Conference mr1pst::music

K.C.-

Good move separating this topic (IMHO, of course).

I'd say that strictly audio entertainment is actually a separate medium than
the audio-visual form. I also think that the former is almost nonexistent in
today's "music biz;" in other words, gone are the days of strictly "studio
bands."

As far as success and looks goes: personally, I think that the visual part of a
performance succeeds to the extent that it contributes in getting the music's
message across, no more, no less. A "pretty" band or singer without the ability
to convey the emotion of a song can flop, while a less "attractive" one can
remove any relevance at all (IMHO yet again) of their physical appearance from
the listener's/viewer's mind. If it's a sad song, I want to *see* the pain in the
singer's eyes; if it's angry, I want to read it in his/her movements and
expression. Frankly, I think that's more the basis for the success of someone
like Madonna than what I'd call the more superficial quality of general
attractiveness- on which I *wouldn't rate her as highly, BTW.

I find an *expressive* face more attractive than one which is simply "pretty,"
actually. Once I become familiar with *any* face, it's hard to even remember
the first impression of whether it was "pretty" or not when I first beheld it.

Bob

    Addressing KCs examples:
    
    
    If Madonna did her schtick without the ability to look good to the
    majority of people, it wouldn't be much of schtick.  If she never did a
    video or a concert, she might sell, based on her tunes and how she
    presented them without video back up.
    
    Paula Abdul (who I personally don't think looks that good or sounds
    that good) has her moves and catchy little tunes to go with them.  If
    she never did a video in her life, or a concert, she probably wouldn't
    sell.  Her tunes are less interesting than Madonna's and Madonna, even
    without video or any of that, could still play up the modern self
    confident bimbo through the music.
    
    C+C music factory would sell without the visuals because the tunes are
    good dance music.  Nothing to change the face of the world, but good
    stuff to dance to.  Visuals help them because not only do you have the
    catchy dance music, you have catchy dancing.  The sound helps them. 
    The visuals don't hurt.
    
    I would wager that that bands who were good enough to sell without
    videos would still sell.  One will note that a lot of the so-called
    "classic rock" stars aren't that good looking as a whole.
    
    
    Video has definitely given performers another avenue to break into the
    business.  If you're photogenic enough, you do need as much talent
    vocally.  Of course looks matters.  People have been, and always will
    be, visually oriented.  We know what we like to stare at, be it on
    video or elsewhere.  It's hard to conceive of the music business
    without concerts, at least, and posters and all that other stuff that
    sells.  Cute musicians have always had something extra to attract
    listeners with.  Less cute simply have to use talent and personality to
    attract same.  
    
    PURELY cute musicians who have no talent at all wouldn't make it *as
    musicians* with or without MTV.  (set notalent=subjective).   They
    would make it as poster boys or girls, but not as musicians.
    
    
    My two cents.
    

    
    
    What about Milli Vanilli?  They certainly put a lot of change in their
    pocket for being "video frontmen" for a group of musicians, as do a LOT
    of dance-oriented music/video stars.
    
    What about Technotronic?  They hired someone else for the video.
    
    It has almost become the norm for "bands" (I use the term *very* lightly)
    to hire a "band" for the video.
    
    I think the Buggles (Tevor Horn and Geoff Downes) should re-record
    the song as "Video Made the Radio star".
    
    my .02,
    
    chUck

    Let's not forget that those C+C people rip off all the vocals from
    martha wash.  She's old and fat, they have a young thin girl lip
    syncing.
    
    There's also another band that uses Martha's vocals too.  Though I
    can't remember the name, they too had a thin, young, white girl
    in the video.  Singing with a fat, old, black voice, I could tell
    they were faking it.
    
    Video is enough to make me sick....
    --CJ--
    

    That VOICE is enough to make me sick, but that's another story...
    
    Re: Madonna
    
    I think that she is the epitome of what I'm trying to say.  IMO, she is
    FAR from gorgeous, and her voice is weak.  If she just stood there and
    sang, she would never, ever make it.  But, a lot of her appeal - what
    she wears, how she "dances", her entourage on stage, etc., is very
    visual.  Actually, her appeal is controversy - but even most of THAT is
    visual rather than audial.  (Is "audial" a word?)
    
