To what extent to musicians depend upon image?, To what extent is this a new development? Options

[Tenor Viol]

Kennedy is case in point - he just annoys me. Look at photos of him from say the late 70s or listen to interviews from that period - hmm - he didn't have that accent then. Where did that come from then? Worst kind of affectation - it's just as pretentious as if he spoke with RP like a 1930s BBC newsreader.

No doubt people wil disagree with me, but sorry - his affected "image" both visual and vocal I just find annoying, to the extent I don't listen to him. Successful marketing that then - alienate your likely audience.

/Rant over (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif)

[corenfa]

...
No doubt people wil disagree with me, but sorry - his affected "image" both visual and vocal I just find annoying, to the extent I don't listen to him. Successful marketing that then - alienate your likely audience.

/Rant over (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif)

I get exactly where you're coming from - I'm indifferent to Nigel Kennedy as I'm not that much into violin, but that sort of thing annoys me greatly too. I have a few acquaintances like that.

[Arundodonuts]

Kennedy is case in point - he just annoys me. Look at photos of him from say the late 70s or listen to interviews from that period - hmm - he didn't have that accent then. Where did that come from then? Worst kind of affectation - it's just as pretentious as if he spoke with RP like a 1930s BBC newsreader.

No doubt people wil disagree with me, but sorry - his affected "image" both visual and vocal I just find annoying, to the extent I don't listen to him. Successful marketing that then - alienate your likely audience.

/Rant over (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif)

Well that website says the release of the album was 1986 not the 70s. So his "smart" EMI persona existed longer than you might think. I saw him several times in the early '80s and saw him in action in Cox's bar behind the Free Trade Hall in Manchester after concerts with the Halle. My feeling is his current persona is closer to the real person than the earlier well manicured character. I don't really care about his appearance or speech. I have always found his performances to be extraordinarily musical and engaging.

[lottie]

Kennedy is case in point - he just annoys me. Look at photos of him from say the late 70s or listen to interviews from that period - hmm - he didn't have that accent then. Where did that come from then? Worst kind of affectation - it's just as pretentious as if he spoke with RP like a 1930s BBC newsreader.

No doubt people wil disagree with me, but sorry - his affected "image" both visual and vocal I just find annoying, to the extent I don't listen to him. Successful marketing that then - alienate your likely audience.

/Rant over (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif)

I can't agree more to the extent I turn off when he comes on the television or radio. And yes I know his playing can be phenomenal but I'm not prepared to suffer his contrived and frankly embarrassing image or rubbishy playing just on the off chance he might play well.

When I was a musician-in-training many years ago the attractive people got most of the breaks as long as their playing was only roughly okay. Maybe it's changed (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif) I have a personal experience of this in an orchestra too. I was a plain-jane (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

As for the CD covers, well, I think some of them take the s&*y image too far. I love Benedetti's playing and have heard her live several times so will buy her CDs but certainly not because of her image. I think most of her 'publicity' shots in low-cut dresses look contrived and stiff and she looks self-conscious and miserable!

But equally I think if you're dumpy and ugly it's unlikely you'll get to the VERY top despite your talent. There is such a huge pool of astonishing ability these days that the 'pretty' ones are more likely to satisfy our cultural need for a marketable image on top of talent.

[Dugazon]

Massive subject, and also not one for sweeping generalisations.

There are undoubtedly instruments and/or styles of music where image counts more than in others, but at the end of the day, I quite firmly believe that you always need to back it up with talent, hard graft and willpower if you want longterm success.

Some people also seem to forget that exquisite musicianship is only part of the equation. The ability to be a performer/entertainer, to connect with your audience, business skills, a certain personality are equally, sometimes even more important (how much depends on line of work). We might not like it, but playing well alone is simply not enough - simply because there are so many good players out there. The production team (and ultimately the audience) can pick and choose, and yes, two roughly equally accomplished musicians will be judged on their other traits. These can be looks, showmanship, personality etc etc. It's really not that different from any other line of work, only that performers happen to work in one where people LOOK at them occasionally (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I worked in a very image-centred industry (theatre) for years. It is true, you get cast because you are a certain type, but you also need the necessary skills. It is a fallacy to believe you only get the job BECAUSE you are pretty and slim. You will get it over someone who is not the right type, but you won't even get through the first round of an audition if you don't have the skills, no matter how pretty you are. To believe this is ill-informed and probably fuelled by watching too many TV Casting shows (totally different kettle of fish, and one that sometimes annoys me greatly).

