Quote:
Originally Posted by Guybrush
It could be anything. What appealing qualities could an artist have and how broad is potentially each of those qualities? They can be sexy, cool, outspoken on issues that are important to you, be relatable on a personal/intimate level through social media, appear on SNL, act in movies, look badass in a leather jacket or with corpse paint on. There are many ways to be appealing and many ways to connect with a band or an artist.
In terms of identity shtick, it's just sub cultures and marketing has evolved a lot.
|
Sorry, my question was a bit flubbed. It should have said: what are you basing the idea that people find Floyd boring because they don't fulfill their need for a simple identity schtick
on?
My key point is that just because artists with identity schticks have seen success, it's faulty logic to attempt to apply the reverse to Floyd's public perception as a boring band being because of the lack of one. Even then the underpinning claim that identity schtick=success just strikes me as a way to dismiss artists without engaging with their music. And as I've already mentioned, simple identity schticks can be and are applied to Floyd by marketers and the public. Even if they didn't, the idea that they're too pure for an identity schtick becomes one in itself.
Why do people find Pink Floyd boring? Probably because they've been exposed to music they prefer with genre trends that Floyd isn't attempting to follow and the ideas Floyd focuses on are underwhelming to them. I'd say that that holds in both 1980 and 2021.