IMAGE
I had almost thought about skipping this week’s article because I’m just so damn sick of talking about American Idol. I think I might have talked more at length about it in the past few blog posts than I have my entire life. But I just can’t fight the natural progression…
A quick look at the Billboard Pop chart is disturbing. With Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Keri Hilson, Lady Gaga, and Jordin Sparks making up half the top ten, there is a stern indication that today’s music industry is focused squarely on image either at the expense of or in addition to the music. Even the #1 hit that at first glance bucks the trend—The Black-Eyed Peas’ “I Got a Feeling”—still features the walking tabloid circus that is Fergie. Also one of two rock acts in the top ten, Cobra Starship, features Leighton Meester from Gossip Girl in some fabulous TV/Pop Music synergy. In fact, just looking at the chart in a cover-flow makes me feel more like I’m reading Teen Vogue or Perez Hilton than an industry trade.
In regard to last week’s article, there is indeed an emphasis on star singers as opposed to star musicians or star songwriters. However, that is nothing new to this industry. Michael Jackson, Madonna, Elvis, and all kinds of artists throughout pop history have relied on songwriters. Generally speaking, behind anybody who has a plehtora of hit records and songs is an army of songwriters helping to sustain the artists’ commercial magic.
More unique and insidious than this is American Idol’s emphasis on the look and style of their contestants, which is emblematic of the larger music industry. Could Kelly Clarkson have won with her current Rubenesque figure that seems to be generating so much negative buzz? If you take Ruben Studdard off the scales (and many conspiracy theorists would have you replace him with the decidedly more svelte Clay Aiken) it looks like the seven remaining contestants might weigh a thousand pounds, tops.
It is an indication that the physical attributes of a pop artist are at least as much a part of their celebrity as their music. I now recognize many artists from television and the trades who I’ve never even heard a song from—instances where the image has both superceded and preceded the music. Can you believe that there was ever a time when America thought Madonna was African American? Her first single, 1982’s Everybody, was an R&B hit and the label, Sire Records, left her image off the cover and instead put images of urban minorities playing in the streets so as not to eschew her then-primary demographic. I can’t even imagine somebody having a #1 hit today without knowing what they look like, let alone their race!
We have grown accustomed to seeing our pop stars in candid environments, fashionable moments, and compromising positions. Given the headlines that have been generated by the nude pictures of Vanessa Hudgens and Ashley Greene, I almost expect new pop stars to have lingerie shoots before ever releasing their first single.
All this is just to say that the music landscape has changed. It has been said that radio is the theater of the mind because radio engages the imagination in a way that spoonfed images never could. Instead of a mysterious everyman/everywoman disembodiedly singing a tune that could be about you or me or anybody, we are given very distinct images of who is singing to us and the meaning is colored by our perceptions of that person. Would Katy Perry’s “I Kissed a Girl” have been such a tantalizing pop sensation if a bald and toothless paraplegic sang it instead of some new age sex symbol?
Music has become a footnote to the image, the background music to a film sequence, the atmosphere to a car commercial, and a novel dabbling for celebrity playtime. The purity of the art form seems to have been lost in the mainstream and that is where the rise of indie labels has taken up the slack.
Maybe on some level, in some small way, the flight toward indie rock has been a means of escaping the mass-market approach to the music business. In the same way twentysomething hipsters might reject owning a TV, they find solace in the magic of an unknown artist and the possibilities of a song without a face. I couldn’t buy an Animal Collective poster with the band members on it if I wanted to and I am eternally grateful for that.
The kind of synergy that is currently emphasized in the music business has been a long time coming. Starting with Billboard and other music rags, expanding to MTV, and finally culminating in the media saturation of pop icons on network television and major media. This has been good for the music business on some level because it is free marketing and promotion. The bad thing is that music is no longer its own unique industry with its own idiom and no longer focuses on what it does best.
Additionally, an image-centric music marketing approach puts the industry in an unsustainable position as artists fade with the passing of a fad. Then Big Music is stuck scrambling trying to find the next fashion to capitalize on and exploit. Lady Gaga’s voice and music will forever be married to her image and therefore the timeframe in which she operates. As such, there isn’t even the slightest chance that her music will live on beyond the prime years of her own life when either she or her demographic grows up.
If the industry could only refocus its efforts on recreating the special environment where music can be appreciated in its own right, without all the hype and celebrity, they’d be well on their way toward a sustainable path. When is the last time you at home got a record, sat down, and listened to it? Really listened to it. Didn’t put it on while you clicked through Facebook or checked the local news. Just listened?
When more people can say that they honestly sit down and appreciate music for music’s sake, not as an accent or embellishment to something else, that’s when we’ll know that the music business is surefooted once again.
As a self-professed admirer of sugary pop and entertainment, I’d like to expand on and add my two cents to what Phil has said here. My take on all this is that our focus on image and celebrity gossip is fine. Throughout human history we have been obsessing over dynamic characters and that doesn’t need to go away. Lady Gaga has very interesting things to say (whether they are calculated or not) and presents herself in a unique way. The only problem is that “Poker Face” doesn’t stack up to Madonna’s catalog.
