Options
Does image mean more than music?
![[Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/fb3099d813c9e4c23866272443b9c140.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 4 Forum Member
The battle between whether image is more important that music is something on everyone’s mind in the music industry.
The main worry is how images are portrayed to children and young people today, particularly for young girls.
Most people want singers and musicians to be role models for young people, but when artists are being questioned about what they wear and how they act on stage, it can be difficult to see who young people can look up to these days. Images are also created by labels to sell music, which questions what image is right or wrong.
The main problem seems to be young people copying what musicians are wearing, even if this is band t-shirts or what stars wear on stage, audiences are buying into the image of their favourite artists.
Image is something that is necessary in the music industry, it is not just about talent anymore, but is controversial dress just something we need to accept and adapt to?
Please listen to this podcast and comment your views on the blog or on this forum.
http://mhm.hud.ac.uk/MusicRadioHud/node/318
The main worry is how images are portrayed to children and young people today, particularly for young girls.
Most people want singers and musicians to be role models for young people, but when artists are being questioned about what they wear and how they act on stage, it can be difficult to see who young people can look up to these days. Images are also created by labels to sell music, which questions what image is right or wrong.
The main problem seems to be young people copying what musicians are wearing, even if this is band t-shirts or what stars wear on stage, audiences are buying into the image of their favourite artists.
Image is something that is necessary in the music industry, it is not just about talent anymore, but is controversial dress just something we need to accept and adapt to?
Please listen to this podcast and comment your views on the blog or on this forum.
http://mhm.hud.ac.uk/MusicRadioHud/node/318
0
Comments
As a Rock Fan I could argue Rock as a genre has always been about the music, but every band has an "image" even Rock bands!
Would you buy music by a thrash metal band who wore cardigans and chinos'?
There's millions of people that are good singers or who can play guitar or who can write a good song. To be successful in the mainstream you need to have something that distinguishes you from the rest.
It's not just great music it's what rock means that makes it great.
Rock is about the expression of rebellion, about the outsider, about something alternative to the mainstream. And often the image of the rock musician is part of that.
Be it the long haired, leather jacket Rock Gods or the tattooed short hairs of today.
It's one of the most obvious cultural expressions of difference, of otherness. And it sounds good too.
It's not about whether image or music is more important, pop culture has often been a mix of media.
Elvis's image was too sexy for middle class tastes in the 50s, that made his music all the more important. The Beatles, The Stones, The Who were trying to make sense out of being young and wanting to change the world. Idealistic you might call it but in a time of great social change and liberation, pop music was at the forefront of that. And they looked different. It was an outward sign of non conformity.
You are right in a sense; however, the difference is bands from years gone by came up with their own images that reflected the part of youth culture they inhabited and these preformed acts would be exploited by record companies. Nowadays there aren't really any 'scenes' anymore so instead image is carefully concocted by a record company in order to market their music to their selected demographic.
I would if they were good.
I've been listening to a lot of Outrun music lately, and for most of the bands you don't even know if its a band or just one guy. You certainly don't know what any of them look like.
However, people have *placed* an image on them. Since they don't do music videos, a lot of their music on youtube is accompanied by fan-made videos.
They tend to fall into 3 categories:
Lazerhawk - So Far Away - anime and cartoons from the 80s.
Lifelike - So Electric - computer commercials from the 80s.
Miami Nights 1984 - Saved by the Bell - clips from 80s movies.
The common theme, befitting the Outrun genre, is the 80s.
That is having an image, of course. It's just not an image of the artist.
I've listened to a lot of Lazerhawk and it's just second hand 80s music anyway,
And the cartoon thing was used by the Old Grey Whistle Test in the 70s with cartoons from the 1940s(?) e.g Simon Sessler 'Back on My Feet Again'
Admittedly the best images are those in your head generated by the music itself.
however when the music is piss poor, the image takes over as being the most important thing. this is most obvious in many cheap manufactured pop acts.
Why wouldn't you listen to a thrash metal band who wore cardigans and chinos? If there music is good, isn't that was is most important?
Do you think scene such as emo and goth are manufactured? These scenes are viewed as an act of rebelion to social movements, which goes along with the music. Do you think the image is more rebellious than the music?
Do you think music is what should distinguish artists from one another, or is image the only way of doing that now?
The point I was trying to make was that thrash metal has an image, as do most types of music. If an artist had the complete opposite image to what is expected they are likely to find it hard to gain any credability in the industry, and without the credibility they are less likely to have people buy their music.
As an alternative example, imagine Daniel O'Donnel dressing in the same was as Slip Knot, would his music still apeal to his core fan base? No because they would be put off by his clothes.
The thing that distinguishes you, is talent.
This guy died thirty-four years ago, count the number of times just this one tune of his has been uploaded and the number of hits and they increase each year.
Now tell me he had an "image."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2LFVWBmoiw
yes.
they are now
its like 'i know ill be emo/goth' ... *goes off to the shops and buys the uniform*.
ill include 'indie' in that criticism too, these movements are mere copycat, (fancy) dress to look the part, theres no soul, no originality left.
If it is via television (MTV etc) then of course TV stations will pick an act that is telegenic and perhaps with interesting staging. Other media also want to be able to talk about an act's USP ("they wear cardigans!"). And live performances benefit greatly from a charismatic frontman - I've stumbled across some really good acts at festivals that have stuck in my memory bc of a singer's energetic performance. Music videos on YouTube also present an image that connects to the music - e.g. Sinead O'Connor's falling tear, Miley's horrid wrecking ball.
At the same time you can't listen to people's faces so if radio or spotify is your main access point then image doesn't matter so much. Although I'd argue music itself can present an image, e.g. Jake Bugg's vinyl like crackle sound.
My feelings exactly. I like a lot of artists with a strong image because I love fashion but the image has to compliment the music and there has to some connection. The music also has to be good. But when there is no musical talent and the image takes over, it's a problem.
You don't think Jazz has an image?
Serious guys in serious suits, into the music expression, dark back drop and performing in small smoke-filled clubs. (Maybe less smoke these days) but that's an archetypal image of jazz if I ever saw one.
What you are describing is the evolution of a movement. Punk started as an anti-fashion statement but then established a particular set of looks that many other artists latched on to. The 'movement' then turns into something that loses its original dynamic.
The Goth thing must have seemed alternative and edgy at some time I guess.
It's called the triumph of style over substance.