Also posted on a different BBS, but you get that :D
OK, this may seem a bit harsh but in todays industry climate, marketing (selling) an image seems more important than selling the music.
That being the case, how important is it for a band and it's members to be critical of their own appearance.including, style of clothing, tidyness, their own physical condition, etc., etc.
Is a band limiting their chances of getting a deal, if for example they have a bass player who looks more like Demis Roussos, (think of an overweight Greek waiter ), rather than everyone looking as though they are candidates for the next "boy band".
Comments anyone?
:cool:
Comments
Bachman- Turner Overdrive is certainly not in the "boy band" category. I don't even think they were remarkably talented musicians.
But I will say this- they were accomplished and professional musicians. And some of the nicest guys I ever worked with on a live show. They did write a couple of pretty catchy tunes, too.
I think some attention to personal appearance is in order. Even if you don't look like a young male model, it doesn't mean you can't own one or two nice stage outfits, or exercise reasonable personal grooming. On the other hand, a band called "The Naked Teenage Female Supermodels" would probably be more popular live than on the radio....
I think it's all about how you look on the TeeVee. If Dave Mathews was a fat slob, or if Santana didn't hear a hat and if he wasn't already established they wouldn't be getting the push that they get from the record companies. BTO were popular in the day of the radio star.. those days are long past. BTO would probably not make it these days. It's all about image if only because the record companies won't promote you if you’re not good looking. They perceive it as too much of a liability. .... Kurt
Singer from Jamiroqai, Luther Vandross(before he lost weight), singer harmonica player from "Blues Traveler"; Can't be fatter or plain, very popular blues band, Steve Ray Vaughn was nothing to look at either, hey, PHIL COLLINS !! Not one of those guys are pretty faces.... Enuff said, I still maintain that with great music and incredible performing, you get the stage pass anyway..... Yes, the record companies do have their bread and butter acts like Brittney and N'sync, but they also have musical geniuses on their roster which they can afford to retain while they fill their pockets off the pretty faces...
I just have to disagree, almost all of those acts mentioned are from like 15 years ago! I don't think they would get anywhere today. Phil Collins was in Genesis and wasn't old and bald when his carrier started.. Stevie Ray was waaaay before video was so important, same with Luther ..... Jamiroqai I can't speak to, as I am unfamiliar with that one... Name just one successful breaking act that is fat, ugly, old ??? I am fat and old :D and I don't want to see fat, old or ugly on the Tee Vee. There may be an ocassional exception but it is far and few between ..... Kurt
Yeah, but they have titties..........and they are female titties, not man-titties :D .
Guys, your comments are all appreciated, and each in it's own way is valid.
Kurt, I think you have nailed it when you referred to the TV/Radio thing. And I tend to agree with you.
The reason for my question is simple...........take a band (actually my son's), guys are or have been to date all of acceptable appearance,.....ages around 19 to 22yrs,.....style of music can be likened to Matchbox 20 or Vertical Horizon,.....the singer/songwriter can REALLY sing and write,.....at a meeting with one of the leading industry lawyers in the country, the legal eagle thought enough to offer to shop the majors for the guys.
The problem is that while my son and the singer wanted to increase rehearsals to at least 2 per week and start looking for "quality" gigs on weekends, the drummer and bass player didn't want to commit......both are too reliant on the income from covers bands they play in. They are now being replaced, and a bass player has been found who isn't too bad at all, but his appearance pretty well matches my earlier description.......he honestly just doesn't "look" right. So here I am.........trying to figure out whether appearance or lack thereoff is important or a possible liability.
Regards,
:cool:
John Popper is a great example, because he is the most unattractive dude to front a hit band in a long while, and because he summed it up: "The hook brings you back."
Styles change, haircuts change, production techniques change, but the hit record bidness is still about catchy songs. Not a lot of reach from Stephen Foster to Diane Warren in my book... send 'em home humming. Would anyone have heard the Beatles if Epstein hadn't cleaned them up, got them to stop throwing punches and eating lunch on stage, made sure their suits matched? I seriously doubt that four guys in Rocker leathers would have torn down the Sullivan Show like that.
Great, hooky, catchy songs and a look that says "I'm just one step ahead of the curve," and you're there, whatever the time. Then all you need is a massive infusion of luck and a self-promoting attitude that knows no boundaries.
Hey Kurt, you are being to hard with you. Just cut some pizza and things will be fine. ALso, what about some Les Mils Body combat aerobics?
After 30 you start growing to the sidewalls only!lol
what about Mamas and Papas? Rusk? Van Halen?Rolling stones?
I wouldn´t want to be a Rick Martin clone also.
I think Kurt is pretty dead-on on this one. These times are strange. Have you heard that quote "In lew of creativity, there is an undo emphasis on sexuality" ? I think that's what is going on these day's. Even most of the independant music sucks (if you ask me) and the worse it gets, the better looking the "talent" becomes. It's hand in hand. It will change though. It seems like these waves have been happening all through the history of popular music, right?