I also don't think it's "demeaning" if a woman (or man for that matter) likes to have photographs taken which show off that they are good-looking (and I really can't find anything wrong with Nicola Benedetti's photo - it's not as if she's showing her boobs or something!). It's demeaning if she doesn't have a choice, or is forced to do so. It's also demeaning to think "one should not be allowed to play anything else than one's musicianship skills, therefore not use one's good looks to further one's career" - a musician is a person, and consequentially consists of more than just playing an instrument. Some musicians are extroverts, some are introverts. The former will usually enjoy "showing off" a bit - this includes dressing up (or wearing a bit less (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)), being flirtatious etc. Just because oneself doesn't feel comfortable doing so doesn't mean all others are bad people for it.

EDIT: Just thought about this: There is a trend (not referring to anyone here now) to almost assume that a successful, good-looking woman somehow cannot have as much talent as an average looking one, and therefore must be successful because of her looks alone, and achieved everything in her life without working hard for it. Or that she'd better hide she's pretty so "people take her more seriously". How is that not demeaning (or maybe plain jealous, or at least insecure)?

About Opera/Performing Arts in general: the crucial point is that they are set on a STAGE. They have a VISUAL element, and to think it's not important doesn't do the art form any favours. It is not just a symphony, and thank God (yes!) the days of stiffly standing on stage and raising an arm here and an eyebrow there are over. As an Opera singer, you are NOT just a singer - you are also an actor/performer, and yes, you will be cast according to your type.
If you find this unjust, you can listen to CDs - there, it doesn't matter what a person looks like. If I go to a theatre though, I personally don't want to see a 20 Stone Butterfly or Violetta, or a Florestan who looks like he lives on cake and wine instead of being a starving prisoner. It destroys the visual element and is comical at best. Yes, above all, the performers should have the necessary vocal/musical skill needed to perform, but they do. There are enough to choose from, the performing arts are overcrowded as they are. Maybe there is one person who has a slightly "better" voice (whatever that means, because it is an illusion to think that people get that far without musical talent), but they will pick someone who has the whole package instead. And quite rightly so...

And to top it off: The Performing Arts are certainly not immune to anything that also happens in the "real world" - this includes ageism, sexism and other unpleasantries. I don't think anyone would ever doubt this.

[Ayshah]

Dugazon, thank you for putting the other side of the picture. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I also do believe it has to be a combination of talent and presentation espiecially in Opera and theatrical productions.

I love Charlotte Church's rounded womanly figure. Am sad to see Katherine Jenkins recent weight loss makes her (to me) look ill, much older and actually distracting as I want to send her a food parcel! Yet I use to cringed as Pavorotti heaved himself across the stage I was utterly convinced he would have a very public heart attack! When I paid a fortune to see Jessey Norman I was convinced she had a skateboard or something under her volumous gown to enable her to move accross the stage. Quite distracting! I will stick to purchasing her CDs.

An effort can be made to look presentable and Nigel Kennedy's current presentation is not one I would every again pay to view, but then I would happily purchase his CDs as he is an extraordinary violinist.

My singer daughter wears ripped jeans and old T shirts all the time, but for her recitals, hours go into choosing gowns, getting hair and make up right for the occasion. Even having professional photographs done involves professional stylists who choose everything from tip to toe. Its the way the business works today.

Some people do not like or are uncomfortable being too dressy and some are quite obilivious to thier image. Others recognise that it is an necessary part of todays performance portfolio and that in some arenas quite useful for progression, but they have to be able to deliver the goods. No point looking amazing and cant sing/play, the audience will go elsewhere.

