Why do you think those weekend bands never make it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeremy Clarkson
  • Start date Start date

Why don't they become famous?

  • Their music doesn't appeal to a niche or group

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • They don't promote themselves/try to get attention

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • They are too old and unattractive

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • Their name blows

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • Total voters
    12
I wasn't arguing...but I know you always like arguing that I was! :laughings:

Like I said...her talent is her freakishness (whenever it began :D )...that's it, IMHO.
She's a mediocre singer, nothing special as a songwriter, and she's not even good looking.

Not sure what you mean that she's not manufactured, though?
I think you would agree that most *image-focused* musicians are manufactured to a good degree.

no i wouldnt...everybody has an image....
 
I really don't get this. Image is important and everyone has some kind of image. Some people's image is way out there, some people are subdued. Music certainly should be the main priority, but not even I, the most negative person on the planet, will hate on some band or performer solely because of their image. Hell, I like a lot of stuff in spite of their image. New York Dolls? One of my favoritest bands, and they dressed totally in drag. :laughings:
 
my image is an aging overweight ginger scotsman...and i must say I carry it off to a tea!


Early Bowie...fantastic music, looked like a fucking spaz :)
 
Haha, I liked his ziggy stardust look. No eyebrows, space suits and dresses and shit. Funny stuff.
 
(Now, we're not arguing...this is still just a discussion. ;) )

Yes...image is a big component of certain acts, and yes, everyone has an image, but there is a difference when your image is what sells you and your music....VS.....your image just being a part of the whole act, but the music is the main attraction.

Someone like Gaga (since we've already been talking about her) who apparently claims that people like Bowie and other Glam Rockers were her inspiration, can't IMHO even come close *musically* to guys like Bowie, Marc Bolan, etc...who actually had great music, and their image was just an extension, not the primary focus of their act.
Sure, there was a time when Bowie's look was WAY over the top :D, but it was for a brief period (Ziggy and all that) like a specific act/show that he put on to go WITH the music...and then he moved on.
I'm curious if Gaga will ever lose the freak and try to just be a straight up musician. Personally, I don't think she will and I don't think she has enough to show without the freak....but time will tell.

Also...back during Glam Rock days...there was only a minimal amount of visual output from guys like Bowie. I mean...you might have seen the album covers or some pictures in magazines...but you didn't have the intense visual stimulus like we do today with television and the Internet and all kinds of handheld devices. So yes, IMHO, these days its WAY more about the look and much less about the music....and that was/is my original point and why I even brought about Gaga.
 
Bowie was a normal queerboy that no one noticed until he was told to go over-the-top with his look. He was basically trained to be that way by people from the Warhol/Velvet Underground scene. You don't get much more manufactured than that. You're romanticizing what you remember from the old days and hating on what happens now, when in reality, the old days weren't any different. We just like the old music better. You're only hating on gaga because she is modern. Today's "intense visual stimulus" means nothing when compared to the 70's because they didn't know any better. Kids didn't know what they were missing. They looked at Bowie and KISS and Alice Cooper exactly the same way kids look at Gaga and Slipknot. It's no different, except that she plays silly pop music that you don't like.
 
Well...since you often call me one of the "old timers"...:D...I think I can remember what the music scene was like in the late '60s and '70s a little better than you "young'uns". ;)

No...I don't hate on Gaga because she is "modern", and no, I'm not in some nostalgic, yesteryear state of mind. I just don't see the *musical* talent in her performances. There are modern/current acts who are very visual but who's music cuts through that and stands on it's own. I don't think hers does...and I think we already agreed on that.

I can listen just to the music of most of the Glam Rock crowd and some current acts without ever seeing their "visuals"...and I can enjoy it.
There's not much I can enjoy about Gaga's music...so basically, she's just a freak, and like any good car wreck, you can't look away.
 
Yeah...she's not that freaky if we use the hard definition. There are much bigger true freaks than her.

