|
|
Post by krburg on Jan 5, 2011 13:52:30 GMT
I think you didn't understand the core of what I have written, so I really don't know what you are facepalming at. Maybe at the fact that I don't like something you do. Meh. Beside the candor shown by your personal experience (which I appreciated, but it's a minor detail) and personal taste, my main point obviously revolved around the fact that I find despicable, from an artist with intellectual claims, to present herself the way she does. There's plenty of room for different music, be it angular or circular, but I find paradoxical for an artist in her position, to insist so much on appearances. It's ok that the look shoundn't denote the quality of the music, but I still think that the aesthetics gimmicks belong to the world of Beyonce rather than the independent labels universe. here's a snippet from a dispassionate review I found online, powerful stuff that I recommend reading: As any red-blooded music nerd with a pulse and a penis will take great pains to tell you, Joanna Newsom has, in recent years, graduated from a cute little girl fascinated by fairies and magic who you would like to cuddle and escape to a fantasy land with, into a smoking hot sex bomb whose curves could send nerd-flesh into spasms of un-containable and inexpressible delight. Even the strongest and least nerdy among us might have felt some dangerous heart palpitations upon opening up the Have One On Me box to find each individual CD and the lyric book adorned with a separate shot of Joanna in various stages of tying her hair back, reclined, stretched out on display and leaving only nipples to the imagination. It is a far cry from the Dungeons and Dragons-friendly portrait that graced the cover of Ys and it seems to mark another phase of Joanna's artistic progression, a maturity and a grace that shows us that our little girl done growed up. It's sad to see that what we once considered independent music, which should be honest in the first place, is slowly getting as 'glamourous' and glittered as mainstream music, only in its own unique way. And who suffers the consequences are obviously the artists who do not fit. Laura Marling, for example, has done one of the best records of her generation, but she doesn't seem as appealing as their peers, so she hardly got mentioned outside the UK. Result is that people in the known didn't take her seriously. On the other hand Pitchfork, who should be the window on the non-mainstream music world, now features 40% of reviews of hip-hop and rap artists (love them or hate them) whose values of 'bitches and money' clearly clash with those that the independent artists should have. I might be frustrated because artists I love never get mentioned and records I adore get miserable reviews, but I sense they're re-creating a smaller neo-mainstream system there. And it's pretty clear that I'm not wasting my energy "hating" an artist; I can't care less for an artistic product per se and I'm not trying to convince you that my record collection is better than yours. I'm just acknowledging that maybe, just "maybe" they're creating a system where music alone is not enough anymore...again, I'm not making any statement on J.Newsom music, I'm glad if any music has some meaning for its audience and I'm sure that clever listeners can make good use of it. If the music is good, what does it matter if someone has had a few shots taken and lets be straight here, the shots in question are hardly playboy centefold stuff, AND they're part of the artwork for the album, if anything there is an artistic reason behind them..   Is it not pretty redundant to think that music has never or should never use image as promotion, everyone has done, independant or not, so by your thought process all 'independant' artists should just release their music on white labels with no promotion, I just don't understand your thought process here, pretty much every artist that has ever been has used promotional photos to promote a certain record and of course they will all have their own niche, just because its a woman using her beauty as a tool you deem this unworthy? Just look at those Beady Eye promo shots, looking all tough and forlorn, do you not think this is a specific style to tick some boxes within a certain demographic... And i don't agree that just because Newsom is considered more 'intellectual' that she shouldn't be able to use her beauty in her art, If you look at the pictures anyway, i think they are quite tastefully done and any 'intellectual' fan would understand where she is coming from, its just an aesthetic that ties in with this particular album, much like the pixie/fairy/magic theme that she used with Ys sat much within the ethos of that album, its something that PJ Harvey for instance has done throughout her career, re-inventing her image to reflect her work. |
|
|
|
Post by barny on Jan 5, 2011 17:42:54 GMT
we're not talking about those photos though, are we?
