1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Somebody tell me I'm right...

Discussion in 'Band Management [BG]' started by Garrett Mireles, Mar 4, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ok, I had an argument with somebody on AIM.

    He was saying "Nah dude image is nothing. It's all about the music. Who cares what you look like."

    So I said, "Who cares? Everybody. Would you want to headbang to a band with 600+ lb transvestites? i wouldn't. Image Lemmy Kilmister with a Musicman Stingray slung down by his knees. Look funny eh? If you want to make it far, you have GOT to have the image. Of course the music comes first, but you have to look the part."

    Am I right or what? Music first, but you still have to look like rockstars.

    He's so hardheaded... :rolleyes: :D
  2. Christopher


    Apr 28, 2000
    New York, NY
    Depends on the music. Like Janeane Garofolo, I've observed that the sophistication of the music is inversely proportional to the attractiveness of the performer.

    If you suck, you gotta distract the audience with something. If you're a genius, you can look like, for example, Itzhak Perlman.
  3. I don't think image is essential, but it helps a lot.
    see Kiss, Marilyn Manson, Milli Vanilli:p

    I'd say successful artists who don't look good are the exception.

    at the moment in the UK there's a band called Turin Brakes in the charts- they have no image as far as I can see- they look like a bunch of fat beardy students.
    Radiohead don't really have much of an image either- Thom Yorke looks odd and twisted, but that's it.
  4. Turock

    Turock Supporting Member

    Apr 30, 2000
    Although not 600 lbs, Alice cooper and David Bowie are a couple of guys that did very well as transvestites.
  5. Crowbar aren't transvestites, but must be close to 600lbs.
  6. Heh heh, japanese video game soundtracks. Video game manufacturers are spending millions of dollars on producing soundtracks and make billions of dollars from sales.

    I know who the composers are but I don't care what they look like because they write some awesome music (for real instruments too).

    That being said, for live music, image is important if your audience doesn't play. The dude has been a musician for too long and has forgotten how other non-musicians experience music.
  7. moley


    Sep 5, 2002
    Hampshire, UK
    I'm afraid I'm with the other guy on this one, Garrett.
  8. Yeah but you see, they have <mystique>image</mystique>

  9. Matt Till

    Matt Till

    Jun 1, 2002
    Edinboro, PA
    Yeah, I'm on the other guys side too. If you want to have an image, that's fine, but images fade away. You won't look so cool as an old man wearing your slipknot masks and with your bass to your knees (you might throw out your back). A loyal fanbase, and I mean LOYAL come from the music, not how you look. Lets face it, Rush's "Image" is to be dog ugly. And they've got a huge following.

    I know what your thinking, Rush is from ages ago :D What about today. You wouldn't be mainstream sucessful, but what defines sucessful. And underground following might occour if your good... or how about this... your happy knowing your are making music as YOURSELF not some geek in a mask or makeup.
  10. Wownirvana


    Jul 7, 2002
    Athens, GA
    I'm with ya on this Garret. I mean how many ugly bands do you see on MTV? Image isn't everything but it definitely counts.
  11. RiCKdoesntTrip


    Aug 16, 2002
    If any one was wondering, I am the person with whom Garrett was arguing about image. He sed that having girls in my band isnt cool, and that no one would take us seriously!

    I have the whole conversation saved on my computer. I think he is a little sexist, though he says hes not, and i have gotten over his shallow outlook. (just kidding, G man!) we are still friends, but dude, i am right about this image thing.


    By the way, im not hardheaded, man.
  12. I think the bottom line on this one is that image matters to certain fan bases, and not others. All people are different, and a lot of people go out of their way to make sure they're different. So in other words, teenybopper girls are more likely to be suckers for image, whereas grunge fans (are there still grunge fans?) are all about the non-image, and just about the music.