"Ugly" and talented, Beau Landry
Hey Everyone,
Nice topic... perhaps if R.O. gets to launch an independent label they can be one of the first labels to break the "Brittney" model. Now I am not saying that all labels operate the same way regarding looks. For instance many of the alternative rock bands that have that "Doom and Gloom" feel to them are far from modelesque. Although they do have an image. It seems you have to be extremely beautiful and sexy or extremely (how can I say this) tatooed and beligerant to get a break these days.
Since I was 17 I have had many people tell me (because of my playing) "You should be in L.A. or New York". So I went to these places and let me tell you... Unless you have the apperance of a skinny heroine addict or you look like you are going to kill your parents or are pretty enough that both men and women want you, then you are in for a big let down.
It surprises me though when I go to shows like Steve Morse, Yes and the like, how many people actually show up because of the musicianship. Not because their names were plastered all over MTV or because they were having sex with a dog in a video, but because they are "True Players". It seems those days of "recognizing" musicianship are long gone, and thats a shame. Now I am not claiming to be God's gift to the music world but I have a few chops and I would hope I put them to good use when needed.
Well thats enough of what seems to have turned out into a rant. I will just keep on playing and writing in the same melodic fashion and hope for the best before I have to trade in my guitar for an oxygen tank and wheelchair.
Best of luck to all in attaining you dreams.
Regards,
( o}===;;;
I was working with a vocal Quartet in Australia, and at one stage we managed to get ourselves signed to a reasonably large label by Ausie standards. Unfortunately it all went belly up when two of the members didn't reach "optimum physical condition" in time for a promo tour and pre press shoots. I think you will find that most contracts will have the 20 Kg clause written in somewhere. For Guys, you don't have to be a complete sex god, as long as you can photograph ok. and are not distastefull. For Chicks it's a totally different story, if they have any Fug value then they don't stand a chance regardless how good they are. Thats what it's like over here anyway..
If I were running a record label, looks would certainly be a consideration in my decision making process. 60% of the brain is dedicated to visual, and it would be simply a case of "sticking your head in the sand" to ignore that. Television plays an important part in promoting a record these days and hell, even if you go back to the 50's and look at the comparison of Elvis and Roy Orbison. Many would say that Roy Orbison's talent exceeded Elvis' being that Orbison could technically sing better, was a far better musician and wrote his own music. But look who became the bigger star. Looks play a part in everything in our society. Pretty girls are more likely to graduate high school, attractive people do much better in the business and job markets. This phenomenon extends far beyond the music business. Kurt
Divo,
Where in Aust., are you based?
It is interesting to look back at photos of bands/artists from the 60's onwards. I did this as a result of the comments in this thread...........I dragged out all my old sheet music (started buying that in '62), as well as album covers. It would almost appear that as long as people were physically "acceptable", within photographic or marketing standards, then the visual image wasn't going to be a huge issue...........however, one thing that did stand out was that there was almost always, at least one person in a band who had "that something" that made them attract your attention, or the way a band was photographed gave them an edge as far as visual presentation is concerned. They NEVER looked like guys that had walked in off the street. It's an indefinable "something" that can vary from person to person, BUT it IS necessary if a band is going to be marketable.
:cool:
Wazzup People!
I agree that todays performers/bands either have to be "pretty" or have a definite image. That being said, I don't know if any of you have ever watched FOX's American Idol. One of the guys still making the grade week after week is Rueben, who without doubt could lose a few pounds. (I don't really watch it myself, but my 11 year old daughter is hooked on the show.) He may be big, but he has that "teddy bear" quality. What about Marilyn Manson? The MoFo is so ugly he had to cover it up with that outrageous image. In the post-MTV era the key I guess, to take a negative and turn it into an asset or just cover it up. God knows even in my prime I would barely have qualified by todays standards.
:p:
Laura (I may call you Laura? :D ), and one point that came out of that discussion was that it is always possible to turn a negative into a positive............similar to your "cute boy with personality/stud with attitude" thang.
If, as in the present case, the bass player is rather "solidly built" without the height to match to put it politely, ......aahh damn it.........he's built like a brick shit house :D , one option is to get him to almost flaunt it, to take an aggresive approach to his whole "on stage/live" image............kind of like saying visually to an audience....."I'm THE bass player......if you don't like it, well tough!!!" Whether he has the confidence to do this is another matter though.
Time will tell.
BTW, welcome to RO.
:cool:
I saw New found Glory last summer and they basically make a spectacle of their fat ass bass player, even going as far as playing a simple beat and getting the crowd to chant "take it off" while the bass player strips down to his boxers on stage! While I would agree that this is considered "punk" music and this type of behavior would not fit well with some other types of music but, if your bass player is in to it see if he would go along! hehe If the kid can play then and melds well with the other memebers than I don't think its fair to him to kick him out cause he's not a pretty boy! just my $.02
Myself being a frontman, I have always cared more about musicianship and performance issues from my supporting members, than just good stage presence. In vocal music your key focus is on the singer. You can always gain more confidence in your stage presence as time goes by from working a stage throughout the years. I feel if your frontman can pull his weight, the rest is just icing on the cake! But I am old school, and talent beats out looks everytime!
