It certainly is a believable argument, but it isn't born out in practice. Yes, there were plenty of good looking artists made it big during the Age Of Video. But there were plenty of artists made rich in previous eras on the strength of their looks, even if their fans only saw their idols on posters or Ed Sullivan. And don't forget that the most egregious examples of less-talented artists using their looks for success were motivated by racism, not video.
Really, I can't think of any examples of artists who made it big based purely on their video. There are examples of songs that used notable videos to get exposure they wouldn't otherwise get. I'm thinking of songs like "No Rain" or "Take On Me." But I wouldn't say those songs were undeserving. The "Nice Video, Shame About The Song" phenomena never really happened.
At least until now. The only artist I can think of that is known for videos first and music second is OK Go. And the strange part is that they did it after the end of the Age Of Video. Their latest video is one continuous shot, full of optical illusions, and is spreading across the Internet at beyond-viral speeds.
Their music is good, but their video skills are superior to their music skills. And this was the first of their videos where I've really found myself listening to the music - they didn't used to have that early New Order style to them, did they?
But I do have to give them credit for their willingness to embrace their place in pop-culture. So often we see musicians do things like storm out of interviews for being wrongly-portrayed, or refuse to play their big hits in concert. Most bands in OK Go's position would defiantly make a really dull concert-footage video at this point. But they seem happy to be "that band with the videos."
No comments:
Post a Comment