stingraybassman Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1417013604' post='2616091'] # No, of course you don't. Thats why records don't have any artwork on them and why nobody has ever made a music video. Every single major musical movement of the last 60-odd years has had an image. Music intersects with art, fashion, photography and becomes part of something wider, it does not and it will not exist in isolation. The people who think "image isn't important" when it comes to making music are quite frankly kidding themselves on. [/quote] Nailed it! The band I am in takes a lot of time and money on appearance and image. Some might say its trying too hard, dare say those people dress pretty badly. Fashion is important, you will be judged on what you are wearing. [quote name='Funky Dunky' timestamp='1417011665' post='2616059'] Marketing is the devil's work, hence all these supposedly pretty teenagers in their skimpy clothing, hiding behind autotune while performing songs they didn't write. [/quote] Thats a little general I feel. Marketing fundamentally is just the same as it was 50 years ago. Obviously technology and media have changed, but the psychology is still the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) [quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1417014470' post='2616107'] I don't quite understand what point you're making. Regardless, classical music has a very strong image to it---its dominated by dinner jackets and suits for the gents, and dresses of some sort for the ladies. You won't find too many classical concerts where the conductor turns up in an iron maiden tshirt and some jeans from asda [/quote] ...which matters little when one closes ones eyes during the concert. I was just reacting to the point that image is all-pervasive. Yes, it exists, but in some (many..?) genres, it is less 'important', or rather brought to the fore, than others. Lady Gaga does not compare to Ravi Shankar in cosmetic terms. Much modern, disposable pop and rock is, indeed, sold on a visual level, but that is not the whole music world, that's all. Disclaimer: I'm an old hippy. Most of this crap was left behind in the '60s. We've just gone back again, that's all. Still, if it's important to some, who am I to criticise..? Edited November 26, 2014 by Dad3353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hubrad Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I work selling instruments. To me, the look of an instrument is the lowest priority, but I have to recognise that the look is often what makes someone pick the thing off the wall in the first place. Similarly, a band will usually try to have the right kind of image for their scene. Weddings are an interesting one.. pretty much any musical style, and unless it's a particularly raawwk wedding you dress at least fairly smart - only polite for one thing, and who wants a bunch of scruffs at their otherwise smart reception? (One ceilidh band I'm in has had complaints on this re a particular couple of members who insist on their jeans and tees!) True, it really makes no difference to the quality of the music, but it can surely make a difference to your bookings! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='hubrad' timestamp='1417016373' post='2616153'] I work selling instruments. To me, the look of an instrument is the lowest priority, but I have to recognise that the look is often what makes someone pick the thing off the wall in the first place. [/quote] IME all decent made instruments do the job equally well in my hands so I might as well go for looks first and foremost. Unless an instrument is particularly uncomfortable to play or sounds wrong in the context of my band, the choice will be based entirely on whether I think it looks right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1417013982' post='2616100'] You've not bought much from Deutsche Grammophon lately, I'd guess. [/quote] Deutsche Grammophon have one of the most distinctive looks of any record label. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer of the Bass Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1417013604' post='2616091'] # No, of course you don't. Thats why records don't have any artwork on them and why nobody has ever made a music video. Every single major musical movement of the last 60-odd years has had an image. Music intersects with art, fashion, photography and becomes part of something wider, it does not and it will not exist in isolation. The people who think "image isn't important" when it comes to making music are quite frankly kidding themselves on. [/quote] Agreed. Wearing ordinary, functional clothing and playing under plain lighting is as much of a calculated visual statement as wearing sequins and bringing a massive lighting rig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 One thing to be aware of is that many people don't have much imagination. If you are doing pub gigs people will see you and base their descision whether to ask you to do their wedding or big party a lot on how you look, perform, behave and sound. Can get pick you up and put you down into their function. They often don't have the ability, to imagine you in vastly different clothing. Play in scruffy trainers, tshirt and jeans and you won't bet asked. Play in a shirt and they might be able to make that leap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle psychosis Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1417014892' post='2616126'] Disclaimer: I'm an old hippy. Most of this crap was left behind in the '60s. [/quote] And the hippy movement didn't have an image? As for left behind in the sixties, I give you prog rock, disco, 2tone, punk, new romanticism, goth, rave, heavy metal, hip hop etc etc etc etc. All styles that have emerged since the sixties and all with a strong visual image. Sure, how you dress doesn't change what you sound like. But