|
|
|
|
Post by 8track on Jan 5, 2011 17:47:37 GMT
tbh though pretty much everyone in music has an image that's in some way contrived. don't see what the problem is myself.
yeah just read krburg's post and he said the same thing. I AGREE FFS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simone on Jan 5, 2011 20:28:24 GMT
If the music is good, what does it matter if someone has had a few shots taken and lets be straight here, the shots in question are hardly playboy centefold stuff, AND they're part of the artwork for the album, if anything there is an artistic reason behind them.. Is it not pretty redundant to think that music has never or should never use image as promotion, everyone has done, independant or not, so by your thought process all 'independant' artists should just release their music on white labels with no promotion, I just don't understand your thought process here, pretty much every artist that has ever been has used promotional photos to promote a certain record and of course they will all have their own niche, just because its a woman using her beauty as a tool you deem this unworthy? Just look at those Beady Eye promo shots, looking all tough and forlorn, do you not think this is a specific style to tick some boxes within a certain demographic... And i don't agree that just because Newsom is considered more 'intellectual' that she shouldn't be able to use her beauty in her art, If you look at the pictures anyway, i think they are quite tastefully done and any 'intellectual' fan would understand where she is coming from, its just an aesthetic that ties in with this particular album, much like the pixie/fairy/magic theme that she used with Ys sat much within the ethos of that album, its something that PJ Harvey for instance has done throughout her career, re-inventing her image to reflect her work. See, this is a good point: if the music is good what does the rest matter? I'm just not like that, see? Not that is a bad attitude, but I find it a bit "passive" if you know what I mean. A lot of things in the music universe are not fair, and the fact they exist doesn't make them fairer. I don't want to "win" discussions, just show the other side of the coin, and I'm sorry I sound like a boring grampa complaining about everything, but I believe that we shouldn't take anything for sure, nor be passive user judging anything they place under our nose. I'm also sorry that my arguments sound a bit labyrinthic, but hey, the modern world we created is a chinese box after all and labyrinthism is its nature. As for J.Newsom music, I'm sorry that so many people thought I was bashing the quality of her music. I wasn't. It's subjective matter after all and I already said that I'm sure clever listeners already know what to do without my interference. I do love a lot of stuff that most of the people consider un-listenable (Trout Mask Replica, to name one), and I sure don't want to fight to convince them that it is good, nor I feel offended if they don't like it. As for promotion, it just doesn't feel right to me. There's obviously good ways and bad ways to use image as promotion. Beady Eye's way, errr...I can't say that I like it, but I can see where it's coming from. I wouldn't have thought about it if I were passive. What I came up with is that they have no artistic ego, which is not bad per se, so they are trapped into a perpetual 1960s mod tribute, stylistically speaking. It's not creative, it's definitely not personal but they seem comfortable with it. It's fine and it doesn't hurt. Beauty gimmicks on the other hand (and you may consider the pictures non-sexual, so let's say VOGUE MAGAZINE GIMMICKS...which is even worse) are a bit cheap, to me. Maybe it's just me but again, I expect real artists to use different approaches. We can say it is art after all, but I don't want "art" to become the perfect justification for everything. Years ago a spanish artist let a chained dog die in a museum, explaining it was an artistic statement against society. "Art" doesn't justify everything, does it? And if J.Newsom is so mighty she might aswell do without aesthetic hooks, why would she do it? Just for art's sake? Isn't it a bit redundant to use beauty in such a way? Course if we see a male artist in an ambiguous pose it does look a bit ridiculous. PJ Harvey did use aesthetics, this is right. We can give it a meaning though: she was the bluesgirl trying to sing a raw blues music in a age (the early 90s) where the female musical stereotype was outrageously bland and stupid. No wonder she wanted to appear both aggressive but at the same time feminine. In a music industry ruled by men, it's only natural that a strong woman such as PJ wanted some kind of dignity and "individualization". She's not the only one to follow this path though: think of Liz Phair! I