|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:01 am
Has anyone noticed, these days a band mostly relies on the image of one or two members to attract fans?
A prime example would be (Sorry to there fans, but a lot of you know its true) My Chemical Romance, without the Way brothers, the bands quality would improve vastly (better song writing and vocals would be added in opinion) but they would slip into obscurity as the Way brothers gain more celebrity status. Same thing with Trivium or Funeral for a Friend or Lost Prophets, its not a very new trend I know, but it seems to be more and more prevalent in music, where looks and style come before musical quality (thats the record execs. view). With that in mind, how can music (mainstream, because the bands I listed are mainstream bands like it or not) crawl itself out of the slump its currently in? I don't see a way for this to be possible unless something drastic happens that kills off the current genre's (like Nirvana did with Grunge like it or not they did). But unless one of those front people get killed or goes suicidal, its not going to happen, and even then, there following is that, they would be a martyr and worshiped by people that weren't even alive when their lives were ended (something that seriously annoys me).
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:35 pm
True, a lot of recent bands rely on the attractiveness of the members... and yes, MCR's Gerard Way (I don't know who the other Way is) has a key factor in getting female fans.
Ville Vallo of HIM has a similar factor, I feel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Resurrected Writer- Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:34 pm
Unfortunately, it's nothing new. Record exec.'s have been bank-rolling trendy but talentless youths since Elvis.
Do you think the Beatles, who mostly produced vain pop ballads, would have gotten popular without their British charm and trendy haircuts? Though some of their work showed some true creative effort ("Revolver" in particular stands out), do you honestly think they were creative geniuses? No.
Flash forward 30 years. Guns 'n' Roses. Do you think they'd have gotten popular without unpredictable bad-boy Axl Rose or mellow "cool guitarist"-type Slash?
Ten years forward, again. Backstreet Boys. Decent singers, but there are far better out there. Did their pretty-boy faces and dances not affect their popular status?
And now, almost ten years after them, we have Gerard Way and Jared Leto, Pete Wentz and Billy Joe Armstrong; where are the Jimi Hendrix's and Morrisson's, the Ian Curtis'?. We have Snoop Dog and Lil' Jon; where are the Grand Master Flash's and DJ Kool Herc's? We have the Pussycat Dolls as the 70's had monotonous motown teeny-boppers; but what about Janis Joplin and Siouxsie Sioux?
As unfortunate as it is, image will always (and has always) been as important to mainstream consumption as the product itself. If the band has a pretty face heading it and catchy enough tunes to be listened to, they'll probably be picked up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:58 pm
GilAskan Unfortunately, it's nothing new. Record exec.'s have been bank-rolling trendy but talentless youths since Elvis. Do you think the Beatles, who mostly produced vain pop ballads, would have gotten popular without their British charm and trendy haircuts? Though some of their work showed some true creative effort ("Revolver" in particular stands out), do you honestly think they were creative geniuses? No. Flash forward 30 years. Guns 'n' Roses. Do you think they'd have gotten popular without unpredictable bad-boy Axl Rose or mellow "cool guitarist"-type Slash? Ten years forward, again. Backstreet Boys. Decent singers, but there are far better out there. Did their pretty-boy faces and dances not affect their popular status? And now, almost ten years after them, we have Gerard Way and Jared Leto, Pete Wentz and Billy Joe Armstrong; where are the Jimi Hendrix's and Morrisson's, the Ian Curtis'?. We have Snoop Dog and Lil' Jon; where are the Grand Master Flash's and DJ Kool Herc's? We have the Pussycat Dolls as the 70's had monotonous motown teeny-boppers; but what about Janis Joplin and Siouxsie Sioux? As unfortunate as it is, image will always (and has always) been as important to mainstream consumption as the product itself. If the band has a pretty face heading it and catchy enough tunes to be listened to, they'll probably be picked up. Exactly, the Beatles didn't get creative until solo projects took hold (save maybe the white album). As for Billy Joel, I love the fact supposed 'die hard' Greenday fans give me confused looks when I start singing 'Dominated Love Slave'. Even in metal (Straight heavy, not death or black which are image based), image has become very recently a main thing, bands like Breaking Point being over looked, because they don't have the preteen squeal inducing factor Trivium have (can't you tell I hate that band), and thusly, despite being superior, will never be as popular, same with Clawfinger, a much superior band that came out around the same time as Spineshank, but were overlooked due to not being as marketable as Spineshank (i like bot of those bands btw). And again, Rammstein, they would not be anywhere near as popular if they weren't German, its even played up as a gimmick to some degree. Where as it used to be, ugly people, making ugly music, about ugly things, now its who can scream about 'strange mountains' (obscure reference) the most whilst looking like a shaved chimp (another Trivium dig).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:47 pm
I think being a good showman/woman must be separated from image, true both are interlinked, but sometimes just having an amazing stage presence adds to a bands appeal (read; Freddie Murcury. Admit it, he wasn't the most amazingly beautiful man that ever lived, but he knew how to put on a show for a crowd, albeit in figure hugging lycra - part of his image).
