i want to take another crack at explaining this to anyone reading this...

i propose that in contemporary art, there are 3 key elements that relate to someone's impact, success, influence, etc.

1. actual or perceived talent

2. stylishness

3. exposure

i also propose that most artists do not have all 3 in equal proportion and are devoid in 1 or 2 areas.

this causes a divide between fans/enthusiasts where they have to pick which of the 3 matters most as most contemporary artists only cater to 1 or 2 but not all 3 like i said.

here are some illustrations...

talent

there are some people who make music that simply make music relying on their talent alone and obliviously pay no attention to any of the other elements...
these people master musical intruments similar to how people master online video games and usually look somewhat similar.
you can mostly see their work in self-produced webcam videos on youtube or in poorly constructed low-budget albums showcasing their talents at unpopular live local concerts.

occasionally, one of these people break into the mainstream a la susan boyle without any stylish makeover - but it's impossibly rare.

perceived talent

conversely, there is also the PERCEPTION of talent acting to fill the void that some artists carry in this area.
perceived talent is when very little actual talent possessed to showcase, but the artist or people representing them take meticulous steps to ensure that they the aura/impression is always that these guys are at the top of their field, regardless of if they are viewed in that light by actual members concurrently participating in that respective field.
evoking the perception of an artist being talented from enthusiasts/fans is often times just as good.

i believe that talent/perceived talent is attributable to certain types enthusiasts/fans being able to "figure out" the creative process behind an act.
some types of people, once they "get" something - love it even more.
some people once they "get" something - scoff at it for not being as sophisticated as something else.
the latter are usually more attracted to artists who make quzzical/obscure/nonsensical works and because they are not immediately apparent they are somehow more "talented"...

there are way too many examples of perceived talent in action to name...
including, imo, people who are held near & dear by members of this website.
just so i don't step on any toes i'll name... uhh... vincent gallo.
because he's a soft target.
if you don't know who vincent gallo was, do yourself a favor and DON'T watch any of his films - but just go to youtube and search bohack and see if you can tolerate more than 7 seconds of any song he made of himself clanging on pots and pans that caused some old rich, white homosexual art connoisseur to ejaculate on himself. nh.
this is the same thing as the grammy nominated mos def or common or talib kweli every year because they think theyre "deep" and diversify the nomination field...

vincent gallo is mostly style-based but there are some who would argue he is "talented" and for this i use him as the scapegoat example for "perceived talent" amongst artists because he has the PERCEPTION of talent, and it might be an acceptable statement to say "wow he's a talented ____ (whatever)" in some circles but the actuality is that he really isn't. at least imo, if you disagree you can choose your own example but the concept is the same regardless of the personal choice of exemplification...

and this brings me to...

style

hip magazines, fashion shows, rail thin models, cocaine, happening nyc/la nightspots full of models/celebrities that you couldn't dream about getting let into, "buzz", "artistes" unknown the the masses...
style is the almost entire driving force behind nearly every act pitchfork and the like tout every week.
that basically IS the criteria in which they choose music to pump up to a reading audience that enjoys music based on stylishness.

in the 00's... many shitty re-hashers without a single memorable lick became the next big "thing" in the blogosphere because they had a stylish aesthetic.
but style is not just your art direction/asthetic/youth/lifestyle/clothes or "cool factor.
perceived physical attractiveness also is group-able with style.
and sometimes there are quote/unquote stylish acts who are simply too exposed for something like a pitchfork to respectfully endorse and remain faithful to their core audience...

so often there is a strong division between style/exposure just like there is a strong division between talent/style.

some of these style-based acts are so hip and so trendy that you've never heard about them and never will.
now that could be because they only have "style" going for them and have minimal TALENT...

or it could be because they don't have any exposure...

exposure is #1 in success/impact in any field/genre.
if people recognize your name and your face - you better believe that whatever crap you turn out and call your body of work is going to be just is recognizable to certain people (depending of course on HOW exposed you are).

i propose that all musical acts have a variable make-up based on the talent/style/exposure model...
and the varying surpluses and voids in the 3 fields determine what type of fans/demographics they attract and repel.

