On Replacing Our Heroes With American Idols
Interesting quote from Tony Visconti, the legendary producer at the helm for such David Bowie albums as Space Oddity, Heroes, and Young Americans, discussing the chances an artist like Bowie would have in today's music climate (via Metro.co.uk):
Metro.co.uk: What did you make of the 1970s scene?Visconti's making a point about record companies and radio, and a shift of the mainstream from outlandish, risk-taking artists to cookie-cutter, auto-tuned pop tarts. And, in America, Hinder. He has a point there, but you have to think that a freakish talent like Bowie would be recognized (if only by quirk-loving bloggers). But does it matter that the mainstream has little room for a man in the mold of Ziggy? Can we, the music snobs of today, still recognize, sustain and create room for deserving legends? Or are we going down as "The Age Of Daughtry"? Betcha Daughtry doesn't look this cool with a fag.TONY VISCONTI: It was the most creative period in British rock. If David Bowie started now, record companies wouldn’t look at him and radio wouldn’t play him. Back then if you looked unusual, you had a better chance of getting played on the radio. There’s no reason why we can’t have that same freedom again. Someone somewhere is imposing it and everyone feels they have to make bland music but it doesn’t have to be that way.
Posted at 10:19 AM
Tags: David Bowie
-->
-->
I think Visconti's comments apply to the indie rock scene, too. How many more boring, cookie cutter indie guitar bands do we really need? I'm looking at you Klaxons, Clap Ur Hands, and Arcade Fire.
Score = 0
He says "British rock"-- that's what he's talking about. I don't see what American Idol or U.S. indie rock has to do with it, although the same charges could clearly be levelled against either.
Guitar bands have been ridiculously popular again in the UK throughout this decade, but it's primarily identikit, necrophiliac NME acts (second-gen coldplays and second-gen strokes for the most part). I don't see anything in the quote that suggests that's not what he's talking about. And he's right.
Score = 0
Bowie loves the Arcade Fire.
Score = 0
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and I'm sure I'll be trashed by more than a few posters, but to be honest, I never though David Bowie's songs were all that good.
I feel like people are so damned reverent to Bowie because he was cool and he did strange things and gave interesting interviews and had hip friends, but how much of his music really stands up when you take the man away from the music. I feel like we've all forced ourselves to like him because we want to be cool.
So, I do think, if Bowie were to come along today, we'd maybe be a little bit more skeptical. Not because the industry is crap, but just because we've learned that image isn't everything. In the age of MP3, it takes a damned good song to get our attention, and it takes a lot more good songs to sustain it.
Score = 0
I don't know: I respect your contrarianism and that you are thinking for yourself, but I'd persoanlly take Bowie over every blog band put together-- many of whom are selling an image, albeit a man-on-the-street non-image image (cyhsy, t'nt - hey, they're guys like you!) or dressing up in angels wings or as cheerleaders.
Anyway, in 2007 is anyone doing anything other than listening to Bowie's music? Are we reading interviews or talking about his friends or his image? (well, Visconti is talking about his image, but only in opposition to people who are desperately afraid to look different.)
I'm sure the rest of that stuff-- interviews, who's friends with or associated with sufjan or bss or devendra or the arcade fire, what someone looks like onstage-- helps shape opinions of contemporary artists much more than it does with older ones. (With older ones, we sadly listen to baby boomer opinions and assume they're better than our own, but that's a different rant.)
Score = 0
The English-language music industry is dominated by black artists and black music because people who like black music actually buy new CDs.
Fans of rock, post-rock, indie-rock, glam-rock, indie-pop, avant-pop, punk, post-punk, trip-hop and whatever other splinter sub-genre you can think of simply don't bother to buy new music. Or if they do, they tend to buy old stuff. Or they gravitate toward obscure releases.
Score = 0
I agree with zuhrrrr. Indie rock bands are the new boy bands ... ugh.
