Having "a look" in metal.

ultmetal wrote:

Lurideath wrote:

That band is NOT metal!

Have you heard them? I've still not heard the CD but they are supposedly melodic death metal or some mixture of death metal and metalcore.

they are a christian metalcore band, which might explain their wholesome bookworm look. late night bible study can be tough on the eyes too.

they aren't bad though if you like metalcore.

I don't consider metalcore "metal" though. Never have. I don't get how people consider that style to be metal. I know its my own personal opinion, but still. Is it because "metal record labels" started signing this garbage a few years ago that people consider it "metal"?

[quote="mc666"]

ultmetal wrote:

Lurideath wrote:

That band is NOT metal!

late night bible study can be tough on the eyes too.

One of my son's friends. She doesn't wear prescription glasses.

chix w/glasses are hot though.

As someone who has worn glasses since 2nd grade, I'm almost offended that it's now "cool" to wear glasses even if you don't need them. Kids might not think it was so cool if they had to endure the teasing I did.

Oh, and this whole "metal look" is ludicrous in my opinion. Is anyone honestly going to tell me you wouldn't listen to a band whose music rocked your world just because of the way they looked??

Quote :

Is anyone honestly going to tell me you wouldn't listen to a band whose music rocked your world just because of the way they looked??

No.



At the end of the day, the music does matter more than the look, of course. However, I do not deny that the look IS important; just not nearly as much as the music itself. If I hear a band before seeing how they look, then it's a moot point. But I'll tell you this: if I see a band photo and they look dorky, nerdy, or whatever... in other words, not like a metal band, then I probably won't feel inclined to listen to them, since I don't think they'll be metal.

The look is definitely important from a marketing standpoint, to me.

Long before the "birth control" glasses became cool in metal, Drew Carey had been sporting them as a fasion statement for a very long time (he still wore them even after he got vision correction surgery in the late 90s). He got the glasses when he was in the Marines.

metalheaded wrote:

I could type a long, tedious post, but I won't. I'll just keep it short and direct.

A metal band needs to look the part: METAL. This pic Scott posted doesn't look metal (and ToB is right; their style probably isn't real metal, anyway). Without knowing what they were purported to play, I'd think they were a boy band. The only guy in that pic who looks somewhat metal is the one on the far right. My guess is he's the drummer. Other than that, the fact that they're all in black just kind of leans toward the possibility that they may play hard music of some sort.

Long hair isn't mandatory to be and to look metal. It helps, but it's not mandatory. Dress? Absolutely necessary. A metal band needs to dress 'metal'. Don't wear stuff not associated with metal and/or the metal image.

totally disagree. The whole point of metal is to be what you want and do what you want play what you want - being restricted by someone's definition of what metal is, which is subjective, goes against the doing it your way.

manny wrote:

I could careless about image, when I was kid for some reason it mattered, now that I am close to a hundred I could care less.

I remember in the early 80's, vocalist Graham Bonnet would get alot of crap from fans because he did not have long hair, when he was member of Rainbow and Michael Schenker Group, and for some reason it used to bother me also, but then I was only 13, and while he did not look like a rock star, there was no mistaking the power of that voice.

plus his taste in clothes was closer to Huey Lewis than Vince Neil.

ultmetal wrote:

One of my son's friends. She doesn't wear prescription glasses.

Do those even have Lenses?

ultmetal wrote:

One of my son's friends. She doesn't wear prescription glasses.

What's the point then?

Sometimes I wish life was like that movie "Ground Hog Day*. Everyday would be 1988. The only thing better about life now is the ipod/zune and the laptops and video games are better now.
Every thing else sucks now.

I dont think everything sucks now - 2011 may not be as good as 2010 or 2009 musically but saying everything else sucks is a bit of a generalization.

Quote :

At the end of the day, the music does matter more than the look, of course. However, I do not deny that the look IS important; just not nearly as much as the music itself. If I hear a band before seeing how they look, then it's a moot point. But I'll tell you this: if I see a band photo and they look dorky, nerdy, or whatever... in other words, not like a metal band, then I probably won't feel inclined to listen to them, since I don't think they'll be metal.

The look is definitely important from a marketing standpoint, to me.

Me too. I'm not ashamed to say it. Looks count. Not as much to me today as they did in the past, but I like to know what the band looks like. They should have a look that I've determined as "cool" in my mind. And if they don't meet up to those expectations I've set, sure, I'm a little disappointed. Will I still listen to the music? Sure. I wouldn't deny the band on looks alone. But I'll probably imagine them as much cooler looking in my mind.

Even bands that are just getting old now. When I listen to 'Paradise City', it's this guy that's singing...


Not whateverthehell this is...

Piet Sielck of Iron Savior may not look very "metal" but you can't argue with his musical output... that dude is metal to the bone.

And on the flip side of that, we have Nifelheim:



Yeah, they look "METAL"... but they also look kinda ridiculous too...

(not singling out this band in particular, cuz there are lots 'n' lots of others just like'em... just saying....)

On a side note, if we took this band and put'em on a long bus ride with the band Ult pictured in his first post, how long do you think it would take before the first punch was thrown?

Eh, to my father, these guys looked just as ridiculous to him as those "nerd" guys look to us...





It's just a generational thing I guess. What's cool about horn-rimmed glasses and stretched earlobes? I dunno, same thing that was cool about teased hair to the sky and frilly stage clothes.

yeaaaaah...that cinderella and motley crue pic are gaaaaaaayyyy and as unmetal as they come. I can't fathom why this look would be more accepted than the original photo in post #1.

Fat Freddy wrote:

And on the flip side of that, we have Nifelheim:

Those guys are trying too hard Sielk looks like a musician who just happens to play metal, which is probably the best way to go, all things considered.

Very true, I didn't think anything the 80's glam look, but oldest son and daughter , ( who's 20 and 17) think Motley Crue looked silly, but then my daughter thinks Black Veiled Brides look awesome, so what do I know.

sheets wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

And on the flip side of that, we have Nifelheim:

Those guys are trying too hard

Rest assure, these guys are 110% serious with the look!!

I never understood the 80s glam look to be honest. It sold a lot of mascara but didnt make the music any more or less metal.

exact33 wrote:

I never understood the 80s glam look to be honest. It sold a lot of mascara but didnt make the music any more or less metal.

Meh, that's just an example of the whole generation gap thing. I'm pretty sure my grandfather thought this guy was equally ridiculous in his own way...



"GET A HAIRCUT, HIPPIE!!"