So the problem is that there is (supposedly) no substance to back it up–more specifically the music and musicianship/performance talent. Do I wish there could be more emotional/genuine music today? Yes. Do I think it sucks that people can’t use their imagination anymore when it comes to how an artist looks, acts, vibes? Yes. In fact I think the top 10 has just been sucking for several months now. But in today’s music world, if we stripped away the image and the hype, we would just have nothing. 13 year old girls aren’t going to start listening to Grizzly Bear. We need a healthy mix of substance and entertainment. I don’t think Phil would disagree with me on that. He also makes a great point that I always like to make too, which is that all the biggest artists have always relied on songwriters.
I’d also like to throw in that while “I Kissed A Girl” sucks unless you’re drunk at a club, “Hot & Cold” is a beautiful feature of one aspect of the human condition and reminds me of 60s pop songwriting except the lyrics are more specific (because let’s face it, pop lyrics can’t be as generic as they once were anymore).
Don’t forget to include all the independent house and techno labels with your indie rock. As a DJ, I take great comfort from the fact that I can play a couple of hours of electronic music and watch people dance to it without dropping a single top 40 hit.
I know we’ve probably beat this Idol discussion to death, but I can’t help wondering if the image > music phenomenon is limited to North American audiences? Not to say that Europeans aren’t interested in public image/disgrace; the paparazzi is living proof of their fascination. They’ve also had their share of manufactured pop groups, Spice Girls, Girls Aloud and Take That being the obvious examples. Rather, I wonder if the link is as strong between the look and the music in Europe.
My parents are English, so I spent a fair amount of my childhood in the UK. I didn’t really become aware of the cultural differences in popular music in the two countries until our trip in 1990 when Iron Maiden’s “Bring Your Daughter to the Slaughter” was #1 in Britain. The following trip it was McAlmont & Butler. Neither act can be described as “pretty” nor did they make a dent in the North American popular music consciousness, and yet made it to the top in Britain.
What I guess I’m asking is if you think this phenomenon is simply a product of the technology and the times or if North Americans have a cultural preference to the physically attractive (by current standards) over the talented?
@ Keith: “Hot & Cold” is pop GENIUS. As a point of interest, discogs.com tells me that Lukasz Gottwald is responsible for the production and that he also produced Kelly Clarkson’s “Since U Been Gone”, another pop gem. You know, I wouldn’t mind reading one of those sonic deconstruction pieces on either track. *hint* *hint*
I have a tendency to be overly expository, so sometimes my main points get obscured. But heck, it’s a blog not an 11th grade English paper. So if I get caught up in a rant, don’t shoot!
Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me whether there is substance behind the music or that music doesn’t have something to say. Vapid or superficial music is not unique to these times. As Chaz from Airheads so eloquently put it: “You’re telling me Purple Haze says somethihng?”
The real problem is evident in the way you phrased your comments: “…the problem is that there is (supposedly) no substance to back it up–more specifically the music and musicianship/performance talent.” The issue I am raising is that in today’s MUSIC industry the question seems to be whether or not the MUSIC supports the image. In a MUSIC business, that is totally backwards.
Almost like reading a book, there once was a time when you could listen to the radio and be captivated by someone coming out of the ether who had your story or somebody else’s story or just a damn good story that you wanted to hear. This person had no face, no body, maybe not even a name until the DJ came on and told you, and no Hollywood tabloid discourse to go around them. Or maybe they did, but it did not supercede the music.
Music has lost that kind of universality. When I talk about Lady Gaga and her music being tied to her style, I’m talking about parachute pants and cone bras and all the laughable pop styles that are used to date works of art by wedding them to the people who sport those looks. When I think of Jimi Hendrix, I don’t necessarily think of Afros and platform shoes, though they were there. I think of guitar solos and psychedelia. When I think of Katy Perry, all I can see is her media press kit.
And now suddenly I can’t tell people that I think “Toxic” is a well-written pop song with a great hook and superb cadence without somebody else chiming in saying “Yah but Britney is totally bat-shit crazy” or “Yah and she used to be hot, but now she’s weiiiiiiird.”
Music just isn’t and shouldn’t be about images both from an artistic and business standpoint.
Last time I sat down and listened through a record: Today. Susanna and the magical orchestra – 3. Not quite mainstream pop, tho’, but it’s mastered by bob catz, and that is usually sonically a good sign.
I feel I’ve contenplated over this discussion at many times before, but I think there is litte we can do – superficial attitudes are found even in the best of us. From a business standpoint you are doomed these days without a proper pacage – hell, sometimes I listen to records with interesting covers.
Just a thought: In a world with ridiculous amonts of information it’s easy to like music out from recognisation, not out from experimental chords (or else most would listen less to diatonic music) or other parameters – if lady gaga puts you in that mood, then it’s more convienient than actually having an interest in music (no lady gaga disrespect intended). What I’m saying is that majority of music consumers have a very superficial taste of music – even most of my indie friends don’t have a conscious attitude towards what they listen to. If the beat is hard, then you might feel it in the feet and nod approvingly.
I’m exited about how the industry will move forward in the days of DRM and so on, tho. If our vision is to make more smaller artists able to live from their music, then majors will make less money. I guess.
I just babble, but it’s no music science essay, like you guys said.