Is music turning to more visual stimuli to help the audience swallow it? Should it?

[less]

Because Cata demanded a thread, and I owe Cata a few favors.

Summary:

In the "People not into music" thread, Dan posted this:

Video games have music. :3
Anyway, I'm sorta like this. It is very very unusual for me to listen to a new band or artist and have any appreciation or enjoyment of it at all.

The only way I can appreciate music is through visual stimuli - meaning soundtracks - to movies, games, and what have you - end up being 90% of my playlist. Some of it's epic awesome, some of it's pop garbage.
I bolded the part I found the most interesting, and posed the question:
I wonder if that's the way music is heading. If in fifty years, listening to music without visuals will be like reading books are today; Common, sort of, but the kids don't really do it regularly, and there's a certain kind pretension to it if you overdo it and make it the focal media of your life.

In short, do you think music will be more reliant on visual stimuli in the future, and if so to what degree?

30 years ago, Dan's sentiment would have sounded pretty damn weird, but today it strikes me as almost surprisingly reasonable; We are a generation more visually stimulated than any before, and it's not going to slow down anytime soon, so is it too bold to assume bands will tap into/give in to this fact and start using the eyes of the audience to get their point across? You could imagine bands releasing a film along with every album to be watched under the music, partly to add to the experience and partly just to keep their attention. Daft Punk already did this with Discovery, and looking at NF, it won them big points. Daft Punk is not the typical anime-fan's cup of tea genre-wise, but with a few tasty visuals to wash down the nu-house, they loved it. Then again that might have been because it is a bloody brilliant album, but even if the music was all that won them over (which I sincerely doubt), the anime videos sure as hell didn't hurt with getting their attention.

Lastly, of course, is a good thing? An inevitable neutral thing? A good thing one should strive for? I have opinions, but I'll withhold some of them for now.

[Gurbik]

Do i see music progressing towards a ballance between visual stimuli as well as auditory.. yes. But i really dont see it as a good thing. With the way the mainstreem is today or at least how young people are generaly entertained, most would get bored just kicking back and listening to some jams. You notice people in waiting rooms listening to ipods and still bored. I cant fully understand this but thats b/c im just too into music to see it i guess.

As far as visual stimuli at a concert goes, i think its a great thing, It completely enhances the experiance. Its become quite common and if you look to the past, you can see even somthing as simple as lighting is a form of that. There have been few shows ive seen that have not had some kind of visual performance along with it. I can see this continueing to progress but it is somthing that could become dangerouse, eventual it would take focus away fromt he actual band performing.

Along those same lines i think that the idea of putting out dvds with their cds as horrable, It could work in small doses, Daft punk had success with it, but imagine of every band had to not only put out a decent record but find the time money and recorses to put out an acomping dvd that would be compedative. You would begin to not only look at what band name is on the cd but also who put out the dvd along with it. Alblums would be overlooked b/c their dvd was shit even if their music was amazing. It would shift the focus away from music if it became a necesary selling point.

Im not saying that dvds to the music isnt enjoyable and should be avoided entierly but i do think that it needs to be done in a way that keeps the focus on the music.

I do not want music to turn into somthing that you Go listen/watch to, it is somthing thats completely free you can do anything while listening to music and thats whats so great about it.

[Catatonik]

As I have previously mentioned Jonathan Coulton in this discussion, I will go back to the point I wanted to extrapolate on there.

While a musician solely, Coulton encourages others to make videoes for his music and to share them. It is not only a valid artistic opportunity for less musicallt gifted fans of his to get involved, it gives songs like Skullcrusher Mountain, RE: Your Brains and Code Monkey a stronger focal point for todays Attention Deficit Generation to concentrate on and, in doing so, make the music and the witty lyrics jump out at them.

This makes the songs easier to get peoples attention on sites like Myspcae, Facebook, and in emails.

At the same time, it is really generally the music that many people go for, and I do not see that ever becoming a passe fad, merely having it share equal opportunity with its newer and flashier sibling.

