More History = Less Mystery

Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:31 am

Brian McCollum wrote an interesting piece in the Free Press about how the information age and "reality" media have killed an important element of the rock star, namely their mystique. Mystique is the thing that made Led Zeppelin the biggest band in the world at one time while granting very few interviews or access to their entourage. What do you think? Is there such a thing as too much access? Too much information about your favorite stars?

Here's a link to the article.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071028/ENT04/710280579/1035/ENT

Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:03 pm

I don't know, I guess Mystique could be a good thing but if I like a band I want to knw as much about the artist/band as possible as any fan would.

For an example ... one of my favorite Punk artists is Danny Frye of "Danny Fye & The Devildolls" ... but Danny never made it too big here in the US because of bad timing on a CD release date around the time of 911. However he is pretty famous in the UK. Danny passed away a few years ago due to complications of diabetes.

It was, and is very hard to find out much info on Danny, but fortunetly I was able to find his record producer and he wrote me up a bio for Danny's fan page that I created for him on MySpace.
http://myspace.com/dannyfrye

I want to know so much more about him, but lots of people won't talk.

Groupie Joined: Aug 29, 2002 Posts: 28

Too much info is bad...Led Zep did it right. Kind of us against the world. Metallica was like that at one time, but after Lars and the MP3 fiasco. They turned into media celebs..I don't know I could be wrong, but that's my take.

Groupie Joined: Nov 15, 2007 Posts: 63

For me, it's always been about what's coming through the speakers as opposed to image, but I'm definitely in the minority on this, since most put a big emphasis on artist image, especially these days.

The mystique thing has done some pendelum swings throughout rock history. The 70's saw a big rise in this with the growth of album sales over singles, and album art really making artistic leaps and getting very impressive. Bands like Zeppelin, as you say, did this, and other bands like Steve Miller, Yes, Jethro Tull and so on, did a lot with cool surreal imagery with little or no emphasis on what anybody in the band looked like or much in the line of other personal information.

The late 70's and 80's got huge with image (but video image more specifically with the rise of MTV). Also large venue "arena rock" shows made it almost necessary for some other things to look at while enjoying a concert, so lots of stage props and theater seemed a natural step forward here, which also contributed to image.

But by the late 80's, the information age was blossoming, and it was getting to the point that there were less places to "hide" with this. Few bands seemed to be taking this mystique approach with thier packaging. In fact, the only example I can think of from this time period is R.E.M., which used cryptic, blurry and ambiguous images on their album covers. I thought it was (still) cool!...

In the early 90's, when the over-big, pretentious image stuff in music started to deflate, a more earthy, grounded "real" approach seemed fresh again. Grunge and "unplugged" movement periods of this time seemed to have no pretense about them at all. Even the performers seemed to dress just like the audience, taking a "Hey, I'm just like you" approach as an equal rather than a pedistalled-up Guitar God, or whatever. After the "big" 80's, it WAS fresh, but you have to admit, not as FUN!...

Technology sort of helped this trend along, too, but I don't think it dictated it. It'd be pretty hard to prop up a false front for a band now (although corporate image-miester "A&R" guys that think in terms of old rules will still try). Since there's so much instant information right now, that can "blow" any image buiding you would do here, like a wolf to the little pig's straw house...

I'd agree that with more information, though, is the danger of TOO MUCH information. And, it can be less fun, you have to admit. That's the thing about biting the apple of knowledge: Blissful ignorance has to be sacrificed...

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:01 pm

Well said, Gene.

I used to be one of those kids who would pore over every inch of the album art and all the liner notes. I remember discovering, quite by accident, that the inside cover of Zeps "In Through The Outdoor" was water-activated to produce a color image! I remember spending hours listening Yes' "Tales From Topographic Oceans" and just losing myself in Roger Dean's painting in the centerfold. Man, those were the days.

Those are things I really miss with the advent of digital music. Back then I relied heavily on my imagination to relate to the artist. Now, unfortunately, particularly in the case of Ted Nugent, you can't escape the personality and it can ruin your listening experience.

You can definitely get too close. I've actually regretted meeting some local artists because, even though their music was amazing, they were assholes in person. It's hard to forget that the next time you hear their music.