Identity Shopping
Go ahead, open up the latest issue of Rolling Stone, (or even Mojo or Uncut), and you'll SEE a lot more of the artists then you'll read about their sounds. Basically, it proves the old adage that "image is everything." Even the ghetto rappers look airbrushed on the glossy pages.
I think this profoundly affects why people listen to music and how the music sounds. Fashions and attitudes--certain looks--have ossified around the sounds to the point that a visual charicature exists for every genre. We know what a grunge artist looks like, right? Boots and flannel, long shaggy hair, and a stoned expression . What about a punk artist? Piercings, studded belts, and bondage pants go a long way, and a scowl. Emo kids just need a pair of converse, a vintage T shirt, a pale complexion, and an oddly vulnerable/narcissitic pout to play the part. Reading a magazine like Rolling Stone is about finding the fashions and attitudes that strike your fancy so that you can copy the masters: identity shopping, if you will. This is reinforced by the placement of music reviews AT THE BACK of the issue!
Of course, identity shopping has infiltrated the creative process, too. As an aspiring song writer, I've often wondered, on conscious and subconscious level, what my shtick is. Am I the contemplative singer-song writer prophet from the 70s? Am a punk rock chick, a Chrissie Hynde wannabe? Am I one of those sleek and fashionable art school grads turned musician? There's a lot of pressure, one way or the other, to make my sounds conform to the dominant imagery.
Anyone who knows anything about me knows that I can integrate David Bowie into every conversation. I'll bring him up again in this case. Obviously, he's a model for all of us, being non-conformist and all of that. I know so little about him, but I do know that he's always been interested in art. I think that served him well. If you can visually create a new world, it can help to liberate the sounds. Seeing is believing, as they say. If you can see other places and aesthetics, it can help you believe in something different, and therefore create fresh, rebellious sounds.
I think this profoundly affects why people listen to music and how the music sounds. Fashions and attitudes--certain looks--have ossified around the sounds to the point that a visual charicature exists for every genre. We know what a grunge artist looks like, right? Boots and flannel, long shaggy hair, and a stoned expression . What about a punk artist? Piercings, studded belts, and bondage pants go a long way, and a scowl. Emo kids just need a pair of converse, a vintage T shirt, a pale complexion, and an oddly vulnerable/narcissitic pout to play the part. Reading a magazine like Rolling Stone is about finding the fashions and attitudes that strike your fancy so that you can copy the masters: identity shopping, if you will. This is reinforced by the placement of music reviews AT THE BACK of the issue!
Of course, identity shopping has infiltrated the creative process, too. As an aspiring song writer, I've often wondered, on conscious and subconscious level, what my shtick is. Am I the contemplative singer-song writer prophet from the 70s? Am a punk rock chick, a Chrissie Hynde wannabe? Am I one of those sleek and fashionable art school grads turned musician? There's a lot of pressure, one way or the other, to make my sounds conform to the dominant imagery.
Anyone who knows anything about me knows that I can integrate David Bowie into every conversation. I'll bring him up again in this case. Obviously, he's a model for all of us, being non-conformist and all of that. I know so little about him, but I do know that he's always been interested in art. I think that served him well. If you can visually create a new world, it can help to liberate the sounds. Seeing is believing, as they say. If you can see other places and aesthetics, it can help you believe in something different, and therefore create fresh, rebellious sounds.
posted by Kristin @ 10:02 AM
1 Comments:
At 10:21 AM,
Anonymous said…
Very spot on comments. Every time you here someone talking about the music biz today vs. the sixties will make that point, ie. it used to be that artists were found that were unique and interesting and were given the space to grow as artists and to build an audience.
No longer, FM Radio formats and the cost of breaking an act have created an environment where the goal is to find talent and then tell them to sound like whatever the flavor of the month is. At best all you get is product. The whole video driven culture is probably part of this as well.
Fortunately the internet is slowly providing the floodwaters that will knock this out as it is now cheap for someone to publish and put their work on myspace or whereever and increasingly people are looking here for their music rather than traditional sources.
We could have a new renaissance coming, eh?
Post a Comment
<< Home