DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Music Business: Should image matter as much as artistry?

Forums > Music Business

Should image matter as much as artistry?

Nikki319	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 1:36 AM I just wanted to know people's opinion on this...
Cryxan	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 2:09 AM It shouldn't, but if there's to be any marketing...
Nikki319	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 3:04 AM I see what you're saying..anyone else?
Veracohr	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 6:00 AM What do you mean by "artistry"? You mean talent?
johnnygnote	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 6:18 AM I think image is artistry as much as music or any other medium. Dancers create image with there bodies, actors create image with their very persons. A painter creates image with different mediums.
Tudris	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 7:26 AM Yes, image is just as important; it helps fans identify. I think of the metal band Soilwork, and I think loud, passionate, jacked up, hardcore. It's just the image I get. It's not a marketing image, but that counts too. The real question is, "Should artistry matter as much as image?", because that's where big labels and their top 40 pop royalty get things turned around.
Rodrica	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 7:34 AM Image wasn't so important before things became more visual. We are promoting a sound...but now there's a huge demand for that visual aspect in terms of videos, pics etc - so the image thing has to be developed as well. And as someone whose had to market products, I know that financially you can't hope to sell to everyone - so by defining your target market and creating an image it helps sell you to the right people instead of wasting your money talking to those who don't wanna listen. The rule seems to be that you can only preach to the converted.
Tudris	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 7:40 AM People don't often decide they like a genre they didn't like before. So yeah, what Rodrica just said.
CrescentShadow	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 11:20 AM if you have to put on a halloween costume to have fans, then obviously your music isnt good enough.. just let the music do the talking.
GeneHilbert	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 12:01 PM You are your image personified. Rodrica is correct, that is the key to marketing. All of the most memorable have an unique image. Something - "dress, style, method, sound," a thing that defines who they are. Kiss is not Kiss without the makeup. As well... your image will not be appropriate for every venue. Regardless - so be yourself, be honest to who you are. People can smell a rat a mile away. Nothing will destroy you faster than being a fraud. Well... other than lack of talent, but even that with proper packaging can be over come. Develop that which is you, that thing that separates "distinguishes" you from the crowd.
onewhodreams	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 12:17 PM I agree with Gene. If you find your own style and self and are confident with it and that shows, then you've got it all going for you. I don't know if you really have to be different than everyone else image wise, though it will catch the eye of listeners to see you, but really you just have to be yourself and if the music is good then they will listen no matter what you look like.
Nikki319	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 11:41 PM ok you guys do you think the whole music + image thing can go too far? Example:women in music recently:Beyonce,Britney Spears,Christina Aguilera-all extremely successful,beautiful,talented(I know we can pull an exception for one,just go with it)...but if these women weren't as pretty as they are do you think they would be successful as they are? Any ideas?
GeneHilbert	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 12:32 AM Well it is pretty obvious you don't see the industry pushing plain Jane's or women that are slightly over weight. Example..... Kimberly Loche of the American Idol - that girl has an incredible voice and not really what I would consider overweight or unattractive. But I don't see her CD for sale or anyone pushing her image everywhere. And that’s a damn shame. So yes the industry wants a certain body image - because they can create the music easier than creating the looks. Milli Vanilli remember them.......
johnnygnote	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 5:37 AM So does that mean that if KISS didn't wear their "Holloween Costume" image then the music would suck. Or if the Beatles hadn't worn Sgt Peppers Costumes that the album would not have been one of the top selling albums of the decade? Etc etc etc etc.......
GeneHilbert	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 10:59 AM Kiss made a couple of albums without their make up........ did not work. They put the original group back together, went back on tour and kicked ass. So yes it matters as a recognized image and what people wanted & expected from Kiss. Sgt Peppers was a album cover and movie.... and was Not The Beatles image. The mop top lads from Liverpool..... and they were allowed to change and grow as they developed. Despite the hilarious "We're more popular the Jesus" faux pas.
onewhodreams	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 11:01 AM Regarding what Gene said, since this is the way our music industry works it's really unfair because they are robbing us of the opportunity to hear new music. They decide what is good, what genre it fits, and what we "get" to hear.
furiousBall	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 11:15 AM I was at the Eat M' Music Conference in Las Vegas a few years ago and a pretty 40 year old singer stood up and asked a panel of record execs if they consider age when signing acts, they all said yes depending on the genre of music, when the artist said she was in alternative pop, three out of the five panelists said they most likely would not sign an new artist that old. Very sad. I have a theory that the best musicians are ones we've never heard.
furiousBall	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 2:08 PM oh here's some examples where image should have mattered maybe a bit more... http://www.cenedella.com/stone/archives/000302.html man, the John Bult album cover just creeps me out
