'Image' in music; important or hugely overrated?

[decode reality]

By 'image' I'm more referring to clothing/costume. It depends who the artist is, I would say. I'll leave this very open ended and invite people to give their particular viewpoint.

[twilight_sparkle]

Decode, I think we already discussed this in the Katherine Jenkins and Vanessa Mae thread. Could a woman like Nana Mouskouri be famous now? I doubt it !!



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nana_...uri#section_10

[the_ohmbudsman]

Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle

Decode, I think we already discussed this in the Katherine Jenkins and Vanessa Mae thread. Could a woman like Nana Mouskouri be famous now? I doubt it !!

Would Cat Stevens have made it now? Would Nana Mouskouri - well times have changed, she may make it on one level. But the music business has changed and I think the charts, which is what success largely was gauged and judged by I think is much more restricted and uniform now than it was in the 70's. For example there were joke bands like the Wurzels etc

The Wurzels - Combine Harvester (Brand New Key) [totp2] - YouTube

The Wurzels - Combine Harvester (Brand New Key) [totp2] - YouTube

That made the charts and were hits in the 70's - today they wouldn't achieve that. That is because the criteria for what gets played on chart radio is more "uniform" and the image is much stricter as to what is allowed. Generally it has to be this aggressive R & B/Rap or Dance Pop with the same parameters i,e, Madonna, Cheryl Cole, Katy Perry, Rhianna now Rita Ora (who is a Rhianna clone) etc etc - now you have the token folkie Ed Sheeran. But image and strict music policy is important now more than ever I think.

Note: in that photo Nana looks a bit like Sarah Palin.
http://clarenceworly.com/wp-content/...ah_palin_5.jpg

[decode reality]

Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle

Decode, I think we already discussed this in the Katherine Jenkins and Vanessa Mae thread. Could a woman like Nana Mouskouri be famous now? I doubt it !!



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nana_...uri#section_10

I think she could in her own field. In fact she did, albeit at a time when how she persented herself wasn't held against her.

There's more angles to view this topic than the examples of the two women you mentioned. For example, you could have a band that does great music but hasn't given their visual side any thought. If you go to a gig and see that the band or artist has a distinctive or striking look, that can even make people listen more intently to their music.

Not all artists need it....though Bowie couldn't have got across to as many people without his image. Kate Bush too.

Back in the aft.

[twilight_sparkle]

Being myself interested in classical music it is interesting to note how the way it is marketed now is image centred rather than music centred. Pop and rock I think as always been about image, ie, the teenagers in the 50's took to Bill Hayley even though he was a fat guy in his late forties at the time of his Rock Around The Clock hit, because he represented deviance.
Before that, all music stars seemed nice and presentable. He paved the way for Elvis.

[decode reality]

Originally Posted by the_ohmbudsman

Would Cat Stevens have made it now? Would Nana Mouskouri - well times have changed, she may make it on one level. But the music business has changed and I think the charts, which is what success largely was gauged and judged by I think is much more restricted and uniform now than it was in the 70's. For example there were joke bands like the Wurzels etc

The Wurzels - Combine Harvester (Brand New Key) [totp2] - YouTube

That made the charts and were hits in the 70's - today they wouldn't achieve that. That is because the criteria for what gets played on chart radio is more "uniform" and the image is much stricter as to what is allowed. Generally it has to be this aggressive R & B/Rap or Dance Pop with the same parameters i,e, Madonna, Cheryl Cole, Katy Perry, Rhianna now Rita Ora (who is a Rhianna clone) etc etc - now you have the token folkie Ed Sheeran. But image and strict music policy is important now more than ever I think.

Note: in that photo Nana looks a bit like Sarah Palin.
http://clarenceworly.com/wp-content/...ah_palin_5.jpg

Sarah Mouskori? I think she's more attractive than the women who let everything hang out (literally).

Yes the image and sound has become much more controlled and formularised in more recent times. Image isn't all negative though as I mentioned earlier in the thread. If you really love music, you don't need glossy magazines or videos to sell it to you. If only more record companies thought like me (they'd all go bust).

[decode reality]

Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle

Being myself interested in classical music it is interesting to note how the way it is marketed now is image centred rather than music centred. Pop and rock I think as always been about image, ie, the teenagers in the 50's took to Bill Hayley even though he was a fat guy in his late forties at the time of his Rock Around The Clock hit, because he represented deviance.
Before that, all music stars seemed nice and presentable. He paved the way for Elvis.

Yes, I mentioned the way classical music is marketed in your other thread. Many major labels used to have a specialist niche for artists and styles that weren't likely to be chart sucesses but had a core audience who would buy the albums and attend concerts. Inevitably things changed and it became about 'how can we turn this artist who only sells a few thousand albums into a million seller?"

On a purely musical level, I think rock & roll probably had more 'oomph' than other stuff that was around especially for white teenagers. Elvis was viewed as Eminem was seen later on.

[the_ohmbudsman]

Originally Posted by decode reality

Yes, I mentioned the way classical music is marketed in your other thread. Many major labels used to have a specialist niche for artists and styles that weren't likely to be chart sucesses but had a core audience who would buy the albums and attend concerts. Inevitably things changed and it became about 'how can we turn this artist who only sells a few thousand albums into a million seller?"

On a purely musical level, I think rock & roll probably had more 'oomph' than other stuff that was around especially for white teenagers. Elvis was viewed as Eminem was seen later on.

I think classical started to become more mainstream in 1990 when Pavarrotti sang the World Cup 1990 Theme "Nisan Dorma" I think that broke it to the public in a bigger way. Then we had the likes of Vanessa Mae, the Opera Babes and so on - that lead to classical being linked more to sexy people.

50's Rock n' Roll was the first Teenage revolution, which was more based on the MUsic! So the fact Bill Hayley was 40 years old wasn't that important as he still had a rock a billy hair cut and a good tune. Elvis was despised by the mainstream at the time and was basically big because he was doing what was basically black music, played by a white guy.

[ultimate_warlord]

If image wasn`t everything in music, gangsta rap would never have existed.
Image is everything in pop culture. Music is secondary...I mean...do you really call Punk Rock "Music"?

[decode reality]

Originally Posted by the_ohmbudsman

I think classical started to become more mainstream in 1990 when Pavarrotti sang the World Cup 1990 Theme "Nisan Dorma" I think that broke it to the public in a bigger way. Then we had the likes of Vanessa Mae, the Opera Babes and so on - that lead to classical being linked more to sexy people.

50's Rock n' Roll was the first Teenage revolution, which was more based on the MUsic! So the fact Bill Hayley was 40 years old wasn't that important as he still had a rock a billy hair cut and a good tune. Elvis was despised by the mainstream at the time and was basically big because he was doing what was basically black music, played by a white guy.

I forgot about Luciano, yes you're right. The tune started getting on my nerves after a while though!

[twilight_sparkle]

Originally Posted by decode reality

I forgot about Luciano, yes you're right. The tune started getting on my nerves after a while though!

But Pavarotti's image was that of a big fat sweaty italian. That's hardly sexy tho is it? Compare him to the male model tenors we get nowadays like Cortes, Russell Watson and Alfie Boe.

[decode reality]

Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle

But Pavarotti's image was that of a big fat sweaty italian. That's hardly sexy tho is it? Compare him to the male model tenors we get nowadays like Cortes, Russell Watson and Alfie Boe.

Not unless he had big fat and sweaty groupies, no. I think Pavarotti was brought into the discussion as an aside, to show how his kind of music became popularised outside of classical circles. Once football fans got a taste of it, that paved the way for the marketing men to push it further.

Kurt Cobain could be said to have had an image but all he did was turn up on stage and sing... brings this to mind (especially from 1:20)...I imagine Kurt Cobain would have been in agreement with Hicks here.

Bill Hicks on Marketing - YouTube

Bill Hicks on Marketing - YouTube

[the_ohmbudsman]

Originally Posted by decode reality

Not unless he had big fat and sweaty groupies, no. I think Pavarotti was brought in as an aside, to show how his kind of music became popularised outside of classical circles. Once football fans got a taste of it, that paved the way for the marketing men to push it further.

