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>

I think the reason so many people accept shitty bands soley on the basis of being imagey is because there is a siege mentality regarding image. Having an image is a guarantee of NOT getting a recording deal, thanks to the media's terror of glam happening again. Ergo, a situation develops that encourages bands to be image and nothing else.

In the case of Robin Black, he was basically the sole representative of image bands, so it didn't really matter how good he/his band was. Notice that now he has gone towards a "stoner" shaded look, possibly to get the Nirvana-loving music suppressage behind him. The fans of The Ramones who control the media now would never let a band that came across as anything but nihilists even get recognition, let alone airplay.

As for me, I lean more towards Latin-Rock nowadays. Univision and the other Spanish networks still have variety shows which do have roqueros on them.I'm starting to get back into listening to Phil Manzanera again, he actually started out combining rnr with cumbia/merengue/et cetera. I'd like to see a new band do that and have a great image as well. they would have to do it through the Latin media, They might have to wait for any USA recognition, but that's the way life goes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JayForSure:
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.

---

<font size="4" face="Arial">Nope, never heard. I take it you would recommend I do seek it out?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JayForSure:

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.

---

<font size="4" face="Arial">I know they had an image back then, I was talking about how the guys that are still around (and up until recently were still around) look nowdays. Charlie Feathers = very little image in his old age. The Blue Caps, aside from all sporting the blue caps, don't really carry an image. The image that does exist still, might be a pomp (on those that still have hair) and a bowler shirt. But it is such a slight image, and no fan of Rockabilly would ever walk away from a great band or guitarist just because they didn't have an image. Example of modern Rockabilly "God" who backs up my "image not important to Rockabilly cats":

Deke Dickerson

Though I doubt very much that many diehard fans of the style would buy a Peppermint Creeps all Rockabilly album if they kept the image. [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img]

Since you two are talking about Latin-Guitarist.....This guitarist Johannes Linstead is one of my faves in that style...Check it out.

http://www.johanneslinstead.com/medi...ea/dialup.html

Also, another great guitarist is Alex Fox....I got the chance to see this guy in Miami. Annette had suprised me with taking me to a show of his....and the show was amazing!...He even autographed a guitar and gave it to me...relax!...not a real guitar...haha...it was a mini-signature guitar that comes in an authentic case...it's basically a guitar but mini size about 10inches long. Great guy...Great guiarist.

http://www.alexfox.com/mainpage.cfm

<font color="#FF0000" size="1">[ March 03, 2005 10:28 AM: Message edited by: A Katt Named Raggz ]</font>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Sleazy:
Look at the pics at our site CLAWS OF SIN http://www.clawsofsin.tk and you will understand our opinion about it... only the best of the best, the most beautiful, the most handsome... there's no room for the rest... Music is secondary

---

<font size="4" face="Arial">And that is the reason why I never visit that silly site. I take it then that you own some Britney Spears, since she is hot?

To go along with Cyber Toof aka Kenny.
BOD is a good example of a band looking cool only for their music to sound like crap.
Some bands that I feel fall in that category is Motley Crue...Motley had a cool image...but after 2songs of Vince's so called singing...I just couldn't deal with it...haha...Sorry Crue Fans...but Vince to me can't sing to save his life.
Okay...An example of a band with stupid image and crap music had to be KISS....haha...with Twisted Sister closely behind.
Another band with cool image yet music lacking has to be Hanoi Rocks. They looked cool...and me owning most of their stuff...I sometimse find their music lacking and Michael Monroe not really singing all that great.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by A Katt Named Raggz:

Another band with cool image yet music lacking has to be Hanoi Rocks. They looked cool...and me owning most of their stuff...I sometimse find their music lacking and Michael Monroe not really singing all that great.

---

<font size="4" face="Arial">[img]mad.gif[/img] [img]eek.gif[/img] [img]mad.gif[/img] [img]eek.gif[/img]

Take it back you stupid kitty, take that back RIGHT NOW!!!

LMFGDAO!!!...Carl ya crack me up man!
Ok Ok...sorry Carl...I take the Hanoi comment back...forget I even typed it...haha.

Carl, Phil Manzanera's solo work has varying degrees of Caribbean/"South of the Border"/Centro y Sud American influence. He has become an in-demand producer for those types of bands as well. His first, Diamond Head, is the place to start. It's available on CD with added tracks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Sleazy:
Look at the pics at our site CLAWS OF SIN http://www.clawsofsin.tk and you will understand our opinion about it... only the best of the best, the most beautiful, the most handsome... there's no room for the rest... Music is secondary

---

<font size="4" face="Arial">I've never been able to even access that site.

I VOTE WE BAN RAGGZ 4/EVER !!!!!

PLEASE TELL ME YOU MEANT MICHELLE SHOCKED INSTEAD OF HANOI ROCKS .... MAN ... I GUESS THIS MEANS WE CAN NO LONGER BE FRIENDS LOL .. YA JERK !!!

Kenny Man...Don't friggin' make me drive to Houston and tell Joe Leste' your thieving secret....LMFAO!!!

<font color="#FF0000" size="1">[ March 03, 2005 06:59 PM: Message edited by: A Katt Named Raggz ]</font>

Quote:

---

Some bands that I feel fall in that category is Motley Crue...Motley had a cool image...but after 2songs of Vince's so called singing...I just couldn't deal with it...haha

---

<font size="4" face="Arial">Heeey, Ok personally I'd like Crue even more if Tamie Downe did vocals, but still gotta love Vince, I think a Better example is Poison, they STOLE their best song from another band, their best musician is CC Deville, they turned down Slash, just because he didnt like look a girl. That is why apart from the first album, they suck.

... I'd also disagree with ya on Hanoi & Twisted Sister, no offense to Dee.. but they have to be one of the worst looking bands ever, but one listen of Under The Blade had me as a fan forever... i DO however agree with you on KISS, how can a band look so cool, yet sound so boring??

Quote:

---

only the best of the best, the most beautiful, the most handsome... there's no room for the rest... Music is secondary

---

<font size="4" face="Arial">I'm sorry but that has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read on a board, its MUSIC, not modeling, if I wanted to check out a bunch of guys, id change my sexuality and hop on over to hotdudes.com

When your alone relaxin in your room, listenin to CDs, its the MUSIC thats the focus not how attractive the guys are, in the words of Tommy Lee, "Thats Wack".

I wasn't talking about Latin guitarists. Django was a gypsy, and I he hailed from France. No Latin there. [img]wink.gif[/img]

Look at the pics at our site CLAWS OF SIN http://www.clawsofsin.tk and you will understand our opinion about it... only the best of the best, the most beautiful, the most handsome... there's no room for the rest... Music is secondary

Music is the most important to me.However I would't go to see an 'ugly' non-image band live,unless if their show was real spectacular (which I doubt if they cant even be bothered with looks).So yes, I'd buy a cd on music alone,but if they also got the looks and the image,then we really talking!!!To have them both=Heaven!!Name is not that important to me.

Music first always but music and a great image is a good marriage,for sure.


Roxx gang rules!!!! \m/

Music first always but music and a great image is a good marriage,for sure.


Roxx gang rules!!!! \m/