just think that "beauty" is a bit of a cheap trick, a shortcut if you prefer, to make "art". Otherwise, what would be the difference between, say, J.Newsom or Christina Aguilera, considering that the music is purely subjective? In my opinion, it makes the line between the glamorous Vogue world and the independent music world thinner and thinner, while the two universes should clearly be in opposition. Everyone is free to ignore it if they like the music, but I can't understand these artists obeying the rules that the glamorous world dictates. But please do not think that I apply this criticism only for artists I don't like. I'm a huge Bonnie Prince Billy fan, but I can't forgive him for using an ass to promote his new album. Doesn't it feel a bit gross? |
|
|
|
Post by monkeytennis on Jan 5, 2011 20:45:40 GMT
We can say it is art after all, but I don't want "art" to become the perfect justification for everything. Years ago a spanish artist let a chained dog die in a museum, explaining it was an artistic statement against society. "Art" doesn't justify everything, does it? i'm saying this as the biggest dog lover in the world; the dog wasn't left to die. in fact, it was a stray that was actually well fed and looked after and led a much better life than if it was left alone. it wasn't straining at the lease to get at the food just placed out of its reach. which is actually a pretty valid artistic statement, all told. |
|
|
|
Post by krburg on Jan 5, 2011 22:25:32 GMT
If the music is good, what does it matter if someone has had a few shots taken and lets be straight here, the shots in question are hardly playboy centefold stuff, AND they're part of the artwork for the album, if anything there is an artistic reason behind them.. Is it not pretty redundant to think that music has never or should never use image as promotion, everyone has done, independant or not, so by your thought process all 'independant' artists should just release their music on white labels with no promotion, I just don't understand your thought process here, pretty much every artist that has ever been has used promotional photos to promote a certain record and of course they will all have their own niche, just because its a woman using her beauty as a tool you deem this unworthy? Just look at those Beady Eye promo shots, looking all tough and forlorn, do you not think this is a specific style to tick some boxes within a certain demographic... And i don't agree that just because Newsom is considered more 'intellectual' that she shouldn't be able to use her beauty in her art, If you look at the pictures anyway, i think they are quite tastefully done and any 'intellectual' fan would understand where she is coming from, its just an aesthetic that ties in with this particular album, much like the pixie/fairy/magic theme that she used with Ys sat much within the ethos of that album, its something that PJ Harvey for instance has done throughout her career, re-inventing her image to reflect her work. See, this is a good point: if the music is good what does the rest matter? I'm just not like that, see? Not that is a bad attitude, but I find it a bit "passive" if you know what I mean. A lot of things in the music universe are not fair, and the fact they exist doesn't make them fairer. I don't want to "win" discussions, just show the other side of the coin, and I'm sorry I sound like a boring grampa complaining about everything, but I believe that we shouldn't take anything for sure, nor be passive user judging anything they place under our nose. I'm also sorry that my arguments sound a bit labyrinthic, but hey, the modern world we created is a chinese box after all and labyrinthism is its nature. As for J.Newsom music, I'm sorry that so many people thought I was bashing the quality of her music. I wasn't. It's subjective matter after all and I already said that I'm sure clever listeners already know what to do without my interference. I do love a lot of stuff that most of the people consider un-listenable (Trout Mask Replica, to name one), and I sure don't want to fight to convince them that it is good, nor I feel offended if they don't like it. As for promotion, it just doesn't feel right to me. There's obviously good ways and bad ways to use image as promotion. Beady Eye's way, errr...I can't say that I like it, but I can see where it's coming from. I wouldn't have thought about it if I were passive. What I came up with is that they have no artistic ego, which is not bad per se, so they are trapped into a perpetual 1960s mod tribute, stylistically speaking. It's not creative, it's definitely not personal but they seem comfortable with it. It's fine and it doesn't hurt. Beauty gimmicks on the other hand (and you may consider the pictures non-sexual, so let's say VOGUE MAGAZINE