But, onto image in true, to put it cynically, the alternative subculture is just as vain, judgemental, and inclusive as any other subcultre around. We like to think ourselves as above it all, but in truth, we're no angels. We will reject a band if they on't prtray themselves in the right way. Take the band the Gallows for example. Some of the band members fit the chav stereotype more then the rock/punk stereotype, so they were/are rejected on sight by many members of the subcultre (I'm obviously working on the assumption that they play competently. Which they don't.)
Would a metal band like Type O Negative get the same reception as they do if they turned up in Burbury and 9ct goth chains? In my honest opinion, I think they'd be bottled off stage. Piss bottled at that.
I'm not defending the new wave of image over music bands that are out there. A band that has a member that will wear a clip-on fringe is one that needs to see to perhaps downgrading their vanity.
As for MCR, I would like to hear them without the Way brothers, but its not going to happen because their record company would spazz out and refuse to sign them, while Mr. Way and Way would get a golden ticket for whatever the hell they want to do (though, more Gerard than Mikey). They're headlining Donnington this year. I'm considering turning up just to see the crowd's reaction to them. Sure, the kids up front would go crazy, but the rest? I think the sky would turn black from the sheer volume of bottles flying through the air. (its when someone crys "10 points for hitting Gerard in the head!!" you needs to wear waterproofs.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:49 pm
Rellik San bands like Breaking Point being over looked, because they don't have the preteen squeal inducing factor Trivium have (can't you tell I hate that band), They would have been fine had they not gained egos that must surely cause going through doorways a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:22 pm
Uh, right.
I'm not a fan of My Chemical Romance because of Gerard and Mikey Way's looks.
I like their music and I like who they are. And I know alot of girls who are the same way as me.
And I don't see why excluding the Way brothers, just because of getting some attention from their looks, would make the band all that better. In fact, they'd probably be the same without those two. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:41 am
Face of Decline Uh, right.
I'm not a fan of My Chemical Romance because of Gerard and Mikey Way's looks.
I like their music and I like who they are. And I know alot of girls who are the same way as me.
