classic examples of performance artists masquerading as primarily musicians:
>most hip hop artists
>most artists who release minimum of 3 music videos per album
>david bowie
>mac demarco
actual musicians who are simply musicians, aren't concerned with 'image', and don't need 'image' to sell good music:
>burial
>red house painters
>hope sandoval
>most underground /bleep/ artists
>etc.
meme artists need to perpetuate an aesthetic in order to convince you that their music is worth a shit. sad.
Other urls found in this thread:
It's hardly a good barometer because surely artists like Joy Division or Nirvana have got to the point where their image is more notable than their work and this wasn't their fault
But Bowie dropped that image after Station To Station anyway, where Berlin trilogy was all about the musicality of the music and onwards.
this what happens when you think in art
so basically bowie is a lot more talented than the "actual musicians" you mentioned, since he is not only also an actual musician as well, but also a performance and visual artist.
cool.
consider the following
artists can care both about their image and music
yeah but bowie makes shit music, so he obviously needs image to convince you that it's good. Same goes for most image-based artists.
NO FUCKING WAY
>tfw musicians have the audacity to open their mouth flaps during rehearsal
congrats on your (you)s i guess
He doesn't.
He did.
>dressing up in flamboyant clothing
>prancing about on video
>changing your hairstyle once every few years
>talent
Music and other art forms are not mutually exclusive though
For example just because you're a painter doesn't mean you can't be a musician as well.
Obviously the whole "image" thing helps but I think it's part of what separates artists and entertainers from people who are just good at playing music.
>different art forms cannot intersect! stick to only one form, everyone!
No, it separates good composers/nusicians from bad/mediocre composers/musicians who is eager to sell their work
sure, but wouldn't you agree that *most* artists who push an image do so to compensate for a lack of musical quality?
imagine if Death Grips had released all their music without album artwork or promotional music videos. they would have had to have made radically different and much more engaging music in order to sell the same units they do today.
But Death Grips literally pushes an image, with their low quality music videos and sometimes not showing up on tours.
But Bowie's renowned both critically and culturally for his music at least as much as for his style.
is there really a problem with this? The 'performance art' side of these people enhance the music either way
>renowned both critically and culturally
Mediocrity celebrates mediocrity.
Scarrufi is not important to anyone expect for Sup Forums shitposters.
>Mediocrity celebrates mediocrity.
that's not how set theory works
Sure are a lot of anti-art fags on Sup Forums this morning. Got a thread saying Merzbow isn't art and a thread saying Bowie isn't art.
I don't understand how having an image makes you a bad musician though
How are people meant to remember you and discover more of your music without giving their memory of you some sort of physical form?
A name of a musician or band in itself inherently creates an image of the band so to "truly" be a musician you'd have to be nameless, which in itself creates an image of "that musician/band that doesn't have a name."
The only way to counteract this would be if all musicians were nameless, which for obvious reasons would not work
exactly
think ill take my millions while you argue about semantics you bafoon
I’m not an absolutist, obviously all musicians unavoidably bring with them a sense of ‘image’ to some degree. However what grinds my gears is when it’s obvious that an artist needs to rely on an overhyping of that image to sell their music, rather than letting the music do most of the talking. Because trust me, sounds alone can elicit an emotional response and thus a memory/association.
it's funny. you think you're being profound, but that was bowie's intention. same with prince. fashion, music videos, they were all part of it. inseparable. I don't give a shit about hip hop or mac demarco, but I'd wager it's a similar idea
I agree with you 100% that sound alone can elicit emotion; the only reason I enjoy/don't enjoy the music that I do is because of the sound. I think however you may be overestimating how many people listen to certain artists because of their image. If they wrote garbage, nobody would listen to it (top 40 Pop music being the obvious exception to this).
then why go around calling yourself as a musician, when music isn't the main thing you actually care about?
I give prince a pass, he was genuinely talented enough to deserve the image that was crafted around his music, rather than it being the main thing.
did he go around calling himself a musician?
Scaruffi is more intelligent than 7/8 the teenage shitposters browsing this board.
I'm afraid that doesn't really contradict what he said
Because music is still the main thing that they are selling and what people remember them for.
You don't see any boards discussing David Bowie's image but you see plenty of posts discussing his music
>You don't see any boards discussing David Bowie's image
>burial
you clearly don't know much about how burial got famous
>talking to girl about bowie
>kind of quirky girl who tells everyone about how much she loves bowie and cried when he died
>tell her i was going to listen through the Berlin trilogy recently and asked her what she thought
>"omg noooo you're listening to him all wrong! you need to check out his best songs first like Lets Dance and then Space Oddity and Life On Mars!"
>have you not listened to any of Low or Heroes then?
>"well heroes is a great song!"
>mfw
so you never change your fucking hairstyle?
you must look bland as fuck
thats just what alot of people do, in comparison to other artists maybe she only listens to one or maybe 2 songs per artist. So because she listens to more than her usual for bowie, she comes to the conclusion that that is and artist she loves
Your argument is pointless, because all of these are a blend of music and image. Artists rate on how successful the combination is, regardless of the emphasis. This is why Bowie was a success, he had the right combinations in various permutations. Don't tell me this isn't true, every success from Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley onwards had some image mixed in with their music. It's those that have no image at all that are ultimately forgotten.
hmm, idk, by not giving a shit about image, simply making good music, and sending it to his favourite webmag and label for half a decade until he finally got signed?
also
>ultimately forgotten
everyone will ultimately be forgotten
I never said the image makes the musician bad. I said mediocre musicians use image to promote and get people to remember them, since their music in itself is not very memorable.
I never said one should be namelesa or have no persona, I'm saying the music should be priority no.1 for a musician and not superficial stuff.
Bach isn't forgotten, nor Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, or Verdi. Have a little faith. The sun won't die for billions of years yet.
