how can anyone take this seriously?

[fractiouslowend]

i was just reading OK magazine (yeah i know, but i'm at work and that's the only magazine) There was a little write up about the band '30 seconds to mars' i don't mind these guys so i thought i'd read the review.
The article was called 'why we love 30 seconds to mars' so i figured it would discuss the new album / stage show etc.

no

i won't write it out word for word, but the three points they made are
-jared leto is attractive and has starred with another attractive man (brad pitt) in fight club
-jared leto has had lots of attractive girlfriends
-they asked their fans to send photos of themselves to the band, some of these were used in album artwork

even if you are just a casual music listener, surely this doesn't make sense to you, would you go and see a movie because you know the screen writer drives the same car as you?

i just can't believe that this is how bad the music industry has become, basically they have reduced band promotion to, "the singer of this band is really good looking! you must buy it now!

[m3t4lhed]

LOL, the world is full of idiots. The ones that are not, are on this forum

[champbassist]

Originally Posted by m3t4lhed

LOL, the world is full of idiots. The ones that are not, are on this forum

And Indian, may I add

[somegeezer]

They're a mainstream band, what do you expect? I'm surprised they don't have something as little as "BUY IT NOW OR ELSE" sprawled across the page. But it's just as bad as a boring 10 page analysis on every detail heard.

[Manfloozy]

Part of it could be the target audience of the magazine. The job of the writer is to talk to their audience and discuss what interests them. Just a different perspective, not necessarily the case, just a thought.

[yehongxiang]

I just saw the band 'live' last night (part of a local music festival) and I'm honestly not a big fan of their music. That said, I must admit that they know how to engage the audience and put on a good show. Their energy is undeniable too.

Pity that the fans are such numbskulls though.

[sarcastro83]

Wait... hold on just a second... a band is getting ahead, making money, and commanding the adorarion of young teenage girls, not because of their merit as competent musicians, BUT BECAUSE OF THEIR LOOKS?!?

And to add insult to injury, OK Magazine published a puff piece on them, rather than the hard-hitting exposé that would have been written in other, less pedestrian publications?

OUTRAGE!!!

I too wonder when music became so shallow as to have legions of fans focus almost solely on the attractiveness of their so-called talent...

Wait... I'm getting something...

[dannster]

Originally Posted by sarcastro83

Wait... hold on just a second... a band is getting ahead, making money, and commanding the adorarion of young teenage girls, not because of their merit as competent musicians, BUT BECAUSE OF THEIR LOOKS?!?

Balderdash!

[Spraeg]

Originally Posted by sarcastro83

I too wonder when music became so shallow as to have legions of fans focus almost solely on the attractiveness of their so-called talent...

Wait... I'm getting something...

The difference is, The Beatles actually had a respected music career that has spanned decades. The "artists" that the media puts out now are flash-in-the pan one hit wonders. They get their 15 minutes and disappear once the masses move on to the next big thing. There aren't any musicians that I can think of who have come out in the past 10 years who are still around outside of being tabloid fodder, all the big stars who are veterans of the music industry are the same ones from the 70's-90's. Bands that are marketed for their looks now (i.e. Most of them) are only kept around for a short period of time, because they often have little to no regard within the musical world.

[sarcastro83]

Originally Posted by Spraeg

The difference is, The Beatles actually had a respected music career that has spanned decades. The "artists" that the media puts out now are flash-in-the pan one hit wonders. They get their 15 minutes and disappear once the masses move on to the next big thing. There aren't any musicians that I can think of who have come out in the past 10 years who are still around outside of being tabloid fodder, all the big stars who are veterans of the music industry are the same ones from the 70's-90's. Bands that are marketed for their looks now (i.e. Most of them) are only kept around for a short period of time, because they often have little to no regard within the musical world.

Dude, I get where you're coming from. I get it. But honestly, just think for a moment. This whole issue revolves around the original post ragging on the MUSIC INDUSTRY and their apparently "recent" trend of promoting eye candy without a whole lot of substance to back it up, which in my opinion is a silly argument. The MUSIC INDUSTRY has been marketing young and sexy for decades now, because quite simply, for as fickle the record-buying public are, they always hold true to one, very specific pattern.

Young and sexy will ALWAYS be in style.

Now let's go back to the whole concept of the MUSIC INDUSTRY. It has never, ever been contested that the prime objective of every industry known to man is the acquisition of extremely large sums of money. Fact of the matter is, like in every other business, you have to spend money to make money. Fostering the growth of these "so-called artists" as you put it costs a great deal. Management, publicity, the cost of recording, touring... it all adds up. To be perfectly frank, the MUSIC INDUSTRY doesn't "promote new and exciting talent in the form of new and exciting artists" as much as it "seeks a return on it's investment in this person's ability to win the hearts and minds of the record-buying public". Now honestly, tell me which sounds like a better business decision... gambling on an artist who is "so-so in the looks/charm department, doesn't know how to court the press but is otherwise a musical virtuoso" or "young, sexy, charming, a guaranteed headline grabber who just happens to have a modest ability to bleat into a micriphone, kind of rhythmically"? Seriously... this business model has been used pretty well since rock n' roll became a big deal. Look back, and you're guaranteed to find just as many flash-in-the-pan, one-hit-wonders who built a career on a foundation of more sex than talent.