Score = 0
I did a night in Manchester to celebrate Bowie's 60th birthday, and posted about how relevant Bowie still is today at http://www.bestfootforward.info/2007/01/party-for-ziggy.html
Someone dropped a great comment about Bowie being "necessary", and that being one of the greatest things you can say about an artist, so I thought I'd reiterate it here - David Bowie is fucking necessary.
Score = 0
Every generation pulls this "things were better when..." bullshit. But let's face it, the pop charts in the 1970s were filled with lots of bland, untalented twats, too. In every era, unimaginitive music is the rule, not the exception. Before you go wailing about the paucity of interesting usic on the pop charts, try to think about Radiohead, Outkast, etc., and then take solace in the 1% rule: For every 100 crap poptarts, you'll get one great chart-topping group or artist for the ages.
Score = 0
Bowie songs definitely stand up outside of his image. Those songs are still great, even arranged acoustically and in portuguese.
Industry insiders don't have the perspective to say anything meaningful about music.
Score = 0
i argue w/people at work about this *all* the time (i'm a sasquatch wrangler employed by the state of iowa; we have *lots* of free time while waiting for bigfoot to go rambo on some poor burgh's ass...).
i think the opposite is true: there's more opportunity than ever for 21st-century bowie. i agree that labels might not throw big marketing $$ his way which might mean fewer album sales or less radio play...if he could even get signed to a label. but tools like myspace and the internets allow almost anyone to "advertise" and distribute music at practically no cost. businesses like cdbaby will sell *anything*. satellite radio playlists are huge. shit, you don't even have to play instruments. pro tools/fl studio/sonic/etc. can do the heavy lifting for you. radio-friendly pop music will continue to dominate the airwaves and music sales (although, "dominate" might mean half of what it did five years ago), but i think the variety of music will continue to expand...and it will become easier and easier to find.
bitch all you want about radio music, but the record companies wouldn't produce bland music if their wasn't an audience. clearly, people are buying daughtry et al. i don't see the downside of having it both ways.
Score = 0
I think there was a lot of substance to Bowie.
On the simplest level - look at the 'greatest hits' compilation changesbowie - Changes, Ziggy Stardust, Young Americans, Heroes - a trip through his career is exhilarating stuff. Essentially you see that he's constantly reinventing himself (and his music) while remaining utterly compelling and hugely enjoyable. It's so easy to either keep churning out effective if generic music (U2 anyone?) or in the process of reinvention to lose what made you so good in the first place. Simply for challenging himself so effectively for so long Bowie is one of the greats.
And yes that reinvention had a lot do with image but I think the image and the music aren't as easily separable as maybe you're suggesting. Arcade Fire's very consciously manipulated image is an integral part of what makes them a fucking good band. Similarly, someone with someone like Dresden Dolls - their sense of campy burlesque is manifested in their music and their image and each compliments the other. The fact that Bowie could so succesfully transform both is what sets him apart.
Score = 0
"Was a lot of substance to Bowie"
I meant "is" - poor guy's not dead quite yet. I'm hoping on another couple of Albums.
Score = 0
I'd really love to see someone belt "Life on Mars" for an American Idol audition. It'd probably never get aired, though.
Score = 0
I agree, Joe, as long as there's an audience for "bland" music, it will continue to be produced. The problem isn't so much that bands are brow-beaten into writing bland music, but that the average consumer has forgotten how good it can be when done right. If consumers refuse to buy, then the artists and labels are forced to rethink their gameplan. However, is there really a viable alternative for the Nickelback/Hinder/Daughtry fan? If you're a fan of meat and potatoes rock, there's really no band (underground or mainstream) that stands head and shoulders above the rest. Until that day comes, expect bands like this to rule the airwaves.
Score = 0
Bowie could've been a 600 pound elephant man who can't control his bowel movements and I would still love him.
Score = 0
"Bland music" could certainly describe Bowie's output after Scary Monsters.
Let's Dance, Never Let Me Down, Tin Machine, or Tin Machine II, anybody?