    Actually, it all goes back even farther than MTV...where would
    groups/performers like Kiss, David Bowie, Alice Cooper, etc. be without
    their visual sets and gimmicks?  Would they have gotten so far so fast?
    
    K.C.

What about the Monkees?  They were the ultimate visual group.  Mike Nesmith was
the only musician of the bunch right?

Tim

    Wrong - Peter Tork was a folkie with NO acting experience.
    
    K.C.

    Re: - a couple
    
    I think the word is aural.
    
    What about the new kids on the block????
    
    Or, as I call them, new kids on the blech.
    
    --CJ--
    

    Re: .4
    
    What's a fat, old voice sound like?  
    
    							Brian

    
    	KC - I can't believe you put Bowie in that group.  While
    	he is very visual, to put him with Kiss, etc... is unreal.
    
    	Do we still have to say IMHO ?
    
    	Tom

    
    maybe looks didn't mean too much for a few years while everyone seemed
    to be stoned to see, but i don't really remember^8
    
    Otherwise, looks (and various meanings that can be portrayed) have had
    much importance, at least from Elvis on, if not earlier (Sinatra may
    have been the first, but then again, Crosby and a few others from
    the 30's....) 
    
    Pictures and Music really became married with talking pictures. This
    became somewhat dramatic with TV and white america's aversion to
    black artists, leading to Pat, Frankie, Bobby, Ricky and all that other
    drecccch. 
    
    Teenagers are still the primary consumer of modern pop and looks,
    style etc tend to be very important to teens (the search for identity
    often proceeds brains). 3 teenage daughters continually drives this
    point home.
    
    bob

    
    Whether a group/band/performer is any good depends solely on TALENT.
    
    Whether a "     "    "         sells any records depends not only on
    their talent, but also on their image, sex appeal and advertising - all
    of which have everything to do with how they LOOK.
    
    IMHO
    
    Smithereens, Heretix, poor old k.d. and Fishbone all range from fairly
    unattractive to plain butt-ugly.  Of course they are all talented so I
    go & buy their stuff.
    
    Milli Vanilli, New Kids, Kylie Minogue (sp?), C&C muzak factory &
    Madonna all look good, but make me retch.
    
    The point?  . . . . .I dunno . . .:-)
    
    				-Jimbo
    

    How come groups like Heritix and O Positive continually get dropped
    after 1 major label album (which receive now push from the record
    company), but people like Richard Marx and Poison (who are complete
    wastes of skin, IMO) get to churn out album after album.
    
    I think looks outweigh talent in a LOT of the 'new' bands.  Half of the
    'new' bands are just reincarnated old bands (Damn Yankees, Mr Big).
    I think the industry should adhere to a 2 band limit. 8^)
    
    chUck
    an aside:
    It seems Boston Bands hold the record for :
    
    1) being dropped after 1 album receiving no publicity
    2) being signed by someone who has since been fired
    3) being signed to a label as it is going under..
       

    
    re:-1, maybe cuz some folks (like me) buy Richard Marx CD's and
    really enjoy them.  Great musicianship, cookin' tunes, nice chord
    progressions, etc...  heck, good old Fee Waybill wrote a few and
    sings backgrounds besides!!  
    
    And, as a guitarist, there's ALOT of great solos.  
    
    Whatever floars your boat,
    Tom
    

    Re: .13
    
    Simple...
    
    Richard Marx sold a lot more copies of his first record than Heretix
    did.
    
    						Brian

    One of the MOST beautiful voices of all times (IMO) (I HATE ACRONYMS)
    belonged to someone who I have NO desire to look at.  Mama Cass.
    
    Katrina

    re: -2 (Brian)
    
    But Richard Marx received a lot more push from his record company
    that a lot of bands do.  Was it because of his image?  (marketable)
    
    You didn't hear of Richard Marx playing small venues, or doing a
    lot (more than 1!) of tours opening for larger acts promoting his new
    album.
    