I'm not even contesting the idea that it's kind of a shame that this is the case, and to be honest, I'd LOVE it if there were a bit more substance to contemporary music these days. But then I also understand that the tastes of the record-buying public and the artistic sensibilities of the vast community of musicians and artists are extremely different things.

I dunno... I guess that's why I don't get my back up about some completely farcical idea that "everything used to be better and more legit back in the day". That just seems naive to me. Not to mention how petty it sounds for other people to be ragging on other people's successes just because they happen to be gifted with good looks, and blaming some big, evil music industry for promoting style over substance... Sure, it's superficial, and it'd be nice if the rest of us average pudds were paid the same attention, but don't blame the industry for sticking to a successful business model... it's the consumer who creates demand, after all...

Ah well... I've rambled enough... Just play the music YOU want to play because YOU LOVE IT. What other reason is there for doing it otherwise? Hell, the whole experience would be a great deal more enjoyable for people if they weren't so quick to get all bitchy over things they really have no control over, and that otherwise do not affect them in the least...

[fractiouslowend]

Originally Posted by sarcastro83

Dude, I get where you're coming from. I get it. But honestly, just think for a moment. This whole issue revolves around the original post ragging on the MUSIC INDUSTRY and their apparently "recent" trend of promoting eye candy without a whole lot of substance to back it up, which in my opinion is a silly argument. The MUSIC INDUSTRY has been marketing young and sexy for decades now, because quite simply, for as fickle the record-buying public are, they always hold true to one, very specific pattern.

Young and sexy will ALWAYS be in style.

Now let's go back to the whole concept of the MUSIC INDUSTRY. It has never, ever been contested that the prime objective of every industry known to man is the acquisition of extremely large sums of money. Fact of the matter is, like in every other business, you have to spend money to make money. Fostering the growth of these "so-called artists" as you put it costs a great deal. Management, publicity, the cost of recording, touring... it all adds up. To be perfectly frank, the MUSIC INDUSTRY doesn't "promote new and exciting talent in the form of new and exciting artists" as much as it "seeks a return on it's investment in this person's ability to win the hearts and minds of the record-buying public". Now honestly, tell me which sounds like a better business decision... gambling on an artist who is "so-so in the looks/charm department, doesn't know how to court the press but is otherwise a musical virtuoso" or "young, sexy, charming, a guaranteed headline grabber who just happens to have a modest ability to bleat into a micriphone, kind of rhythmically"? Seriously... this business model has been used pretty well since rock n' roll became a big deal. Look back, and you're guaranteed to find just as many flash-in-the-pan, one-hit-wonders who built a career on a foundation of more sex than talent.

I'm not even contesting the idea that it's kind of a shame that this is the case, and to be honest, I'd LOVE it if there were a bit more substance to contemporary music these days. But then I also understand that the tastes of the record-buying public and the artistic sensibilities of the vast community of musicians and artists are extremely different things.

I dunno... I guess that's why I don't get my back up about some completely farcical idea that "everything used to be better and more legit back in the day". That just seems naive to me. Not to mention how petty it sounds for other people to be ragging on other people's successes just because they happen to be gifted with good looks, and blaming some big, evil music industry for promoting style over substance... Sure, it's superficial, and it'd be nice if the rest of us average pudds were paid the same attention, but don't blame the industry for sticking to a successful business model... it's the consumer who creates demand, after all...

Ah well... I've rambled enough... Just play the music YOU want to play because YOU LOVE IT. What other reason is there for doing it otherwise? Hell, the whole experience would be a great deal more enjoyable for people if they weren't so quick to get all bitchy over things they really have no control over, and that otherwise do not affect them in the least...

i never said it was a recent thing, and it's not going to effect me in any way, except to give me more incentive to write better music.
The point i was trying to make is that as a musician, wouldn't you be insulted if your record label promoted your band based solely on the looks of one of it's members?

To me it's like deciding on which political party to vote for based on the height of the candidates

[sarcastro83]

Originally Posted by fractiouslowend

The point i was trying to make is that as a musician, wouldn't you be insulted if your record label promoted your band based solely on the looks of one of it's members?

Insulted? Hell no. That would be foolish and naive.

Happier than a pig in poop that someone was throwing money and resources at my band, thus giving us an edge that others aren't as fortunate enough to have? Abso-frigging-lutely.

Originally Posted by fractiouslowend

To me it's like deciding on which political party to vote for based on the height of the candidates

Voting for someone based on their physical characteristics? Yeah, that's not as ludicrous as you might think...

[totallyfrozen]

Originally Posted by fractiouslowend

...basically they have reduced band promotion to, "the singer of this band is really good looking! you must buy it now!"