Score = 0
The last sentence of the post perfectly shows the problem with music today (and has been for a long time) - "Betcha Daughtry doesn't look this cool with a fag.". Ahhh, the poster reveals the truth. Image. It's all about how you look. Me, I listen to music for THE MUSIC. I actually LISTEN to it and I couldn't give two shits what the person or band looks like. I happen to like some of Bowie's songs, but how he looks with a fucking cigarette (oh, I forgot the cool, image conscious term is fag) doesn't fucking matter to me nor does it change how his music sounds. In the media/video/beauty culture, looks are really more important than what you sound like. And even the horn-rimmed glasses-wearing, ironic ringer-t-shirt wearing, indie music snobs who claim to be about the music and so independent are just as influenced by looks. Which is why they tend to all look alike - so they can reinforce how cool they are. How insecure is that?
It's MUSIC people, it's for your EARS not your eyes.
And the mass-produced, plastic, Clear-Channel crowd is the worst offender. Ever wonder what a coincidence it is that virtually every mainstream so-called country music female vocalist is absolutely drop-dead gorgeous? If you dropped in from Mars and watched CMT for an hour you would think immediately that gorgeous, barbie-doll, 35-22-35 shaped blondes and brunettes must have some weird propensity to just be better singers. What a strange race we humans are. Walk in any bar in a big city in America on a Friday night and you'll find technically better singers. But they'll never be popular because they aren't model-gorgeous and/or don't have an "image" or the fashion magazine decreed 'image of the month'.
Beauty, looks, image, and visual coolness rule for most. Me, I care about how it sounds.
Score = 0
john, the "image" is an issue in this post by virtue of what visconti said:
"Back then if you looked unusual, you had a better chance of getting played on the radio. There’s no reason why we can’t have that same freedom again."
sound is important, no one denies that. part of the argument is based on looks though. i for one want more aladdin sanes in my life.
Score = 0
Yes - part of the argument is based on looks. Almost all of the arguments about music are nowadays. That's the problem with music. And if you're one of those that "looks" at music that way and allow a musicians physical appearance to have an influence on whether you like their music or not or become a fan, then I really feel sorry for you.
The definition of music (from one dictionary):
the art and science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds or tones in varying melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
It's about the ears, not the eyes.
Score = 0
but there's a major difference when someone like Bowie has a particular image, and say someone like Pete Wentz. First off... Bowie is a truly creative individual. and, as with other real artists (visual, musical, etc...) he tends to bring his creativity to the forefront in all aspects of his life.
however, Bowie is also a visionary, and is certainly not following the fads and trends already established by the masses (be they indie or mainstream). you'd be hard pressed to find a truly unique artist in today's market. There are some out there, and as Visconti says, they are not getting the recognition that they deserve. i mean, mainstream media still thinks that Bjork is smoking crack because of her swan dress however many years ago.
basically, i think that image is a part of everything we do. even the Wall Street businessmen have an image to uphold. that said, i see no harm in making music a multi-sensory experience. if anything, i think it can only add to the experience.
Score = 0
I do agree with I Don't Know in the fact that it now does take a damned good song to get our attention nowadays - at least for intelligent people; but the image thing still does definitely exist. The Grammy's featured some of the epitomes of image. And although some of Bowie's songs can get a little boring and painful to listen to, he still shows an incredible amount of genius and experiment. Earthling was a good example of that. It was way beyond the time it was released. His music just kept progressing. That is why he such a huge part of pop music. He kept growing and broadening his palette with each album that was released. Don't be ashamed, though, to say that you don't really like Bowie. I personally think he is brilliant. But some songs can just be plain boring. But that comes with writing music.
Score = 0
i don't "get" the "music on the radio sucks" or "you have to be ugly to make good music" or "anything that clear channel plays is ass" arguments.
listen to what you like. even the "antis" on this thread are finding music they like in spite of the big labels/american idol/cmt/fashionista/mtv ne'er do wells .
calling someone an idiot because they like britney spears' is kind of a dick move, if you ask me. i don't think it's a "problem" that some genres of music value looks over musicianship. rather than telling me what sucks, tell me what you like. maybe i'll give it a listen...
