I mainly interpret, image/gimmick, (as "manufactured/untalented artist & music") as one example, Teen Idols, from Lief Garret, Shaun Cassidy, Keith Partridge, Hanson, Michael Jackson..so on. Although, a few do actually have singles that I do like, for example, Silverchair & Debbie Gibson, and Jackson. There's not really very many artist mentioned above that actually do produce good music. But there's one that comes along every now & then with a decent single (Pop music).

I for example do not consider image, if I'm considering or rating the music of a band like KISS?--Kiss is Icon because of writing & having actual good rock music that was revolutionary for its time. Personally not concerned with image or status of an artist. All personal rated emphasis is on the music itself.

If there was the internet back in the 70s and I had a time machine and I could traveled back in time - this would be the kind of post I would expect to read.

:confused:
Well you did said "nobody" so I thought iyho (in your honest opinion) that what you meant.

And response never really address the question- Why should Bowie be thrown under the bus for having an image, and not The Beatles?

Whether you are talking about the Ramones in white t-shirts, torn jeans, and leather jackets, or Slipknot with jump suites and mask they both have an image. Just because one is more common and the other more shocking doesn't make the (former) less of an image. Another thing I can not totally agree Bowie was the most image driven because everyone has an image, from wearing street clothes to wearing expensive costumes every artist has an image. And there are plenty of examples of outrage images in music.

That is what I was getting at his contribution shouldn't be seen as less because of his image.

What I got from her was she was saying only outrageous or flamboyancy equals image, you are missing the point Starry is making seem like The Beatles didn't have an image like Bowie who had an image (a flamboyant image).

The reason only flamboyancy as image is what I stated above, everything is some kind of image, from wearing street clothes to wearing expensive costumes.

That is the very point I told Starry about The Beatles, they change several times making them in many respects very image driven.

The post your referring to is actually basically a quote taken from Wikipedia concerning "Image", I just used my own words of explanation but quoted the same artist. But back to the subject. Why would you rate today's or any era of music for that matter on image and gimmick over the music itself? It Could reflect as to suggest a decline in talented artist of the modern times, and instead, concentrating more toward manufactured, untalented music acts.

I really don't know what you mean about or implying when you say "if there was an internet back in the 70s"? You need to explain your position and theory a little more coherently.

Based on your logic every artist has an image, which to be fair is stating the obvious as very few artists would survive without some type of image, there are some artist that don`t really have an image as such but its contrary to the majority of artists.

The point being made here, is that some artists are more image driven than others whether it be Bowie, Slipknot, Kiss, Alice Cooper, Sex Pistols, Marilyn Manson etc to state some obvious references and just because I/we are accusing them of being image driven, is no reflection on the quality of their music, some of my all time favourite bands and artist are image driven.

Whatever way to dress up your debate, artists will always be judged on their image, especially if its an outrageous image such as Bowie had. People judge Bowie not just on his music but also his image as it was such an obvious feature..........perhaps if he had looked more like Phil Collins, then he would be judged solely on his music.

So you say it's just a gimmick and then you say there is an element of truth.

Really I think these outlandish statements are more that if people hear something often enough they believe it as fact even if it isn't. That's how human beings are, they easily believe what they are told. People will go with the bandwagon. All it takes is for the marketing to get enough coverage/penetration and the wagon gets rolling and people start to jump on. People feel security in going with what they are told rather than daring to actually question something.

And of course the death of an artist, particularly if they are relatively young, is given a mystique by the media and gives an opportunity for others to make more money out of them with the new hype they will get. These people have a vested interest in encouraging the hype. Record companies tend to make up these titles for singers or groups.

Yes
I don't see how that negates the other. A lot of gimmicks tend to be an exaggeration of the truth, or an extension of a personality.

