A Bands Image

This really doesn't matter, its the music that counts, but sometimes when I find a band either just by hearing a song or an album cover before seeing what they look like I have this image of them looking like a band. For example long hair, Leather Jackets (maybe), sometimes arm bracelet, things you know that most "metal" bands usually wear. Then when I go for a search about the band and I end up finding some pictures its nothing that I pictured at all and sometimes I'll feel like I was tricked, these guys are just a bunch of nerds but their music is really great. Bands now look totally different from way back when and some bands don't even look like bands, but just random people off the street posing as this cool new band you found.

When I was with Phoenix Reign and we would take pictures back when we first started I always cringed at how we looked because we didn't look like a band. After time we started to get our act together somewhat and we at least looked like we were a band. We didn't have long hair, hell some of us were even loosing our hair but we at least had the clothes to make everything work to a point where I was ok with it. If I was to have it my way with a new band I think I would stray from pictures and just let the music do the talking. If I ever play out live again thats something I would have to think of. I wouldn't want to wear costumes, face paint etc.

I was also thinking about this because of Ghost and a recent video of King Diamond singing with some band without his make up on. Supposedly the singer from Ghost is from the band Repuggnent and another band called Subvisions (and actually probably tons more) I've seen his picture and I don't picture him as being the singer from Ghost. If that ever gets officially revealed and even for the other members I think that would ruin the whole thing. It was also weird for me to see King Diamond singing without his make up and out of his usual outfit. Kiss went through the same thing but at the time they took their make up off it really didn't have any impact on me because I wasn't into them and was too young to care.

What do you think of though when you see a band for the first time after hearing their music. Do you still feel the same or a little let down?

i might have cared about such things when i was 12, but i'm in my 30's now. these things make no difference to me.

mc666 wrote:

i might have cared about such things when i was 12, but i'm in my 30's now. these things make no difference to me.

Exactly.

I think it matter to some people, not to others. Ultimatum have never looked the part. We've always had guys with short hair, guys with glasses, etc. We just did what we did. We tried to put on the best show we could and we tried to look the part best we could. There is something to be said for showmanship. However, what really mattered to us was the music we were creating.

I do see some bands these days and they look like the geeks that got beat up in high school when I was in school and I wonder when it became 'cool' to look like a nerd. Just a confession of an old guy I guess.

At one time, maybe, but that changed when I saw Pink Floyd on the Division Bell tour. Loved the music and the show, and the fact that they all looked like used car salesmen did not bother me one iota

It doesn't matter at all. Some people like to look the part, some people like to dress casual, whats the point in caring?

I think this is about the 3rd thread on this subject in the past month.

Yeah, it doesn't matter anymore. It might have in the past to get noticed, or to get people talking about you, but these days, the whole image barrier has been completely shattered.

Being as humble as I can be, I have short hair, wear band shirts on occasion, but not always and look just working class, and no one would guess that I've listened to/or listen to what I have and do currently, but my metal knowledge goes way beyond any passerby's imagination. That probably goes for most everyone here as well. (How many times have people asked what you listen to and after you tell them they seem shocked?) So image does not make the person/band in any sense.

I do think in a theatrical sense that image can be a big part. I don't think it has to be an everyday thing though. If I saw Blackie Lawless walking around in assless chaps, I'd be a bit concerned about his mental state. Goes for all the bands. If I saw Steve Harris just lounging in those god awful black and white striped spandex, I'd also want to call the funny farm.

PRD wrote:

When I was with Phoenix Reign and we would take pictures back when we first started I always cringed at how we looked

I wanna see some of those pictures.

As for the topic at hand... I'm like most of the other old farts here, I stopped giving a crap about what band members looked like a long time ago.

Doesn't matter to me at all assuming I've already heard the band.

By the same token, if it's a band I haven't heard, my decision to give their music a shot or not might be influenced by their appearance. Most likely not though as I tend to go read reviews of albums by bands I don't know.

I think band appearance was probably more critical in the pre-interweb days when information was much harder to come by. When you went into a record store (remember those?) and saw a random new release by a band you never heard of, your decision whether or not to purchase was often influenced by the way the band looked on the cover (or back cover).

With all the info available on the web today, I think the "look" of a band is waaaaaay down on my list of criteria that determine whether I buy their album or not.

You mean you don't first see how a band looks like, and only then decide if you want to hear their music?

Shocking.

Lari wrote:

You mean you don't first see how a band looks like, and only then decide if you want to hear their music?

Shocking.

Nope. Is that sarcasm I'm detecting?

S.D. wrote:

I think this is about the 3rd thread on this subject in the past month.

UH OH! I've been busted by the Thread Police! Forgive me officer, I sorry.

Fat Freddy wrote:

PRD wrote:

When I was with Phoenix Reign and we would take pictures back when we first started I always cringed at how we looked

I wanna see some of those pictures.