The popularity of Video Media-players and the Music Video television stations indicates that this trend has been coming and slowly reaching here. Many years ago, Green Jelly (once Green Jell-O) released an entirely animated album/video and declared themselves the only purely video band....then called themselves liars on their follow-up regular album.

The idea is out there, and the ease at which almost anyone can do animation suggests to me that this trend is going to continue to grow rapidly.

[iDrum]

I believe there are times and places for the two to be together and others for them to be separate. It all has to do with the artist's intentions. If an artist feels that their music should be accompanied by a visual aid for the listener and in this case viewer to get the full experience then by all means they should do so. After all, film and animation haven't been around for that long compared to music, so the fact that it's starting to merge just makes sense. After all, people are looking for something new. Take some of Michele Gondry's music videos. His are easily some of my favorite, and I think they really enhance the overall experience. Especially Star Guitar by the Chemical Brothers. It really gives it a sort of overwhelming of the senses that just makes it that much better.

[chaosakita]

Not really. I don't bother to watch music videos, and I only appreciate them because I can go to youtube and listen to the music without downloading. Otherwise, I ignore them completely. I never bother to watch AMVs either.

Also, I never go to concerts, so I can't say anything about that.

But I really do appreciate soundtracks, but only because I can identify them with something positive that I liked.

Of course, this is judging from my experience only.

[neko-sennin]

Hmmm...

As far as concerts go, all throughout human history, music as been closely tied to dance and performance, so, in the case of the concert, as long as visual gimmicks can't detract from the music itself, it think it's pretty cool. It only becomes a problem when the light show is there to distract people from the fact that the music itself sucks.

I can appreciate well-made music videos and AMVs, but regard both as dime-a-dozen , so anymore it takes something high-quality to impress me, which is part of why I quit watching eMpTyV. I sometimes think the "multiple-stimuli" phenomenon has more to do with the shrinking of the next generation's attention span than anything else.

Personally, I often listen to music while waiting in lines to alleviate boredom. And to filter out children babbling, the TV in the lobby, and every inane cellphone conversation that will play out while I'm waiting. It could be my imagination, but waiting times seem a lot shorter when you have some good tunes. Headphones are probably one of the best inventions in human history.

I guess if eye-candy is what your looking for, the street is saturated with candy stores these days. But, much like the so-called "uncool" practice of book-reading, there is something about simply listening to music for its own sake that I hope never gets old.

[mow]

I don't think so. Videos and visual stimuli will always be present to add on to the experience (and in many cases enhance it as in live shows and such) but I think that the scene of thousands and thousands of souls littered across the universe listening to music through their headphones/boom boxes with their eyes closed will remain present in abundance through out humanity. Music always paints a visual withing a person's mind because everyone has a clear image of what the music will look like, which is why enforced visual media can utterly destroy the precieved melodies becuase of the unique manner music paints distinct scenary within everyone

it being a good or bad thing? well a bit of both. Look no further than MTV, the presence of videos greatly promoted hiphop in the days when it started, but now has degenerated into hackless bags of utter tripe.

but on the other hand I definatly enjoy music based photography which is what i do. But not on the basis to assit others in perciving the music into an image, but rather becuase it's just promotes the already present musical image in my mind into something visible by all.

in any case; personally I'd like music to be the way it is, this formless entity that just explodes in your skull and in your heart and in your soul. Even the tinest of notes has the most imminse power and doesnt require

[sel]

I wonder if that's the way music is heading. If in fifty years, listening to music without visuals will be like reading books are today; Common, sort of, but the kids don't really do it regularly, and there's a certain kind pretension to it if you overdo it and make it the focal media of your life.The fallacy in looking at preference to watching TV to reading books in parallel to watching music videos; is that TV & movies appeal to the lazy side of humans, which has a considerable weight on our motives to do so. Seeing as watching and listening to music; where the primary point of it is to listen; I can't see it becoming as popular. It's a nice addition that we can indulge in sometimes, and that's where i see it staying. For now I'm being objective and not commenting on personal preference to spare you all a rant x3

[delirium]

"No idea is original there's nothing new under the Sun. It's not what you do but how it's done."