Score = 0
I've actually started to think seriously about creativity in art and music recently. And even moreso with reunions of 1980s bands like Van Halen and The Police happening. And while it's typical for an older folk—like me—to say "You kids have no idea what it was like back then!", I think when you look at music and creativity it's just hard to deny that the record industry and the film industry created much better work when they were struggling back-in-the-day.
The "big money" wasn't there and the idea that new ideas were just as good as tried and true ideas was pervasive even if people weren't explicit about it. People wanted a product, and it was cheaper to release an album and see if it floats rather than do intensive market research.
And in many ways that's still true, but the large companies that own practically ALL major media conduits just have forgotten that.
Even moreso nowadays, unground culture that would typically foster creativity has been co-opted in bizarre ways. For example, "Hot Topic" and even "rock" shirts sold at Target. It might sound strange, but when I was a teen in the 1980s there were the mall stores and then there were the "cool" stores you had to seek out. And find that cool t-shirt, button, hat or doodad from. Now, if I were a teen today what real motivation would I have to explore? When mom and dad go to Target, I'm there too and can buy a preworn Led Zeppelin t-shirt and have instant "cool"....
And while there will always be people who explore the outer edges, those edges are getting smaller and too narrow in their own way.
I'm pissed because from my perspective, the amount of technology and tools the average person has access to nowadays would imply a greater level of creative exploration and freedom. But it seems that it's actually the opposite; people are lazier and being "creative" seems to rotate around what color your iPod case is.
Score = 0
It's all about his instrument for me...one of the most interesting and fantastic vocalists ever.
Like the people of Idol wish they could find but know America would never vote for.
Score = 0
Why do people sentimentalize the past? Yes, the 70s had Bowie, but they also had the Partridge Family, Bread and the Bay City Rollers. The reason we remember Bowie 30 years later, is because he was GOOD, but the ratio to bands with substance to pre-fab crap is the same in every decade. Good music will always be out there if you're willing to look for it. For those who aren't, there's Daughtry, and that's fine.
Score = 0
Lots of interesting comments here... A couple of thoughts I wanted to interject into the conversation. First, there is alot of truth behind the Buggles' tune "Video Killed the Radio Star". Romeo Void was one of the first bands to be a victim of this. Debora Iyall has a very sensuous, hot voice. But because of her 'Polynesian/Indian' heritage she has big bones. She is stocky, not fat mind you, but by no means the American standard of a hot starlet. Contrast her with Nina Persson. Part of the Cardigans draw was her Nordic looks and her deep blue eyes.
Point two, due to the Internet and how musical media is now distributed, personally I see a trend towards less "solid" albums. I think artists used to devote much more attention to the whole album working, to encourage future album sales. Whereas today they can sell songs individually much more easily. Not sure off all the contributing factors just a trend I perceive.
Thirdly, I may have a bias being an 80's child, but to me it seems there are fewer bands with truly distinctive sounds. No way you could confuse Oingo Boingo with Devo with B-52's with Bauhaus with Joy Division. Admittedly some of the more 'pop-ish' bands of the era had slightly similar sounds ie Aha and OMD but during the 80's it was more of an exception than the rule. Todays bands seem to be the total opposite with so many bands that sound alike and few that have their own sound. Case in point, my girlfriend commented to me that "Running on the Rocks" by Shriekback sounded alot like most of the Killers songs. My brother and I nearly died with laughter. Shriekback's music has a wide range of sounds. Dave Allen the lead singer had a voice that could range from baritone to falsetto with nary a false note. I think one of the major contributing reasons is the movement from artists performing mostly their own compositions with the occasional cover to artists performing songs purchased from song writers (ala Coyote Ugly).
Also, this decade there seems to be fewer genres alive. The 80's had the tail end of Punk, New Wave, Ska, Reggae, Thrash (think Black Flag, Dead Kennedys), Industrial, Rap, and the beginnings of Techno (Caberet Voltaire). Rather than continuing to branch out, today's music seems to me to be funneling down to a limited Pop40, Alternative, Grunge, Indie, Techno selection.
Just my humble perceptions.
Score = 0