Is It About The Music..or The Image?

azure-draco · Very bored Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 177

have you guys ever noticed how image entirely overshadows the actual music in the mainstream? It's pitiful, yet so true...

i mean, how many rappers have you seened out there who just rap, but don't show off thier 'bling bling' jewlry and thier 'gangster' image? If pop singers like Brittney Spears were fat and ugly, no one would like them right? And what about Slipknot, who are well known for thier 'satanic' image?

It's like a plague, real talent is forgotten and completely replaced by image. I was telling some of my friends at school about Rhapsody, a very talent, original, amazing metal band. Of course, they didn't know who they were, but when they saw the picture of the band, they excused them as a 'uncool' band just because they wear medival (sp?) outfits on thier photos. It's all BS..music is about the music, not about image. A true lover of music would listen just to enjoy good tunes, not because the band members look 'cool' :(

I also got this friend, who goes nothing but ramble on and on about how 'hot' and good looking singers were. OMG...seriously? Is this the music we're praising, or just the image?

I'm not saying all music in the mainstream is based on image. I mean, there are some very good bands out there who are popular and do play GOOD music. BUt still, for the most part, image always overshadows.

what do you guys think?

fallenangel · Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 2:32 pm Post subject:

[quote]music is about the music, not about image.[/quote]

That's not entirely true. In a lot of cases, the image is part of the music. It's the show. The New York Dolls, for example. Would they have been as well known or gotten as much buzz about them if they didn't dress like women? Would David Bowie be such a legend if he didn't change his appearance to fit his newest sound? Would glam have been such fun without the loud clothes and makeup?

I agree that it's sad when mediocre or just plain bad music is praised because the performers are attractive, though. Completely defeats the point. But in other genres than pop, the image [i]is[/i] important to the show. That's what I hate about a lot of modern bands, they're nothing special.

"I want my rock stars to look different than the guy that pumps my gas." - Gene Simmons
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

slavetotheWALL · Forum Stalker Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 1321

Ill agree with fallen sometimes images really do have an impact on the bands fame such as KISS for instance. If they didnt go so overboard with the make-up and costumes how else would they be remembered by for instance when I bring up KISS you probably wont think of the song " I wanna rocknroll all night. "
7 chances out of 10 youll picture that guy with all that make-up on him sticking his humongous tongue out. Razz

(by the way who is that guy?)

GnR for example when I hear that Band I picture Slash with his huge top hat covering his entire forhead with a huge chunk of hair on his face.

azure-draco · Very bored Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 177

[quote="slavetotheWALL (Pinkfloydkingdom"] Ill agree with fallen sometimes images really do have an impact on the bands fame such as KISS for instance.
[/quote]
Yes, you are right. But think this, KISS actually know how to play music. They're looks are only a add-on to make thier music more memorable. But still, it isn't like they're no-talent shitbags.

black metal bands are known to be extreme in thier looks. They use all this white corpse paint, black leather, have a satanic-attitude about things, and perform crazy stunts in shows. ok, but you know one thing? They (many anyway) KNOW how to play thier instruments. The crazy stunts, and thier image, are only something to support their music! The real good bands out there are like that. The looks are only something to support thier music, but no way hell is that the main entertainment.

Now lets take Slipknot, who are known for being 'satanic' and with thier 'hardcore' lyrics. But man, have you ever tried to listen to the actual guitars and music? It's so simplified and jumbled up. does it really take 9 band members to suck that much? xD

But pop artists are something else. I don't mean to offend any pop-listeners here, but I see pop singers are more of entertainers then musicans. Thats is only my opinion though.

then again, even Rhapsody have thier own look. They wear medival outfits because they sing about fantasy-related themes. and even with that people consider them 'losers' because medival outfits arn't in 'style'. Wow.

eclipsedmoongoddess482 · Elder In Training Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 3703

Fallen does have a point. Image is good and almost esscential to music. After all, KISS didn't have that much talent... "They had a gimmick." As my dad put it yesterday when I asked him how KISS got so legendary when their songs weren't really sensational. Image when used for good can be wonderful and make a band a legend. But when used for evil, it can give people the wrong message about music.

Even rock is taking a metaphorical image trend thats annoying me. Lately all I'm seeing is the angsty angry rocker who just hates life in general. That can be okay when taken once in awhile (or in some cases, not at all.) I mean, even GnR had their fair share of some depressing songs but they were taken in moderation and when they were played, they had an impact. It would be different and refreshing from some of the dirtier GnR songs. But when bands like GC or Linkin Park take angst and just constantly throw it in our faces, well, it gets boring. I don't want to have to listen to a band play the same type of songs over and over again. That isn't what rock is about. Rock is about making life as bitchin' as possible. Not bitchin' about how much life sucks. Sad

[quote]7 chances out of 10 youll picture that guy with all that make-up on him sticking his humongous tongue out. (by the way who is that guy?)[/quote]

Gene Simmons. ^_^

_________________
Vaccum cleaners may look fun, but are deadly sex toys. as are certain vegetables like, terri schiavo -Powtaz

slavetotheWALL · Forum Stalker Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 1321

I was the one who pointed out KISS :angry:

Please give one one thousdanth credit to me Sad

eclipsedmoongoddess482 · Elder In Training Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 3703

[quote]I was the one who pointed out KISS

Please give one one thousdanth credit to me [/quote]