On a personal note, my own OH looked like a wreck most all of the time when we were dating and he clearly worked on maintaining that image. I was young and obilvious to it, I can assure you my parents were not. Yet when I walked up the aisle on our wedding day I could hardly recognise the man waiting at the alter. He had scrubbed up amazingly! (That is a Theatrical Occasion!) But he was most uncomfortable in a morning suit (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Over the years he has finally purchased an worn a Tux, smirking at the compliments he receives.

[jonathanquinn]

The truth is that image does matter today, because we expect good entertainment for all our senses. Who has never sniggered in the past at enormous sopranos supposedly dying of consumption? We want our opera singers to fit the part in looks as well as in voice. Of course, the sound is very important, but I don't think it is paramount in live performance - people want an all-round experience. It has always been so, or why did entertainers bother to wear smart clothes and look their best? And most of us are not averse to a bit of eye candy - it certainly doesn't detract from the musical experience!

Perhaps in an ideal world the musician producing the best sound would be the one who made it to the top, but in this world, we are all influenced by looks and personality as well as sound.

Not sure that I agree. When I got to hear an opera I'm interested in hearing great singers and a great orchestra. To take an extreme example, I recently heard the Ukrainian National Opera of Kharkiv performing La Traviata. I'm afraid what really stood out was not that Violetta was really a very beautiful woman (and not a bad singer either), but that the orchestra was undersized and didn't play very well (somewhere between the standard of an average county youth orchestra and the LSSO or NYO), and that several other singers were rather poor (Annina was painful to listen to). Comparing the two performances of La fille du r?giment that I have seen at the ROH, I thought Patrizia Ciofi's performance less good than Natalie Dessay's only because I thought Dessay a better singer, not because I thought her a better looking woman. I thought Colin Lee every bit as good as Juan Diego Fl?rez, judged as a singer. The fact that Lee was also rather more convincing as a comical Tyrolean made me enjoy his performance all the more, but had his singing been inferior to Fl?rez's then I would have preferred Fl?rez's performance. I cannot in any honesty say that I regard Alice Coote as a particularly beautiful woman, but fortunately, unlike the Katherine Jenkins fans, I don't go to hear her performances in the hope of getting some eye candy; I go because she is one of the outstanding singers of our time.

How far are we to take this? Making observations about a singer's size and overall appearance seems to be fair game these days. What about a singer's ethnic origin? That is not considered fair game, and nor should it be. I was appalled to read that Willard White had received hate mail when, as a black man, he took on the role of Wotan, and that a soprano had threatened to withdraw from a production of Eugene Onegin on the grounds that a black man could not convincingly take on the role of a Russian prince. I daresay some people found Leontyne Prince unconvincing in roles depicting characters of European or Japanese or Chinese ethnicity (and of course the Japanese and Chinese, and indeed Carthaginian, roles would usually have been performed by European singers anyway). I'm just sorry that I'm too young to have had the opportunity to have heard her other than on CD.

EDIT: Just thought about this: There is a trend (not referring to anyone here now) to almost assume that a successful, good-looking woman somehow cannot have as much talent as an average looking one, and therefore must be successful because of her looks alone, and achieved everything in her life without working hard for it. Or that she'd better hide she's pretty so "people take her more seriously". How is that not demeaning (or maybe plain jealous, or at least insecure)?

Certainly there are a lot of very talented female artists who also happen to be very good looking (Marina Poplavskaya instantly comes to mind). I think that the problem arises when somebody who clearly does have relatively little talent, such as Katherine Jenkins, achieves great celebrity largely on the basis on her good looks. She does not have the voice of a Joan Sutherland, a Montserrat Caball?, or a Jessye Norman, or even of an Alice Coote or an Elizabeth Watts. I do not believe that Dame Joan, or any other of those singers, would have had herself photographed like this. I suppose it is understandable that this has an unfortunately impact on the perception of other artists, both male and female, as it happens. People begin to ask whether David Garrett is really good violinist, or is he just a Katherine Jenkins type, a mediocre violinist, at best, who has made a career for himself by looking pretty and showing his chest. Now, I think that David Garrett really is a good violinist, but it's easy to see why people doubt it: if he's really that good, why doesn't he just market himself as just a violinist, like James Ehnes; why bother with pictures like this (and more of the same should you wish to trawl the web for them), if he doesn't have any deficit to compensate for? I'm not saying that he's not a good violinist; but I struggle to take seriously a musician who cultivates that kind of image, in a way that I do not struggle with somebody like Ehnes (whose image could hardly be more different).

