Stardom

Hey guys and gals

So today we were looking at stardom. First of all, we looked at the question, what makes a star exactly? From my point of view a star refers to a likeable person current and talked about who is known for a specific outstanding talent, whether that be for singing, acting or any of the usual talents. Turns out the actual definition of stardom is:

The semi-mythological set of meanings constructed around music performers in order to sell the performer to a large and loyal audience.

However the most common traits for shared between 'stars' are known to be:

• Youthfulness
• Rebellion
• Sexual Magnetism
• An anti-authoritarian attitude
• Originality
• Creativity/Talent
• Aggression
• A disregard for social values relating to drugs, sex and behaviour
• Conspicuous consumption of sex, drugs and material goods
• Outstanding success against all odds

Expert in the Department of Film Studies, Richard Dyer, looked into this and developed his Stardom Theory. Analysing stars within film, TV and music, Dyer states that stars have some common features.

Firstly a star themselves is an image, not the real person, that is constructed from a range of materials. A variety of collected subsidiary media, such as magazines, are needed to construct an image for themselves which is then marketed to their target audience.

Secondly, stars are commodities (a material that can be bought and sold) produced and consumed on the strength of their meaning (what makes them a star).

This image is constructed through a process undertaken by record companies. For example, The X Factor displays to the audience this process on screen; how an ordinary person is groomed and styled into fulfilling a set of expectations for the record company.

This Star Image however must remain unfinished and overall incoherent. This makes the audience constantly interested in them through the quest of wanting to 'complete the image' to make sense of the star. This is believed, by the audience, to be achievable through consuming their products and merchandise. In addition, it helps if the artist/star is simultaneously 'ordinary' yet 'extraordinary', simultaneously absent and present for the consumer and finally positioned against the mainstream but also within it.

Here is an article on Richard Dyer's views on stardom that aided me in creating this post:http://www.mediaknowall.com/as_alevel/Music/music.php?pageID=popstar

CD Cover practise

 Hey guys

Here's some images of some album covers I edited based on pictures that myself and Dan took.
My aim was to try and create some 'stereotypical' covers that portrayed the artist and music in a certain light:




The weird one

The serious/tortured one



The 'I'm not looking at the camera one'



Media Regulation: Banned Music Videos

Media Regulators

Greetings people

So today we were looking at regulations in the media.

Regulations refer to a set of rules or guidelines usually agreed between media organisations and public organisations in order to make media organisations more accountable for what they publish. This is overseen by an independent regulatory body who may have the power to issue fines or warnings.

For example, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) is the UK's newspaper and magazine regulator. Furthermore, Ofcom is the UK's communications regulator; regulating TV, radio and mobile.

The internet however has no official regulator, putting the ability in the hands of 'comments' to report a post. As a result of this, Twitter has come under much criticism for allowing abusive content on their site as well as Facebook for their 'banning female nipples' issue last year. In addition, YouTubers were told they had to disclose whether they were being paid to endorse products on their videos. Although you can be proseceuted for violent or threatening behaviour on social media, hosting sites do not have to accept any culpability due to the content being user-generated.

So what about music video you might ask?

The British Board of Film Classifications (BBFC) aim to protect young people by regulating all music videos published by artists signed to Sony Music UK, Universal Music UK and Warner Music UK. The BBFC classify each video and assign it an age rating; 12, 15 or 18, based on a number of factors like:Drug misuse

• Dangerous behaviour
• Bad language
• Sexual behaviour/nudity
• Threatening behaviour and violence

My Opinion

To be honest, I believe regulator help to some extent. Sure they successfully classify what is appropriate for a child and what should be seen by only eyes over the age of 18 but realistically, what it seems they are doing is highlighting explicit content to young viewers, sticking out like a soar thumb, thus making it easier for them to find. They can't control what a person sees. Take the 'parental advisory' label you see on CDs. What this does is basically sell the record by attracting people because it has a 'dirty word' or something. In the present day, this label has even become almost a proud symbol to wear for others to notice you by that wouldn't have beforehand. This can be supported by the fact that when this 'warning' was introduced, so many artist wanted to be associated with it rather than not wanting to publish explicit content; the ridiculous expectation. People buy the music because it contains adult content, thus artists make more money.

Controversy in Music Videos

Genres and Sub-genres Explored

The Genre of Rock from AlexHunter98

Update: Photo Album Practise Shots

Hey Guys

Today me and Dan were tasked to shoot some stereotypical album covers to see how heavily the front page image influenced the audience's view of the type of music and artist they'd find inside.

We've taken some pictures that we believe can be edited to influence these views.

The final images will be uploaded in the coming days so stay tuned!

Theories on genre in music

Hey people

So we're back at it with the regular media lessons now! Today we looked at theories of genres in music and how these ultimately shape artists; their image and the type of music they produce. So without further ado...

John Hartley (1994) - argues that 'genres are agents of ideological closure - they limit the meaning - potential of a given text'.
This theory basically conveys genres as a straightjacket limiting creativity.

Robert Hodge and Gunther Kress (1998) - describes genres as 'controlling the behaviour of producers of such texts and the expectations of potential consumers'.
Again, this stresses that genres prevent products from cross the border into creativity and instead stay safe in conforming to audience's expectations.

John Fiske (1987) - asserts that generic conventions 'embody the crucial ideological concerns of the time in which they are popular'.

This suggest that genre are useful in telling us about the 'way of the world' in the time the product is created in - the Zeitgeist.

Film Theorist Rick Altman however states that there is no 'pure' genre anymore as it is progressive and thus ever-changing.

He says that generic conventions are a thing of the past. His theory implies that audiences in general have become tired of the same formula being used over and over and instead need more to keep entertained and to generate appeal.

Altman also says that genre is surviving merely due to hybridisation. In this case it refers to genres borrowing conventions of others, creating a hybrid, and thus being more difficult to categorise.