I just read a post on the Make Magazine blog. The post describes how current musical groups are going beyond just providing their listeners with music for their ears: They are providing (what seems to me to be) crude images in the musical files folks listen to that are only visible when you use particular programs to make them visible.
C'mon now...why should listeners go beyond listening to a group or watching them if they either provide a window of opportunity for live viewing or a music video on broadcast/cable/satellite/YouTube?
This seems to me to be a launch into esoterica that is not needed to enjoy the group's sound output, has very little to do with lyrics composed for production of the numbers, and has small reward for the effort required to view the images.
Posts
Just another layer on the work of art the artists might say, not unknown. Think of how many of us tried to play albums backwards in the attempt to hear some coded words...ay yi yi... and how many versions of the "solution" of the Abby Road album cover did we pore over trying to determine just how dead Paul was?
ReplyDeleteI have always been puzzled by music videos. They seem purposely disconnected from the music and lyrics. Of course, that's right. If the lyricist has done the work right, the words tell the whole story, which is why novels don't have pictures pasted throughout the pages. Lazy writers add illustrations... er um er... .
Joe(Don't look at my blogs.)Nation
@Joe
ReplyDeleteThere's a reason some sage said, "A picture is worth 1,000 words." Illustration of a manuscript has always added to it.
But the jury (in some quarters) is still out on whether dance adds to the music or video adds to the music.
DO the words tell the whole story? Or is there something more that can be added by the author adding the image that was actually in his head when he wrote it?