With YouTube and paparazzi bringing about the humanization of our pop-stars, will today’s culture allow someone to create a character larger than life?
Past decades of music brought us grandiose characters such as Bowie, Jim Morrison, the Sex Pistols, Prince, Elvis, and countless others. Past their musical skills, these artists used outlandish ideals, wardrobes, and demeanors to demand their audience accept their view of the world as a new reality. The very existence of these near mythological individuals polarized parents to loathe them and kids to worship them.
Today we have plenty of skilled musicians, but the prevailing image of them is ordinary people off the street with extraordinary talents and jobs. How many musicians do we have that look like a typical college kid or someone you might see out at the latest hotspot. The outfits worn vary from ironic tee-shirts for the rock bands to designer suits/dresses for pop and hip-hop acts. The accompanying persona then ranges from either more depressed than you or more money than you. Even the championed band Radiohead is just a group of normal looking English chaps who are great at making wonderfully depressing music. Yet despite the perceived greatness of their music, is there anything mythical about Tom Yorke?
Additionally, older acts still trying to kept the mystique are often met with rather sharp criticism. After recently watching Velvet Revolver perform a friend commented, “Despite their outfits and attitude, we all know that after the show they go home put on their comfy sweatshirt and watch cartoons.” We’ve already seen behind the hard rocker costume thanks to Youtube, paparazzi, and the reality show now associated with various lead singers. We now know that most of these stars are just normal people underneath their “work” clothes thereby debunking the persona they create on stage.
So, can any entertainers step up to the challenge and be larger than life at all times? The one band I have seen recently that gives me hope is Ghostland Observatory. The unsigned band’s live shows are becoming rather legendary with rave reviews surfacing form their performances at Lollapalooza, Austin City Limits, CMJ, and other festivals. The two members of the still unsigned band include a Native America version of Mick Jagger on vocals and guitar along with a mysterious fellow in a light, blue vampire cape manning the drums and synths. (Picture attached) Bridging the gap of electronic and classic rock, Ghostland Observatory’s shows emits a Ridley Scott feel with a hypnotic light show and a large dose of androgynous sexuality. Their recent concert in NYC represents the only time this year I have been challenged to wonder who the characters were on stage, where they came from, and how I could be more like them.
-Contributed by Trey Shelton
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
couple of thoughts…
the demise of the record label = the death of the super rock star. the bands/acts you mentioned were all great talents…but were also creatures created by marketing engines looking to sell albums.
the web has amplified this by allowing many many bands find small followings. moreover, the emergence of individualism that the web has created leads to everyone finding that small, underground band that they can claim as their own. you mention Ghostland Observatory…Datarock comes to mind on this side…but EVERYONE has that act they’re into this month…but it will change next month because god forbid something catch on (btw, i think this started the first time i heard a track from Nevermind on the radio).
finally, i don’t think we need our rock stars to be gods anymore. bands blog from festivals…we can go to lastnightsparty.com and see how they party…and then do it ourselves. moreover, we can actually BECOME rockstars, or at least pretend with the various faces we put on facebook, myspace and flickr. i mean how many “crazy” people on the web probably log off, put on that cozy sweater and watch cartoons?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
You are conflating their later arena eras with their the earlier parts of their careers when they were quite well known and yet played in much smaller venues. At this time they were very approachable by their fans.
YouTube and the paparazzi just bring artist closer to fans as they once were before the bloated arena and MTV eras.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:50 am
yes it’s true…very boring. It needs to change…check out Natt Weller (son of Paul Weller)
November 9th, 2007 at 6:56 am
“loosing” their mystique, as in setting it loose?
or “losing” (what I think you meant)?
November 9th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Well, I can definitely mention a band whose players and music has not lost its “mystique” for me, even with various YouTube videos.
That group is YES.
In fact, were it not for YouTube, I’d never be able to watch them perform, because YES, as far as I consciously know, has never come to Iowa. And my family has never really had the extra dough to go to another state for something as wildly awesome as a YES concert. I’ve had to content myself with their CDs, and that’s good enough for me…as long as I get to hear Jon Anderson, Steve Howe, Chris Squire, Rick Wakeman and Bill Bruford (and anyone else that’s come through the swinging-door of YES-band membership).
And speaking of mystique: IMO, Jon Anderson and Chris Squire ARE the mystique of YES, followed closely behind by Steve Howe and Rick Wakeman. These four dudes make the YES sound what it is…and given that I was born ten years after their first album debut, that’s ten years of mystique I can soak up and enjoy for the rest of my adult life.
I agree, though, that newer bands seem to lose their mystique a lot quicker, but I think that’s because they try too hard to copy the music they hear from outside influences. Nothing wrong with others’ music influencing a new band, but sometimes they may need to lay the influences aside and let their own tunes come through the Ethers.
That being said, I was born in the 70s and I think I’ll probably stick by most of the music that I like from that era. Including YES.
November 18th, 2007 at 1:08 pm