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.
The fashion scene has always taken inspiration from subcultures and then turned it into mainstream, thus ruining it for people who genuinely wish to dress like that. Pop acts also co-opt this as a way to look 'edgy' or 'daring' and are not averse to a bit of cultural appropriation. I'm thinking Katy Perry wearing dark lips, nails and a choker to look goth, and more recently dressing up as a Geisha.
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.
I singled out Bill Evans, as no one could say he had an "image" he looked and dressed like a bank clerk.
You're describing a "natural environment" as an "image."
Jazz clubs, historically, were in basements, as the rent was cheaper and decor was at a minimum.
They were smoke-filled as everyone smoked.
The musicians wore suits as everyone wore suits in those days, as they couldn't afford "Ben Shermans and Nike trainers." It wasn't an image they cultivated, it was "as they were."
Present day jazz musicians are pretty much "come as they are," can't think of any that really present an "image."
I singled out Bill Evans, as no one could say he had an "image" he looked and dressed like a bank clerk.
You're describing a "natural environment" as an "image."
Jazz clubs, historically, were in basements, as the rent was cheaper and decor was at a minimum.
They were smoke-filled as everyone smoked.
The musicians wore suits as everyone wore suits in those days, as they couldn't afford "Ben Shermans and Nike trainers." It wasn't an image they cultivated, it was "as they were."
Present day jazz musicians are pretty much "come as they are," can't think of any that really present an "image."
It's not a natural environment, it's a staged environment.
The musicians wore suits, they dressed up to perform that way. They created space between them and lighting was often set to feature performers as they played their solos. The staging, the suits, the lighting , the sparcity of the presentation IS the image. These elements are, to borrow a phrase from film studies, the mise en scene of Jazz.
Image isn't just about eccentric dressers.
It's not a natural environment, it's a staged environment.
The musicians wore suits, they dressed up to perform that way. They created space between them and lighting was often set to feature performers as they played their solos. The staging, the suits, the lighting , the sparcity of the presentation IS the image. These elements are, to borrow a phrase from film studies, the mise en scene of Jazz.
Image isn't just about eccentric dressers.
Well, you've completely lost me there.
The big bands wore uniform I'll accept that.
In the small jazz clubs they didn't, they came as they were. They didn't "dress up."
"Space between them?" small stage, some lighting, spotlight for soloists so the audience could actually see them through the gloom. That's not an attempt at an "image."
You're welcome to your opinion, but it ain't one I share.
Go back and watch the Bill Evans video and tell me how that was "image."
The fashion scene has always taken inspiration from subcultures and then turned it into mainstream, thus ruining it for people who genuinely wish to dress like that. Pop acts also co-opt this as a way to look 'edgy' or 'daring' and are not averse to a bit of cultural appropriation. I'm thinking Katy Perry wearing dark lips, nails and a choker to look goth, and more recently dressing up as a Geisha.
Cultural appropriation is hardly limited to the fashion biz.
Popular music and dance are often based on 'found' elements from earlier and ethnic forms. E.g. MJ's 'moonwalk' has its origins on something seen on the street.
In the small jazz clubs they didn't, they came as they were. They didn't "dress up."
"Space between them?" small stage, some lighting, spotlight for soloists so the audience could actually see them through the gloom. That's not an attempt at an "image."
You're welcome to your opinion, but it ain't one I share.
Go back and watch the Bill Evans video and tell me how that was "image."
Put simply, image is about how an artist presents themselves and looking like a bank clerk is how Bill Evans presents himself, therefore that is his image. And it's an archetypal ( quite common) image of the jazz musician, the focus being on the player and his/her instrument.
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.
you sound rather disparaging of the goth movement?
it certainly was alternative and edgy in the late 70's early 80's... abit like 'punk with style'.
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.
I agree. My problem with Lady Gaga's outfits/stunts is that her music doesn't match. Musically she isn't hugely experimental, not far off Europop, e.g. Do What You Want, but yet she is incubating in an egg before her stage performances. She was great fun when she first came along but she seems to take it all (and herself) pretty seriously these days. I think that's reflected in her fanbase contracting into the Little Monsters fandom.
Cultural appropriation is hardly limited to the fashion biz.
Popular music and dance are often based on 'found' elements from earlier and ethnic forms. E.g. MJ's 'moonwalk' has its origins on something seen on the street.