>i want to take another crack at explaining this to anyone
>reading this...
>
>i propose that in contemporary art, there are 3 key elements
>that relate to someone's impact, success, influence, etc.
>
>1. actual or perceived talent
>
>2. stylishness
>
>3. exposure
>
>i also propose that most artists do not have all 3 in equal
>proportion and are devoid in 1 or 2 areas.
>
>this causes a divide between fans/enthusiasts where they have
>to pick which of the 3 matters most as most contemporary
>artists only cater to 1 or 2 but not all 3 like i said.
>
>here are some illustrations...
>
>talent
>
>there are some people who make music that simply make music
>relying on their talent alone and obliviously pay no attention
>to any of the other elements...
>these people master musical intruments similar to how people
>master online video games and usually look somewhat similar.
>you can mostly see their work in self-produced webcam videos
>on youtube or in poorly constructed low-budget albums
>showcasing their talents at unpopular live local concerts.
>
>occasionally, one of these people break into the mainstream a
>la susan boyle without any stylish makeover - but it's
>impossibly rare.
>
>perceived talent
>
>conversely, there is also the PERCEPTION of talent acting to
>fill the void that some artists carry in this area.
>perceived talent is when very little actual talent possessed
>to showcase, but the artist or people representing them take
>meticulous steps to ensure that they the aura/impression is
>always that these guys are at the top of their field,
>regardless of if they are viewed in that light by actual
>members concurrently participating in that respective field.
>evoking the perception of an artist being talented from
>enthusiasts/fans is often times just as good.
>
>i believe that talent/perceived talent is attributable to
>certain types enthusiasts/fans being able to "figure out" the
>creative process behind an act.
>some types of people, once they "get" something - love it even
>more.
>some people once they "get" something - scoff at it for not
>being as sophisticated as something else.
>the latter are usually more attracted to artists who make
>quzzical/obscure/nonsensical works and because they are not
>immediately apparent they are somehow more "talented"...
>
>there are way too many examples of perceived talent in action
>to name...
>including, imo, people who are held near & dear by members of
>this website.
>just so i don't step on any toes i'll name... uhh... vincent
>gallo.
>because he's a soft target.
>if you don't know who vincent gallo was, do yourself a favor
>and DON'T watch any of his films - but just go to youtube and
>search bohack and see if you can tolerate more than 7 seconds
>of any song he made of himself clanging on pots and pans that
>caused some old rich, white homosexual art connoisseur to
>ejaculate on himself. nh.
>this is the same thing as the grammy nominated mos def or
>common or talib kweli every year because they think theyre
>"deep" and diversify the nomination field...
>
>vincent gallo is mostly style-based but there are some who
>would argue he is "talented" and for this i use him as the
>scapegoat example for "perceived talent" amongst artists
>because he has the PERCEPTION of talent, and it might be an
>acceptable statement to say "wow he's a talented ____
>(whatever)" in some circles but the actuality is that he
>really isn't. at least imo, if you disagree you can choose
>your own example but the concept is the same regardless of the
>personal choice of exemplification...
>
>and this brings me to...
>
>style
>
>hip magazines, fashion shows, rail thin models, cocaine,
>happening nyc/la nightspots full of models/celebrities that
>you couldn't dream about getting let into, "buzz", "artistes"
>unknown the the masses...
>style is the almost entire driving force behind nearly every
>act pitchfork and the like tout every week.
>that basically IS the criteria in which they choose music to
>pump up to a reading audience that enjoys music based on
>stylishness.
>
>in the 00's... many shitty re-hashers without a single
>memorable lick became the next big "thing" in the blogosphere
>because they had a stylish aesthetic.
>but style is not just your art
>direction/asthetic/youth/lifestyle/clothes or "cool factor.
>perceived physical attractiveness also is group-able with
>style.
>and sometimes there are quote/unquote stylish acts who are
>simply too exposed for something like a pitchfork to
>respectfully endorse and remain faithful to their core
>audience...
>
>so often there is a strong division between style/exposure
>just like there is a strong division between talent/style.
>
>some of these style-based acts are so hip and so trendy that
>you've never heard about them and never will.
>now that could be because they only have "style" going for
>them and have minimal TALENT...
>
>or it could be because they don't have any exposure...
>
>exposure is #1 in success/impact in any field/genre.
>if people recognize your name and your face - you better
>believe that whatever crap you turn out and call your body of
>work is going to be just is recognizable to certain people
>(depending of course on HOW exposed you are).
>
>i propose that all musical acts have a variable make-up based
>on the talent/style/exposure model...
>and the varying surpluses and voids in the 3 fields determine
>what type of fans/demographics they attract and repel.

Use of the word "model."

~Austin

"Where in the world is your inspiration to say the things you're aching to say?"

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>Use of the word "model."
>
>~Austin
>
>"Where in the world is your inspiration to say the things
>you're aching to say?"
>
>http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
>
>http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
>
>http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

. . .and threw the flag.

~Austin

"Where in the world is your inspiration to say the things you're aching to say?"

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>. . .and threw the flag.
>
>~Austin
>
>"Where in the world is your inspiration to say the things
>you're aching to say?"
>
>http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
>
>http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
>
>http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

~Austin

"Where in the world is your inspiration to say the things you're aching to say?"

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

seriously. If I hear "Marketing", "Branding", and "Paradigm shift" ONE more time...

______________



http://www.windimoto.com


http://ten2one.wordpress.com/ <-FEB

http://wallpapershi.net/wallpapers/2012/01/boba-fett-star-wars-star-wars-boba-fett-movie-anime-1080x1920.jpg

>seriously. If I hear "Marketing", "Branding", and "Paradigm
>shift" ONE more time...

ctrl + f "marketing", "branding", "paradigm shift"

no results found.

...phew.

and less time trying to be a smart aleck.


Austin and I came into your post to discuss, but here you are playing Defense.


If you notice, I never said YOU used the buzzwords in my reply. I was talking about the whole science of Armchair A&R'ing.


But whatever. Carry on, my man.

______________



http://www.windimoto.com


http://ten2one.wordpress.com/ <-FEB

http://wallpapershi.net/wallpapers/2012/01/boba-fett-star-wars-star-wars-boba-fett-movie-anime-1080x1920.jpg

>and less time trying to be a smart aleck.
>
>
>Austin and I came into your post to discuss, but here you are
>playing Defense.
>
>
>If you notice, I never said YOU used the buzzwords in my
>reply. I was talking about the whole science of Armchair
>A&R'ing.
>
>
>But whatever. Carry on, my man.

whoa.

in-depth "discussion".

thanks for your thoughts.

. . .any of the shit db brings up.

My presence in here is pure snark.

~Austin

"Where in the world is your inspiration to say the things you're aching to say?"

