Superficial Metal fans

stormspell wrote:

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.

That's stupid. They were still huge up to when the band split up.

Damageplan had to start from scratch with a new singer and slightly different sound... They would have picked up steam by their second or third album.

Yeah, I really don't think Dimebag's death led to more people becoming Pantera fans. They were always massive, Dimebag's death just made the fandom more intense as opposed to larger.

Anyway, back on topic. I'd say image is given far too much credence in metal (and really, music as a whole). I can understand why it was significant in the past, especially around the formation of the genre, but I've seen so many metal fans write off bands simply because they have short hair or don't wear denim and patches or for equally stupid reasons. Surely if the songs are good, it doesn't matter what the band looks like?

If I ever start a metal band, I'm going to make sure the songs are absolutely killer and then go on stage in a banana costume every night.

Quote :

Yeah, I really don't think Dimebag's death led to more people becoming Pantera fans. They were always massive, Dimebag's death just made the fandom more intense as opposed to larger.

Nicely said.

Nico wrote:

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

That's definitely something to be thankful for.

Smindas wrote:

If I ever start a metal band, I'm going to make sure the songs are absolutely killer and then go on stage in a banana costume every night.

This guy beat you to the banana costume idea already:

http://www.ccbanana.com/main/banana.news.htm

Fat Freddy wrote:

Smindas wrote:

If I ever start a metal band, I'm going to make sure the songs are absolutely killer and then go on stage in a banana costume every night.

This guy beat you to the banana costume idea already:

http://www.ccbanana.com/main/banana.news.htm

but i believe you can still be the first metal kumquat

No matter how much people deny it image matters, perception of a band and what and kind of people they are will always effect how someone feels about the music. That's just human nature. If there is a band who I think look like/are morons I try to get over it and take the music for what it is but sometimes that's hard. The thing that annoys me most is when a band don't seem to take themselves seriously on stage. It's not like I don't like the band joking around on stage and having fun, it annoys me when bands act just plain stupid and childish.

I was looking at a video once of a band called Killswich Engage (not really a band I'd be into anyway) and the guitarist was dressed in womans clothes for a whole concert for no reason other to get a chuckle out of the few people with such a juvinile sense of humor as to find a man in womens clothes funny.

A lot of power metal bands seem to act pretty childish too, which is ironic since I can't think of a genre less suited to this kind of idiocy. It sort of kills the epicness of Drangonforce's Through the Fire and the Flames when the singer decides to change the lyrics to "so we stand with our cocks in our hands". In the same manner it's hard to enjoy watching Edguy when at every chance the guitarists start miming jacking off or giving a woman oral sex for some reason. I might just be acting pretentious here but this stuff really bugs me.

Approval Guy wrote:

No matter how much people deny it image matters, perception of a band and what and kind of people they are will always effect how someone feels about the music. That's just human nature. If there is a band who I think look like/are morons I try to get over it and take the music for what it is but sometimes that's hard. The thing that annoys me most is when a band don't seem to take themselves seriously on stage. It's not like I don't like the band joking around on stage and having fun, it annoys me when bands act just plain stupid and childish.

I was looking at a video once of a band called Killswich Engage (not really a band I'd be into anyway) and the guitarist was dressed in womans clothes for a whole concert for no reason other to get a chuckle out of the few people with such a juvinile sense of humor as to find a man in womens clothes funny.

A lot of power metal bands seem to act pretty childish too, which is ironic since I can't think of a genre less suited to this kind of idiocy. It sort of kills the epicness of Drangonforce's Through the Fire and the Flames when the singer decides to change the lyrics to "so we stand with our cocks in our hands". In the same manner it's hard to enjoy watching Edguy when at every chance the guitarists start miming jacking off or giving a woman oral sex for some reason. I might just be acting pretentious here but this stuff really bugs me.

Where is the LIKE button? JEJE

i HAVE SEEN BOTH EDGUY AND DRAGONFORCE, and both are just like you said. I don't expect to see them again, not even for free.

Wait, power metal a genre not suited to acting a bit childish? I love power metal and all, but it is the epitome of over the top adolescent nerdery in a musical format. I've never really managed to get in to the power metal bands that take it super seriously, like Rhapsody. I feel there needs to be a bit of tongue-in-cheek about it to work - even Blind Guardian seem quite lighthearted about it at points. To that end, I've always found Dragonforce and especially Edguy to be great fun live. Tobi Sammet is a great frontman, both vocally and entertainment-wise.