Put simply, image is about how an artist presents themselves and looking like a bank clerk is how Bill Evans presents himself, therefore that is his image. And it's an archetypal ( quite common) image of the jazz musician, the focus being on the player and his/her instrument.
Funny that,
Here's Ben Webster, who's just popped in "on his way to his job at the bank." He did at least take his hat off first.
He'd have been presenting an "image" no different to most in the audience, so that argument is out the window.
"Image" was the last consideration, unlike contemporary pop singers.
Here's Ben Webster, who's just popped in "on his way to his job at the bank." He did at least take his hat off first.
He'd have been presenting an "image" no different to most in the audience, so that argument is out the window.
"Image" was the last consideration, unlike contemporary pop singers.
I could provide more, but I won't bother as I'm wasting my time.
I don't think you quite understand what image means. You may need to look it up.
Try 'the general impression that a person, organization, or product presents to the public.'
It's not just what you wear, it's the impression you project. All your descriptions are part of this image. It isn't even a conscious decision often.
I don't think you quite understand what image means. You may need to look it up.
Try 'the general impression that a person, organization, or product presents to the public.'
It's not just what you wear, it's the impression you project. All your descriptions are part of this image. It isn't even a conscious decision often.
Stop being patronising.
You're missing the whole point.
Look up "style over substance" then you'll understand what I'm talking about.
It's very evident with many contemporary performers.
Neither the two musicians I mentioned were projecting anything. They just turned up for work in their everyday clothes, they would dress no differently than other people of similar age, or people walking in the street. No one could say "Oo look! He's projecting an image!" as they weren't, they just blended in with the general public.
Here's another one, probably wearing the same suit he wore down the pub.
you sound rather disparaging of the goth movement?
it certainly was alternative and edgy in the late 70's early 80's... abit like 'punk with style'.
I liked a lot of the early Gothic bands like Bauhaus, Southern Death Cult, The Virgin Prunes, Killing Joke, The Cure etc. I felt the Sisters of Mercy and The Mission produced good music but the image was a little calculated.
Goth iconography seems to mainly draw on James Whale's movie versions of Dracula and Frankenstein which I find a little hard to take seriously. On the other hand as I kid I loved the Munsters and Lily Munster (Yvonne De Carlo) in particular, so maybe that has affected my opinions.
Look up "style over substance" then you'll understand what I'm talking about.
It's very evident with many contemporary performers.
Neither the two musicians I mentioned were projecting anything. They just turned up for work in their everyday clothes, they would dress no differently than other people of similar age, or people walking in the street. No one could say "Oo look! He's projecting an image!" as they weren't, they just blended in with the general public.
Here's another one, probably wearing the same suit he wore down the pub.
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.
Considering the roots of punk can, in part, be traced to the likes of Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood and their boutique Sex, I would say fashion was always an integral part of punk.
The same with goth, which originated as a sub-culture from punk.
Considering the roots of punk can, in part, be traced to the likes of Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood and their boutique Sex, I would say fashion was always an integral part of punk.
The same with goth, which originated as a sub-culture from punk.
Punk didn't start with McLaren or Westwood. That's the point of the earlier statement.
Considering the roots of punk can, in part, be traced to the likes of Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood and their boutique Sex, I would say fashion was always an integral part of punk.
The same with goth, which originated as a sub-culture from punk.
Most punks regarded the people who wore clothes from Sex as poseurs tbh.
You have no idea what I know about jazz.
But I know you don't understand visual culture.
You've proved to me you know nothing about jazz.
"Visual culture?"
Totally unrelated to what I'm talking about and you know it.
Yes if you want to talk about Lady Gaga, but not jazz musicians who usually wore the same suit they wore the day before. I'm tired of giving you examples, you continue to ignore.
Move on, you're wasting your time with your unconvincing argument.
Totally unrelated to what I'm talking about and you know it.
Yes if you want to talk about Lady Gaga, but not jazz musicians who usually wore the same suit they wore the day before. I'm tired of giving you examples, you continue to ignore.
Move on, you're wasting your time with your unconvincing argument.
Put Herman Leonard into google (images) and tell me Jazz hasn't got an image.
Put Herman Leonard into google (images) and tell me Jazz hasn't got an image.
You're so wrapped up in your own point of view, that you don't read other people's posts properly.
Early on, before this exchange became pointless, I posted an exception to the point I was making which represented a whole era of jazz musicians, by posting a link to a photo of Miles Davis in the mid eighties who became quite flamboyant in his dress. There are and still are a few others. But for every one there'd be ten others, from the forties, fifties, early sixties and onwards where what they looked like on stage was the least consideration.
