Except for the big band where everyone is in a tux ('cause you can't get more dressed up then a tux, really), there's a big flaw in that logic. The Beatles' audiences didn't dress up in suits and ties to go to the show. Hendrix's 'hippy' style was WAY more flamboyant then almost certainly anyone in any of his audiences. Pick any one of the bands from that era, and I think (as a general rule), you'll find the same gap between the audience and the performers. Even in the punk era, the bands typically were way more 'punk' then the audience.
It's been pretty darn consistent through time that performers with a good, solid following always dressed up more then their audiences. True, there are exceptions, but they're the exception, and far and away not the norm.
Beatles Festival Hall Melbourne Audience 17 June 1964 - YouTube
Not the best footage, but around 0:48 and 1:26 you get a pretty good look at some male audience members from when the Beatles still played live. They're in jacket and tie.
Hippie era - sure, Hendrix was flamboyant. CCR were in blue jeans and flannel shirts.
Punk? the Ramones' "look" was blue jeans, t-shirt, black leather jackets.
Sure, there are always some musicians who stand out for a little more flamboyance and flair, whether it's a brighter zoot suit or Peter Gabriel dressing up like a flower. They stick in our memory because that kind of a stage act stands out. But it stands out because it is the exception and not the norm. The band is, to some extent, a projection of the audience, or the audience as it likes to imagine itself. Sometimes the audience wants pure fantasy and you get Liberace, or Alice Cooper. But most of the time the audience wants someone more or less like themselves - maybe a little snazzier, but basically recognizable as like themselves.