Smindas wrote:

Wait, power metal a genre not suited to acting a bit childish? I love power metal and all, but it is the epitome of over the top adolescent nerdery in a musical format. I've never really managed to get in to the power metal bands that take it super seriously, like Rhapsody. I feel there needs to be a bit of tongue-in-cheek about it to work - even Blind Guardian seem quite lighthearted about it at points. To that end, I've always found Dragonforce and especially Edguy to be great fun live. Tobi Sammet is a great frontman, both vocally and entertainment-wise.

I like the light-heartedness, but there comes a point where it's just like a joke. I may be biased because power is my favorite genre (as in, most of my favorite bands are POWERFUL), but I don't want the genre to be seen as a thing for kids who like fast guitars and immature humor. It's silly enough to write a song about hobbits, but then to replace hobbits with penises is just... stupid. I'm all for songs about dragons, wearing a suit of armor on stage, and generally doing a live action Dungeons and Dragons game as your stage show, but there comes a point when goofing around on stage is just making yourself and your fans look stupid.

It might sound like I'm trying to make myself seem superior here, but that's not my intention -- I have my terribly immature moments, too, but I at least try to avoid putting them into my onstage presence, for at least the sake of making being in a band look like slightly less of a joke career, and at most of making myself not look like I'm 13.

I guess image does matter somewhat. I'd find it hard to listen to Pantera if they looked like Culture Club. Or if Phil looked like Wayne Newton…..
Having said that I love reading posts by forumers that link to youtube audio tracks of bands I've never heard before. (No video, simply audio)
If it sounds good I'll dive in deeper and really don't care what they look like. If the track hooks me, it hooks me. No misconceptions….
Do looks matter? I guess, but not much…...

Ya gotta admit, Dio singing "Cemetery Gates" or "Mouth For War" would be pretty bad-ass!

I think it all comes down to a balance. Image and aesthetics are important to a degree. A lot of my favorite bands - Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Motorhead, Dio, etc - all had their own unique image and artwork that hooked me when I was growing up. A lot of people will take an interest in an album if the album cover looks cool. There are some bands who don't seem to care what goes on the album covers or who handles the artwork, which I find pretty shocking. I think art is important because it can send a message to fans and casual observers what a band stands for, what kind of general atmosphere to expect from the music, an idea of their lyrical themes, etc. And hey, if it looks cool, you probably have a slightly increased chance of selling a few more copies.

With that said, if you have a cool image but the music sucks, then I'm out. Some bands are nothing but image, style over content, and I have no interest in that. On the other hand, there are a lot of bands that I listened to and loved for quite a while before I knew what they looked like.

So, great music first and foremost. If you have a cool image to compliment the music, then great.

I can agree image is important to a degree. I still think the music is the main thing though. I dont really care how long or short someone's hair is nor do i really care whether or not its leather or jeans.

I come down on the "could care less for image" side, but yesterday going through CDs at Goodwill what did I do when I saw something that might be interesting and I was unfamiliar with - open the booklet to check for photos of the band. Did that before checking the Thanks list. And there were a few I didn't get based on those band photos. So I can deny the importance of image for my listening but not when it comes to blind buying.

Image definitely plays a role to a certain extent: I mean, had it not been for Kiss's insanely original, awesome look, do you really think people in the 70s would have even given them a second thought? I mean, I love Kiss's music even more so than the makeup, but think about it...

jstate wrote:

I come down on the "could care less for image" side, but yesterday going through CDs at Goodwill what did I do when I saw something that might be interesting and I was unfamiliar with - open the booklet to check for photos of the band. Did that before checking the Thanks list. And there were a few I didn't get based on those band photos. So I can deny the importance of image for my listening but not when it comes to blind buying.

Oh certainly. I never make blind purchases unless there is something on the CD that indicates it's up my alley.

Image defintaely matters how you perceive Metal. Otherwise you could purchase MP3's. That's not for me - the covers, the packaging etc is an integral part of Metal, it's vibe and how I perceive it. I like how Doro Pesch makes sure her cover's are conceived, her box set's put up. I appreciate her taking care of herself and looking good still, although her voice and her songs are the most important thing. Same thing with any other band - the music will always be the most important thing, but to me, an album's artwork is part of any given music it contains.