Visual stimuli and music have never really been separate. Even the people in this thread who talk about an internal vision, it's still a form of vision. Key word there. What is really different is how we're doing it. With the advent of new technology, we're finding new ways to manipulate our sense of vision and hearing. They're simply coming together in ways that were once not possible, but they're still coming together.

[Catatonik]

I think the focus though, is wether this is a trend that is going to phase out old-fashioned non-visual music.

I doubt it myself, but for a good chunk of the mainstream, I can see it ending up that way...

[delirium]

As with all things, it goes through the cycles. Whether it's the mainstream or underground, a certain trend will pop up and phase out and pop back up again in a new way. Kinda like fashion. At one time people were only wearing skinny ties, then they got a little thicker.. and due time it'll go back to people wearing skinny ties. I remember back in elementary/junior high when everyone was "stuffing their shoes" which made the tongue looked puffed up the way skate shoes are. Then I found out people were already doing that 20 years prior. But instead of using socks to stuff 'em people used bunched up tape.

They'll always be connected. And in certain times one might take precedence over the other (for whatever reason be it marketing or actual creative progression) but they'll rely on each other.

[destroy_musick]

To me, i have never made the disdinction nor the connection between the two. They, to me at least, are two different types of art forms that can freely flow between the other. it's nothing new, look at The Wall, Tommy or almost any Residents record. They are soundscapes that at one time or another were meant to sweep across a visual stimulus (or happened to, to enhance it). It's just now that technology and media is in hyperdrive that the more free thinking artists are being a bit more creative and it's slowly becoming a norm. Look at the music video for instance, who knew it'd reach an insane high in the 70's?

I don't like this talk of keeping the focus on the music, it seems to downplay the other dimension that artists are trying to push. For instance, watch The Wall. The animations in it are sublime, utterly breathtaking against the soundscape. It has it's place as much as the music, if it's adopted right that is.

Meh, just my thoughts

[Catatonik]

I am not worried about the fusion, I am at best interested in wether the fusion will become the standard and the expected approach.

I do agree certain examples rise well above just music into the realm of Multi-ledia Art.

I appreciate that.

I also happen to love the Wall album as just the album.

[erictheking]

In response to the opening post ; I'm not giving an objective perspective just my opinion, I don't think that music will be going in that direction forever. I don't see it increasingly turning to visual stimuli even currently, not at any considerable pace anyway. This is just my view on things, I am quite boxed in to a few genres as it happens. I tend to prefer listening to music with an internal vision, and I end up (inevitably) disappointed in some way with every music video that I heard the audio for previously & liked.

As for soundtracks to games & movies, if they're background music I tend to listen to them that way because they're usually not very appealing standing on their own.

[Distracted]

I don't usually contribute here, but I think it is worthwhile to say that visual stimuli isn't always bad for music. I don't know if any of you have ever listened to Atonal music, but for some reason it is much easier to digest and understand when you listen to it with a movie that goes with it for some reason.

If you listen to it that way a couple of times, then you can listen to it without the visual stimuli and it doesn't sound as foreign and strange for some reason.

[Efraim Longstocking]

To answer the questions posed in the title: 1. Yes, but has done it for years. 2. No it shouldn't, or maybe it should, if you want to sell it, but no. But bootyshaking fuels my nightly pleasures. Ok, I like watching vids of my fav bands. But I never see videos anywhere that makes me stimulated to like a new band. First I like the band, then their vids. The exception is OK Go, but their videos are fucking brilliant. I don't listen to them, though ^^

[Efraim Longstocking]

I never knew Daft Punk released a movie with that album :S. I loved it anyway, because Daft Punk has always been dope in my ears.

The thing with people who listen to film scores is that they relive have a relation to it. It connects to something in the movie. The music to the scenes that you liked especially will probably also be the one most noticed when you listen to the soundtrack.

Sry for the DP, can't edit because Firefox is fucked up.

[Dr. Boskov Krevorkian]

Ha ha, late again as usual.

I, myself, personally don't need, or particularly want any sort of visual stimuli when I'm listening to music wholeheartedly. I listen to music while doing other things, sure, but when I'm just walking around, or even just sitting in the dark, I don't want anything else to get in the way of my enjoyment.