New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
What happened to image? I decided to watch some music videos today and one commonality I noticed throughout genres is the lack of any identifiable images.
Remember when musicians had a "look"? If I mention a red codpiece, a cone bra or even a swan suit, one could easily conjure up a mental picture of the artist that owned that look (shiny purple raincoat?) Other than a couple of copycat artists (T-Pain trying to copy a Bootsy-esque look and of course Gwen Stefani), there are almost no unique images of artists on television. Even within the context of a music video where an artist has the freedom of visual expression, seems like they've got nothing. Anyone else believe that the lack of unique, identifiable imagery ties in to the bland music being pumped out these days? I think they go hand in hand. Erykah Badu is usually visually expressive but she seems to be among the few rather than the rule of thumb. Most artists look like they stumbled off the streets and onto the stage. Help me out. Who's unique looking these days to the point where they can be identified by their style? | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: I decided to watch some music videos today and one commonality I noticed throughout genres is the lack of any identifiable images.
Remember when musicians had a "look"? If I mention a red codpiece, a cone bra or even a swan suit, one could easily conjure up a mental picture of the artist that owned that look (shiny purple raincoat?) Other than a couple of copycat artists (T-Pain trying to copy a Bootsy-esque look and of course Gwen Stefani), there are almost no unique images of artists on television. Even within the context of a music video where an artist has the freedom of visual expression, seems like they've got nothing. Anyone else believe that the lack of unique, identifiable imagery ties in to the bland music being pumped out these days? I think they go hand in hand. Erykah Badu is usually visually expressive but she seems to be among the few rather than the rule of thumb. Most artists look like they stumbled off the streets and onto the stage. Help me out. Who's unique looking these days to the point where they can be identified by their style? Right on point and have been my sentiments for quite some time. Sub-par material, sub-par look. It's sounds as if no effort has been put into the material so why would one put any effort into creating a look? tA  Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 "Ya see, we're not interested in what you know...but what you are willing to learn. C'mon y'all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SHIT HOP
MTV SYNTHS CLEAR CHANNEL NIRVANA | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"Most artists look like they stumbled off the streets and onto the stage."
Greatest quote of the year. LOL! I would say Alicia Keyes, Beyonce, Ne-Yo, and Keyshia Cole have really tried to display quality wardrobes and hair styles/hats with effort, but unfortunately none of their styles are really "original" ('specially Ne-Yo) LOL. "You put water into a cup, it becomes the cup...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Water can nourish me, but water can also carry me. Water has magic laws." - JCVD | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: I decided to watch some music videos today and one commonality I noticed throughout genres is the lack of any identifiable images.
Remember when musicians had a "look"? If I mention a red codpiece, a cone bra or even a swan suit, one could easily conjure up a mental picture of the artist that owned that look (shiny purple raincoat?) Other than a couple of copycat artists (T-Pain trying to copy a Bootsy-esque look and of course Gwen Stefani), there are almost no unique images of artists on television. Even within the context of a music video where an artist has the freedom of visual expression, seems like they've got nothing. Anyone else believe that the lack of unique, identifiable imagery ties in to the bland music being pumped out these days? I think they go hand in hand. Erykah Badu is usually visually expressive but she seems to be among the few rather than the rule of thumb. Most artists look like they stumbled off the streets and onto the stage. Help me out. Who's unique looking these days to the point where they can be identified by their style? I agree.Most of today's artists lack a distinctive look and style.Their videos are boring and uninspired.I remember in the mid-80s,nearly everyone had a unique look and style... Prince Michael Jackson Madonna Boy George Annie Lennox Rick James Tina Turner You could be one of these artists for Halloween and everyone would know what your costume was.These days,who could you be? All of the rappers dress alike.All of the male R&B singers look alike.All of the female R&B singers have similiar looks.None of today's rock artists have a distinctive look. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
V I D E O K I L L E D T H E R A D I O S T A R [Edited 4/29/08 2:38am] "..Just close your eyes and count to 10...and when U open 'em I'll B standing naked with nuthin' but a SMILE on.." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
steevetheeo said: V I D E O K I L L E D T H E R A D I O S T A R
[Edited 4/29/08 2:38am] yes, i suppose that's true. on the other hand, it also helped in the explosion of each artist (or genre) having a distinct, outrageous and definable look. so....  I'm missing my best friend Yes it was Incredible There's no reason to pretend | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Everything is plain and similar - not just the image. The same goes for music and videos.