So you're saying there's no truth in anything I listed?
So Motorhead are not known for being a loud band ?
I think a rather large majority if not all who have seen or heard them would beg to differ.
James Brown wasn't one of the hardest working performers around?
I guess the 50 or so studio albums he recorded 60s 70s & 80s as well as the sheer number of shows the guy played prove that he's a bit of a slacker.
I'm not saying those claims are not used for marketing, of course they are but you need to be at least a little convincing in what you are trying to claim and market.
If Coldplay's record company suddenly started billing them as 'The worlds most bangin' techno band' you really think that's going to catch on?
Really?
Or why not bill Adele as being 'The sexiest singer in the world'
That'll work.

That's great and you may have a point but all the ones I listed and I think all the ones I've seen in this thread were alive when they got their 'gimmicks'.

In fact I'm hard pressed to think of one dead artist who's gimmick has changed since they died. Maybe you can think of some.

I'm not saying they get a title after they die. That point was separate, I'm saying some get hyped after they die early which I think is true

Or course record companies will use titles that relate to the kind of music someone produces, but they do tend to exaggerate too much and people just follow what they say and repeat them.

I think you're giving record companies too much credit.

I think in most cases it the bands themselves or the media that are making the claims or giving the reputations. The record companies just latch on to them as an angle to sell.

Maybe, it could be someone in the media sometimes who sees it as a way to make a group or singer more interesting. But it's definitely something record companies would very enthusiastically take up whether they invented it or not.

I guess if I was planning a career in Musicology, instead of just being a music enthusiast/fan. All the image, popularity, and record sales might matter.

Or of course, if I was a record producer at the record company itself, I might care.:cool: I agree with Urban, some people give record companies to much credit. And in my opinion why be over concerned and put so much emphasis on image and all that crap?

Just listen to the music for your own pleasure, all the other **** doesn't really matter.

So why go with Paul McCartney as the King of Pop?
(That choice seem kinda bandwagonish.)

I always wondered whether The Beatles were lucky being at the right place at the right time or whether that they earned it, so I'm open for discussion about Paul McCartney (not falling into either camp of idol worship or hater) - I like to see both sides of the issue. Some people feel the momentum behind The Beatles as being hailed the greatest Rock Band of all time is public opinion - the industry gave them an unfair advantage. So in their opinion even if they achieved chart success it was due to the music industry manipulation of public opinion. Other feel The Beatles were geniuses especially Paul and John and they would go down in history as Beethoven or Mozart of their time. I on the other hand prefer J.S. Bach over Beethoven or Mozart.

I said in an earlier post I did this thread to show how silly it was people saying, as if it's unquestionable, that Michael Jackson is the 'king of pop'. There are obviously others who it could be argued are at least as good and arguably better.

I don't think it matters if people think The Beatles are the 'greatest' or not, but I think they are virtually undeniably very good and among the best. Making comparisons to some others can be interesting though, as it helps focus on the music apart from other aspects which dominate pop music in modern times.

And I don't think there has been a Bach, Beethoven or Mozart of modern times, the musical environment as it is probably wouldn't produce one.

I don't care for Michael Jackson, imo he is everything wrong with (mainstream / Top 40) Pop and I think he help ruin it, but I understand there are people out there who idol worship him and think he's the greatest.

Paul McCartney has a better chance than most to be remember for his skill as a songwriter/composer, he wrote some memorable melodies, and if you broke down the basic element of Art Music you have the melody (that's oversimplifying it a bit) but that is what the more well-known composers noted for like J.S. Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven or Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky they are known for are the memorable melodies they composed. I don't put composers of art music on so high a pedestal to think only they can compose music, even though it's structurally different, what Paul wrote is just as good. There is no predicting the future, whether generations from now will listen to even care about Art Music or Rock n Roll music no one really knows. So predicting Paul McCartney will be noted as the Mozart of the 20th century is a bit tenuous for not knowing what the future will hold.

