As a female, I would suppose, more women than not, would agree, that image matters.
Since I am one of those outlier females, the music is far more important, to me. If there is an attractive member in the band, that is just icing on the cake.
I know some may not believe me, but since my old neighborhood in Brooklyn, was one of the last, to get cable, I was a fan of John Sykes, sometime before, I even knew about his appearance. Then, when we finally got cable, and I saw the video for Slow N Easy on MTV, my mind was blow. I immediately wanted to acquire many posters/images of him, for my walls. 🙂
Regarding image in general, I think some of the 80s “fashion,” were quite tacky and cheesy. I always reference Cinderella‘s Night Song, and Dokken‘s Under Lock And Key, covers as reference. Many times less is more. Luckily, both albums are great, so the music, more than makes up for, the less than stellar “image.”
12 Responses
100% it matters. Not to be confusing, the music matters most. But image is very important too. You have to stand out. That doesn’t necessarily mean you have to dress up like Kiss, but you should be able to look good enough for people to say that guy or woman must be in a band.
A band with a great image and terrible songs is still a terrible band. So music first, image secondary – or tertiary.
(I just wanted to say “tertiary!”)
An example of image matters…
If Rob Halford doesn’t walk into the S & M shop in Soho in the late 70’s, do we have the Leather and Studs look that is associated with
Heavy Metal? Judas Priest were trendsetters for that look then & many other bands soon followed suit. An iconic look for an iconic genre…
Hi Scott,
Not sure that biker image was the best, but it was way better than the Turbo get ups-LOL!!
if you are a teenager, image matters a lot because the music is a manifestation of this attitude/look you are putting across…then you get older and the music is what matters: not a performer who is playing a role/acting, v. someone who has to make music and writes from the heart; its commercial appeal notwithstanding. Image should always just be a bonus to the music. Music is the only thing that matters; final answer.
LOL!! I think the long, sometimes bleached hair, was a statement, unto itself. I did not appreciate, the clashing animal print spandex, along with the hair, coupled with all makeup, and jewelry. Perhaps even getting rid of the animal prints, would have sufficed? But all of it, in my humble opinion, was far too busy, and tacky, to work.
I liked more of the stripped down look: Jeans, long hair, rock shirts, an earring, maybe a belt?
There were only two bands, that I thought did the “over the top” glam well, and that was Mötley CrĂĽe (sorry minus Mars’‘ Morticia Adams/Elvira look), in their Shout At The Devil era and Poison.
you didn’t like Mick Mars’ look? the first time I saw Motley Crue was in Circus, and it was the front cover for Too Fast For Love…so I get to the record store…(i said this on here, but here it is again…lol) and I had Krokus One Vice at a Time, Maiden Japan, British Steel records under my arm, and I’m looking at Too Fast For Love’s back cover, and these guys just looked so ridiculous to me that I almost didn’t get the record…..but I got it, and was very pleasantly surprised
Music is all that really matters. Usually artists who heavily rely on image have corresponding poor music. If your music is amazing, it does not matter what you look like. Image can help but only after the music is there.