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>. . .any of the shit db brings up.
>
>My presence in here is pure snark.
>
>~Austin
>
>"Where in the world is your inspiration to say the things
>you're aching to say?"
>
>http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
>
>http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
>
>http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>i want to take another crack at explaining this to anyone
>reading this...
>
>i propose that in contemporary art, there are 3 key elements
>that relate to someone's impact, success, influence, etc.
>
>1. actual or perceived talent
>
>2. stylishness
>
>3. exposure
>
>i also propose that most artists do not have all 3 in equal
>proportion and are devoid in 1 or 2 areas.
>
>this causes a divide between fans/enthusiasts where they have
>to pick which of the 3 matters most as most contemporary
>artists only cater to 1 or 2 but not all 3 like i said.
>
>here are some illustrations...
>
>talent
>
>there are some people who make music that simply make music
>relying on their talent alone and obliviously pay no attention
>to any of the other elements...
>these people master musical intruments similar to how people
>master online video games and usually look somewhat similar.
>you can mostly see their work in self-produced webcam videos
>on youtube or in poorly constructed low-budget albums
>showcasing their talents at unpopular live local concerts.
>
>occasionally, one of these people break into the mainstream a
>la susan boyle without any stylish makeover - but it's
>impossibly rare.
>
>perceived talent
>
>conversely, there is also the PERCEPTION of talent acting to
>fill the void that some artists carry in this area.
>perceived talent is when very little actual talent possessed
>to showcase, but the artist or people representing them take
>meticulous steps to ensure that they the aura/impression is
>always that these guys are at the top of their field,
>regardless of if they are viewed in that light by actual
>members concurrently participating in that respective field.
>evoking the perception of an artist being talented from
>enthusiasts/fans is often times just as good.
>
>i believe that talent/perceived talent is attributable to
>certain types enthusiasts/fans being able to "figure out" the
>creative process behind an act.
>some types of people, once they "get" something - love it even
>more.
>some people once they "get" something - scoff at it for not
>being as sophisticated as something else.
>the latter are usually more attracted to artists who make
>quzzical/obscure/nonsensical works and because they are not
>immediately apparent they are somehow more "talented"...
>
>there are way too many examples of perceived talent in action
>to name...
>including, imo, people who are held near & dear by members of
>this website.
>just so i don't step on any toes i'll name... uhh... vincent
>gallo.
>because he's a soft target.
>if you don't know who vincent gallo was, do yourself a favor
>and DON'T watch any of his films - but just go to youtube and
>search bohack and see if you can tolerate more than 7 seconds
>of any song he made of himself clanging on pots and pans that
>caused some old rich, white homosexual art connoisseur to
>ejaculate on himself. nh.
>this is the same thing as the grammy nominated mos def or
>common or talib kweli every year because they think theyre
>"deep" and diversify the nomination field...
>
>vincent gallo is mostly style-based but there are some who
>would argue he is "talented" and for this i use him as the
>scapegoat example for "perceived talent" amongst artists
>because he has the PERCEPTION of talent, and it might be an
>acceptable statement to say "wow he's a talented ____
>(whatever)" in some circles but the actuality is that he
>really isn't. at least imo, if you disagree you can choose
>your own example but the concept is the same regardless of the
>personal choice of exemplification...
>
>and this brings me to...
>
>style
>
>hip magazines, fashion shows, rail thin models, cocaine,
>happening nyc/la nightspots full of models/celebrities that
>you couldn't dream about getting let into, "buzz", "artistes"
>unknown the the masses...
>style is the almost entire driving force behind nearly every
>act pitchfork and the like tout every week.
>that basically IS the criteria in which they choose music to
>pump up to a reading audience that enjoys music based on
>stylishness.
>
>in the 00's... many shitty re-hashers without a single
>memorable lick became the next big "thing" in the blogosphere
>because they had a stylish aesthetic.
>but style is not just your art
>direction/asthetic/youth/lifestyle/clothes or "cool factor.
>perceived physical attractiveness also is group-able with
>style.
>and sometimes there are quote/unquote stylish acts who are
>simply too exposed for something like a pitchfork to
>respectfully endorse and remain faithful to their core
>audience...
>
>so often there is a strong division between style/exposure
>just like there is a strong division between talent/style.
>
>some of these style-based acts are so hip and so trendy that
>you've never heard about them and never will.
>now that could be because they only have "style" going for
>them and have minimal TALENT...
>
>or it could be because they don't have any exposure...
>
>exposure is #1 in success/impact in any field/genre.
>if people recognize your name and your face - you better
>believe that whatever crap you turn out and call your body of
>work is going to be just is recognizable to certain people
>(depending of course on HOW exposed you are).
>
>i propose that all musical acts have a variable make-up based
>on the talent/style/exposure model...
>and the varying surpluses and voids in the 3 fields determine
>what type of fans/demographics they attract and repel.

thinking out loud?

you're on point with this, btw

what do you mean by "these" posts?

<--- Big Baller World Order

_______________________________________
When discourse of Blackness is not connected to efforts to promote collective black self determinism
it becomes simply another recourse appropriated by the colonizer

http://hardboiledbabesanddarkchocolate.tumblr.co

i dont think he's all that talented.

he'd be better off being a model or something because thats basically how he comes off to me.

i get too much of an image first, music second vibe from him.
the amount of hype and press he gets doesnt really add up to me.

