How important is a bands image to you? Image vs name vs the music.

I have no idea where this is going but......

Just wondered how many of you have ever considered the bands you like in terms of their music, their image or their songs and how important each is to you ie one more than another or the relationship between all 3?

To me, image is really important as its part of the visual impact that glam has eg big hair and extravagent clothes.

But if a band looked good and its music was crap, I always found it difficult to get into them, regardless of how good they looked. So I guess for me the two have a big weighting.

What the weighting is, I've never really thought about. For me it must be the music first and foremost but I have bought an album on the basis of the cover alone sometimes without even hearing the songs. Admitedly some were shit albums.

Finally - what's in a name. I've always liked the glam names like Heart Throb Mob, Guttersluts, Alleycat Scratch, Pretty Boy Floyd basically anything interesting, glam, trashy or sleazy. If I hear of a band name which makes me cringe, for me that band is blacklisted. I also can't stand names that make me cringe.

Mix all 3 of the above ingredients and come out with something that scores highly in all 3 and you'll probably find it is one of my favourites.

Now I have no idea what the purpose of this post is - perhaps I have straightened something out in my own mind by just writing it.

Just wondered how important these things are to others here and if they have something that influences them? Do you rate one more than the other and if so, then why?

Music is most important by a million miles.

If they look cool but their songs suck ass, they might aswell not even be a band.

Its nice to have the total package, image and music.

Name is insignificant, unless they have a really stupid name like Limp Bizkit.

This question is almost as old as the "is Glam gay" topic. LOL!!!

Quick answer, image matters not at all to me anymore. Maybe, once upon a time, but now it is all about the music. I've posted incredible bands on this site before, and I have been replied to with "I went to the page, but the band looked like shit so I didn't listen" too many times before. I can't believe nobody on this site raves about Riverboat Gamblers like I do, and it is because nobody will check them out, due to them not having an "image". But in all reality thier album "Something to crow about" has a TON of songs that would be Glam anthems if they only wore make-up and had dyed hair.

In all honesty, I think the Glam community has it's head up its own ass in the ways that any band is accepted just because of the image. I have yet to see a band kicked out due to being shitty. There is a newer band out there now that is friggin' TERRIBLE, but they have an image and everybody loves them. I can't understand it as every aspect of the band is shit, except for the look. I think the Glam community is so desperate right now, that it will accept anything that sounds and looks Glam, and it will embrace it.

Maybe in those ways I am being defiant, but for me, the music is all that matters. I would rather a band LOOK like NWA and sound like T-Rex on "The Slider", than be Roxx Gang.

I first stumbled onto Roxx Gang by the front of the things you've never done before cover. I have brought albums on covers alone and some have been crap so I agree a think it is a little mix of all 3 and you are about there

carl...you knew I would chime in on this topic...haha.

With me, Music and Image have to be 100% equal and the priority of being in the music biz. You better believe that if a band is looking to get signed by a label...The label will have them get their act together if they had no image...That's just the way it is. I do agree that a band could look cool, only for the listener to be turned away by their crap-music.
With me...I'd rather go see a band with Image and Music in the Flash-Department. I would rather see a band like that than see a band walk on stage with jeans and a t-shirt...Even if their music was good...I could deal with it, but I would probably walk away after a few because there was no flash. Well, That's how I feel about it.
As for the band name, I feel a band should have something that one will remember. Something catchy always tends to catch my eye...or a band name that's clever.

And to Carl....
ROXX GANG Kicks Ass!!!!...haha.

<font color="#FF0000" size="1">[ March 02, 2005 10:35 AM: Message edited by: A Katt Named Raggz ]</font>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JayForSure:

As for me, I lean more towards Latin-Rock nowadays.

---

<font size="4" face="Arial">Yeah, I think that is more of it for me nowdays also. Currently I am mainly only listening to solo Jazz guitar, Rockabilly, and Gypsy guitar stuff, so the image doesn't really matter too much. Most older Rockabilly cats don't carry an image anymore. Well, unless my Dad also has an "image" that is bankable with the music industry.

Though, Django Reinhardt did have that period where he wore the eyeliner, lipstick and strutted around in PVC.

<font color="#FF0000" size="1">[ March 02, 2005 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Carl I. ]</font>

Django, great guitarist. To play like that with a small amount of fingers, very inventive.

Have you ever heard any of Phil Manzanera's latin-influenced solo work? Diamond Head, where the band by that name pilfered it from, was great in that area.

I guess I'd like to have a Latin-Funk-Metal band. Not like the garbage you see with the stupid hand gestures and the fucking kerchief around the forehead, that's hiphop. I'm thinking more like Prince with more input from Sheila Escovedo, combined with a sort of trad Latin big band, plus a suited up glamish image. I forgot, I'd need a few women to do backups and to solo once in awhile.

The older rockabillies actually had images. Elvis, Billy Riley, Jerry Lee. Now, the pressure on young bands to look like "thugz" is so great, I doubt that many would try otherwise.

Both are very important .. Im on both sides of the fence on this ala two examples .
Brides of Destruction - cool image ... half a song and im Puke'n
Peppermint Creeps - Image is Awesome ... Musicianship is lacking .. i myself like ..all my friends think they are a joke.
Brides .. i wouldnt accept a free ticket
Creeps .. I'd pay 100 dollars easily

Its Who the Band is as well .
Original PBF awesome
PBF size does matter - crap
gnr - Slash - awesome
gnr - buckethead - crap
ezn - donnie -awesome
ezn monaco - crap
etc .

Name is also important ... If Chip z Nuff , Tommy lee , Kerri kelli , and Michael Monroe came out with a cd i'd be stoked as hell ... but if there name was the Jack-Off Monkeys from turdsville .. i think id pass .

[B]<font size=3 color=purple>Why do I suddenly picture SCTV's Martin Short doing his Jackie Rogers Jr. character ? <img src="http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif"

The Beatles 'had it all' (looks, songs, swagger,
celebrity, etc.) at the time. They're only really
respected for their music/art - the rest is just
iconography for cultural pundits to ponder over,
or retro-fueled middle-agers clinging to the last
vines of quickly fading halcyon memories in the
dank halls of the cabaret circuit (for Americans:
downtown Vegas?), as Mistress Time's travails
take their toll.

I think style (or fashion, or looks, or whatever
you want to call it), like technology, has an
inherent short-term life expectancy, so why be-
grudge any fashion (or influential) evolution of
glam bands when one is more than eager to run out
and buy the latest gadget to listen to them on?

Has freshness itself become dated? (This sounds
like a turdy Sex and the City-esque pseudo-phil-
osphy type proposition? Ohhh, the horror!)

D.
http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affili...88x31/take.gif

<font color="#FF0000" size="1">[ March 02, 2005 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Deviant D ]</font>