He wasn't that innovative or ceative. Sure he could dabble on many different instruments, but kind of mediocre.
The point is that having an image does not make the music mediocre. Sure, mediocre artists may craft images, but so do great ones, not necessarily for the same reasons. Don't be so fast to dismiss image-heavy artists as musically mediocre, as implied.
ah yes, of course, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner and Verdi. funny how they didn't have to rely on image in order to have a lasting legacy...
point taken. never has anyone ITT said that image is in itself bad. it's exciting, even.
but only when it's justified by the music.
Clearly you have never seen an opera. Wagner and Verdi were masters of imagery.
And I never said the image makes the music mediocre, I said mediocre musicians use image when their musical work lack substance. I don't understand why you can't read.
I don't dismiss them prejudicially, I dismiss them from experience.
Not their personal image. They were all ugly old men, except for Liszt (he became one eventually).
If you'd expressed it that way at the start, this thread would be a damn sight shorter. Also putting Bowie in the first category guarantees flames anyway, so don't be so smug.
well then, I stand corrected on Wagner and Verdi. you're right, I've never seen an opera. but if the primary reason they're considered culturally significant is because of their operas, then it doesn't prove that their music in itself is good or significant. I can say this with confidence in spite of never having heard Wagner or Verdi compositions.
>actual musicians aren't concerned with 'image' and don't need 'image' to sell good music
Mac Demarco dresses up like a homeless guy because that's what he likes to wear. He doesn't give a shit and isn't concerned about how he looks and he has said this multiple times. To compare him to David Bowie's concern about his appearance is just stupid. If you want to blame someone, blame the fans for magnifying Macs "aesthetic". But he just wants to be treated like the guy he was before he became popular.
Also I don't think his image is what's selling his looks. People like hazy, jangled music to get high off of. Plus there are a couple of tracks that are pretty great as well, especially from his new album.
/Why did I write this long ass comment../
youtube.com
Melon summarised the arguments ITT YEARS AGO!
The problem is your reading comprehension.
yeah keep telling yourself bowie's image "overshadows" his music when nobody but shitty mainstream media and 'pop art' consumers care about his image
he had some notable public personas during the mid 70's but that was it. everything from berlin trilogy onwards was all about the music.
The imagery in their operas was not personal imagery. It wasn't them standing on the stage with makeup, it was actors, singers etc.
You say it with confidence but with utter ignorance. The main ingredient of an Opera is the music, otherwise it's just a play with a soundtrack.
who cares if it's personal imagery or not? vaporwave is 99% non-personal imagery and also happens to be 99% utter trash. stop grasping for straws.
t. Roastie
You're conflating terms on the basis that it's the same word, forgetting that words (can) have different meaning depending on field and context.
The "imagery" when referring to Wagner's operas is not the same as the "image" of Bowie and his alter egos.
well Sup Forums, I'm glad we settled this
>you're not a "musician" if your image overshadows your art, you're a performance artist
You did write this, didn't you? If not, then I mistook you for someone else, and I'm sorry.
>and I'm sorry.
You better fucking be
>Mac Demarco
Watch your mouth, heathen.
I'm sure sone do but aesthetic presentation is an inherent part of music since the days of Beethoven. The use of several horns at the beginning of the fourth section of Dvorak's Symphony No. 8 is an aesthetic choice, much like the treated guitars in David Bowie's Heroes.
I get what you mean, but when I talk about "aesthetics", I mean literal aesthetics as in things you can see. Pictures, album art, music videos, promo pictures etc. I'm not against artists crafting a sonic 'image' for themselves.
music labels exist you retard, not all bands want to do music videos but are forced to do it.
I think that has become an inherent part of music ever since the creation of album covers - and even before, there's a reason why Lisztomania was a thing when he claimed Berlioz was a superior pianist. Look at Miles Davis' early album covers, they create that image of him being cool to the point of being described as "pimp-like". Presentational aesthetics have ultimately become an inherent part of music - an album with no cover art will have that lack of cover art as part of their presentation.
nah bowie's music is very charming, nostalgic and warm and his image just matched that. he was literally an actor and a performance artist as well but it didn't detract from his music for the most part. it was obvious when it did - like with Diamond Dogs and some later albums
t. opinionated pseudo music lover
WRONG, YOU SIMPLETON PLEB!
A "musician" is someone who is skilled at playing music. Performers should anyways be excellent musicians, composers can too, but composers sometimes aren't good musicians.
However, musicians arent always good artists.
Artists are people who create art, the main concern is not being a good musician, but to create art.
>hip hop
>david bowie
> mac demarco
>burial
>underground
Are also artists, but they arent good musicians.
> john williams (the classical guitarist)
> jon coltrane
> monk
Are excellent musicians
Performance art factors into the art aspect.
Maybe instead of being a phillistine, you learn the proper identifications and learn not to be a filthy pleb
>tfw gf listens to all of the Berlin Trilogy with me on a road trip
>We can appreciate all of music together instead of just "le hit singles I heard on the radio xd"
Feels good
Lol what a pair of cunts
>having virtuosic skill at musical instruments is the only thing that equates to being a good musician
lol try again
But you can't make such an arbitrary difference considering guys like Burial, RHP, and underground /bleep/ producers also have their own image as well, it's just not bombastic like the other artists you mentioned.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but the actual musicians group should've:
Classical music (western or otherwise)
Non-early-pop Jazz
Electronic (guys like Xenakis or Truax, not /bleep/shit or bloop/shit)
Traditional cultural folk music
As everything else is image based by nature of being popular music.
>he thinks that all musicians are composers.
What a retard lol
>art
literal meme word that means nothing
The absolute state of nu-Sup Forums
True
80+ replies, pretty good haul OP.
what