I have a feeling you got that from the Spam section, didn't you? Yeah, from Powtaz's "Post Ur Age" thread. I may come off as a pain in the ass there but Pow did that to me first. Its perfectly normal for us to bitch at each other which later turns to flirting, then bitching, and more flirting again. Its an unhealthy relationship. :(

You are very lucky that you got on my happy list in the GnR thread. Otherwise I would be pretty mad at you for putting this down. But since I'm such a good sport, I'll give you 1/4 credit. Feel better? ^_^
_________________
Vaccum cleaners may look fun, but are deadly sex toys. as are certain vegetables like, terri schiavo -Powtaz

fallenangel · Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:59 pm Post subject:

May have wanted to specify you were only talking about pop music then. Because saying music is more important than image in all cases isn't true at all. I could name a lot of artists that are only mediocre (and KISS are one of them) but put on one hell of a show. And yes, KISS does know how to play, but when their music is broken down, they're nothing special. And that's fine, rock isn't about being technically great. But it's the image that sets them apart.

Same goes for New York Dolls. Their music definitely wasn't technically skilled. Laughing

Neither was Poison. Nikki Sixx was a shit bassist for a long long time before he learned to play decently, but the image and showmanship set him apart.

Yes, the music has to be there, but the image can be equally as important. But if you're only applying it to pop music, that's a whole different set of standards. Pop music by its nature is prepackaged, generic garbage. No substance, no technical skill, and no creativity. A group of writers target a demographic, write a cheesy song, and they package it up nicely in a cute blonde to sell a million copies. The image is really the least of the issues there. :wacko:
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

azure-draco · Very bored Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 177

[quote]Image when used for good can be wonderful and make a band a legend. But when used for evil, it can give people the wrong message about music[/quote]I see your point, but I'm still going to stick with my thinking that image is only an add on to complement the music. I see where you are coming from though :)

[quote] But if you're only applying it to pop music, that's a whole different set of standards. Pop music by its nature is prepackaged, generic garbage. No substance, no technical skill, and no creativity. A group of writers target a demographic, write a cheesy song, and they package it up nicely in a cute blonde to sell a million copies. The image is really the least of the issues there.[/quote]
Couldn't have said it any better!

fallenangel · Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:14 pm Post subject:

It is a "bonus", but a necessary one. If the music isn't there (outside bubblegum pop), all the makeup and leather in the world can't help. But if the music is good, the image should be good as well. It's right up there with showmanship. No one wants to go see a group stare at their shoes and not move at all. Just like seeing a bunch of guys in stained wife beaters and jeans isn't very exciting.

When it comes to [i]listening[/i] to music, it doesn't matter what they look like (obviously). The image is what makes you want to [i]watch[/i] them. If the group isn't interesting, why pay to go see them in the first place? And if a group doesn't have a record deal, they need those people going out to see them live.

_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

slavetotheWALL · Forum Stalker Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 1321

Hey I didnt say they where could or anything (KISS) but its the only thing I could come up with that which had image over music (thats one of them)

By the way Sixx thanks for giving me one fourth credit ^_^

eclipsedmoongoddess482 · Elder In Training Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 3703

[quote]By the way eclipse thanks for giving me one fourth credit [/quote]

Please! Call me Sixx. Its easier to type than eclipse, right? ^_^

Now I can make this easy for fallen and me by saying I agree with everything fallen said. But that would be ass kissing and I don't think thats becoming of me. Rolling eyes

_________________
Vaccum cleaners may look fun, but are deadly sex toys. as are certain vegetables like, terri schiavo -Powtaz

gcbaby · Newb Joined: 14 Feb 2005 Posts: 21

no its more about the music rather then the image, but thats just my opinion.

Tulips_and_Chimneys · Very bored Joined: 06 Jan 2005 Posts: 182

i agree im more with the music. ill even go so far as to say seeing bands image or faces turns me off. thats only in some cases though.

Beatlechick90 · Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject:

A lot of great bands who [i]didn't[/i] have a sensational image could have done with one. Take the Kinks for example. They could have been huge, like Beatles-huge, but they weren't very mareketable. Of course, on the other side you have the Monkees, who were manufactured and modelled after the Beatles' images. They completely sucked ass.
_________________
[url=http://dollyrockersinc.piczo.com][img]http://pic.piczo.com/img/i122379787_59088_3.gif[/img][/url]

fallenangel · Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:30 pm Post subject:

Well of course the Monkees sucked. Very Happy

They weren't even a real band (like...literally, didn't even play. On the records, anyway).
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

ChrisFox · Has No Life Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 637

For me, music is/should be about the music more so than the image. I find it more impressive when a band/musician does things totally unheard of with their music than when they do it with their image.

Though, gotta admit, once one adopts a certain drastic image, they can't change it--when KISS took off the makeup it was just...horrible.

Image doesn't mean one has to look good either--Nirvana, for example.
_________________
"I've got a sticky Darodo!"
"You might want to see a doctor about that."
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/kaymando/gandyhands.jpg[/img]

gcbaby · Newb Joined: 14 Feb 2005 Posts: 21

[quote="Tulips_and_Chimneys (reggie)"] i agree im more with the music. ill even go so far as to say seeing bands image or faces turns me off. thats only in some cases though. [/quote]
thanx for agreeing Laughing

fallenangel · Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:27 pm Post subject:

[quote]when KISS took off the makeup it was just...horrible.[/quote]

Especially considering what they look like. Laughing

It's kinda sad when white and black makeup is an improvement on your appearance. Surprised

_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

Tulips_and_Chimneys · Very bored Joined: 06 Jan 2005 Posts: 182

haha very true.