And I don't see why excluding the Way brothers, just because of getting some attention from their looks, would make the band all that better. In fact, they'd probably be the same without those two. neutral I'm sorry hun, but I'm going to have to voice some doubt here, a lot of a band's popularity depends on their frontman's appeal, whether they look good in press etc. Take Fall Out Boy for example, their singer alone wouldn't have garnered them much attention, however, with their bassist, who is more photogenic and attractive (no offence to the singer obviously, Izzie ain't too good looking herself so she gets to say these things xd ) as their representitive to the press,who gets more attention, they got far more publicity than is the singer had been in the limelight. I'm not just saying its bands like Fall Out Boy and MCR, its prevelent in all kinds of music, one of my favourite bands, Muse, has a frontman that is good for representing the band as well, (mostly because he's a nutjob, but that works for him) a band does need to have a certain image to gain attention for its self, to separate itself from the rest. Taking muse again, during their first album they were constantly compared to Radiohead, despite the two bands sounding nothing alike, because the press needs to have something to base their opinion on a band on, so they chose another idiosyncratic, slightly odd British band (Radiohead), to compare them to. However, by the time of the third album, Muse had forged their own image out and so there was no more need to compare them to other bands. (by album number four they are now known as the nutjob band that thinks there was civilisation on Mars xd ) So sometimes image does help a band, if to make it stand out of the crowd. .....so long as the band doesn't concentrate on that alone obviously (Muse, and in particular its frontman are very musically proficient, the dude can play Liszt and Rachmaninov for chissakes eek )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:27 am
Isobel Bellamy Rellik San bands like Breaking Point being over looked, because they don't have the preteen squeal inducing factor Trivium have (can't you tell I hate that band), They would have been fine had they not gained egos that must surely cause going through doorways a problem. That is quite true, but they shall be forever immortalised care of Rob Van Damme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:35 am
Isobel Bellamy Face of Decline Uh, right.
I'm not a fan of My Chemical Romance because of Gerard and Mikey Way's looks.
I like their music and I like who they are. And I know alot of girls who are the same way as me.
And I don't see why excluding the Way brothers, just because of getting some attention from their looks, would make the band all that better. In fact, they'd probably be the same without those two. neutral I'm sorry hun, but I'm going to have to voice some doubt here, a lot of a band's popularity depends on their frontman's appeal, whether they look good in press etc. Take Fall Out Boy for example, their singer alone wouldn't have garnered them much attention, however, with their bassist, who is more photogenic and attractive (no offence to the singer obviously, Izzie ain't too good looking herself so she gets to say these things xd ) as their representitive to the press,who gets more attention, they got far more publicity than is the singer had been in the limelight. I'm not just saying its bands like Fall Out Boy and MCR, its prevelent in all kinds of music, one of my favourite bands, Muse, has a frontman that is good for representing the band as well, (mostly because he's a nutjob, but that works for him) a band does need to have a certain image to gain attention for its self, to separate itself from the rest. Taking muse again, during their first album they were constantly compared to Radiohead, despite the two bands sounding nothing alike, because the press needs to have something to base their opinion on a band on, so they chose another idiosyncratic, slightly odd British band (Radiohead), to compare them to. However, by the time of the third album, Muse had forged their own image out and so there was no more need to compare them to other bands. (by album number four they are now known as the nutjob band that thinks there was civilisation on Mars xd ) So sometimes image does help a band, if to make it stand out of the crowd. .....so long as the band doesn't concentrate on that alone obviously (Muse, and in particular its frontman are very musically proficient, the dude can play Liszt and Rachmaninov for chissakes eek ) Actually, the best comparison for muse, would be 3 Colours Red, who muse supported when they were starting out. But I know what you mean, were there front man boring they would not have such a huge following, it does seem the cult of celebrity does affect the standing of a band. Despite what we might say against that, its true. As for the lime light, Could anyone imagine where Nirvana (yes the holy band that can do no wrong in public eyes rolleyes ) would be, were Kurt not such a pretty boy? They wouldn't have had half the impact they did and grunge would still have something of a standing in the music industry instead of just Pearl Jam and Sound Garden. They wouldn't have got half the press coverage they did, and lets be honest, compared to Alice in Chains, really weren't that good of a band (oh sorry, did I just blaspheme against alt. culture?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:15 pm