GIMMICKS...which is even worse) are a bit cheap, to me. Maybe it's just me but again, I expect real artists to use different approaches. We can say it is art after all, but I don't want "art" to become the perfect justification for everything. Years ago a spanish artist let a chained dog die in a museum, explaining it was an artistic statement against society. "Art" doesn't justify everything, does it? And if J.Newsom is so mighty she might aswell do without aesthetic hooks, why would she do it? Just for art's sake? Isn't it a bit redundant to use beauty in such a way? Course if we see a male artist in an ambiguous pose it does look a bit ridiculous. PJ Harvey did use aesthetics, this is right. We can give it a meaning though: she was the bluesgirl trying to sing a raw blues music in a age (the early 90s) where the female musical stereotype was outrageously bland and stupid. No wonder she wanted to appear both aggressive but at the same time feminine. In a music industry ruled by men, it's only natural that a strong woman such as PJ wanted some kind of dignity and "individualization". She's not the only one to follow this path though: think of Liz Phair! I just think that "beauty" is a bit of a cheap trick, a shortcut if you prefer, to make "art". Otherwise, what would be the difference between, say, J.Newsom or Christina Aguilera, considering that the music is purely subjective? In my opinion, it makes the line between the glamorous Vogue world and the independent music world thinner and thinner, while the two universes should clearly be in opposition. Everyone is free to ignore it if they like the music, but I can't understand these artists obeying the rules that the glamorous world dictates. But please do not think that I apply this criticism only for artists I don't like. I'm a huge Bonnie Prince Billy fan, but I can't forgive him for using an ass to promote his new album. Doesn't it feel a bit gross? I'm sorry mate, but I just really really disagree with you, there is a huge difference between Christina Aguilera or Lady Gaga or Beyonce prancing around scantily clad in various magazines, videos, awards shows, tv shows or at any other event when promoting a new album or single, than Joanna Newsom posing for some shots like this:  That appear within the artwork of her album are vastly different and as previously mentioned, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who bought that album knew what they were in it for, I really doubt someone who had never heard of her was enticed to lump out for a 2 and a half hour triple album because they liked her bum, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. But I also don't agree that 'independent' artists should for some reason not be allowed to use some kind of gimmick or schtick in order to try and sell a few records, especially in this day and age when all we do is steal it from them, is there really that much difference between posing provocatively in skimpy clothes ala Lady Gaga and begging for people to but your records on your website, at its very basic core, its morally the same thing, good luck to the indie guys I say, they live on a pittance in scale to what say, Jay-Z earns, go for it. |
|
|
|
Post by secondcoming on Jan 5, 2011 22:30:43 GMT
Still I'd rather do Beyonce
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiemurphy on Feb 10, 2014 2:04:09 GMT
10: Jesus Jones - Doubt (1991) The most dated record I've ever heard 09: AC/DC - Highway to Hell (1979) Cannot fucking stand AC/DC & I have a soft spot for alot of classic rock/hair rock/soft rock/cheese but they just always sound so incredibly shit to me. jesus jones former guitarist posts on another forum i post on.  think he replaced one of the line up. so perhaps wasn't responsible for the playing on that record. ac/dc are great ffs.  |
|
|
|
Post by 8track on Feb 10, 2014 9:24:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2014 13:18:20 GMT
Thanks for that, Eddie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benoît Assou-Ekotto on Feb 10, 2014 14:32:56 GMT
What other forums do you post on Eddie?
|
|
|
|
Post by srk on Feb 10, 2014 15:07:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Columbia_rocks_man on Feb 10, 2014 19:53:02 GMT
Top thread. Back in 2011 people still posted mini-essays on their favourite music. Now we can barely be arsed to post more than a couple of smileys |
|
|
|
Post by srk on Feb 10, 2014 20:49:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by para on Feb 10, 2014 22:34:17 GMT
Seriously. long posts; only bothered to skim. Which fool said The Strokes were nothing special?! They are special like a snowflake, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkeytennis on Feb 10, 2014 22:59:05 GMT
it's weird how dated that whole argument up there feels less than 3 years later |
|