that doesn't mean that what you look like doesn't change how people perceive you or that it isn't important. Anyone who is serious about "making it"---or even just making money or getting good gigs---as a musician who doesn't consider their image is making a massive mistake. If you're not too fussed about either of those aims then knock yourself out but don't be surprised when its musicians that look the part who get the parts. Edited November 26, 2014 by uncle psychosis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funky Dunky Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1417013604' post='2616it of rme.91'] # No, of course you don't. Thats why records don't have any artwork on them and why nobody has ever made a music video. Eveusical movement of the last 60-odd years has had an image. Music intersects with art, fashion, photography and becomes part of something wider, it does not and it will not exist in isolation. The people who think "image isn't important" when it comes to making music are quite frankly kidding themselves on. [/quote] Sweeping generalisation. I speak for myself, and you can't do it for me. I have no interest in album covers. I look, sure, but it has zero influence on my opinion of the music. Videos are entertaining, arguably important, but I'm not talking about album art or videos in my response to the OP. I'm talking about appearance - personal appearance. Image. Clothing. Music does intersect with art, yes, but image does not influence my interest in a band or my enjoyment of their music. It is not important to me. That's what I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1417017260' post='2616175'] And the hippy movement didn't have an image? As for left behind in the sixties, I give you prog rock, disco, 2tone, punk, new romanticism, goth, rave, heavy metal, hip hop etc etc etc etc. All styles that have emerged since the sixties and all with a strong visual image. Sure, how you dress doesn't change what you sound like. But that doesn't mean that what you look like doesn't change how people perceive you or that it isn't important. Anyone who is serious about "making it"---or even just making money or getting good gigs---as a musician who doesn't consider their image is making a massive mistake. If you're not too fussed about either of those aims then knock yourself out but don't be surprised when its musicians that look the part who get the parts. [/quote] Carry on, then with the continuum of stereotyping. It's obviously of great importance. A shame for those that don't quite fit the mould but, whatever, as long as fashion is conserved, all is well, eh..? Hmm... [size=4] [/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UglyDog Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1417013002' post='2616078'] I'll also have done my hair[/quote] Cherish it while you still have it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1417018249' post='2616195'] Carry on, then with the continuum of stereotyping. It's obviously of great importance. A shame for those that don't quite fit the mould but, whatever, as long as fashion is conserved, all is well, eh..? Hmm... [/quote] But AFAICS there's a big difference between going against the grain in terms of looks (which is an image in itself) and turning up to play in whatever you threw on this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='UglyDog' timestamp='1417018385' post='2616197'] Cherish it while you still have it [/quote] I most certainly am, although if 40 years of styling, dyeing, crimping, straightening, brylceem and hairspray haven't caused it to fall out, I'm not really going to be worried about loosing it any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1417018550' post='2616201'] But AFAICS there's a big difference between going against the grain in terms of looks (which is an image in itself) and turning up to play in whatever you threw on this morning. [/quote] ... and all shades in between, surely..? Why this outrageous polarisation..? Does everything have to be one extreme or t'other..? I find it odd that 'ordinary' cannot be compatible with 'ordinary', as in 'ordinary dress' for an 'ordinary event'. Yes, glam-rock has its place (I suppose...), and I've shared a venue with 'Les Amis de ta Femme' who choose to end their set completely starkers (it, too, is a 'statement' of sorts, I suppose...). The 'ordinary' gigs I play, and most of which I played during my past career, did not have any fancy dress costume, nor did I deliberately 'throw my clothes on' to offend. I just turned up, did the gig with all the others and left. No big deal. Did we get re-booked..? Of course..! Are/were we special..? Good gracious, no..! Just ordinary. Still, if it's now wrong to be ordinary, I'll just accept being, once again, out of kilter. No big deal; I'm too old anyway. Some acts require costume, others do not. So..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BILL POSTERS Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) Heres my 2 bobs worth. Took me a good few years of gigging before someone told me, and the penny dropped. Your not up there to be ordinary, if you get on a stage looking ordinary, you aint doing it right. You need to cultivate a presence, and looking the part is an important ingredient. Most punters are tone deaf anyway, you can look good and play crap and often carry it off, but not the other way around unless your really exceptional EVERY time you do it.. No need to go over the top, you can dress like a tramp, a bus conductor, even Village People if you like. But dont look as if your going shopping. Edited November 26, 2014 by BILL POSTERS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle psychosis Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1417018249' post='2616195'] Carry on, then with the continuum of stereotyping. It's obviously of great importance. A shame for those that