Is there any way to discuss the extent to which music appeals to someone solely based on the sounds of the music itself - such as if you heard a song on the radio w/o even knowing the name of the artist - as opposed to the song being presented as a part of a stage presentation and artist’s persona/marketing?
Sometimes I find myself confused or turned off by what I see in a televised performance, but having seen that and formed an opinion, I find it challenging to assess how I feel about the music itself.
I think I’ve long placed a high value on the underlying music, and the skill of the singers/musicians. Even performers of my youth who had elaborate performances - Bowie, Queen, ELP - had considerable musical chops. It used to be pretty easy to identify rock performers who were primarily well-produced posers. I don’t know enough about most modern music to be able to separate the music from the artist’s image. And I’ve generally had a prejudice for music that can be performed “live.” Recorded vocals/accompaniments in a live performance generally goes in the negative column for me.
I was thinking about this after seeing Lizzo on SNL. I understand many folk celebrate her as an ebullient performer refusing to follow certain concepts of body image. That’s great. Personally, I don’t find her image/presentation appealing, but she’s doing just fine without my support. But then I was finding it challenging to really compare the merits of the 2 songs she performed to soul and R&B that I was familiar with and enjoyed. I’ve been listening to a bit of R&B on a public radio show lately, and have enjoyed forming my opinions of the music without any idea of what the performers looked like. And I thought of other singers of size who IMO did not make their show as much about their body habitus.
Full disclosure, for the past couple of decades, the greatest part of my personal listening has been for acoustic music - little of which depends on elaborate stage presentation.
A few weeks ago, while on vacation, we saw this busker who was walking down the road, entering restaurants and playing a few tunes. At first I had negative thoughts about him. We were enjoying a quiet dinner. He was a one man band type of act, with ukulele, hand made flute, various percussion instruments, etc. But by the end of his “set” I was onboard, clapping and asking for an encore.
Over the years, I’ve bought many albums by unfamiliar artists from the discount bins in record stores (back when that used to be a thing), and I’ve ended up really liking and enjoying quite a few of them, just based on the music itself and without knowing anything about the artists, including, in some cases, what they even looked like.
So that goes to show that I can and do appreciate music solely based on what I hear.
On the other hand, I musically came of age during the early-to-mid 80s, when music videos (on MV etc.) were a big deal, and there’s many a song or artist that first caught my interest because of their performances in cool-looking videos. So I don’t discount things like visual appeal, stage presence, persona, etc. But for me, the purely musical chops and creativity have to be there too.
Further challenging to me is that I’ve never been good at understanding vocals. With few exceptions, I’ve almost always treated them primarily as another instrumental line. So with my infrequent exposures to rap and hiphop, I do not understand the vocal “message.” I generally do not see much musical skill (as opposed to production) displayed on stage. So I’m kinda left with viewing the costumes/dance - which don’t greatly appeal to me and often confuse me.
I almost wonder if there is a continuum between straightforward music performance at one end, and performance "art at the other. Or maybe you could use those as your x and y axis…
A few weeks back I said to my wife and daughter “You gotta watch this!” and played a video of Elvis singing Suspicious Minds in Vegas.
His stage presence and charisma were amazing. I was raised on Elvis in the home (Mom’s favorite singer), but was never much of a fan. Watching him on stage was entirely different. Wow, what a ride!
If you wanted a scientific answer, you would just ask a friend to mix up a bunch of songs that you don’t know - including some by the performer in question - and play them on a random loop without looking at the track listing. Write a rating for each song and hey, Bob’s your uncle.
Likewise, you could repeat this with others to get group ratings and, extra likewise, you could try to get together a group of people who are professional musicians but who don’t know all or most of said performer’s material.
I have done this my whole life because my main source of music has always been radio. I’ve never bought a single piece of music my entire life, never owned a stereo or cassette player etc. About the only time I listen to music is in my car.
But, for instance, I could tell you that 10 seconds into Smells Like Teen Spirit I was going to like the song and I had no idea what the lyrics were, who sang it, nothing. If I am not immediately drawn to a song by the music, there is probably no way I’m ever going to like it. Lyrics are a distant second.
Oops, didn’t notice how old this thread was. Sorry, gonna post anyway.
I have read about this, and let’s say there is a reason why reputable orchestras and other institutions insist on blind auditions, these days. If you don’t like some musician’s face, too bad.
[Now if someone is singing and dancing and, let’s say, can’t dance, IMO that is a legitimate critique. Or someone could be a brilliant composer who writes great songs but only a so-so vocalist. And so on. True artists always try to improve, of course.]
I’m constantly getting surprised by what a band/performer looks like. I think that’s because, back in maaaah day, acoustic folkies looked like Peter, Paul & Mary , sensitive singer/songwriters looked like James Taylor, bluesmen looked like Leadbelly, hard rockers looked like Led Zeppelin, prog bands looked like Yes, psychedelic bands looked like the Dead, and hair bands looked like, well, every other hair band.
These days, I’ll hear some tight harmonies over tasty fretwork… and later it turns out to be some Israeli teenagers dressed like they should be playing Finnish Torture Metal.
VIsual appeal/image has never mattered one white to me in assessing the music of a performer. Most of the time I don’t know what performers look like. Sometimes, I’m surprised to find out someone I imagined as white was black or vice versa.
In terms of live shows and the performance, that could be something that adds to the enjoyment of it. I grew up with 90s bands, where the aesthetic was generally a bunch of dudes (and possibly a woman on bass, if we’re going for stereotypes), dressed up in normal street clothes, picking up their instruments and playing amazing music for us to rock out to. Then, there’s bands with very carefully curated images, like, say, the White Strips, with their red-and-black imagery and very theatrical approach to performance that elevates the experience for me. It’s not necessarily conducive to enjoying the music aspect of their performance, but it does elevate the in-person experience of it, the theatre. And I do enjoy it and appreciate it for that.
Many of my favorite bands are the same. I’ve been to a Teenage Fanclub show at the Luxor in Cologne a few years ago. Next to the entrance of the club there’s an Indian fast food place with a glass front, and as I was having a smoke outside, I saw that the whole band sat at a table and was having a meal. They looked like totally regular blokes, middle-aged guys in jeans and t-shirts/sweaters, just like me. When they entered the stage an hour later, they hadn’t changed and played the concert in their street clothes, and that was totally ok, what counts is the music. Of course that doesn’t work for every band, we know what we have to expect from a Kiss or Alice Cooper show, but many bands work well without a special visual image.