Gerard has a brother? o.O (You can tell I follow media closely. razz )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:19 am
shoe_trophy Gerard has a brother? o.O (You can tell I follow media closely. razz ) I only know because I own the emo guild (long story) so can't actually escape finding these things out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:42 pm
Rellik San Actually, the best comparison for muse, would be 3 Colours Red, who muse supported when they were starting out. But I know what you mean, were there front man boring they would not have such a huge following, it does seem the cult of celebrity does affect the standing of a band. Despite what we might say against that, its true. As for the lime light, Could anyone imagine where Nirvana (yes the holy band that can do no wrong in public eyes rolleyes ) would be, were Kurt not such a pretty boy? They wouldn't have had half the impact they did and grunge would still have something of a standing in the music industry instead of just Pearl Jam and Sound Garden. They wouldn't have got half the press coverage they did, and lets be honest, compared to Alice in Chains, really weren't that good of a band (oh sorry, did I just blaspheme against alt. culture?). *laughs* had backlash from the Nirvanawhores I take it? xd And I do agree with you, his good looks and quite enigmatic presence helped them, despite being technically outshined by other bands. (I must admit a severe preference for Alice In Chains, but is that because they were the metal side of grunge? xd ) As for boring frontmen though, look to the odity that is Keane. The frontman is boring, the other band members are boring, the music is boring. Ah, the power of middle-of-the-road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:17 pm
Isobel Bellamy Rellik San Actually, the best comparison for muse, would be 3 Colours Red, who muse supported when they were starting out. But I know what you mean, were there front man boring they would not have such a huge following, it does seem the cult of celebrity does affect the standing of a band. Despite what we might say against that, its true. As for the lime light, Could anyone imagine where Nirvana (yes the holy band that can do no wrong in public eyes rolleyes ) would be, were Kurt not such a pretty boy? They wouldn't have had half the impact they did and grunge would still have something of a standing in the music industry instead of just Pearl Jam and Sound Garden. They wouldn't have got half the press coverage they did, and lets be honest, compared to Alice in Chains, really weren't that good of a band (oh sorry, did I just blaspheme against alt. culture?). *laughs* had backlash from the Nirvanawhores I take it? xd And I do agree with you, his good looks and quite enigmatic presence helped them, despite being technically outshined by other bands. (I must admit a severe preference for Alice In Chains, but is that because they were the metal side of grunge? xd ) As for boring frontmen though, look to the odity that is Keane. The frontman is boring, the other band members are boring, the music is boring. Ah, the power of middle-of-the-road. Lol, no, not really, I just hate this whole 'Oh kurt was so great, why did he take the cowards way out' attitude of people that weren't alive when he shot himself. It seems he took the easy way out, and became this messiah. I hate that attitude of Nirvana fans. I agree, Alice in Chains are much better the Nirvana ever were. Or Travis or Coldplay... They are all the same, they all suck and they all sound the same to be honest. I'm not a fan, personally if you want middle of the road, you can't go wrong with 80's rock, everyone loves it. Stan Bush is a freakin' genius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:18 pm
Rellik San Lol, no, not really, I just hate this whole 'Oh kurt was so great, why did he take the cowards way out' attitude of people that weren't alive when he shot himself. It seems he took the easy way out, and became this messiah. I hate that attitude of Nirvana fans. I agree, Alice in Chains are much better the Nirvana ever were. Or Travis or Coldplay... They are all the same, they all suck and they all sound the same to be honest. I'm not a fan, personally if you want middle of the road, you can't go wrong with 80's rock, everyone loves it. Stan Bush is a freakin' genius. Lol, and if you ask them of an album other than "Nevermind" they draw a blank xd rolleyes *sigh* kids today. Just a damned pity they never got the attention they deserved. And a pity about layne. Damn that would've been an amazing set at Download if he'd been singing. Ah well. 'twas also amusing when I overheard someone ask "will the origianl singer be there?" ... I couldn't help myself with replying "well, they could, but that would bring Donnington to new lows." rolleyes gonk It damned well sends me to sleep! Its like a natural seditive to me xd but its not the nice, relaxing sleep I get with falling asleep to death metal, its a wierd horrible nightmare laden dreamland......stupid Coldplay and their devil music stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
