had nothing to do with singing - and it left me cold.
Be it classical, classical crossover, modern ballads or plain old standards, I like them all - but all I want is the singing. Yes I like a smartly dressed singer and a nice stage set but that's all I look for from a singing performance. The rest of what all too often is a poor excuse for singing these days, especially raunchy acts, is for me a waste of space and a waste of money - it is more likely to make me switch off than watch or buy their records. But many people out there seem to disagree - they certainly want entertainment but I'm not at all sure that they care much about the musical quality of the singer or the music. I find it all rather sad.
Fortunately, there are still a few singers out there who really can sing and who find it unnecessary to provide "added value" or mask any vocal deficiencies with distracting frills of one kind or another, yes even a few pop singers as we saw tonight and have seen occasionally in the recent past. Thank goodness they won't all sell out to the image makers.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by comet on Oct 24, 2009 22:54:16 GMT
There is a lot of truth to : Video killed the radio Star  |
|
|
|
Post by BenCMitchell on Oct 24, 2009 23:21:57 GMT
Lucie Jones sang the standard "My Funny Valentine" in a long red dress, stood at a microphone stand. No dancing, no dancers, no raunch - just the singing and some petals fluttering down. She is a real singer, she did it as Hayley would have done it - and it's all she had to do because the music spoke for itself. She was followed by the twins, singing... well I have no idea what they sung. They were (and always are) about the visual performance and the image, very little else. They danced on a stage full of twirling raunchy dancers who even managed to sit on them at one point. Yes, it was entertaining (for some) but it had nothing to do with singing - and it left me cold. Be it classical, classical crossover, modern ballads or plain old standards, I like them all - but all I want is the singing. Yes I like a smartly dressed singer and a nice stage set but that's all I look for from a singing performance. The rest of what all too often is a poor excuse for singing these days, especially raunchy acts, is for me a waste of space and a waste of money - it is more likely to make me switch off than watch or buy their records. But many people out there seem to disagree - they certainly want entertainment but I'm not at all sure that they care much about the musical quality of the singer or the music. I find it all rather sad. Fortunately, there are still a few singers out there who really can sing and who find it unnecessary to provide "added value" or mask any vocal deficiencies with distracting frills of one kind or another, yes even a few pop singers as we saw tonight and have seen occasionally in the recent past. Thank goodness they won't all sell out to the image makers. Dave I agree with you completely. Is it too much to ask to 'listen' to the contestants instead of 'watching' them? I'l admit that the twins are performers, but I've heard drunken singing that is better than them! Incidentally, they were singing Ricky Martin's 'She Bangs'. I though Lucie Jones did very well, and that is exactly the sort of performance I like in a musician. I happily sat back and listened, eyes shut (weird glances from flatmates) I tried sitting back and listening when the twins were 'performing', but I couldn't! I enjoyed the orchestra more! I only watched the live show yesterday out of curiosity because its all my flatmates can talk about! I think Lucie has a real chance at winning. Cheers Ben |
|
.