<--- Big Baller World Order

>i get too much of an image first, music second vibe from him.
>the amount of hype and press he gets doesnt really add up to
>me.

imagine if he kept his present look/art direction/etc.
but made good music and had a ton of press/national rotation...
he'd likely be the biggest act in rap.
it's just that he's deficient in 2 out of the 3 categories in this model.

<--- Big Baller World Order

>

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

by appearing intelligent in his posts.

highly entertaining.

https://twitter.com/chuck4prez

and thank you for your contributions in fostering more "in-depth" music discussion.

>i want to take another crack at explaining this to anyone
>reading this...
>
>i propose that in contemporary art, there are 3 key elements
>that relate to someone's impact, success, influence, etc.
>
>1. actual or perceived talent
>
>2. stylishness
>
>3. exposure
>
>i also propose that most artists do not have all 3 in equal
>proportion and are devoid in 1 or 2 areas.
>
>this causes a divide between fans/enthusiasts where they have
>to pick which of the 3 matters most as most contemporary
>artists only cater to 1 or 2 but not all 3 like i said.
>
>here are some illustrations...
>
>talent
>
>there are some people who make music that simply make music
>relying on their talent alone and obliviously pay no attention
>to any of the other elements...
>these people master musical intruments similar to how people
>master online video games and usually look somewhat similar.
>you can mostly see their work in self-produced webcam videos
>on youtube or in poorly constructed low-budget albums
>showcasing their talents at unpopular live local concerts.
>
>occasionally, one of these people break into the mainstream a
>la susan boyle without any stylish makeover - but it's
>impossibly rare.
>
>perceived talent
>
>conversely, there is also the PERCEPTION of talent acting to
>fill the void that some artists carry in this area.
>perceived talent is when very little actual talent possessed
>to showcase, but the artist or people representing them take
>meticulous steps to ensure that they the aura/impression is
>always that these guys are at the top of their field,
>regardless of if they are viewed in that light by actual
>members concurrently participating in that respective field.
>evoking the perception of an artist being talented from
>enthusiasts/fans is often times just as good.
>
>i believe that talent/perceived talent is attributable to
>certain types enthusiasts/fans being able to "figure out" the
>creative process behind an act.
>some types of people, once they "get" something - love it even
>more.
>some people once they "get" something - scoff at it for not
>being as sophisticated as something else.
>the latter are usually more attracted to artists who make
>quzzical/obscure/nonsensical works and because they are not
>immediately apparent they are somehow more "talented"...
>
>there are way too many examples of perceived talent in action
>to name...
>including, imo, people who are held near & dear by members of
>this website.
>just so i don't step on any toes i'll name... uhh... vincent
>gallo.
>because he's a soft target.
>if you don't know who vincent gallo was, do yourself a favor
>and DON'T watch any of his films - but just go to youtube and
>search bohack and see if you can tolerate more than 7 seconds
>of any song he made of himself clanging on pots and pans that
>caused some old rich, white homosexual art connoisseur to
>ejaculate on himself. nh.
>this is the same thing as the grammy nominated mos def or
>common or talib kweli every year because they think theyre
>"deep" and diversify the nomination field...
>
>vincent gallo is mostly style-based but there are some who
>would argue he is "talented" and for this i use him as the
>scapegoat example for "perceived talent" amongst artists
>because he has the PERCEPTION of talent, and it might be an
>acceptable statement to say "wow he's a talented ____
>(whatever)" in some circles but the actuality is that he
>really isn't. at least imo, if you disagree you can choose
>your own example but the concept is the same regardless of the
>personal choice of exemplification...
>
>and this brings me to...
>
>style
>
>hip magazines, fashion shows, rail thin models, cocaine,
>happening nyc/la nightspots full of models/celebrities that
>you couldn't dream about getting let into, "buzz", "artistes"
>unknown the the masses...
>style is the almost entire driving force behind nearly every
>act pitchfork and the like tout every week.
>that basically IS the criteria in which they choose music to
>pump up to a reading audience that enjoys music based on
>stylishness.
>
>in the 00's... many shitty re-hashers without a single
>memorable lick became the next big "thing" in the blogosphere
>because they had a stylish aesthetic.
>but style is not just your art
>direction/asthetic/youth/lifestyle/clothes or "cool factor.
>perceived physical attractiveness also is group-able with
>style.
>and sometimes there are quote/unquote stylish acts who are
>simply too exposed for something like a pitchfork to
>respectfully endorse and remain faithful to their core
>audience...
>
>so often there is a strong division between style/exposure
>just like there is a strong division between talent/style.
>
>some of these style-based acts are so hip and so trendy that
>you've never heard about them and never will.
>now that could be because they only have "style" going for
>them and have minimal TALENT...
>
>or it could be because they don't have any exposure...
>
>exposure is #1 in success/impact in any field/genre.
>if people recognize your name and your face - you better
>believe that whatever crap you turn out and call your body of
>work is going to be just is recognizable to certain people
>(depending of course on HOW exposed you are).
>
>i propose that all musical acts have a variable make-up based
>on the talent/style/exposure model...
>and the varying surpluses and voids in the 3 fields determine
>what type of fans/demographics they attract and repel.