Today´s showbiz is just boring. When I was growing up I used to follow so many artist. I hardly follow anyone nowadays and I don´t know if it´s becuase of the age or because of the fact that noone has impressed me.I guess both. "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: I decided to watch some music videos today and one commonality I noticed throughout genres is the lack of any identifiable images.
Remember when musicians had a "look"? If I mention a red codpiece, a cone bra or even a swan suit, one could easily conjure up a mental picture of the artist that owned that look (shiny purple raincoat?) Other than a couple of copycat artists (T-Pain trying to copy a Bootsy-esque look and of course Gwen Stefani), there are almost no unique images of artists on television. Even within the context of a music video where an artist has the freedom of visual expression, seems like they've got nothing. Anyone else believe that the lack of unique, identifiable imagery ties in to the bland music being pumped out these days? I think they go hand in hand. Erykah Badu is usually visually expressive but she seems to be among the few rather than the rule of thumb. Most artists look like they stumbled off the streets and onto the stage. Help me out. Who's unique looking these days to the point where they can be identified by their style? OutKast. Kylie Minogue. That's about it. I was going to say The Pussycat Dolls. But I said never mind as soon as I had a Mary Jane Girls/Vanity 6/The Spice Girls flashback.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
steevetheeo said: V I D E O K I L L E D T H E R A D I O S T A R
[Edited 4/29/08 2:38am] CORRECTION: Internet Killed The Video Star. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It's by design that today's mainstream music is bland along with image. Corporations want music to be a product that they can sell to as many people as possible. They gear towards the "lowest common denominator" and that means no new artist can be too individual; that wouldn't be "safe" enough. They just crank out one Barbie doll after another. An up-and-coming artist now who REALLY has their own sound and image might have a hard time seeking out *mainstream* success via a major label, MTV, etc., because of the compromises they would have to make in order to get played.
The early 80s was one of the most exciting times for image, because video was new, and people experimented with everything. It was the same when hip-hop was first up-and-coming. But now many of the smaller companies that were putting out music have been swallowed up by a few big ones; the same few companies own all the radio stations, and the tv stations; it's a homogonized culture of turning out one image that will sell. So now, to find unique images, I have to look outside of MTV, outside of the mainstream... the opposite of how it was 25 years ago. Corporations killed the video star! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
duggalolly said: It's by design that today's mainstream music is bland along with image. Corporations want music to be a product that they can sell to as many people as possible. They gear towards the "lowest common denominator" and that means no new artist can be too individual; that wouldn't be "safe" enough. They just crank out one Barbie doll after another. An up-and-coming artist now who REALLY has their own sound and image might have a hard time seeking out *mainstream* success via a major label, MTV, etc., because of the compromises they would have to make in order to get played.
The early 80s was one of the most exciting times for image, because video was new, and people experimented with everything. It was the same when hip-hop was first up-and-coming. But now many of the smaller companies that were putting out music have been swallowed up by a few big ones; the same few companies own all the radio stations, and the tv stations; it's a homogonized culture of turning out one image that will sell. So now, to find unique images, I have to look outside of MTV, outside of the mainstream... the opposite of how it was 25 years ago. Corporations killed the video star!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TonyVanDam said: duggalolly said: It's by design that today's mainstream music is bland along with image. Corporations want music to be a product that they can sell to as many people as possible. They gear towards the "lowest common denominator" and that means no new artist can be too individual; that wouldn't be "safe" enough. They just crank out one Barbie doll after another. An up-and-coming artist now who REALLY has their own sound and image might have a hard time seeking out *mainstream* success via a major label, MTV, etc., because of the compromises they would have to make in order to get played.
The early 80s was one of the most exciting times for image, because video was new, and people experimented with everything. It was the same when hip-hop was first up-and-coming. But now many of the smaller companies that were putting out music have been swallowed up by a few big ones; the same few companies own all the radio stations, and the tv stations; it's a homogonized culture of turning out one image that will sell. So now, to find unique images, I have to look outside of MTV, outside of the mainstream... the opposite of how it was 25 years ago. Corporations killed the video star! True. It is interesting though that even as far as singing is concerned, there is noone unique. Back than, a lot of artist had their "way" of singing. Just think of Tina Turner, MJ, Prince and many others. Each artist was identifiable just by the way of singing, nowadays it´s hard to recognise one from another. "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dag said: TonyVanDam said: True. It is interesting though that even as far as singing is concerned, there is noone unique. Back than, a lot of artist had their "way" of singing. Just think of Tina Turner, MJ, Prince and many others. Each artist was identifiable just by the way of singing, nowadays it´s hard to recognise one from another. I wouldn't say theres "no one". For instance, I could easily pick out Jaheim or Keyshia Cole (only because her voice annoys the shit out of me) from a crowd of singers. I do think you have shit like American Idol to thank for a more stringent karaoke-type lead vocalist mold in the music business. Its at the point where you can't just be an "okay" singer with great songs but you must also be a super-vocalist, being able to do vocal calisthenics throughout the course of each song. Its almost as if the stereotype of a singer has become the standard by which acceptable singers are being judged these days. In fact, it IS that way because the business wants to keep disposable artists so that they can be swept aways easily if their CDs don't sell. This is much easier when the variance between vocalists is smaller. But back to the topic. The lack of image and individuality is crippling artists because it makes them less interesting. [Edited 4/29/08 13:58pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SoulAlive said: BlaqueKnight said: I decided to watch some music videos today and one commonality I noticed throughout genres is the lack of any identifiable images.