First off, love any thread that seriously contemplates the good looks of BTO. Nice.
It's really hard to think of even average looking folks who make it, even in "indie." Hip hop is the big exception, plenty of real fat guys there, but that's a different story.
For what it's worth, Dave Matthews was thin and incredibly handsome, and at the exact moment that he broke, got a little tubby. Not tubby like, say, this author, but tubby for a rockstar. He's now a good bit thinner again.
You know, I didn't really watch this show, but the bedroom is right behind my office, and my Wife enjoyed the "American Idol" series...
The guy who won this year wasn't exactly a candidate for GQ magazine... I can only assume that in the American public's eyes, talent still takes the stage. I guess we will learn more as record companies begin to try and market this artist.
There is considerable talk that the "American Idol" competition was fixed in at least the final voting stages. I don't think we can take any of these "Reality TV" competitions seriously. I don't think any of these people, Kelly Clarkson included, would make it in the real world with a real record company. Another trend I have noticed in American Idol competition is the tendency of all the artists to pick "R&B" songs to compete with. This is very unrealistic IMO as R&B does not constitute the majority of record sales. I believe that County is the largest seller but it is rarely represented in these competitions. I think "American Idol" is aimed at the 11 to 16 year olds that Lou Pearlman is going after .... Kurt
Hi folks,
I don't usually touch the ugly/pretty threads..... i shouldn't throw stones and all that - BUT (big but wasn't it?) unfortunately i have to agree with Kurt on this one (not unfortunate that i have to agree with you Kurt - just unfortunate you're right about this - that our world is that way)
In the years of radio / vinyl records - talent mattered much more than it does today - today it's all about packaging..... and the foolish sheep of the world make it so.
Everything is visualy oriented - hell we even use images in here to represent our persona.....
But the real question is not ugly vrs pretty here - it is presentation........... for the particular genre that the artist works in.
Today - someone like meatloaf (i believe) could still become famous - because the people who like that musical style would accept him. He would not however make it as a country musician with his presentation.
So to answer the real original question - put aside your personal opinions of the appearence - and look at the leading preformers in that genre - that is what the poeple listening to expect - and then ask yourself - do they fit?
As far as the bullsh.. TV "reality shows" go - i make it a habit to never watch - and yes - from what i've heard everything was decided long in advance - and all of the loosers that were shown crying and screaming and bad mouthing after - those were all shoots - just so the wonderful public could see someone humiliated. They bopught into it just for the sake of their "15 minutes of fame"
Happy Hunting
Rod
Yep, you guys are right about the Reality TV shows. They might be 10% reality (at most) and 90% rigged, but it is amazing how many people buy into the "reality" of it.
It just goes to show how important the "packaging" is. Like my dad has always told me, even if you "package" poopoo (he uses a different term) right, millions of people will beat a path to you to buy it. For example, the Clintons are masters of packaging, look at the elections they won while being life-long, chronic pathological liars. (You could say politicians in general are liars, which in many cases is true, but the Clintons take the cake.) Packaging is the key.
Talent will always be successful in the long run, packaging just makes the journey much shorter. But in the short run (especially in this "now" generation), good packaging will make anything successful for a while.
Good music is good music, and good business is good business. The two shake hands long enough to marry for the purposes of entertainment. Entertainment is the reason music sells. In the old days people were entertained by radio. Then tv. Nowadays people watch and listen for a variety of reasons, looks, sex appeal, artistic value, because it's cool or thier "crowd" listens to or watches something.
To effectively sell a new band it is prudent to ensure that you have as many bases covered so that yu can appeal to a broader market and sell more discs.
I don't think it's fair to say that the public would reject good music because dude is ugly, I do think it's fair to say that the labels might though.
Just a thought.
Geez, this thread just keeps bobbing up to the surface every so often :) .
Well, the long and the short of the specific situation is that for reasons primarily other than his appearance, the "large" bass player won't be joining the band.
However, it has been interesting to see how different people viewed the issue, so MANY THANKS to those who took time to respond.
:cool:
Reply to HiString:
Although it seems ridiculous to even think that anyone would care how a member of a band looked, when something is marketed, it has to have a brand image to nudge it along. In the case of the brick shithouse bass player I would have to say cut the hair somewhat short and spike it up (it makes the face appear thinner), grow a goatee (to hide the triple chin), have him drop 10 pounds (it will greatly increase his self-image), invest in some BIG and tall rock shirts that are shiny (I think they look pretty cool), showcase his chops a little (showboating is good in reeling in potential musician fans when not done in excess), and get him a chick because there's something that women eat up about the fat, sensitive, musician that seems unattainable to them because he has a chick (preferrably a hot chick because it really makes them wonder about him). Good luck.
If your music is compelling, NO. Just look at the Dave Matthews band, he is nothing to look at, but his music reels them in. Same with Santana(he is around 55), no one there looks like Sting either.... But if you are going for Top 40 Pop, then YES.