>i want to take another crack at explaining this to anyone
>reading this...
>
>i propose that in contemporary art, there are 3 key elements
>that relate to someone's impact, success, influence, etc.
>
>1. actual or perceived talent
>
>2. stylishness
>
>3. exposure
>
>i also propose that most artists do not have all 3 in equal
>proportion and are devoid in 1 or 2 areas.
>
>this causes a divide between fans/enthusiasts where they have
>to pick which of the 3 matters most as most contemporary
>artists only cater to 1 or 2 but not all 3 like i said.
>
>here are some illustrations...
>
>talent
>
>there are some people who make music that simply make music
>relying on their talent alone and obliviously pay no attention
>to any of the other elements...
>these people master musical intruments similar to how people
>master online video games and usually look somewhat similar.
>you can mostly see their work in self-produced webcam videos
>on youtube or in poorly constructed low-budget albums
>showcasing their talents at unpopular live local concerts.
>
>occasionally, one of these people break into the mainstream a
>la susan boyle without any stylish makeover - but it's
>impossibly rare.
>
>perceived talent
>
>conversely, there is also the PERCEPTION of talent acting to
>fill the void that some artists carry in this area.
>perceived talent is when very little actual talent possessed
>to showcase, but the artist or people representing them take
>meticulous steps to ensure that they the aura/impression is
>always that these guys are at the top of their field,
>regardless of if they are viewed in that light by actual
>members concurrently participating in that respective field.
>evoking the perception of an artist being talented from
>enthusiasts/fans is often times just as good.
>
>i believe that talent/perceived talent is attributable to
>certain types enthusiasts/fans being able to "figure out" the
>creative process behind an act.
>some types of people, once they "get" something - love it even
>more.
>some people once they "get" something - scoff at it for not
>being as sophisticated as something else.
>the latter are usually more attracted to artists who make
>quzzical/obscure/nonsensical works and because they are not
>immediately apparent they are somehow more "talented"...
>
>there are way too many examples of perceived talent in action
>to name...
>including, imo, people who are held near & dear by members of
>this website.
>just so i don't step on any toes i'll name... uhh... vincent
>gallo.
>because he's a soft target.
>if you don't know who vincent gallo was, do yourself a favor
>and DON'T watch any of his films - but just go to youtube and
>search bohack and see if you can tolerate more than 7 seconds
>of any song he made of himself clanging on pots and pans that
>caused some old rich, white homosexual art connoisseur to
>ejaculate on himself. nh.
>this is the same thing as the grammy nominated mos def or
>common or talib kweli every year because they think theyre
>"deep" and diversify the nomination field...
>
>vincent gallo is mostly style-based but there are some who
>would argue he is "talented" and for this i use him as the
>scapegoat example for "perceived talent" amongst artists
>because he has the PERCEPTION of talent, and it might be an
>acceptable statement to say "wow he's a talented ____
>(whatever)" in some circles but the actuality is that he
>really isn't. at least imo, if you disagree you can choose
>your own example but the concept is the same regardless of the
>personal choice of exemplification...
>
>and this brings me to...
>
>style
>
>hip magazines, fashion shows, rail thin models, cocaine,
>happening nyc/la nightspots full of models/celebrities that
>you couldn't dream about getting let into, "buzz", "artistes"
>unknown the the masses...
>style is the almost entire driving force behind nearly every
>act pitchfork and the like tout every week.
>that basically IS the criteria in which they choose music to
>pump up to a reading audience that enjoys music based on
>stylishness.
>
>in the 00's... many shitty re-hashers without a single
>memorable lick became the next big "thing" in the blogosphere
>because they had a stylish aesthetic.
>but style is not just your art
>direction/asthetic/youth/lifestyle/clothes or "cool factor.
>perceived physical attractiveness also is group-able with
>style.
>and sometimes there are quote/unquote stylish acts who are
>simply too exposed for something like a pitchfork to
>respectfully endorse and remain faithful to their core
>audience...
>
>so often there is a strong division between style/exposure
>just like there is a strong division between talent/style.
>
>some of these style-based acts are so hip and so trendy that
>you've never heard about them and never will.
>now that could be because they only have "style" going for
>them and have minimal TALENT...
>
>or it could be because they don't have any exposure...
>
>exposure is #1 in success/impact in any field/genre.
>if people recognize your name and your face - you better
>believe that whatever crap you turn out and call your body of
>work is going to be just is recognizable to certain people
>(depending of course on HOW exposed you are).
>
>i propose that all musical acts have a variable make-up based
>on the talent/style/exposure model...
>and the varying surpluses and voids in the 3 fields determine
>what type of fans/demographics they attract and repel.