Remember when musicians had a "look"? If I mention a red codpiece, a cone bra or even a swan suit, one could easily conjure up a mental picture of the artist that owned that look (shiny purple raincoat?) Other than a couple of copycat artists (T-Pain trying to copy a Bootsy-esque look and of course Gwen Stefani), there are almost no unique images of artists on television. Even within the context of a music video where an artist has the freedom of visual expression, seems like they've got nothing. Anyone else believe that the lack of unique, identifiable imagery ties in to the bland music being pumped out these days? I think they go hand in hand. Erykah Badu is usually visually expressive but she seems to be among the few rather than the rule of thumb. Most artists look like they stumbled off the streets and onto the stage. Help me out. Who's unique looking these days to the point where they can be identified by their style? I agree.Most of today's artists lack a distinctive look and style.Their videos are boring and uninspired.I remember in the mid-80s,nearly everyone had a unique look and style... Prince Michael Jackson Madonna Boy George Annie Lennox Rick James Tina Turner You could be one of these artists for Halloween and everyone would know what your costume was.These days,who could you be? All of the rappers dress alike.All of the male R&B singers look alike.All of the female R&B singers have similiar looks.None of today's rock artists have a distinctive look. That's a good way of putting it. If you wanted to dress as a contemporary music artist for Halloween would anyone recognize you? Unless you dressed as Amy Winehouse, I would say no. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Shit hop is what happened to image. A cheap generic look for a cheap generic genre. Shit hop is also full of homophobia. Anything wild or different looking is considered "gay" to them. Andy is a four letter word. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Artists with an image went away along with learning how to play instruments. A lot of artists today look like they just jumped out of the audience and hopped onstage. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
theAudience said: BlaqueKnight said: I decided to watch some music videos today and one commonality I noticed throughout genres is the lack of any identifiable images.
Remember when musicians had a "look"? If I mention a red codpiece, a cone bra or even a swan suit, one could easily conjure up a mental picture of the artist that owned that look (shiny purple raincoat?) Other than a couple of copycat artists (T-Pain trying to copy a Bootsy-esque look and of course Gwen Stefani), there are almost no unique images of artists on television. Even within the context of a music video where an artist has the freedom of visual expression, seems like they've got nothing. Anyone else believe that the lack of unique, identifiable imagery ties in to the bland music being pumped out these days? I think they go hand in hand. Erykah Badu is usually visually expressive but she seems to be among the few rather than the rule of thumb. Most artists look like they stumbled off the streets and onto the stage. Help me out. Who's unique looking these days to the point where they can be identified by their style? Right on point and have been my sentiments for quite some time. Sub-par material, sub-par look. It's sounds as if no effort has been put into the material so why would one put any effort into creating a look? tA Agreed. The concept of originality went of window due to plethora of format radio which of late tends to by into the stereotypical image of Carbon Copy Artist who sound the same almost in every genre of the dial: have virtually no talent, known for replicating or reworking old songs with no appreciation for the integrity of the music. [Edited 4/30/08 1:12am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SPYZFAN1 said: Artists with an image went away along with learning how to play instruments. A lot of artists today look like they just jumped out of the audience and hopped onstage.
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: dag said: True. It is interesting though that even as far as singing is concerned, there is noone unique. Back than, a lot of artist had their "way" of singing. Just think of Tina Turner, MJ, Prince and many others. Each artist was identifiable just by the way of singing, nowadays it´s hard to recognise one from another. I wouldn't say theres "no one". For instance, I could easily pick out Jaheim or Keyshia Cole (only because her voice annoys the shit out of me) from a crowd of singers. I do think you have shit like American Idol to thank for a more stringent karaoke-type lead vocalist mold in the music business. Its at the point where you can't just be an "okay" singer with great songs but you must also be a super-vocalist, being able to do vocal calisthenics throughout the course of each song. Its almost as if the stereotype of a singer has become the standard by which acceptable singers are being judged these days. In fact, it IS that way because the business wants to keep disposable artists so that they can be swept aways easily if their CDs don't sell. This is much easier when the variance between vocalists is smaller. But back to the topic. The lack of image and individuality is crippling artists because it makes them less interesting. [Edited 4/29/08 13:58pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
vainandy said: Shit hop is what happened to image. A cheap generic look for a cheap generic genre. Shit hop is also full of homophobia. Anything wild or different looking is considered "gay" to them.