Now give up trying to "change history" and let's move on.
You're so wrapped up in your own point of view, that you don't read other people's posts properly.
Early on, before this exchange became pointless, I posted an exception to the point I was making which represented a whole era of jazz musicians, by posting a link to a photo of Miles Davis in the mid eighties who became quite flamboyant in his dress. There are and still are a few others. But for every one there'd be ten others, from the forties, fifties, early sixties and onwards where what they looked like on stage was the least consideration.
Now give up trying to "change history" and let's move on.
Miles Davies and Weather Report (for example) look more to the cultural confluence in jazz and have a different image.
There's no conflict there at all. An archetypal image is one that is common not universal.
I have no intention of moving on...sorry to disappoint.
You're so wrapped up in your own point of view, that you don't read other people's posts properly.
Early on, before this exchange became pointless, I posted an exception to the point I was making which represented a whole era of jazz musicians, by posting a link to a photo of Miles Davis in the mid eighties who became quite flamboyant in his dress. There are and still are a few others. But for every one there'd be ten others, from the forties, fifties, early sixties and onwards where what they looked like on stage was the least consideration.
Now give up trying to "change history" and let's move on.
Miles Davis and Weather Report (for example) look more to the cultural confluence in jazz and have a different image.
There's no conflict there at all. An archetypal image is one that is common not universal.
I have no intention of moving on...sorry to disappoint.
Would you buy music by a thrash metal band who wore cardigans and chinos'?
Yes. Why on earth not?
Given how long in the tooth thrash is I'd expect more originality out of someone wearing those than someone turning up with all the metal clichés in place.
I agree. My problem with Lady Gaga's outfits/stunts is that her music doesn't match. Musically she isn't hugely experimental, not far off Europop, e.g. Do What You Want, but yet she is incubating in an egg before her stage performances. She was great fun when she first came along but she seems to take it all (and herself) pretty seriously these days. I think that's reflected in her fanbase contracting into the Little Monsters fandom.
Even that's unoriginal as it's a scene from 'This is Spinal Tap'.
The irony is that was a comedy parodying rock bands who take themselves seriously, and yet you say Lady Gaga was taking herself seriously.:D
Comments
The fashion scene has always taken inspiration from subcultures and then turned it into mainstream, thus ruining it for people who genuinely wish to dress like that. Pop acts also co-opt this as a way to look 'edgy' or 'daring' and are not averse to a bit of cultural appropriation. I'm thinking Katy Perry wearing dark lips, nails and a choker to look goth, and more recently dressing up as a Geisha.
I singled out Bill Evans, as no one could say he had an "image" he looked and dressed like a bank clerk.
You're describing a "natural environment" as an "image."
Jazz clubs, historically, were in basements, as the rent was cheaper and decor was at a minimum.
They were smoke-filled as everyone smoked.
The musicians wore suits as everyone wore suits in those days, as they couldn't afford "Ben Shermans and Nike trainers." It wasn't an image they cultivated, it was "as they were."
Present day jazz musicians are pretty much "come as they are," can't think of any that really present an "image."
There have been the eccentric dressers, in their later years, (when he had what I called his "rock n' roll band"
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/nov/06/miles-davis-interview-rocks-backpages)
But in the forties and fifties he wore a suit, same as everyone else, including the audiences.
It's not a natural environment, it's a staged environment.
The musicians wore suits, they dressed up to perform that way. They created space between them and lighting was often set to feature performers as they played their solos. The staging, the suits, the lighting , the sparcity of the presentation IS the image. These elements are, to borrow a phrase from film studies, the mise en scene of Jazz.
Image isn't just about eccentric dressers.
Well, you've completely lost me there.
The big bands wore uniform I'll accept that.
In the small jazz clubs they didn't, they came as they were. They didn't "dress up."
"Space between them?" small stage, some lighting, spotlight for soloists so the audience could actually see them through the gloom. That's not an attempt at an "image."
You're welcome to your opinion, but it ain't one I share.
Go back and watch the Bill Evans video and tell me how that was "image."
Cultural appropriation is hardly limited to the fashion biz.
Popular music and dance are often based on 'found' elements from earlier and ethnic forms. E.g. MJ's 'moonwalk' has its origins on something seen on the street.