>i want to take another crack at explaining this to anyone
>reading this...
>
>i propose that in contemporary art, there are 3 key elements
>that relate to someone's impact, success, influence, etc.
>
>1. actual or perceived talent
>
>2. stylishness
>
>3. exposure
>
>i also propose that most artists do not have all 3 in equal
>proportion and are devoid in 1 or 2 areas.
>
>this causes a divide between fans/enthusiasts where they have
>to pick which of the 3 matters most as most contemporary
>artists only cater to 1 or 2 but not all 3 like i said.
>
>here are some illustrations...
>
>talent
>
>there are some people who make music that simply make music
>relying on their talent alone and obliviously pay no attention
>to any of the other elements...
>these people master musical intruments similar to how people
>master online video games and usually look somewhat similar.
>you can mostly see their work in self-produced webcam videos
>on youtube or in poorly constructed low-budget albums
>showcasing their talents at unpopular live local concerts.
>
>occasionally, one of these people break into the mainstream a
>la susan boyle without any stylish makeover - but it's
>impossibly rare.
>
>perceived talent
>
>conversely, there is also the PERCEPTION of talent acting to
>fill the void that some artists carry in this area.
>perceived talent is when very little actual talent possessed
>to showcase, but the artist or people representing them take
>meticulous steps to ensure that they the aura/impression is
>always that these guys are at the top of their field,
>regardless of if they are viewed in that light by actual
>members concurrently participating in that respective field.
>evoking the perception of an artist being talented from
>enthusiasts/fans is often times just as good.
>
>i believe that talent/perceived talent is attributable to
>certain types enthusiasts/fans being able to "figure out" the
>creative process behind an act.
>some types of people, once they "get" something - love it even
>more.
>some people once they "get" something - scoff at it for not
>being as sophisticated as something else.
>the latter are usually more attracted to artists who make
>quzzical/obscure/nonsensical works and because they are not
>immediately apparent they are somehow more "talented"...
>
>there are way too many examples of perceived talent in action
>to name...
>including, imo, people who are held near & dear by members of
>this website.
>just so i don't step on any toes i'll name... uhh... vincent
>gallo.
>because he's a soft target.
>if you don't know who vincent gallo was, do yourself a favor
>and DON'T watch any of his films - but just go to youtube and
>search bohack and see if you can tolerate more than 7 seconds
>of any song he made of himself clanging on pots and pans that
>caused some old rich, white homosexual art connoisseur to
>ejaculate on himself. nh.
>this is the same thing as the grammy nominated mos def or
>common or talib kweli every year because they think theyre
>"deep" and diversify the nomination field...
>
>vincent gallo is mostly style-based but there are some who
>would argue he is "talented" and for this i use him as the
>scapegoat example for "perceived talent" amongst artists
>because he has the PERCEPTION of talent, and it might be an
>acceptable statement to say "wow he's a talented ____
>(whatever)" in some circles but the actuality is that he
>really isn't. at least imo, if you disagree you can choose
>your own example but the concept is the same regardless of the
>personal choice of exemplification...
>
>and this brings me to...
>
>style
>
>hip magazines, fashion shows, rail thin models, cocaine,
>happening nyc/la nightspots full of models/celebrities that
>you couldn't dream about getting let into, "buzz", "artistes"
>unknown the the masses...
>style is the almost entire driving force behind nearly every
>act pitchfork and the like tout every week.
>that basically IS the criteria in which they choose music to
>pump up to a reading audience that enjoys music based on
>stylishness.
>
>in the 00's... many shitty re-hashers without a single
>memorable lick became the next big "thing" in the blogosphere
>because they had a stylish aesthetic.
>but style is not just your art
>direction/asthetic/youth/lifestyle/clothes or "cool factor.
>perceived physical attractiveness also is group-able with
>style.
>and sometimes there are quote/unquote stylish acts who are
>simply too exposed for something like a pitchfork to
>respectfully endorse and remain faithful to their core
>audience...
>
>so often there is a strong division between style/exposure
>just like there is a strong division between talent/style.
>
>some of these style-based acts are so hip and so trendy that
>you've never heard about them and never will.
>now that could be because they only have "style" going for
>them and have minimal TALENT...
>
>or it could be because they don't have any exposure...
>
>exposure is #1 in success/impact in any field/genre.
>if people recognize your name and your face - you better
>believe that whatever crap you turn out and call your body of
>work is going to be just is recognizable to certain people
>(depending of course on HOW exposed you are).
>
>i propose that all musical acts have a variable make-up based
>on the talent/style/exposure model...
>and the varying surpluses and voids in the 3 fields determine
>what type of fans/demographics they attract and repel.

