Ground News

I will be covering two topics in this post, and I'm saying this right now so that no one is confused later on. The topics are very different, but they are related and need to be addressed immediately, considering I am working on both at this instant.

First topic: 'Doc' Video

When I first started on this project, I was concerned about the image of the band. How do I want to portray them? How do I want the fans to think of them? What do I want to make unique? What do I want different from mainstream/well-known bands? So I thought of other bands I know, and found one thing in common: most of them focus on the vocalist. They use the lead singer as the brand, the face of the band, the image for marketing. But when you think about it, all members of a band have a balanced input on what they produce, which is, after all, what they are selling. I know marketing is a thing, and there are certain rules that need to be followed, but it's sad to think we can just dismiss artists like that (poor Jamie Cook. Don't know who that is?... Exactly).


In Almost Famous -which is set in the 1970s-, a big critique throughout the film is the futility and moral corruption existent in the music industry, and one of the ways this is portrayed is by the band using the "better-looking" guy as the face of band. There is a specific scene where the manager is showing the band's shirts, and Russel -whose "looks have become a problem"-, is clearly highlighted on the picture and the vocalist FLIPS OFF. The movie (which is, by the way, my favorite movie ever, go watch it NOW) makes me think of the nature of bands. They are supposed to be a unit, a family, but the truth about rock and roll is that its bands rely on dynamics.


Even so, back then, up to the 1980s, the relationship between band and fan was extremely different. People would be devoted to their bands, to every single member. Groupies would gather in concerts with only love -and sex- to give to artists. When we think about it now, we couldn't imagine Pink Floyd without David Gilmour, or Led Zeppelin without John Bonham, and I'm sure the fans back then couldn't either. Many of my own friends could probably name all the Beatles before they could name the lead singer from Coldplay. There was a distinct sound to each band -not simply combining sounds in computer and creating music like it is today- and each member had its part, its IMPORTANT part. More than that, "you were not only sold the superbands, but their personalities as well" (Catalano, 2013).

Why has that changed? Nowadays, music is being overproduced because of technology and streaming services, and as a result, managers and public relation people have to just make it out there. New artists are just POPPING UP all the time, anywhere. Music is shared, tailored for you, divided into categories, words, moods. People are not putting that much thought and time into what's on their playlists, and they often change for "something new". It's, to say the least, ephemeral (save this thought for later, by the way).

"For young people of the 60s-70s, music held a similar power as the Internet holds today's young people's lives," says George Howard, and we're not trying to regain that power.

The industry has to follow the demand. Rock bands have always relied on albums, and even if they're purpose is still the same today, 21st century bands have less personality than 60s-70s bands. The main reason: there is no time to create a bond between the consumers and the members, because on the process of establishing that, a new band has taken over. The most successful ones can be classified into two categories:

1. The mainstream rock/alternative rock bands, such as Foo Fighters, Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys, use the lead singer as the face and that's it. They star on music videos, are in the front in pictures, they are the names people know.

  Arctic Monkey's "Why'd You Only Call Me When You're High?"                  Foo Figher's "Walk"                             Coldplay's "Scientist"

2. Smaller bands, such as Cage the Elephant, use the whole band, and yet fans don't really have a connection with any of the members, but to the music. But as a mentioned, they are smaller bands.

                                "Come a Little Closer"                                                                      "Cigarette Daydreams"

The trend is real, but a reality of Millenials and Generation Z is that we like to feel connected to what we consume, and if it's music, to whom we're consuming. Maybe some people will argue that that's just the way the industry is going and it's not necessarily a bad thing, but I believe that to some degree it is. (Since this is my project, I have the right to be the change).

That brings me back to the beginning of the post (remember that one wayy up there?). The one-to-one relationship has been lost, which I believe is a big deal (in my so very humble opinion). So what I'm trying to do is find the middle ground: I set the ground rule that this is a band, a unit, a family. I will make their face four faces, and still build the connection between each member and the fans. It's not one, and it's not the music, its each member. Of course I am not trying to sell sex-drug-rock'n'roll like the 70s, which was the main appeal of those bands, but I am trying to find another way to engage the audience into feeling that music is part of their lives, touches their souls.

Back then, it was scandalous writing on Creem about Stillwater's most recent tour, making groupies envy and die to be part of the magnificent, glorious, careless world of rock gods. Now, it will be something different. What exactly?

FINALLY, THE ACTUAL REASON I HAVE BEEN WRITING FOR THE PAST THREE HOURS. I know Surfing on Saturn personally, as I have mentioned earlier, meaning I am friends with each of the members. They are great friends between themselves too, which I find amazing. Originally, my idea for the music video was to do a sort of documentary, while incorporating characteristics of a promotional video (like playing on a nice studio while the lead singer yells at the camera). That way, I would capture the dynamics of the band as well as promoting it for the public -meaning, selling their image. I want to include the fact that they are fun, unique, young, talented people, because the audience NEEDS TO KNOW. I admire their band so much not only because they're good, but because I know they are amazing people and I want them to thrive, and I know many other people feel the same. That's the beauty of local bands. I know that if they ever become big the real connection will never be the same, but if we start from here and just build on that, always maintaining the image of a family, it's sure to stick.

Buuuuut I talked to my teacher, who advised me to consider other options for the music video, and have the "documentary" in a section of their website, to which I said: cool.

So that's what this was about, uff. For the "documentary," I will be collecting footage from various concerts, the going to the place and setting up, as well as rehearsals, and even behind the stage scenes while filming the music video. It's been pretty cool. I'll release a sneak peak soon *winky face*.

I know I said this post would cover two topics, but it ended up being so LONG (trust me, not what I was going for), that I'll just do a second post. And I'll be pithy.


P.S. I'm listening to Led Zeppelin while writing this and feeling completely inspired.


http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FaceOfTheBand
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelecatalano/2013/02/28/where-have-all-the-rock-stars-gone/#9cbeb0f5c190
http://www.craveonline.com/site/1042711-rock-stars-then-vs-now-or-why-music-totally-sucks-today
http://elitedaily.com/music/how-one-generation-was-able-to-kill-the-music-industry/593411/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello_(Adele_song)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_(Adele_album)