don't quite fit the mould but, whatever, as long as fashion is conserved, all is well, eh..? Hmm... [/quote] Who said anything about stereotypes other than you? You made a bizarre claim that the intersection of image and music had been "left behind in the sixties", I pointed out the vast number of musical movements that prove that to be untrue. As for "not fitting the mould"---that term can be applied to most of the great pioneers of music. They create new genres and new styles because the old one doesn't apply to them. Bands don't need to have a particular image, but they need [b]an[/b] image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_5 Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1417018550' post='2616201'] But AFAICS there's a big difference between going against the grain in terms of looks (which is an image in itself) and turning up to play in whatever you threw on this morning. [/quote] I've seen some bands that look like they rolled up in whatever clothes they wore yesterday and subsequently slept in. Pitiable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [size=4][quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1417022656' post='2616282'] Who said anything about stereotypes other than you? You made a bizarre claim that the intersection of image and music had been "left behind in the sixties", I pointed out the vast number of musical movements that prove that to be untrue. As for "not fitting the mould"---that term can be applied to most of the great pioneers of music. They create new genres and new styles because the old one doesn't apply to them. Bands don't need to have a particular image, but they need [b]an[/b] image. [/quote][/size] [size=4]"[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I give you prog rock, disco, 2tone, punk, new romanticism, goth, rave, heavy metal, hip hop etc etc etc etc. All styles that have emerged since the sixties and all with a strong visual image."[/font][/color][/size] [size=4][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]These are not stereotypes..?[/font][/color][/size] [size=4][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I was suggesting that the fixation about appearance (Can't judge a book by its cover etc...) was debunked in the '60s or so; not only in music but in real life, too. One no longer had to conform to a clean-cut image, one could be oneself.[/font][/color][/size] [size=4][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]If you say bands need an image, it must be true. An image of being ordinary has suited me for over 40 years. Not very exciting; just ordinary. It's an image as good as any other, isn't it..?[/font][/color][/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1417025068' post='2616322'] [size=4][/size] [size=4]"[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I give you prog rock, disco, 2tone, punk, new romanticism, goth, rave, heavy metal, hip hop etc etc etc etc. All styles that have emerged since the sixties and all with a strong visual image."[/font][/color][/size] [size=4][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]These are not stereotypes..?[/font][/color][/size] [size=4][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I was suggesting that the fixation about appearance (Can't judge a book by its cover etc...) was debunked in the '60s or so; not only in music but in real life, too. One no longer had to conform to a clean-cut image, one could be oneself.[/font][/color][/size] [size=4][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]If you say bands need an image, it must be true. An image of being ordinary has suited me for over 40 years. Not very exciting; just ordinary. It's an image as good as any other, isn't it..?[/font][/color][/size] [/quote] How ironic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='phil.c60' timestamp='1417014606' post='2616115'] ....you can't polish a turd but you can roll it in glitter. [/quote] And that's how we got One Direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1417025565' post='2616331'] How ironic. [/quote] Socratic irony, or just plain ordinary irony..? [size=4] [/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lozz196 Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I think an image is required, doesn`t matter what it is, so long as you all look like "the band". Take the guys in Grease, not a band, but they looked like part of the same crew/gang, and that is really what bands should be doing, getting an identity through visuals. Ok, our band image is nothing special, Fred Perrys, DMs and tight jeans, but for our genre it fits well, being punk/oi. Two of the three of us haven`t much/any hair, so the typical punk look wouldn`t be that good, plus we all wear Fred Perrys and jeans as regular clothes anyway so chucking in DMs isn`t that drastic a move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icastle Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 The glaringly obvious, and somewhat disturbing, thing that (I think) we've all missed, is that the t-shirts in the photo [b]might[/b] actually be skin tight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M@23 Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1416996268' post='2615787'] [size=4]The question should be '[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Why Don't [i]Some[/i] Guys Care About Their Appearance..?[/font][/color] The simple answer would be: 'because it's not important to them.' I'm one of them.[/size] [/quote] This is pretty much all there is to it, right?! Or am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 [quote name='M@23' timestamp='1417027416' post='2616365'] This is pretty much all there is to it, right?! Or am I missing something? [/quote] Yes. Why isn't it important to them? As outlined in most of the posts it's fairly important to the audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.