Put simply, image is about how an artist presents themselves and looking like a bank clerk is how Bill Evans presents himself, therefore that is his image. And it's an archetypal ( quite common) image of the jazz musician, the focus being on the player and his/her instrument.
you sound rather disparaging of the goth movement?
it certainly was alternative and edgy in the late 70's early 80's... abit like 'punk with style'.
I agree. My problem with Lady Gaga's outfits/stunts is that her music doesn't match. Musically she isn't hugely experimental, not far off Europop, e.g. Do What You Want, but yet she is incubating in an egg before her stage performances. She was great fun when she first came along but she seems to take it all (and herself) pretty seriously these days. I think that's reflected in her fanbase contracting into the Little Monsters fandom.
Funny that,
Here's Ben Webster, who's just popped in "on his way to his job at the bank." He did at least take his hat off first.
He'd have been presenting an "image" no different to most in the audience, so that argument is out the window.
"Image" was the last consideration, unlike contemporary pop singers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CHzdyJps6M
I could provide more, but I won't bother as I'm wasting my time.
I don't think you quite understand what image means. You may need to look it up.
Try 'the general impression that a person, organization, or product presents to the public.'
It's not just what you wear, it's the impression you project. All your descriptions are part of this image. It isn't even a conscious decision often.
Stop being patronising.
You're missing the whole point.
Look up "style over substance" then you'll understand what I'm talking about.
It's very evident with many contemporary performers.
Neither the two musicians I mentioned were projecting anything. They just turned up for work in their everyday clothes, they would dress no differently than other people of similar age, or people walking in the street. No one could say "Oo look! He's projecting an image!" as they weren't, they just blended in with the general public.
Here's another one, probably wearing the same suit he wore down the pub.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZbahdBHv9E
How many more do you need?
Let's move on.
I liked a lot of the early Gothic bands like Bauhaus, Southern Death Cult, The Virgin Prunes, Killing Joke, The Cure etc. I felt the Sisters of Mercy and The Mission produced good music but the image was a little calculated.
Goth iconography seems to mainly draw on James Whale's movie versions of Dracula and Frankenstein which I find a little hard to take seriously. On the other hand as I kid I loved the Munsters and Lily Munster (Yvonne De Carlo) in particular, so maybe that has affected my opinions.
Style and substance - almost the very definition of Jazz.
You obviously know little about it, but I s'ppose you could call that an opinion, but not based on facts.
Considering the roots of punk can, in part, be traced to the likes of Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood and their boutique Sex, I would say fashion was always an integral part of punk.
The same with goth, which originated as a sub-culture from punk.
You have no idea what I know about jazz.
But I know you don't understand visual culture.
Punk didn't start with McLaren or Westwood. That's the point of the earlier statement.
Most punks regarded the people who wore clothes from Sex as poseurs tbh.
"Visual culture?"
Totally unrelated to what I'm talking about and you know it.
Yes if you want to talk about Lady Gaga, but not jazz musicians who usually wore the same suit they wore the day before. I'm tired of giving you examples, you continue to ignore.
Move on, you're wasting your time with your unconvincing argument.
Put Herman Leonard into google (images) and tell me Jazz hasn't got an image.
You're so wrapped up in your own point of view, that you don't read other people's posts properly.
Early on, before this exchange became pointless, I posted an exception to the point I was making which represented a whole era of jazz musicians, by posting a link to a photo of Miles Davis in the mid eighties who became quite flamboyant in his dress. There are and still are a few others. But for every one there'd be ten others, from the forties, fifties, early sixties and onwards where what they looked like on stage was the least consideration.
Now give up trying to "change history" and let's move on.
... or 'plastic punks'..
Miles Davies and Weather Report (for example) look more to the cultural confluence in jazz and have a different image.
There's no conflict there at all. An archetypal image is one that is common not universal.
I have no intention of moving on...sorry to disappoint.
Miles Davis and Weather Report (for example) look more to the cultural confluence in jazz and have a different image.
There's no conflict there at all. An archetypal image is one that is common not universal.
I have no intention of moving on...sorry to disappoint.
"So wrong, you said it twice."
Yes. Why on earth not?
Given how long in the tooth thrash is I'd expect more originality out of someone wearing those than someone turning up with all the metal clichés in place.
Even that's unoriginal as it's a scene from 'This is Spinal Tap'.
The irony is that was a comedy parodying rock bands who take themselves seriously, and yet you say Lady Gaga was taking herself seriously.:D