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.

They cut their hair during the Load-era. I think people had more problems with their music by then. Not to mention Lars and Kirk wearing eye-makeup. If anything they were the ones action superficial. here's Hetfield's interesting take on it in 2009:

Classic Rock: Were you uncomfortable with the band's new image for "Load"?

Hetfield: Most definitely. Lars and Kirk drove on those records. The whole "We need to reinvent ourselves" topic was up. Image is not an evil thing for me, but if the image is not you, then it doesn't make much sense. I think they were really after a U2 kind of vibe, Bono doing his alter ego.

I couldn't get into it. The whole, "Okay, now in this photoshoot we're going to be '70s glam rockers." Like, what? I would say half — at least half — the pictures that were to be in the booklet, I yanked out."

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=121239

The hair cuts didn't bother as much as the fact that the band now had "stylists" that told them how to look. For 4 guys that just wore jeans & t-shirts and supposedly didn't care about image, that always rubbed me the wrong way. The Load & Re-load albums didn't help the situation.

I remember when I first saw Metallica with short hair and make-up on the cover of some magazine before the release of Load. I thought "WHOA!", but I was still excited about the album. It wasn't the fact that they cut their hair or even that they changed their style (I'll admit to liking a lot of Megadeth's and Kreator's '90s stuff), it was the fact that I didn't like the new music, plus the arrogant and out of touch attitudes they started copping in the press. The whole image change was just yet another ill-conceived idea.

If they had come out with a decent album, they could've worn mascara, had bad hair cuts and made-out in their photo-shoots and I wouldn't have cared at that time quite honestly.

jstate wrote:

I come down on the "could care less for image" side, but yesterday going through CDs at Goodwill what did I do when I saw something that might be interesting and I was unfamiliar with - open the booklet to check for photos of the band. Did that before checking the Thanks list. And there were a few I didn't get based on those band photos. So I can deny the importance of image for my listening but not when it comes to blind buying.

I'll admit that if I run across a band I'm unfamiliar with and if they look like they should be in a metalcore or screamo band, with either the stereotypical "br00tal" hardcore posturing or the "wears more make-up than my girlfriend, with New Wave hair gone terribly wrong" look, my interest does decrease a bit...

It goes down further if they have some sort of nonsensical pretentious name like I Am Crying In The Dark Corners Of Her Brutal Soul or whatever.

If I read enough decent reviews or if the name keeps popping up everywhere, I'll give it a shot, of course.

Image has 0% to do with whether I like a band or not. Focusing on image is detrimental to the music...and the more image applies, the more likely it's covering up for musical shortcomings.

I don't mind image, one of my favorite artist Alice Cooper, right down to his name, has alot to do with visual or images, but of course if the music was not able to back up the image then who cares. Image is part of the fun and appeal to some of these bands.

What made Twisted Sister fun band to watch live is because they looked like transvite linebackers, it helps the music was not bad.

S.D. wrote:

Image has 0% to do with whether I like a band or not. Focusing on image is detrimental to the music...and the more image applies, the more likely it's covering up for musical shortcomings.

that is the genuis of radio.

exact33 wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Image has 0% to do with whether I like a band or not. Focusing on image is detrimental to the music...and the more image applies, the more likely it's covering up for musical shortcomings.

that is the genuis of radio.

yep. Music should be "heard" and only judged by that.

I wonder if those stating image means nothing are in fact in bands themselves and are right ugly bastards and don't want people to be put off their albums lol!




(only joking)

S.D. wrote:

Image has 0% to do with whether I like a band or not. Focusing on image is detrimental to the music...and the more image applies, the more likely it's covering up for musical shortcomings.

It's easy to say that now, but I think we were all influenced by the imagery of rock and heavy metal at some point early in our formative years. Even if it slipped in subconsciencely as a kid, looking at the back of dad's album cover and thinking, "Wow, these guys look/dress cool or different. I need to see and hear more of this". Something grabbed your attention, be it the mustaches of Black Sabbath or the gypsy clothes of Hendrix or the nifty artwork of Roger Dean.



Guys by nature are more visually oriented. It's in our DNA or something.