identity of an artist

[mirror]

hey everyone,

 

i guess this applies to all music genres, but i'm trying to figure out the purpose of identity mainly in electronic music since it feels that sometimes the distance between the artist and the listener is further than other genres (automations, complexity in production, expression through machinery/computers, internet & avatars, alienating or non-natural sounds, experimentation).

 

i've been wondering for quite a while, what makes an artist more or less interesting, besides their music as an audio experience?

how important is the visual factor (music videos, artwork, press photos, concerts etc.), or the mystery factor?

why do some musicians choose to not show their face or be anonymous? why do others choose to alter it?

there is a feeling that most "faceless" "disguised", or just visually-conscious artists lie in the electronic music spectrum, why do you think that happens?

do you think it is unnecessary or that it compliments the music itself if it's done in an intriguing way?

 

artists including: aphex twin, burial, oneohtrix point never, squarepusher, arca, fatima al qadiri, daft punk, gazelle twin, planningtorock, kraftwerk, etc.

 

of course this is my personal take on it, i'm interested to read your opinion on the subject :)

i would also appreciate if you could share musicians who are interested in the visual aspect of art!

[Guest Phonejack]

I have always felt that visuals are very important to music. Visual art and audio should always go hand in hand.

 

 

It seems like a lot of people have this attitude of "It should be about the music man, screw the marketing man," but I think that if you have really good music, or not even necessarily "good" but music, but music you put a lot of work into, it would be totally silly to not give it an equal visual identity. Having matching cover art, live visuals, music videos, etc really helps with putting your musical work into a world of its own. Music should always be able to stand on its own as pure audio, yeah, but I think that if you have a well defined style in your music it would be senseless not to stretch that style into other medias. Music should always have an identity separate from the identity of the creator.

 

I think that the idea of music having its own identity is where this whole concept of mystery artists and alternate aliases stems from. It's as if we want to build unique individual beings separate from ourselves and use them as a vehicle for our music and our art.

[calx]

I think the human brain has a knack of utilising the senses and cataloging what we see and hear for future reference. For example, if you see or hear a crack of thunder which appears very close, your brain will automatically tell you to seek cover.

 

Surely the same thing happens today with the sound we hear/are listening to. I mean, we haven't started evolving any differently yet. I think we hear a sound and whatever branding/art etc... which accompanies it is catalogued and stored in our brain until we recognise that particular sound, piece of artwork, or something like it again.

 

In short, we remember it just in case we need to use the information again, a bit like pattern recognition.

 

That's my take on it anyway :P

[goDel]

euhm, i'd say the visual aspects are part of the art in the first place, and not the identity. although some artists have made the idea of their identity part of their art (thinking about lady gaga, but rdj in a way as well). for the average artist however, their identity is the source of their art. it's not a goal, unless you're in a boyband and you need to sell yourself to 12 years old girls.

 

To me, an artist becomes interesting through their art. What kind of person would come up with this and that? When I start to wonder about its meaning, it's always the point of view of the artist itself which becomes important (interesting). Regardless of their identity.

 

On the other hand, Russell Brand has an interesting identity, but Russell as an artist is completely unimportant to me. Interesting identities are for TV personalities, I guess.

 

Combining electronic (rather, instrumental) music with visual art seems like a logical combination, I guess. With most music there's meaning through spoken words, which is a pretty straightforward. Without words, visuals seem an obvious tool of getting something across. But I don't believe that something needs to be "identity".

[Friendly Foil]

Identity - 95 %

Music - 5 %

 

imho tbh

[Guest M360]

I would say some artists prefer privacy as it gives them the space they need to make the kind of music they want to put out there.

[Guest fiznuthian]

Art is dead.

[ghsotword]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRFlQnnoE5U&t=16m20s : a documentary movie clip where Keith Tucker from Aux88 talks about why Detroit electro artists stared keeping their identities secret

[Guest]

i've been wondering for quite a while, what makes an artist more or less interesting, besides their music as an audio experience?

 

You're asking about the frame, whatever frames the music, track/album titles, cover/video visuals, the label the music is released on, genre, culture, affiliated artists, bio, maybe expressed philosophy in interviews, press, the 'story' et cetera. What might be interesting to you might not be interesting to others... upbringing, culture and taste will attract you to certain styles over others.

 

In general I think the niche idm scene is least concerned with ego outwardly (god knows the real narcissism behind some of these top tier dudes ;-)), making music for the sake of music first & hiding behind multiple aliases seems the prescribed modus operandi.

 

There are pro's dealing with creating a story for artists in pr/marketing, I recently had a masterclass from someone who does this for a living (for popbands) and thought it was very informative. I guess only labels like warp or ninjatune will have substantial marketing budgets for these kind of things. Shaping the story for the best monetary effect.

 

 

how important is the visual factor (music videos, artwork, press photos, concerts etc.), or the mystery factor?

why do some musicians choose to not show their face or be anonymous? why do others choose to alter it?

there is a feeling that most "faceless" "disguised", or just visually-conscious artists lie in the electronic music spectrum, why do you think that happens?

do you think it is unnecessary or that it compliments the music itself if it's done in an intriguing way?

 

Important for what exactly? Visuals are inevitable when dealing with the frame, album artwork et cetera. Visual meaning depends on the eye of the beholder. You can't escape the frame, not supplying track titles or putting effort in a cover, saying it should be about the music only, still frames the music. It can't be escaped consciously or unconsciously. When something is put out it will be placed into context.

[Guest A/D]

Art is dead.

No you're thinking of painting.

[Guest fiznuthian]

 

Art is dead.

No you're thinking of painting.

 

 

Oh right.. Thanks :)

 

Also:

 

[youtubehd]xsx9gtQM8f8[/youtubehd]