[stetenorve]

I'm enjoying this thread. Any more photos of pretty ladies?

[Chris H]

http://southernsinfonia.org/images/concert...lins120x120.jpg Sorry, I don't know how to do the clever link thing. I think Michael Collins looks a bit like Lord Sugar in this photo! Not everyone relies on good looks.

[Hubicka]

Unfortunately it seems that these days you either have to be very good looking or unusual/quirky to be successful. So people get the 'oh wooow they look so great' or 'theyre so bold and unusual, how inspiring' effect. It's sad to say i don't think average or 'bad' looking people have a chance. Modern life eh!

I was thoroughly shocked at Cheryl Cole's singing at the Jubilee concert :| but hey she looked great and is confident so has a following of teenage girls who want to be her, women in their 20s who admire her success, and boys who fancy her - what does it matter whether she can sing or not!

I must say though I do think a good image helps with the overall image the audience get... whether its being attractive or having nice clothes and scrubbing up well, i would admire someone more if they had the full package! *casualty of society*

[Dugazon]

When I got to hear an opera I'm interested in hearing great singers and a great orchestra.

And therein lies the difference - most people also want to see an Opera. If you just want to hear, you can, at least in theory, also listen to CDs. Opera is about the whole experience however (it is music theatre), and this includes seeing the characters on stage. This doesn't make your approach invalid because it's personal, but it explains that visuals are maybe just not that important, or even distracting, to you. It also doesn't mean that everyone perceives it the same way - most of us don't just rely on their auditory sense, even if it is extremely important, and often dominant, in a musician.

I think that the problem arises when somebody who clearly does have relatively little talent, such as Katherine Jenkins, achieves great celebrity largely on the basis on her good looks.

Not a big fan of her either. I think though that it is actually the media and, dare I say it, the public that turns this into a problem, not Katherine herself. She is not an opera singer, I believe she never claimed herself to be one. She is a crossover artist - that's a completely different line of work. If the public and media have problems distinguishing between the two, it's certainly not her fault. Let her be successful in what she does, don't buy her stuff if you don't like it. It's not like she's taking away work from anyone - she simply wouldn't cut it in a full operatic production, and you can trust the people involved in operatic casting to be aware of that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Now, I think that David Garrett really is a good violinist, but it's easy to see why people doubt it: if he's really that good, why doesn't he just market himself as just a violinist, like James Ehnes; why bother with pictures like this (and more of the same should you wish to trawl the web for them), if he doesn't have any deficit to compensate for? I'm not saying that he's not a good violinist; but I struggle to take seriously a musician who cultivates that kind of image, in a way that I do not struggle with somebody like Ehnes (whose image could hardly be more different).

Why does one have to compensate for anything by "flaunting it" a bit? Yes, we maybe all have our insecurities - some feel better because they are complimented on their musical ability, their intelligence, their cooking skills - others like to be complimented on their good looks and take great pride in grooming themselves and always looking their best.
I'm actually quite an introvert person, and that's one of the reasons why I ultimately decided to give up theatre, but it is fair to say that not everyone is the same. It's just a different personality. We don't need to identify, but the assumption that everyone who is comfortable showing off their good looks has to compensate for lacking ability, or something more sinister, is also quite insulting, at least in my opinion.

And if one is just to market oneself as a violinist, you could of course also ask the question: Does marketing the "wholesome family man image" not have as little to do with playing the violin as portraying oneself as a s'ex god? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

I know, I'm being cynical now, but it's just the other end of the spectrum - whether it's better lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[DaisyChain]

I wonder how this grumpy old devil genius would survive in today's image obsessed world?

(IMG:http://www.ipl.org/div/images/mushist/beethoven.gif)

[jonathanquinn]

the assumption that everyone who is comfortable showing off their good looks has to compensate for lacking ability, or something more sinister, is also quite insulting, at least in my opinion.

