Matt Lovett:
A recent New York Times article described Lady Gaga's music as a skeleton on which her image is hung, in other words that her music is a medium through which her image is sold. part of my paper is a discussion of the fact that this is basically what ALL big pop stars are doing. Would you agree or disagree? Any other thoughts on this would be great.
MATT HAZE:
Once upon a time, music was in itself a product. People heard a song they connected to on the radio, and bought the record. Selling the music in the form of records and promoting them through live concerts and radio was enough to succeed. This is rarely the case these days. Most major labels have fallen apart for this reason. Nowadays, with so much free file sharing going on, it's extremely difficult to make money selling just the music. The real money isn't in selling the musical product itself anymore, but in attaching the music to something else like a TV show theme, movie placements, commercials, fashion etc.
For this reason, most popular songs sound like commercials. Hence, the fitting term "commercial music". They are constructed to sell something else besides the art. In the current business model it's vital that an artist's single could be used in conjunction with a product, an event, or TV of some kind. Whenever I'm in the studio working on tracks, producers and managers are saying things like "oh I can hear this in…" and they proceed to mention an event or tv show. Lady Gaga's first single for example "Just Dance" is a club song. It's attached to an event- people going out and dancing. Or Black Eyed Peas "I got a feeling", same thing- in conjunction with night club dancing, or any event at night that would be considered a party. That's a very versatile song because it's non specific, but specific enough in the way it needed to be- very smart business track. Pink's "let's get this party started"- same kind of thing. Katy Perry's new single "Firework" I bet this year will become a popular song on 4th of July. It's basically a social hook. Create a song that always works in a particular social situation, and you got yourself a hit. That's the condition of the music business currently.
Matt Lovett:
Where, if there is any, do you think this pressure to have such an extreme, and extremely sexual, image comes from? Lady Gaga certainly plays with sexuality in her image, and artists like Katy Perry, Beyonce, and Britney Spears are certainly using sex both in their image and in their subject matter to garner attention and success. Does an artist Gaga or Katy Perry have the ability control her own image? If she did have a choice, do you think they would market themselves in ways that weren't so focused on their body and sexuality?
MATT HAZE:
Unfortunately, females are dealt a card by birth to viewed as visual spectacles, for better or for worse. I think that femininity by nature carries a decorative connotation, whether we like it or not. This can be viewed as a weakness, but it can also be embraced as a strength. It really comes down to the artists' attitudes. I think it's all good as long as it's authentic to their artistic self expression.
I just watched a tv special about the development of what's allowed to be seen on tv in America over the decades. The trend seems to be that a show will try pushing a boundary just slightly enough to cause controversy, maybe pay some fines or risk being pulled off air, and then for that same reason got so much attention that the ratings went up and money talked, so it became acceptable. In our culture the value of money trumps our cultural values. It continues to progress in the same manner with music. Sex sells.
But I think given the choice, artists like Beyonce, Britney Spears, and Katy Perry would still do what they do because everyone still wants to feel sexy. They are all very attractive women to begin with, so they will capitalize on what they've got. And being overtly sexual is an easy way to sell. Most of these artists are also in the dance genre, so the stage shows require dancing, dancing requires movement, and it's easier and looks more attractive to dance in less clothing, or at least tight clothing.
Matt Lovett:
In your opinion, are female artists required to sell sexuality in order to achieve success? Is this simply a trend the markets showcase or is this some business plan by labels and other industry heads?
MATT HAZE:
Image is so important for music because people identify themselves socially in large part by the music they listen to. I first noticed this in junior high school. One of the most notable things about my first day of junior high was how students all of a sudden (in contrast to my previous elementary school experience) had distinct group images and cliques. I saw a group of kids in one area wearing tie-dye shirts and band shirts with long hair and jeans, and another group of kids wearing baggy clothes, the skaters, and another group of studious kids wearing the most practical clothing that their parents probably still picked out for them. Along with these visual images came a corresponding genre of music that complemented their image and attitude.
The clique with band shirts and long hair listened to Led Zeppelin and Metallica or Nirvana. The baggy clothed kids listened to gangster rap. The skaters listened to grunge rock, punk and ska. The studious kids were too occupied with homework so didn't care much about music yet or their image. Either way, it all made a statement. They all wanted to feel like they belonged somewhere, that they fit in. And by finding that, they at least though they were finding themselves.
This is truly the effect of music in popular culture. It assists people in defining themselves, in their attitude, values, and fashion. In a society that is increasingly placing more value on appearance, we grow up with the illusion that our appearance defines who we are. This places musical artists in the position to reinforce an existing image or create a new image. Pushing the boundaries in sexual imagery is one tactic artists use to create new social cultures.