>i want to take another crack at explaining this to anyone
>reading this...
>
>i propose that in contemporary art, there are 3 key elements
>that relate to someone's impact, success, influence, etc.
>
>1. actual or perceived talent
>
>2. stylishness
>
>3. exposure
>
>i also propose that most artists do not have all 3 in equal
>proportion and are devoid in 1 or 2 areas.
>
>this causes a divide between fans/enthusiasts where they have
>to pick which of the 3 matters most as most contemporary
>artists only cater to 1 or 2 but not all 3 like i said.
>
>here are some illustrations...
>
>talent
>
>there are some people who make music that simply make music
>relying on their talent alone and obliviously pay no attention
>to any of the other elements...
>these people master musical intruments similar to how people
>master online video games and usually look somewhat similar.
>you can mostly see their work in self-produced webcam videos
>on youtube or in poorly constructed low-budget albums
>showcasing their talents at unpopular live local concerts.
>
>occasionally, one of these people break into the mainstream a
>la susan boyle without any stylish makeover - but it's
>impossibly rare.
>
>perceived talent
>
>conversely, there is also the PERCEPTION of talent acting to
>fill the void that some artists carry in this area.
>perceived talent is when very little actual talent possessed
>to showcase, but the artist or people representing them take
>meticulous steps to ensure that they the aura/impression is
>always that these guys are at the top of their field,
>regardless of if they are viewed in that light by actual
>members concurrently participating in that respective field.
>evoking the perception of an artist being talented from
>enthusiasts/fans is often times just as good.
>
>i believe that talent/perceived talent is attributable to
>certain types enthusiasts/fans being able to "figure out" the
>creative process behind an act.
>some types of people, once they "get" something - love it even
>more.
>some people once they "get" something - scoff at it for not
>being as sophisticated as something else.
>the latter are usually more attracted to artists who make
>quzzical/obscure/nonsensical works and because they are not
>immediately apparent they are somehow more "talented"...
>
>there are way too many examples of perceived talent in action
>to name...
>including, imo, people who are held near & dear by members of
>this website.
>just so i don't step on any toes i'll name... uhh... vincent
>gallo.
>because he's a soft target.
>if you don't know who vincent gallo was, do yourself a favor
>and DON'T watch any of his films - but just go to youtube and
>search bohack and see if you can tolerate more than 7 seconds
>of any song he made of himself clanging on pots and pans that
>caused some old rich, white homosexual art connoisseur to
>ejaculate on himself. nh.
>this is the same thing as the grammy nominated mos def or
>common or talib kweli every year because they think theyre
>"deep" and diversify the nomination field...
>
>vincent gallo is mostly style-based but there are some who
>would argue he is "talented" and for this i use him as the
>scapegoat example for "perceived talent" amongst artists
>because he has the PERCEPTION of talent, and it might be an
>acceptable statement to say "wow he's a talented ____
>(whatever)" in some circles but the actuality is that he
>really isn't. at least imo, if you disagree you can choose
>your own example but the concept is the same regardless of the
>personal choice of exemplification...
>
>and this brings me to...
>
>style
>
>hip magazines, fashion shows, rail thin models, cocaine,
>happening nyc/la nightspots full of models/celebrities that
>you couldn't dream about getting let into, "buzz", "artistes"
>unknown the the masses...
>style is the almost entire driving force behind nearly every
>act pitchfork and the like tout every week.
>that basically IS the criteria in which they choose music to
>pump up to a reading audience that enjoys music based on
>stylishness.
>
>in the 00's... many shitty re-hashers without a single
>memorable lick became the next big "thing" in the blogosphere
>because they had a stylish aesthetic.
>but style is not just your art
>direction/asthetic/youth/lifestyle/clothes or "cool factor.
>perceived physical attractiveness also is group-able with
>style.
>and sometimes there are quote/unquote stylish acts who are
>simply too exposed for something like a pitchfork to
>respectfully endorse and remain faithful to their core
>audience...
>
>so often there is a strong division between style/exposure
>just like there is a strong division between talent/style.
>
>some of these style-based acts are so hip and so trendy that
>you've never heard about them and never will.
>now that could be because they only have "style" going for
>them and have minimal TALENT...
>
>or it could be because they don't have any exposure...
>
>exposure is #1 in success/impact in any field/genre.
>if people recognize your name and your face - you better
>believe that whatever crap you turn out and call your body of
>work is going to be just is recognizable to certain people
>(depending of course on HOW exposed you are).
>
>i propose that all musical acts have a variable make-up based
>on the talent/style/exposure model...
>and the varying surpluses and voids in the 3 fields determine
>what type of fans/demographics they attract and repel.

I think it applies to not just mainstream rap but 'underground' shit too
some of these fucks can't rap and latch on to patterns we have already and throw a video game reference in there to get over

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

>I think it applies to not just mainstream rap but
>'underground' shit too

it doesn't even just apply to music.
it applies to all art.
sometimes people are fond of the stylishness of the artist themself and the idea of being associated with them personally rather than the actual critical merits of their output.
there's countless examples of this, past and present.

my "musical acts that probably owe a lot of their fame to their jawline" post was relevant to this driver.
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2570785&mesg_id=2570785&page=2

...and conversely my "musical acts that probably owe none of their fame to their jawline" was as well for the inverted POV.
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2729591&mesg_id=2729591&page=1

but the thing is people think that if it's not exaggerated then it doesn't exist-and artist do too

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

making sense of what is going on.
let's advance and sophisticate our dialogue and termonology and understanding of what music is on a sociological micro-level.
i mean the days of dummies posting about "what's your fav. dj premier beat" are 10 years ago.
it's always the perpetual tail chase on here because people are so inundated by corporations and their minions that they don't even venture to think and understand things for themselves, less be chastised for not having a popular opinion.
an earnest opinion that's feels right and honest to one's self will always trump a "popular" one that was learned from somewhere else.
that's the whole thing with me and that's what is so frustrating about this forum and it's posters.
people wanna chop up "blueprint 2" for the 900,000 time instead of the actual crux of what i was posting about - that album illustrating how much rap music changed sonically and condition-wise from late 2001 to late 2002. which i've been VERY vocal and patient in explaining re: stephen & friends, labels trying to micromanage Black music into a monolitic party to reduce risk, etc. but nobody even has the desire to parse these things on this level.
it's sad but it's awakening.
like i said in the other post, these people, my detractors and the majority of the people that post here at large, deserve to be conned, manipulated and spun around in a circle and told theyre going somewhere. because that's how capitalism works and my desires to foster conversations about new and progressive angles and ideas can't succeed because there is no "sale" involved, strictly "tell".
ramble ramble ramble, just want to get it off my chest and nobody will read anyway.

but mostly it falls on death ears but iont even give a fuck

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

---
“Change is inevitable. Progress is optional.” – Tony Robbins

Maybe you should try posting it in gd?lol

It would prolly be a better discussion if actual artists were mentioned (not necessarily by you)

I think exposure is all that's needed at this point (with a splash of style, but even that can be ignored)

I wonder if that's always been the case. I feel like there was a point where u could just be talented and create somewhat of a buzz (I'm not talkin about just music) I guess that still happens, but I feel like you need a lot of exposure to keep the momentum going...people have really short attention spans now

BUY SOMETHING PLEASE ---> www.estherwoovintage.com

"people... please refrain from gnr'ing me. im an avid lol'er and am completely fine wit the service."