As for the topic at hand... I'm like most of the other old farts here, I stopped giving a crap about what band members looked like a long time ago.

LOL! I'm sure they are on the internet somewhere but I won't go and find them for you. I had long hair and weighed about 90 pounds more than I do now.


BTW I don't really care about what bands look like just more saying how things have changed where it kind of mattered at one point and bands had to dress a certain way. Nowadays its almost like you can't tell the difference between a death metal band or a rock band.

I think the image thing peaked during the '80's, due to the MTV. Visibility outdid musicalibility.

Not even the über-trüe metal movement was so hung-up on denim and leather until their mugs were plastered all over the TV screens.

Heavy metal at it's core is about the music. I don't care if Entombed wore pink jumpsuits in the studio when they recorded Left Hand Path. It's still my favorite death metal album of all time.

However, the live act of hard rock and heavy metal is crucial to its perseverance, and that is generally where band image comes into play. They should look the part, at least a little bit. For many of us, myself included, metal is a way of life, and naturally I want to eat, sleep, smurf poo, dress, and Smurf everything that is metal. Part of a band's essence is their ability to capture their fans visually through a projected image, logo, style, or mascot. Part of the charm of Judas Priest was Rob Halford's insistence on studded leather outfits as a way to create a tough image on stage and on their albums as a way to create the connotation between being a badass and listening to heavy metal. Iron Maiden took it a step further with Eddie, creating a beloved character that the fans could connect with and enjoy so the band didn't have to project their image in public as much, and instead, opted to wow the fans with a massive, theatrical stage show performance. Sometimes an image is more than dressing up, it's an artistic expression that serves as a companion to the music.

So, is image everything? Well, no, but it's quite close. Without the music, the image fails, but together, it is monumentally stronger and should be considered somewhat of equal importance.

Image isn't that big of deal as PRD and Ult alluded to, you need to look the part but you don;t have to go all out and create a crazy image. Honestly, if you are going to play Metal you aren't going to buy the clothes you wear on stage from Banana Republic.

You have to admit though, image can help sell records. I love Kiss, but there is absolutely no denying that their image was a big part of the reason they became as popular as they did. Alice Cooper, New York Dolls, Kiss, Twisted Sister, Slipknot, and the list goes on. Black Metal is all about image. Even thrash metal, though they claim not to care about image, had an anti-rock-star-image. Sure, it was denim vests, tennis shoes, black t-shirts and long hair, but that in itself is an image. There's nothing wrong with having and image and a spectacular stage show, as long as the music that goes along with it is good as well. If I didn't like Kiss' music, I wouldn't give a rip about their image and show. I don't really care for Slipknot's music, thus I don't care that they have a wild image.

to me there are band memebers that i have never seen on videos or concerts, just on the art of the cd's. so i don't even know how they look like, what matters in the end is a great album

Look a MAGNITUDE 9, or CARCASS. some of the members look like geeks, no one would have a clue those guys are from a band

Gene has gone on record saying that Kiss without the image and the show is essentially forgettable.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Gene has gone on record saying that Kiss without the image and the show is essentially forgettable.

KISS needed the image and the stage show for their target market. Their target market was kids...and they created that image to capitalize on that target market. There wasn't a playground in the U.S. that didn't have kids talking about Kiss, trading cards and stickers, buying comic books, arguing over which member was the coolest, etc.

It was a masterstroke of marketing, it made them the biggest band in the world.

Does that image really matter when the lights go off and you put Love Gun on the turntable? No.

S.D. wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Gene has gone on record saying that Kiss without the image and the show is essentially forgettable.

KISS needed the image and the stage show for their target market. Their target market was kids...and they created that image to capitalize on that target market. There wasn't a playground in the U.S. that didn't have kids talking about Kiss, trading cards and stickers, buying comic books, arguing over which member was the coolest, etc.

It was a masterstroke of marketing, it made them the biggest band in the world.

Does that image really matter when the lights go off and you put Love Gun on the turntable? No.

They didn't go after kids specifically til after Alive...all that crazy merch came after Alive hit so big. I don't think they began as a band that wanted to target kids...that marketing realization came later...they started out wanting to be something big, flamboyant and loud.

I heard KISS on an older siblings car stereo before I ever saw a photo. Liked them so image realy wasn't a factor to this kid. When I did buy an lp, my ol' man looked at it and said "Gee kiddo, KISS.....stands for Kunts in Sissy Suits"

I just experienced "image" being a dismissal factor in Montana of all places. So I guess in certain aspects, it does matter.

Well, in the early days of the band they weren't going to set the world on fire with their instrumental prowess...they NEEDED a gimmick.

S.D. wrote:

Well, in the early days of the band they weren't going to set the world on fire with their instrumental prowess...they NEEDED a gimmick.

instrumental prowess is meaningless to most if you cannot write a catchy tune