McCartney has done some good music and melodies. But I think when comparing him to the very greatest (to most people) classical composers they just did such an amazing amount of good stuff. The environment they were in demanded they compose a great deal of music and the style was more limited in the baroque and classical period so they had to concentrate in depth in a particular style. That's why I don't think you can compare to them, their genius evolved in a particular way because of the situation they were in. Tchaikovsky, who you mention, who was from much later, might be a better comparison as he wasn't as prolific and was very melodic. I still like to compare people more who are in the same kind of music though and McCartney hasn't for instance composed symphonies, concertos and ballets (longer forms of music) so it isn't that easy to compare even to Tchaikovsky.

I disagree that the "Classical" composers were the greatest, the greatest composer when considering Art Music was during the Baroque period: J.S. Bach. Maybe most (or some) people feel the greatest composers were from the Classical period because of Mozart and Beethoven, and maybe that harkens back to what you said "People feel security in going with what they are told rather than daring to actually question something." Most people if asked who was the greatest composer will undoubtedly say Mozart.

The idea The Beatles will be remembered as the Beethoven of their time is something I've heard before - a few times actually. The last time I heard it was a few days ago when my friend brought up while talking about music. It was not my own observation but there are some thing I like to think about and wonder how possible (or true) such a statement is. It would be interesting (but impossible) to know what music is appreciated in the future. I guess people say stuff like that because of the momentum of people enjoying Beatles' music has continue now but there is always a possible of it dieing out because of various reasons. You can be big-headed, and say, “Yeah, The Beatles will be remembered and endeared by music fans a 100 years from now.” But as soon as you’ve said that, you think, “You know, they're lucky if they last three generations.”

The comparison was not between the structural similarities of a composition (e.g. a symphony) and a pop song. It's how popular they are and the contributions they made, the impacted they had on music in their own time and generations afterwards. It's amazing to me how many artist and bands have done cover-songs of The Beatles and the list is impressive. But then again I guess there are people who don't appreciate The Beatles and in turn wouldn't give any credibility to Rock bands, Pop artist, orchestras, Jazz musicians etc. doing covers of Beatles songs.

i don't even put much cred on composition or spending ages to creating a masterpiece

my idea of a masterpiece is improvisation, where upon the first take, you create magic, or free jazz, where you invariably stumble upon greatness

I have to agree with you on that one!

When I said classical I meant classical music in general and not specifically the classical style, so I did include JS Bach in that.

People love to make comparisons but I wonder if there comes a point where comparisons aren't so useful. As I said the societies in which these different types of music were created were completely different, the way music was made and the expectations of the audience were completely different. Sometimes all I can really judge on is how many good pieces of music I think someone has done, particularly when comparing things outside of their genres.



And as for improvisation well classical art music wasn't just playing the notes on the page, they had to be brought to life in live performance with the personal interpretation of the performers. Mozart for example didn't write down all the embellishments he might put into a performance. There also developed cadenzas sometimes which could be even more improvised. And even in jazz most of it isn't completely improvised, a structure with themes and chords is often laid out beforehand anyway

That is true about anything in music, you can even say that in regards to The Beatles. What they meant in their own time and what they mean now are entirely different. Even the art music that has survived and is played today has changed its audience over the course of the few hundred years since it first was created.

You are totally missing the point, of course it's not a apples to apples comparison that is clear, saying that about The Beatles was to draw a conclusion for the purpose of showing their importance - when considering both creativity and popularity.

I think there is a big difference between something written 40 years ago and something wrote 300 years ago, the whole world has changed in the way music is produced and consumed.

'Importance' is a very subjective term, popularity rises and falls with fashion. Mozart for example wasn't so popular in the second half of the 19th century. So I'd rather just base it on how much good music I think someone has done irrespective of fashion or anything else.

you have to remember most classical works have gone through a lot of permutations to make it more accessible, certainly Mozart didn't write his pieces for a "modern" orchestra, it would've probably been more raucous back then

and Stravinsky's Rite of Spring even incited a riot at its premiere, now that's rock n roll

The way the audience receives older works is definitely different now to how they would have 300 years ago and that is part of my point. And whether something is more conventional or more rebellious doesn't really matter to me, both can be great.