U nailed it!!! I was talking with a coworker a week ago about this. Back in the 1970's-1980's, you could be different (thru vocals or an androgynous image) and people would be like "damn that is unique". Now, everything is "thugged out" since record companies believe that the music buying public wants to identify with the everyman from the street. Then again, clothing companies have a lot of product to pitch as well (Sean John, other hip hop inspired clothing lines) Your analysis is moreso true for male artists, where any hint of display of androgyny/sexual ambiguity is met with scorn. Prince (1978-1981-The Bikini Brief years) would be still unique now, but his image would be met with utter hate of being "gay". If MJ (1987 Bad)were reintroduced to the public now (ignore the Motown, OTW, Thriller backstory) his album sales, regardless of his talent would suffer due to public obsession with image/being viewed as "gay". Today's music scene is a case of supply (talentless individuals disguised as musicians) versus demand (a record buying public yearning for the next big thing). This only feeds the machine, so image is a corporation defined construct. "Old man's gotta be the old man. Fish has got to be the fish." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
STOP BLAMING A GENRE OF MUSIC FOR WHAT CORPORATIONS DO. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: STOP BLAMING A GENRE OF MUSIC FOR WHAT CORPORATIONS DO.
 Well Stated.
What They Do-The Roots Radio Frequency-Dead Prez | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think newer acts dont want to be parodys or castaways from some theme party.
If you look at those that have any identity,..the white glove, i think some of these acts now cringe and think ,"what was i thinking" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
it's what made the 80s so fun - cyndi lauper, grace jones, boy george, PRINCE, adam ant, annie lennox...most of these people had great talent, but on top of that, they gave you something to look at. it was ENTERTAINING. which is kind of a nice thing to have when you're, you know, an entertainer.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: it's what made the 80s so fun - cyndi lauper, grace jones, boy george, PRINCE, adam ant, annie lennox...most of these people had great talent, but on top of that, they gave you something to look at. it was ENTERTAINING. which is kind of a nice thing to have when you're, you know, an entertainer.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What happened with everything relating to music overall? There's no image (image in general is fucked up. I was reading a recent poll and Justin Timberlake came in as #1 as the sexiest male singer!!!?????), the music sucks (most stuff that becomes popular is an annoying song based on computer sounds and the "artists" voice being put through a vocoder), the dancing is horrible (krumping? What the FUCK is with that). Vidoes have no effort and look the same. In terms of music it has definately un-evolved. It'a shame. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violetblues said: I think newer acts dont want to be parodys or castaways from some theme party.
If you look at those that have any identity,..the white glove, i think some of these acts now cringe and think ,"what was i thinking" These assholes take themselves too seriously, that's why. A lot of artists, as mediocre as they are (Puffy, etc.) actually believe that they are doing something "new" just by walking on stage. If you're an entertainer and you think so much of your self image that you're not willing to entertain, you need to get your boring, self-indulgent ass off the stage and let somebody up there who came to party. Labels deliberately sign acts that are long on ego and short on talent because they are easier to control. When they stop selling, the public has no attachment to the artists, so the artist has no bargaining chip with the label. Its "buh-bye". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: These assholes take themselves too seriously, that's why. A lot of artists, as mediocre as they are actually believe that they are doing something "new" just by walking on stage. If you're an entertainer and you think so much of your self image that you're not willing to entertain, you need to get your boring, self-indulgent ass off the stage and let somebody up there who came to party. Labels deliberately sign acts that are long on ego and short on talent because they are easier to control. When they stop selling, the public has no attachment to the artists, so the artist has no bargaining chip with the label. Its "buh-bye". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Also remember that we are talking about a different time before the internet when record labels controlled all the promotion, any gimmick they could throw at it they did, anything to draw attention. Think KISS's make up.
I just dont think today’s generation would go for some those gimmicks. If the music is good, I don’t care what they wear, I got into a lot of music despite the silly getups. I honestly dont think a lot of that stuff could fly now. [Edited 4/30/08 12:54pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |