Superficial Metal fans

Q: If Phil Anselmo looked like Ronnie James Dio how many fans do you think he and PANTERA would have had during their career?

My guess: about 1/1000th of their current fan base.

Sad but true I think.

it wouldn't surprise me. the entire music industry is image based. the metal scene is no different. it's a fashion show just like all the others.

it's fun to imagine a tiny little guy like Ronnie pulling off the macho bravado of a song like F*cking Hostile though.

mc666 wrote:

it wouldn't surprise me. the entire music industry is image based. the metal scene is no different. it's a fashion show just like all the others.

it's fun to imagine a tiny little guy like Ronnie pulling off the macho bravado of a song like F*cking Hostile though.

Ok I laughed.

How many bands in the metal scene get credit for "staying true" or looking "metal" as opposed to simply writing/recording good songs or playing well live? There is a tremendous amount of that I think in the scene.

Metal lesson 101 - Image sells!

Pantera used to look like Dio though.

Temple of Blood wrote:

How many bands in the metal scene get credit for "staying true" or looking "metal" as opposed to simply writing/recording good songs or playing well live? There is a tremendous amount of that I think in the scene.

Way too many bands yes!

I think I must agree, people do put image above talent which is no more obvious than in the pop music world. It also works the other way where people reject great music because of how a band looks.

In my case though apperance doesn't effect my enjoyment of music. Image means almost squat to me. I think many of the 80s bands I like looked absolutly ridiculous but that has never effected my love for their music. Image does however help me in blind musical buys. I've come across many great metal bands that I never heard of because of the band member's appearance.

DallasBlack wrote:

I think I must agree, people do put image above talent which is no more obvious than in the pop music world. It also works the other way where people reject great music because of how a band looks.

In my case though apperance doesn't effect my enjoyment of music. Image means almost squat to me. I think many of the 80s bands I like looked absolutly ridiculous but that has never effected my love for their music. Image does however help me in blind musical buys. I've come across many great metal bands that I never heard of because of the band member's appearance.

Ditto.



In fact, until I saw Dio in a music documentary, I had no clue about his diminutive stature. Knowing that only made me marvel at the man's voice even more.



And people here love to rag on the look of Wig Wam (very justifiably BTW) but to me that makes absolutely no difference; I love the band's music.

Even more so these days... most younger metal fans have NO appreciation of what came before... When I talk with a 16 year old metal fan (who says he loves Iron Maiden) about Steve Harris and he looks at me and says.... WHO????

What else needs to be said.....

The right question for this topic should have been "How many fans would PANTERA have if Dimebag was still alive..." I say 1/1000 of what they have now.

mr.electric39 wrote:

most younger metal fans have NO appreciation of what came before...

most of the old schoolers don't acknowledge the newer generation of bands/styles either.

DallasBlack wrote:

I think I must agree, people do put image above talent which is no more obvious than in the pop music world. It also works the other way where people reject great music because of how a band looks.

In my case though apperance doesn't effect my enjoyment of music. Image means almost squat to me. I think many of the 80s bands I like looked absolutly ridiculous but that has never effected my love for their music. Image does however help me in blind musical buys. I've come across many great metal bands that I never heard of because of the band member's appearance.

very well put. I dont care about the image - its the music for me. Some metal muscians are clean cut, some are not. Some have jobs that are not tr00 metal (whatever that is) - i dont really care. What matters to me is the music.

I think in the case of Dio and Pantera, it was about the music, these guys were not exactly the Duran Duran pin ups of the metal world.

Dio sold millions of albums in his lifetime, and his lack of success (saleswise) had more to do with 'grunge' , alternative, and his style of traditional metal falling out of flavor.

Pantera, which I did not til years after they had been successful had started out as a glam band and I think they filled a void, that alot of fans felt, Metallica had left with they had changed styles.

Years later both artist discographies are still in print.

DallasBlack wrote:

I think I must agree, people do put image above talent which is no more obvious than in the pop music world. It also works the other way where people reject great music because of how a band looks.

In my case though apperance doesn't effect my enjoyment of music. Image means almost squat to me. I think many of the 80s bands I like looked absolutly ridiculous but that has never effected my love for their music. Image does however help me in blind musical buys. I've come across many great metal bands that I never heard of because of the band member's appearance.

I agree with you 100%. Someone on this board posted in the Razorback Killers thread about how the new lead singer doesn't look "metal" enough even though he has the chops vocally. I just scratch my head at statements like this.

Remember the big up-roar over Metallica cutting their hair and doing stylist inspired photo shoots. Seemed like people were more upset at that than they were with the fact that Black Album wasn't Kill'em All Part 2. Never understood why any look or style mattered - wear a clown suit for all I care. As long as the music is there.

Reminds me of the time way back when Milli Vanilli got exposed and a friend of mine was so upset he threw out his tape of them. He was also mad that he was supposed to see them live. Never understood why the reaction by their "fans" wasn't "just bring out the people who did sing on the record". But we all know why that wasn't so.

At least Ronnie James Dio didn't sound like Phil Anselmo.

well for me image sells first. The music comes second. Sure there are lots of bands without an image I like, but the ones that take their time to look the part come off as better bands to me.

but heavy metal is about attitude, and there is no pressure to look good. only look tough , you see on every album cover the members all pissed off sometimes.

But There are bands that don't even know what the members look like. I just grab the cds and turn on the stereo

but thinking about it. Image is important on the metal scene. Bands like saxon, Judas Priest, AC/DC used to dress on a way that didn't reflect what they represent

Lurideath wrote:

well for me image sells first. The music comes second. Sure there are lots of bands without an image I like, but the ones that take their time to look the part come off as better bands to me.

Right is all marketing tactics. An album with a kick ass cover will make you want to check it out

jstate wrote:

Remember the big up-roar over Metallica cutting their hair and doing stylist inspired photo shoots. Seemed like people were more upset at that than they were with the fact that Black Album wasn't Kill'em All Part 2. Never understood why any look or style mattered - wear a clown suit for all I care. As long as the music is there.

i find it amusing that those who want to call themselves rebels get upset when someone else rebels against what they think metal should look like.

Warrior Soul fell victim to this fact of life in the music business. The singer looked straight out of some L.A band trying to appear grunge and the rest of the band appeared to be a backing band for Joe Jackson. Regardless of how great the tunes were, everything "marketable" was against them. It really sucked. They had the chops, the tunes, the right management, and....nothing !

With regard to Metallica cutting their hair, I remember that and also remember this as around the time Metallica died for me (although I really enjoyed death magnetic). I was pissed off with them simply because, whilst I really liked the black album I could hear that it was heading in a different direction to their previous stuff so when they cut their hair it was clear to me they were heading in a more commercial direction which I wasn't happy about.

Image is important I think simply because the look of the band and the album artwork will give you a first impression of the style of music that's on offer and I've picked up many a cd based on the album cover or the band name or the look of the band and found some real gems. Ok, I've also found some turds aswell.

At the end of the day it all comes down to how good the music is but image can play a part in getting bands noticed.

Put it this way, your in a bar and see two girls. One is pig rough and looks like she's gone 10 rounds with the ugly stick and the other girl is beautiful and everything you've ever wanted physically. Which one do you want to take home? The ugly girl may have a great personality but you won't know till you talk to her and get to know her but on first impressions it's not looking good. Music is no different. Bands will do a lot to try and get noticed and if the musics good they last, if it's crap they disappear. Hell, if it wasn't for iron maidens image and album artwork I may never have picked up seventh son all them years ago and they've become my favourite band.

James B. wrote:

Warrior Soul fell victim to this fact of life in the music business. The singer looked straight out of some L.A band trying to appear grunge and the rest of the band appeared to be a backing band for Joe Jackson. Regardless of how great the tunes were, everything "marketable" was against them. It really sucked. They had the chops, the tunes, the right management, and....nothing !

Too true, too true.

The first time I saw Warrior Soul live was in 93 when they were supporting the "Chill Pill" album. There was an audible gasp from the audience when the band came out and they saw that Kory had cut off his famous floor-length hair.

Pete McClanahan (bass) always looked more like a Sex Pistol than someone from Joe Jackson's band tho.

This Iron Savior song I think says a lot of what this thread has to say; the image is cool and it's a good selling point, but when it comes down to it, metal is METAL, no matter who's playing it.

As for Anselmo vs. Dio, I'd listen to Dio based on image too I just have a thing for everything related to Dio, and back in the day, he was a charmer:

Would you say no to that face?