Paul McCartney - The REAL King of Pop? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Pop
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-16-2011, 05:39 PM   #121 (permalink)
Divination
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
Default

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.
Necromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2011, 11:10 PM   #122 (permalink)
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Necromancer View Post
I mainly interpret, image/gimmick, (as "manufactured/untalented artist & music") as one example, Teen Idols, from Lief Garret, Shaun Cassidy, Keith Partridge, ..., Michael Jackson..so on. ...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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
I've never once stated that no one ever imitated Bowie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
Because loads of bands looked like the Beatles, but nobody ever quite looked like Bowie and went through the amount of image changes that he did. Regardless of his music, Bowie has always been very image driven and probably the most image driven artist in the history of rock.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
For the record as is common knowledge, Bowie is one of the most influential artists ever both visually and musically. He basically single-handedly started off the glam rock movement in the early seventies and the new romantic movement in the eighties.
That is what I was getting at his contribution shouldn't be seen as less because of his image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
Flamboyancy and image can be different, but in a medium such as music where visuals are an important aspect they become pretty synonymous, as an artist tries to put out an image that matches their sound, whether this is a straightforward image or a flamboyant one depends on a number of factors.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
The difference is with Bowie, is[B] that his image has changed drastically several times, making him in many aspects very image driven.
That is the very point I told Starry about The Beatles, they change several times making them in many respects very image driven.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards

Last edited by Neapolitan; 07-18-2011 at 03:39 PM.
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 02:08 AM   #123 (permalink)
Divination
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
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.
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.
Necromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 05:11 AM   #124 (permalink)
Horribly Creative
 
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
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.


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 should 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.
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.
Unknown Soldier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 05:30 AM   #125 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
It's just a gimmick.

Just like James Brown is 'The hardest working man in showbusiness' or The Rolling Stones 'The greatest rock n roll band in the world' or Kiss being 'The hottest band in the world' or Motorhead being 'the loudest band in the world'

Sure there are probably people who could dispute those claims but those bands claimed those things and they stuck with the general public so I guess there could be some element of truth to them regardless of whether they are actually 100% true or false.
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.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 11:17 AM   #126 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
So you say it's just a gimmick and then you say there is an element of truth.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 11:23 AM   #127 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
Default

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.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 11:27 AM   #128 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

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.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 01:18 PM   #129 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
I think you're giving record companies too much credit.
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.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 06:42 PM   #130 (permalink)
Divination
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
I think you're giving record companies too much credit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
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. 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.
Necromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.