"I’m just a dreamer,
turned true to life leaner...
Born to do good so others can be believers"

i don't know if it's always been this way because i think there was more of a tie to talent -> exposure.
look at some of the most successful acts of all-time...
what would you rate their talent or perceived talent at?

the biggest and best acts (pre-21st century) generally have healthy doses of all 3.

---
“Change is inevitable. Progress is optional.” – Tony Robbins

>i want to take another crack at explaining this to anyone
>reading this...
>
>i propose that in contemporary art, there are 3 key elements
>that relate to someone's impact, success, influence, etc.
>
>1. actual or perceived talent
>
>2. stylishness
>
>3. exposure
>
>i also propose that most artists do not have all 3 in equal
>proportion and are devoid in 1 or 2 areas.
>
>this causes a divide between fans/enthusiasts where they have
>to pick which of the 3 matters most as most contemporary
>artists only cater to 1 or 2 but not all 3 like i said.
>
>here are some illustrations...
>
>talent
>
>there are some people who make music that simply make music
>relying on their talent alone and obliviously pay no attention
>to any of the other elements...
>these people master musical intruments similar to how people
>master online video games and usually look somewhat similar.
>you can mostly see their work in self-produced webcam videos
>on youtube or in poorly constructed low-budget albums
>showcasing their talents at unpopular live local concerts.
>
>occasionally, one of these people break into the mainstream a
>la susan boyle without any stylish makeover - but it's
>impossibly rare.
>
>perceived talent
>
>conversely, there is also the PERCEPTION of talent acting to
>fill the void that some artists carry in this area.
>perceived talent is when very little actual talent possessed
>to showcase, but the artist or people representing them take
>meticulous steps to ensure that they the aura/impression is
>always that these guys are at the top of their field,
>regardless of if they are viewed in that light by actual
>members concurrently participating in that respective field.
>evoking the perception of an artist being talented from
>enthusiasts/fans is often times just as good.
>
>i believe that talent/perceived talent is attributable to
>certain types enthusiasts/fans being able to "figure out" the
>creative process behind an act.
>some types of people, once they "get" something - love it even
>more.
>some people once they "get" something - scoff at it for not
>being as sophisticated as something else.
>the latter are usually more attracted to artists who make
>quzzical/obscure/nonsensical works and because they are not
>immediately apparent they are somehow more "talented"...
>
>there are way too many examples of perceived talent in action
>to name...
>including, imo, people who are held near & dear by members of
>this website.
>just so i don't step on any toes i'll name... uhh... vincent
>gallo.
>because he's a soft target.
>if you don't know who vincent gallo was, do yourself a favor
>and DON'T watch any of his films - but just go to youtube and
>search bohack and see if you can tolerate more than 7 seconds
>of any song he made of himself clanging on pots and pans that
>caused some old rich, white homosexual art connoisseur to
>ejaculate on himself. nh.
>this is the same thing as the grammy nominated mos def or
>common or talib kweli every year because they think theyre
>"deep" and diversify the nomination field...
>
>vincent gallo is mostly style-based but there are some who
>would argue he is "talented" and for this i use him as the
>scapegoat example for "perceived talent" amongst artists
>because he has the PERCEPTION of talent, and it might be an
>acceptable statement to say "wow he's a talented ____
>(whatever)" in some circles but the actuality is that he
>really isn't. at least imo, if you disagree you can choose
>your own example but the concept is the same regardless of the
>personal choice of exemplification...
>
>and this brings me to...
>
>style
>
>hip magazines, fashion shows, rail thin models, cocaine,
>happening nyc/la nightspots full of models/celebrities that
>you couldn't dream about getting let into, "buzz", "artistes"
>unknown the the masses...
>style is the almost entire driving force behind nearly every
>act pitchfork and the like tout every week.
>that basically IS the criteria in which they choose music to
>pump up to a reading audience that enjoys music based on
>stylishness.
>
>in the 00's... many shitty re-hashers without a single
>memorable lick became the next big "thing" in the blogosphere
>because they had a stylish aesthetic.
>but style is not just your art
>direction/asthetic/youth/lifestyle/clothes or "cool factor.
>perceived physical attractiveness also is group-able with
>style.
>and sometimes there are quote/unquote stylish acts who are
>simply too exposed for something like a pitchfork to
>respectfully endorse and remain faithful to their core
>audience...
>
>so often there is a strong division between style/exposure
>just like there is a strong division between talent/style.
>
>some of these style-based acts are so hip and so trendy that
>you've never heard about them and never will.
>now that could be because they only have "style" going for
>them and have minimal TALENT...
>
>or it could be because they don't have any exposure...
>
>exposure is #1 in success/impact in any field/genre.
>if people recognize your name and your face - you better
>believe that whatever crap you turn out and call your body of
>work is going to be just is recognizable to certain people
>(depending of course on HOW exposed you are).
>
>i propose that all musical acts have a variable make-up based
>on the talent/style/exposure model...
>and the varying surpluses and voids in the 3 fields determine
>what type of fans/demographics they attract and repel.

---
“Change is inevitable. Progress is optional.” – Tony Robbins

_____________
http://24kblk.com

---
“Change is inevitable. Progress is optional.” – Tony Robbins

---
“Change is inevitable. Progress is optional.” – Tony Robbins