    But then again if you think about it even the 'non-image' is an image. So I changed my mind, here's the new theory--everyone and every band has an image whether you try to have one or not, it's just a matter of do you want to change your image to match someone else's tastes or are you going to be yourself...? We all wear our clothes and hair in a certain way, and we therefore present ourselves in a certain manner. It might be a boring, yuppy manner, or it might be a wild, punk manner, but the fact is they're both images.

    So I say be yourself and you can't go wrong. The sincerity and confidence will come through and the people that like your music will be able to relate to you better.
  13. [​IMG]

    Indeed...image is nothing.

  14. Wownirvana


    Jul 7, 2002
    Athens, GA
    Since when is having girls in your band not cool? Everybody likes bands with the ladies in them. The guys like to look and the girls are all "rraaaaa that is so cool" or something like that. I say if they are good musicians and you get along then go rock it and screw anyone says you won't be taken seriously. If they don't respect your band because it isn't all guys then they are moorons.
  15. moley


    Sep 5, 2002
    Hampshire, UK
    Did he say that?

    Garrett, you're gettin' a rolleyes for that one...

  16. yoshi


    Jul 12, 2002
    England, London
    Thats their image - no image.

    Wow, A level media studies finally paid off...wait a minute, no it didn't.
  17. pkr2


    Apr 28, 2000
    coastal N.C.

    The last sentence of your post says it all: trying to "look" like a rock star makes you look absolutely stupid unless you have the talent of a rock star.

    If you have the talent of a rock star the image will take care of itself.

    Anyone can get away with flubbing a chord change and the only listener that will even notice might be another musician. Go out on the stage and start doing obviously rehearsed leaps and jumps with mediocre musical ability and everyone in the audience will recognize that you are purely and simply a POSER.

    Bands and musicians are never remembered for phony looking enthusiasm. They are remembered for thier music.

  18. thrash_jazz


    Jan 11, 2002
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Artist: JAF Basses, Circle K Strings
    In rock, maybe. But I'd say it's more of an attitude thing than anything - Mick Jagger and Steven Tyler, for instance, are butt-ugly, but it's their attitude that does it for them. (and good tunes)

    In some other genres, thankfully, people focus on the music more than the image.

    Almost all of the bands out there today that are based purely on image have no staying power. As PKR2 says, nobody will remember them in ten years.

    I think the best bands have both good music and good stage presence.

    He sed that having girls in my band isnt cool, and that no one would take us seriously!

    Careful. If he said that to you on AIM, that's one thing, but he hasn't said anything of the sort here yet.

    Folks, bear in mind that opinion is one thing, but there will be no tolerance of any sexist remarks.

    Have a nice day :)
  19. RiCKdoesntTrip


    Aug 16, 2002
    Don't you think he left that little detail out on purpose? If he wants to deny it, thats fine, i know it very important to have popularity on an internet message bored, :rolleyes: But the whole image thing stemmed from the fact that girls were in my band.

    Garrett, im not going to argue about this with you, but u said to me "if there was a scrawny chick playing bass with slayer" that you woudlnt "bang your head" to it, to which i replied "as long as the music is good, i dont care who's playing it". It seems to me like you NEED "the image" in order to be satisfied. LIke the music just doesnt cut it for you. Thats just not how it is with me.

  20. You guys (and girls) only have to look at what I call the "vapid 80's" to see how far image will get you. From the beginning of the decade, MTV promoted image over substance and people bought it like there was no tomorrow. That was fine for 10 years but there is little to nothing to show for it now. Look at the musicians that were hip and popular because they looked good - hair bands come to mind. The most you'll see of any of them are tired reunion tours. Then there's the groups like Duran Duran, the Go-Go's and other "pretty" acts. Their image carried them as far as it could but their lack of substantial talent and music to stand the test of time left them flat. Another good example of how it's the music that can carry you is Bruce Hornsby. Probably one of the homliest performers on the planet but nobody can argue his musical talent as a player and composer. I think his popularity began towards the end of the 80's and was likely fueled by the audiences need to hear something worthy. That's why he's still around and Poison can only fill a third of the old venues capacities with 35+ year old women trying to get their groove back.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page