Agreed, which is why I emphasised that I did in fact think Garrett a good violinist. I first heard him quite recently on Front Row on Radio 4 and was very impressed indeed. His pedigree, so to speak, also looks extraordinary: I assume that Ida Haendel and Itzhak Perlman don't take time to teach just anyone, and I also assume that the President of Germany doesn't give a Strad to just any 11-year-old violinist either. Then I saw how he marketed himself and I thought something like, oh, what a shame, he can actually play the violin extremely well, yet he feels the need make himself look silly for the extra publicity. As I say, this is the pernicious impact of a wider trend: I *know* that he is actually a very good musician, yet I still feel this prejudice about his marketing strategy.

In my own professional field people react in the same way to David Starkey: I have lost count of the number of times that I have had to explain to people that, despite the fact that he's made his fortune on TV, Starkey is actually a brilliant historian, one of the most important scholars of Tudor constitutional and political history, and probably the most knowledgeable person ever on Henry VIII. But, because people are used to associating TV history with dumbed down standards of scholarship, and because Starkey behaves rather stupidly in other areas of his broadcasting career, they assume that his scholarly work must be of poor standard too, which it absolutely isn't.

And if one is just to market oneself as a violinist, you could of course also ask the question: Does marketing the "wholesome family man image" not have as little to do with playing the violin as portraying oneself as a s'ex god? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Yes, that occurred to me just as I had written it: isn't Ehnes's image, well, an image, too? But then I thought, no, nobody would be that cynical! To be fair, I suspect that he just is this normal bloke that he seems to want to be seen as, and he just happens to be among the, say, half a dozen best violinists alive today. Of my other top violinists I'd say Gil Shaham, Itzhak Perlman, and Ida Haendel just look normal, and Nigel Kennedy and Ivry Gitlis have a sort of weird image, though in Gitlis's case, at least, I think that that is not at all contrived.

[Ayshah]

Surely with Opera and theatrical productions the viewing is an important part of the whole experience. I just cannot pay good money to sit in an audience with my eyes closed and "enjoy the sound"! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) I may as well purchase the CD and listen on my fathers astronomically expensive hi fi equipment! Even with recitals there is absolutely no way my daughter would get a booking at Wigmore Hall with her ripped jeans, pencils in her hair and black goth lipstick! It would be back to Lauderdale house for tuppence a booking!

I think racisim is different. Comments on the size of Jessey Norman are not related to the colour of her skin they are about her unhealthy obese size. Fact. The woman has an amazing voice but her size is utterly distracting to look at. In the case of Willard White - he is groomed, well presented, brilliant opera singer and theatrical performer. If he rolled up for auditons looking like he had been dragged through a hedge backwards, he would be asked if he was there for a cleaning job! Negative comments about him are clearly racism.

On another point Cheryl Cole is a pop singer/perfomer who has been honing her craft since 5 years old, singing dancing, performing and at stage school. She is not a "johnny come lately". She has worked hard at getting where she is and it shows. I am not a fan of hers but she is certainly a performer who can do just that perform. Why knock her?

I cannot, maybe because I am a woman, see how Kathrine Jenkins can be referred to as "eye candy" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) I think her voice is pleasant not brilliant and I wouldnt pay to see her but would buy her CD. Again she is not an opera singer. Now Cecilia Bartoli, my OH finds her eyebrows distracting! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) I adore her and will go anywhere to hear her sing live! I nearly threw myself off the upper balcony with frantic clapping the first time I heard her (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif)

TV, internet magazine and the massive competition (how many musicians graduate every year for so few jobs!) have meant that they (the performers) have had to take self-marketing far more seriously. I am older so not a fan of the half naked poses referred to. A semi-draped female anatomy or a exposed male chest is cold water to me I but recognise that at this moment in time/history marketing is important. I have no doubt that Mozart's father if around now, would have used all the facilites now available to promote his young uns. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[VH2]

the assumption that everyone who is comfortable showing off their good looks has to compensate for lacking ability, or something more sinister, is also quite insulting, at least in my opinion.

You are absolutely right. What is really annoying (i.e. makes me jealous) is that not only are many of today's young pianists either extraordinarily handsome (men) or stunningly beautiful (women) but they also play fantastically well.