    I was a record store (Strawberries) manager when Richard Marx's first
    album came out, and we were required to put it on our in store
    playlist.  (which, of course, is decided by which record company
    promotes/pays the record chain to play an artist).
    
    Why one and not the other? ANYthing can be marketable.
    
    chUck

    Music only got separated aurally from the whole performance with the
    advent of the phonograph record.  Prior to that you got the visual
    performance along with the music whether you liked it or not.  
    
    Both parts of a performance (aural, visual) are part of a desparate
    attempt for attention on the part of the performers, who are basically
    lonely and pathetic individuals unworthy of our attention otherwise!!
    
    ;-)  ;-)
    
    Carl

    re who gets promoted.. there's a persistent rumor that the Mafia
    controls the large record companies.. which would explain why good
    music makes it so seldom.
    
    re .-1
    >Both parts of a performance (aural, visual) are part of a desparate
    >attempt for attention on the part of the performers, who are basically
    >lonely and pathetic individuals unworthy of our attention otherwise!!
    
    Am I supposed to take this comment seriously ?   So anyone who is
    compelled to perform their art is "lonely and pathetic" ?  I'm a
    musician trying for some success.. so UP YOURS, CARL !  oh, sorry,
    there were smiley faces.. so here's mine  ;-)  ;-)
    
    karl
    

    re: -1 Karl
    
    Well, the owner of Strawbs was sent to the clink on laundering money
    and bootlegging from RCA. (we could even tell when the 'goods' were
    shipped to our store).   And I remember having to clear the shelves
    of artists on certain labels whenever we received the phone call that 
    "we were at war, again".
    
    Money talks and looks help. 
    
    chUck
    

    re: -2
    
    Hi Karl-with-a-K,
    
    I guess you could say us noters are just a bunch of desperately
    lonely, blah, blah, blah...etc.   ;-)   ;-)
    
    Carl-with-a-C

    	RE: Chuck
    
    	I wish Mr. Big would UININCARNATE themselves and go back to the
    	bands they came from.  Mr. Big is just an excuse for 4 bored guys
    	to write sappy [in other words, PROFITABLE] ballads.
    
    	Paul Gilbert - Racer X
    	Billy Sheehan - David Lee Roth, Talas
    
    	And Damn Yaknees are actually pretty good, but nowhere near as
    	good as their previous bands [or solo careers].
    
    	Ted Nugent - Ted Nugent
    	Tommy Shaw - Styx
    	Brad Gillis - Night Ranger
    							GTI

    I think there are some groups, or solo artists, who have made it
    primarily on looks, who wouldn't have been as successful otherwise.  I,
    also, think there are some very talented artists, who would have made
    it regardless of appearance, who just happen to be very good looking. 
    I think the combination of talent and looks can help make someone
    become a mega star.  I'd say two examples of this would be David Bowie
    and George Michael.  Both men are extremely good looking, IMO, but both
    are also very talented, and would have had a good chance of becoming
    rich and famous even without the looks.  Their looks certainly haven't
    hurt them, but their looks aren't everything.
    
    Personally, I think I react the strongest to singers when I like both
    their looks and music.  For example, I absolutely love Van Morrison's
    music, but if he wasn't Van Morrison I wouldn't give him a glance
    looks wise.  Bruce Springsteen, on the other hand, would catch my eye
    even if he were pumping gas or digging ditches, :-), so when it turns
    out I also love his music, I seem to enjoy his concerts that much more. 
    Not only do I get to hear great music, but I get to look at a great
    looking guy running around the stage.  Bono is in the same category.  I
    liked U2's music even before I knew what he looked like, but once I saw
    how cute he is, I liked him even more.  There were two thrills for me
    in seeing U2 in March.  First, to hear all the wonderful music, and
    second to see Bono's cute face in person.
    
    So, to sum it up, I guess if I like the music, and the singer turns out
    to be attractive, it makes me like them even more.  But, if the singer
    is goodlooking, and I hate his music (like some of the heavy metal
    groups), then I still won't buy the music.
    
    Lorna