07/06/2011 10:31 pm
 

I personally think that most of Paul McCartney is all corn and cheese whiz.

Michael Jackson had some diversity in his lyrics, at least.

This gives reason to rectify that "Michael Jackson" is the king of pop. His music alone defines the best definition for (Pop Music) at its Best! Jackson "Is". The King Of Pop.

I thought that "Blood On The Dance floor", shows the sophistication his music had reached to a new level musically. Even the Video itself was very well Produced. Jacksons music at this time of "Blood On The Dance Floor" is the best of "Jackson" in my opinion.

It always seems a bit pretentious to me when people talk about the importance of lyrics, most people don't remember lyrics to songs much and they listen to songs for the music and not the lyrics anyway. And Michael Jackson was very retricted in the styles he used as well as the relatively short period over which he wrote most of his main music.

^ Lyrics do matter and Paul McCartney was a better lyricist than Michael Jackson.

If there was no one to help either with creating a song, Paul's song would definitely be better than Jacko's. Michael could not create a song by himself anywhere near what they sound with Quincy Jones as a producer and a studio band. What instrument have you ever seen Jacko play on stage, :confused: even now and then Madge straps on a guitar on stage, so in that respect she has a leg up on Michael JAckson. Paul McCartney at least plays his own instruments, (bass, guitar, piano, drums) and because he was a musician writing & playing his own songs the creation process was his own more so than Jacko who relied on others. The point Michael Jackson isn't the musical genius people want to make him out to be.

the ex-Wacko Jacko was credited on "maracas" on an Off the Wall demo

What I mean is that people can inflate the importance of lyrics, it's not the same as poetry (which I also like). The music is the main thing, as long as the lyrics don't interfere with the music by being really silly and bubblegum. Certainly for some to say Michael Jackson writes amazing lyrics is a gross exaggeration. Wanna be Startin Somethin for instance is pretty much nonsense lyrics.

I think Dr.Pepper is the king of pop.

Actually, I think the lyrics are what people remember most. Have you ever heard anybody sing the actual music? No, they sing and remember the lyrics to certain songs.
(And you're right, poetry is good, Walt Whitman is a favorite)

Wanna Be Startin' Somethin may not be a great song lyrically in your opinion, but songs like Black or White, Smooth Criminal, Man in the Mirror, Dirty Diana, and Billie Jean all have amazing lyrics.
Paul McCartney is responsible for the absolute corn and cheez-whiz that is Ebony and Ivory, most of the rest of Paul's solo work is very similar in its cheez-whiziness. Personally I think John was the better songwriter out of the two of them anyway.

People mishear lyrics anyway and just remember bits of them more just because they are connected to the best hooks, normally in the chorus. And people hum melodies a lot too if they don't remember the lyrics.

Not sure if the Bee Gees kept writing good songs after the 1985. I don't know any at least.

truth be told, I don't listen to the Bee Gees much outside of the 70s

Paul MacCartney is a pioneer of music. He is someone who made some great valuable songs. He is someone who is a genius but he is not a king of pop. I can assure you that. Michael Jackson was a great dancer and singer but Paul has a great voice. Paul has had been able to maintain a good responsible career. I enjoy Paul. But Paul is not the king of pop at all.

Don't worry about the thread title, it was just a way to question why people always call Michael Jackson the King of Pop. I think people define pop way too narrowly nowadays anyway.

Justin Bieber is the true king of Pop.....

Paul knows how to work it, broheim.

For me, he was, the absolute no.1 songrwriter, I've always prefered him instead of Lennon...

Nice Video of Paul...

I have little interest in labels like "king of pop", which is just marketing hype. However, if it ever applied to McCartney, it certainly does not now. I stopped being interested in him after Venus and Mars.

If sales is the criterion, then Michael Jackson would claim the title.