Kurt Cobain could be said to have had an image but all he did was turn up on stage and sing... brings this to mind:

Bill Hicks on Marketing - YouTube

That's very cynical. I think Pavarotti was well chosen to sing that song at the 1990 World Cup - the track suited the mood of England losing; Perfectly!

To Twilight Sparkle - Pavarotti - it doesn't matter if he was fat and swaety! The point is after he made that performance which was Seminal - after that slowly Opera became more of a product for A & R men to think they could groom artists for....

...however the next act that was sold is the Opera Babes = an A & R mans wet dream. So it seems to me after they surfaced we had all this well marketed Pop Opera emerging from 2003 onwerds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=F7MpFq_Xihk

[twilight_sparkle]

Originally Posted by the_ohmbudsman

That's very cynical. I think Pavarotti was well chosen to sing that song at the 1990 World Cup - the track suited the mood of England losing; Perfectly!

To Twilight Sparkle - Pavarotti - it doesn't matter if he was fat and swaety! The point is after he made that performance which was Seminal - after that slowly Opera became more of a product for A & R men to think they could groom artists for....

...however the next act that was sold is the Opera Babes = an A & R mans wet dream. So it seems to me after they surfaced we had all this well marketed Pop Opera emerging from 2003 onwerds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=F7MpFq_Xihk

Matters to me!!
I agree, it did open up the floodgates for opera to be mass marketed, but certainly not for the first time. Think Mario Lanza, Deanna Durbin, and even former Goon Harry Secombe.

[the_ohmbudsman]

Originally Posted by decode reality

Not unless he had big fat and sweaty groupies, no. I think Pavarotti was brought into the discussion as an aside, to show how his kind of music became popularised outside of classical circles. Once football fans got a taste of it, that paved the way for the marketing men to push it further.

Kurt Cobain could be said to have had an image but all he did was turn up on stage and sing... brings this to mind (especially from 1:20)...I imagine Kurt Cobain would have been in agreement with Hicks here

Yep Imani you got the point.

Yeh but fact is everybody that has made it in music has some kind of image, most big artists have a haircut that identifies them from Johnny Rotten, Amy Winehouse, Elvis Presley, Hendrix all had identifiable haircuts!

[twilight_sparkle]

I think all teenage boys now opt for either a Justin Bieber or a Harry Styles (one direction) haircut.

[the_ohmbudsman]

Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle

Being myself interested in classical music it is interesting to note how the way it is marketed now is image centred rather than music centred. Pop and rock I think as always been about image, ie, the teenagers in the 50's took to Bill Hayley even though he was a fat guy in his late forties at the time of his Rock Around The Clock hit, because he represented deviance.
Before that, all music stars seemed nice and presentable. He paved the way for Elvis.

Bill Hayley had a couple of hits before "Rock Around the Clock!" But this one was number 1 in the Uk and America at the same time - some would say that is because it was in the film "Blackboard Jungle!"

The Blackboard Jungle(1955)_Trailer - YouTube

The Blackboard Jungle(1955)_Trailer - YouTube

[the_ohmbudsman]

Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle

I think all teenage boys now opt for either a Justin Bieber or a Harry Styles (one direction) haircut.

Shake Ratle and Roll - Bill Haley - YouTube

Shake Ratle and Roll - Bill Haley - YouTube

Biebers is a Beatles cut and I'm sure Mick Jagger had a Harry Styles back in the early 60's

[decode reality]

Originally Posted by the_ohmbudsman

Yep Imani you got the point.

Yeh but fact is everybody that has made it in music has some kind of image, most big artists have a haircut that identifies them from Johnny Rotten, Amy Winehouse, Elvis Presley, Hendrix all had identifiable haircuts!

Everyone has an image - even if it's to have no contrived image at all. Carole King and Joni Mitchell also just performed and played, for example. I think it's part of the package and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

[decode reality]

Originally Posted by ultimate_warlord

If image wasn`t everything in music, gangsta rap would never have existed.
Image is everything in pop culture. Music is secondary...I mean...do you really call Punk Rock "Music"?

Punk was music... its roots were clearly in rock, with a rant style of singing on top, similar to hip hop in some ways. It was needed at that time because things were pretty much as they are now.