I think boring and over-the-top in a gaudy, cliché sort of way is more her approach to visuals. It's like she's trying too hard to *shock*, yet it always comes off as silly/funny, IMO...which I don't think is her intention. She sees herself as the new fashion icon.
 
Well...since you often call me one of the "old timers"...:D...I think I can remember what the music scene was like in the late '60s and '70s a little better than you "young'uns". ;)

No...I don't hate on Gaga because she is "modern", and no, I'm not in some nostalgic, yesteryear state of mind. I just don't see the *musical* talent in her performances. There are modern/current acts who are very visual but who's music cuts through that and stands on it's own. I don't think hers does...and I think we already agreed on that.

I can listen just to the music of most of the Glam Rock crowd and some current acts without ever seeing their "visuals"...and I can enjoy it.
There's not much I can enjoy about Gaga's music...so basically, she's just a freak, and like any good car wreck, you can't look away.

Come on dude, be honest. You hate her because she's modern and doesn't play music for you. You are not her target fanbase. Every claim you make about her has been wrong. It's okay to just not like her music. You don't have to justify it or slag her off.
 
Every claim you make about her has been wrong.

I disagree. :)

I also think you like playing the other side of a discussion (as usual). :D

But when you say her music sucks and that you don't care for her or watch her or pay any attention to her...you're pretty much saying the same thing I'm saying about her, I'm just being specific as to why I don't, where you're not....
...so don't go now carrying a torch for her just to extend the discussion/debate! ;)
 
in reality, the old days weren't any different. We just like the old music better. Today's "intense visual stimulus" means nothing when compared to the 70's because they didn't know any better. Kids didn't know what they were missing. They looked at Bowie and KISS and Alice Cooper exactly the same way kids look at Gaga and Slipknot. It's no different
There's alot of truth in this. Back in 1988 I saw a Rolling Stones documentary {I think it's called "5x5"} in which Keith Richards, talking about the mid 60s, says that what mattered most then was image. And it's interesting that while he's saying it, you see various publicity shots of the Stones in their fancy boots & trews & jackets.
I think we tend to isolate image too much. White Southern parents in the early 50s tended to kick off on their kids listening to blues once they'd seen the artists were black. Whereas the kids dug the music because it was different and exciting. In England in the 50s, kids dug rock and roll before they knew what the singers looked like. But once they did, as with those following jazz, they picked up on their particular looks. And so from early on the relationship between those that played/sang and what they looked like was fairly well set, especially as TV took over from radio as the dominant window on the world.
My kids are 9 and 6 and they like the images of the Selenas and the Akais and the rest. But they like the music first and foremost because it's the songs that grab them. When people intimate that people only listen to something because 'they're told to do so', that misses the point. Once the image has faded and the artist/band moves on or gets older or whatever, the music is still there. And for better or worse, it's the music that grabs people, adult or child. Or are the blind the only ones with a pure musical aesthetic ?
 
It's also because there are so many people who are somewhat talented and they all have dreams of making it.

There's also simply way too many bands now. Way too many. Way, way too many.
I think there's alot of truth in that also. We're at a point in human history where there are quite simply few surprizes left. So many have become influenced by the events and moves of the last 70 years and the means to get involved and make music are there for almost anyone that has an interest. But there's only so many people to listen to it all and choice and sheer logistics dictate that that ain't gonna happen.
Think about it ~ even in the good old days zillions of bands made records. Only a relative handful 'made it'.
 
I disagree. :)

I also think you like playing the other side of a discussion (as usual). :D

But when you say her music sucks and that you don't care for her or watch her or pay any attention to her...you're pretty much saying the same thing I'm saying about her, I'm just being specific as to why I don't, where you're not....
...so don't go now carrying a torch for her just to extend the discussion/debate! ;)

I don't care if you like her or not, but at least know what you're talking about. You've made several erroneous claims in this thread about her. I don't like her either, but I'm not going on about how fake she is, because she isn't. I don't like her music. That's it. You don't like her because you think she's a fake, and you're just old. :D
 
Back
Top