Congratulations. You just managed to sum up the entire career of Brittany Spears in one sentence.

[fractiouslowend]

Originally Posted by totallyfrozen

Congratulations. You just managed to sum up the entire career of Brittany Spears in one sentence.

just brittney spears? :P

[fractiouslowend]

Originally Posted by sarcastro83

Insulted? Hell no. That would be foolish and naive.

Happier than a pig in poop that someone was throwing money and resources at my band, thus giving us an edge that others aren't as fortunate enough to have? Abso-frigging-lutely.

well maybe that's just you, for me it would be hugely insulting. If i poured my heart and soul into writing an album in my band and then the promo stuff makes no mention of that music, i would be pretty mad.

Also, because i know it illicits the same response in most people, and especially the people that i would want to be listening to my music.
I would never go see a movie cos the font on the poster is awesome, and i would never listen to a band because the singer is 'hot'

The impression that i got from this review was that the promoter / reviewer was pretty much saying, "the music's not worth mentioning, so enjoy this picture of a pretty man."

[champbassist]

Originally Posted by sarcastro83

Insulted? Hell no. That would be foolish and naive.

Happier than a pig in poop that someone was throwing money and resources at my band, thus giving us an edge that others aren't as fortunate enough to have? Abso-frigging-lutely.

Voting for someone based on their physical characteristics? Yeah, that's not as ludicrous as you might think...

I have to agree with you.

Originally Posted by fractiouslowend

well maybe that's just you, for me it would be hugely insulting. If i poured my heart and soul into writing an album in my band and then the promo stuff makes no mention of that music, i would be pretty mad.

It's not just him, it's me too I see your point. But you are looking at it from a moral perspective, i.e. you want to say "notice my music and not looks". But in many instances, especially in pop music, the latter matters as much as the former.

If I "poured my heart and soul" into an album and it sold on the basis of appearances, I'd probably wish they noticed the music more. But I'd be happy as long as the money kept flowing in

[sarcastro83]

Originally Posted by fractiouslowend

well maybe that's just you, for me it would be hugely insulting. If i poured my heart and soul into writing an album in my band and then the promo stuff makes no mention of that music, i would be pretty mad.

Also, because i know it illicits the same response in most people, and especially the people that i would want to be listening to my music.
I would never go see a movie cos the font on the poster is awesome, and i would never listen to a band because the singer is 'hot'

The impression that i got from this review was that the promoter / reviewer was pretty much saying, "the music's not worth mentioning, so enjoy this picture of a pretty man."

No offence, but I think the idea of you balking at success being thrown at you that was based on your looks is a complete crock, but, for all intent and purpose for your argument, I'll let that slide...

Also, you were reading OK Magazine... a "celebrity lifestyle" magazine, and you were shocked when you found a puff-piece about Jared Leto's abs instead of an article of substance written about 30 Seconds Till I Turn This Crap Off's music? In spite of my own opinion that their music isn't worth mentioning at all, the LAST place it's gonna be mentioned is a publication like OK Magazine. Getting huffy about it is like listening to NWA and being offended by the gang-related subject matter of their music.

[Tampabass]

This news changes everything.
Can't write more, because I have to quickly set up appointments for plastic surgery and a hair transplant!
Rock stardom, here I come.

[ggunn]

Once they are adopted by The Machine, bands/musicians have little to say about how they are marketed to the public. Let those people do their job and salve your wounded pride by looking at your bank statement.

[fractiouslowend]

Originally Posted by sarcastro83

No offence, but I think the idea of you balking at success being thrown at you that was based on your looks is a complete crock, but, for all intent and purpose for your argument, I'll let that slide...

Also, you were reading OK Magazine... a "celebrity lifestyle" magazine, and you were shocked when you found a puff-piece about Jared Leto's abs instead of an article of substance written about 30 Seconds Till I Turn This Crap Off's music? In spite of my own opinion that their music isn't worth mentioning at all, the LAST place it's gonna be mentioned is a publication like OK Magazine. Getting huffy about it is like listening to NWA and being offended by the gang-related subject matter of their music.

i wasn't shocked when i found the article. i know the kind of rubbish they print in those magazines, my rant is about the fact that these types of articles / magazines exist at all.

think what you will, but if someone wants to buy my music because they like the way i look, i wouldn't want them as a fan. They can be a fan of my face, but not of my music. And these are not just empty words, my band has rejected straight away any photo that has the singer separated from the band.

I wouldn't complain about the extra attention, but in the same way i wouldn't complain if my high school calculus teacher gave me an 'A' because my handwriting is nice. Sure it's an A for no effort, but that must cheapen it at the least, not to mention that it's not a 'real' A and everyone else will find out very quickly that after all the hype, you really have nothing to offer.

I think the band are being set up for a huge dissapointment, as they will quickly find out that the only reason they are getting any attention is because they have an actor singing for them. Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if you discovered your passion, your career or life was just based on your singers appearance