victorsskull	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 2:28 PM nice
GeneHilbert	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 2:28 PM Oh it fuckin' sucks...... so what they are saying is: Let us use you when you're young, beautiful and naive. So that we may pimp you out now - because once you're older and wiser - you are fuckin' useless to us........ As well.... you all realize that your abilities are better now than a few years ago. That continues...... I have some buddies that are in their s 50's & 60's they've been playing 40+ years. These guy's can just burn the frets off a gtr. but you will never hear of them. Sad cold truth.........
leflaw	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 3:23 PM I know what you mean, pardner. Me and a couple of ex-gunslingers were sittin around the other day, blowing the heads off of diminished scales.....
furiousBall	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 4:11 PM oh goody, more... http://www.cenedella.com/stone/archives/000590.html
GeneHilbert	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 4:54 PM Van.... those are great. The Top 15 Rejected Album Titles 15. Courtney Love -- "My Sunday School Favorites" 14. Green Day -- "Hey! We Learned a Fourth Chord!" 13. Paul Simon -- "Still Breathing After All These Years" 12. Jimmy Buffett -- "Tired of Selling Driftwood Art to Tourists" 11. The Doobie Brothers -- "What Once Were Vices Now Land Us at Betty Ford for a Month" 10. The Beatles -- "1... More Royalty Check" 9. The Who -- "Forget That 'Hope I Die' Thing, We Were Young and Stupid" 8. Tupac Shakur -- "Blood from a Turnip: Yet Even More Crap I Didn't Think Was Worth Releasing When I Was Alive, Volume 27" 7. Cranberries -- "Excessive Consumption May Cause Painful Urination" 6. Jennifer Lopez -- "Bet You're Not Looking at My Butt Any More" 5. Lynyrd Skynyrd -- "Actually, Most of Us Have Been Dead for Years" 4. Britney Spears -- "They Can't Call You a Pedophile Now That I'm 18!" 3. Metallica -- "Don't Even Think About It, You Pimple -Faced, Napstering Punk! Hey! Come Back Here With Our Songs!" 2. Michael Jackson -- "The White Album" and Topfive.com's Number 1 Rejected Album Title... 1. Yes -- "Oh, God... Yes! Yes!! YES!!!"
invocati	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 6:44 PM No image shouldn't count. Just talent and originality. Gene where did you get that material? LOL Awesome Observations. Very funny!!!!
invocati	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 6:49 PM Anyone remember Meatloaf? Terrible image. He was fat and not attractive but his music was very original when it debuted.
invocati	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 6:59 PM Mama Cass. Elvis Costello. Devo. Meatloaf. Drummer and guitarist from Cheap Trick. Lead singer of the Cars. .Lyle Lovitt. and I'm sure there are others. These where all Geeks or considered unattractive but there music was very acceptable to there labels and Fans.
milladrive	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 8:51 PM Indeed, those artists were "odd," but they all had images. Memorable, marketable images.
GeneHilbert	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 8:58 PM Van posted this site http://www.cenedella.com/stone/archives/000590.html and it was there..... I agree those are exceptions........ But.... All of those artist were not trying to break in todays market......... And look at Ann Wilson ........... if anyone as earned Rock & Roll Hall of Fame it's Ann........ And those greedy near sighted bastards still to this day still fuck with her.
KevBrock	Date: December 7, 2003 @ 12:09 PM I guess image is very important to the music industry. I mean, look at Elvis Presley. Elvis had this amazing look that attracted fans all over the world. You know, the sylish hair, the lip thing he does, the Elvis dance, the clothes he wore, etc. Do you think Elvis would be where he is today if it weren't for his image? No. The same goes for Michael Jackson and Madonna. Every artist and musician out there has their own image. Some musicians like to be themselves by wearing casual clothing like for example Dave Mathews, Sheryl Crow, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, etc. They got where they are today, not because of their image, because they knew how to write radio friendly songs. But artists with serious images like Ac/Dc for example, look at Ac/Dc, the singer, Brian Johnson just wears blue jeans, a muscle shirt, and an old hat you would wear in the 50's and Angus Young wears a schoolboy suit. Singer David Bowie can come up with many different images of himself. Sometimes David would be himself, a lot of times, he'll wear a costume and wear women's make up if he wanted to. Led Zeppelin had their own image. Robert Plant always sings on stage shirtless while Jimmy Page wears weird clothing on stage. The image of the band/artist really helps grow a fan base and the image makes live concerts more exciting.
Nikki319	Date: December 29, 2003 @ 2:24 AM I had completely forgotten about this post until I was walking past the magazine rack at Walmart and saw Michelle Branch on the cover or Maxim...which is all well and good more power to her except for the fact that she was topless with hot pant underwear on!I'm thinking to myself..Michelle Branch is the same age as me..and had made a nakme for herself being kind of the anti popstar thing..as in keeping her clothes on..what happened?My main question is do Labels still think female artists suck so much they need to be naked? Look at the artists out who are around my age(I'm 20)Beyonce,Britney,Christina,Kelis,Ashanti,Mya,Jessica Simpson, one common thread ties them all together, none of them like wearing clothes anymore...what is up with that. I want to be sucessful,yes,but if that means strutting around like a stripper to sell records I just don't think it's worth it.If I wanted to strip I would strip,at least let the women have a choice. The most irritating part is...it's so different for men, I'm sure looks was not the biggest factor when they signed Bone Crusher or Fat Joe... the whole industry is so grimy...it's annoying.
johnnygnote	Date: December 29, 2003 @ 6:34 AM Vadaman
johnnygnote	Date: December 29, 2003 @ 6:36 AM " id="76224">Let's see If I can get this to work
johnnygnote	Date: December 29, 2003 @ 6:37 AM Man that's really bad :rofl: " id="76225">I especially like this one Man that's really bad

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: