Your Band's IMAGE. What works, what does'nt?

[walrus1]

It's the same exact mentality. The "why" of both is to project a particular image of a band to their target audiences and venues. Both with the expected result of being a more successful band as a result. Something tells me that Joey Ramone and all his Ramone "brothers" would have been among the very foremost defenders of the idea of dressing properly for your gig. The whole "anti-conformity" argument pretty much goes out the window once you all start dressing alike....

 

 

It's not the same mentality at all. Telling someone not to wear cargo shorts or to wear a button down collared shirt instead of a t-shirt so they can look more "professional" or "neat and tidy" or whatever is corporate bullcrap. That's completely different from what the Ramones or any punk act did. Again, the point isn't that they are all "dressing alike." It's WHY they're doing it. If you don't get that, then you just don't get it.

[Vito Corleone]

It's not the same mentality at all. Telling someone not to wear cargo shorts or to wear a button down collared shirt instead of a t-shirt so they can look more "professional" or "neat and tidy" or whatever is corporate bullcrap. That's completely different from what the Ramones or any punk act did. Again, the point isn't that they are all "dressing alike." It's WHY they're doing it. If you don't get that, then you just don't get it.

 

 

I already explained to you WHY they were doing it. For the same reason as the cargo shorts band: because they believed that dressing a particular way was good for their image and would result in a more successful band. Now while it's up for debate whether any particular band may be doing it correctly, the "why" isn't debatable. They are doing it because they believe it will make them more successful.

 

That you are so caught up in the "corporate/anti-corporate" debate is only evidence of how GOOD The Ramones were at their presentation and their schtick and how much you bought into it. But WHY they dressed the way they did is, at the core, no different from WHY The Village People dressed the way they did at roughly the same time.

[Vito Corleone]

It's not the same mentality at all. Telling someone not to wear cargo shorts or to wear a button down collared shirt instead of a t-shirt so they can look more "professional" or "neat and tidy" or whatever is corporate bullcrap.

 

 

And if one of the Ramones showed up for that photo shoots in cargo short and a button down shirt and the band told him to put on his jeans and leather jacket and to look less neat and tidy..what would THAT have been? "anti-corporate bullcrap"??

[walrus1]

I already explained to you WHY they were doing it. For the same reason as the cargo shorts band: because they believed that dressing a particular way was good for their image and would result in a more successful band. Now while it's up for debate whether any particular band may be doing it correctly, the "why" isn't debatable. They are doing it because they believe it will make them more successful. That you are so caught up in the "corporate/anti-corporate" debate is only evidence of how GOOD The Ramones were at their presentation and their schtick and how much you bought into it. But WHY they dressed the way they did is, at the core, no different from WHY The Village People dressed the way they did at roughly the same time.

This guy just won't quit.

Do you know what art is, or culture? Or style? Dockers and the "no cargo shorts" mentality are advancing none of that.

But again, it's not about the what. If some band ironically started all dressing in dockers and bow ties, it could be interesting, depending on the context.

Iow, maybe they are doing it because they think it is COOL? Did you ever think of that? Apparently you are so lost in your corporate suck-cess mentality that it's the only thing you can think in terms of.

[JoeDirt]

It's the same argument that people that get tats use. "To be unique and express myself". If everyone and their mom has tats (and they do these days) then what is so damn unique about it?

 

The Ramones pic cracks me up though, they look like their agent bought their clothes and dressed them.

[walrus1]

It's the same argument that people that get tats use. "To be unique and express myself". If everyone and their mom has tats (and they do these days) then what is so damn unique about it? The Ramones pic cracks me up though, they look like their agent bought their clothes and dressed them.

 

 

Probably did. But that's not really important. The point is that they created a highly stylized look and made it iconic. They added to and changed culture.

 

That's completely different than saying, "don't wear a t-shirt because we want to look 'professional.'" Two different mentalities.

[Vito Corleone]

This guy just won't quit.

right back atcha

Do you know what art is, or culture? Or style? Dockers and the "no cargo shorts" mentality are advancing none of that. But again, it's not about the what. If some band ironically started all dressing in dockers and bow ties, it could be interesting, depending on the context.

So now you're just arguing with yourself it seems. You're right about one thing, though: it's the context. And the context for both The Ramones dressing the way they did and The Village People dressing the way they did was the same.

Iow, maybe they are doing it because they think it is COOL? Did you ever think of that?

I think they did it more because YOU thought it was cool rather than what THEY personally thought about it. They were selling a product. Hence the need for a photo shoot and getting dressed up for it.

Apparently you are so lost in your corporate suck-cess mentality that it's the only thing you can think in terms of.

You can't even see when you're being sold a product. Let me guess--you think Frosted Flakes are you good for you because they are Vitamin Fortified.

[Vito Corleone]

Probably did. But that's not really important. The point is that they created a highly stylized look and made it iconic. They added to and changed culture.

And that they did that by dressing like every other wanna-be "punk" in NYC in the 70s doing a similar take on the 50s "rebel" look means....what? Sounds like conformity to me.

 

Of course, they did it better and more stylized than any of the others and therefore were more successful than the rest. Which means----voila! How You Dress Matters!

 

 

That's completely different than saying, "don't wear a t-shirt because we want to look 'professional.'" Two different mentalities.

 

 

No. The only difference is the level the different bands are working on. The "don't wear t-shirts" band is probably a band just trying to go from $500 a night to $750 a night gigs. The Ramones were trying to sell albums. But the mentality is still the same: Dress For Success!

[walrus1]

right back atcha So now you're just arguing with yourself it seems. You're right about one thing, though: it's the context. And the context for both The Ramones dressing the way they did and The Village People dressing the way they did was the same. I think they did it more because YOU thought it was cool rather than what THEY personally thought about it. They were selling a product. Hence the need for a photo shoot and getting dressed up for it. You can't even see when you're being sold a product. Let me guess--you think Frosted Flakes are you good for you because they are Vitamin Fortified.

"Being sold a product" has nothing to do with anything. Everything's a product, so what? The Village People had their shtick, the Ramones had theirs.

I don't recall either group wearing the "corporate casual" uniform of the day just to conform to some antiseptic idea about "respectability," though. Just the opposite, in fact.

Again, if you can't see the distinction between those two mindsets, there's not much more to say to you. You don't get art and culture, it's no big deal. Lots of people don't. That's why we have cover bands and guys in dockers and button down shirts. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. There's a place for that, too. But don't try to say that's the same as what original artists do, because it isn't.

[wades_keys]

Best thing probably is to talk about it with the band.

Make sure everyone's on the same page.

[wades_keys]

+1 Hate that corporate mentality {censored}. We get enough of that everywhere else in the culture. Can't we at least leave it out of the music?

Well, it's obvious that at least a few of us feel this way.

SO....

That's probably why "Band Image" should be decided on by the band - talk it over and see if that's the direction the band wants to be going in.

IF anything that involves a "change in direction" of the band is just done without talking about it ahead of time, you're probably going to have people that won't be on board with that.

I can see it now....band has a rehearsal:

"Hey guys, I've been thinking that we need to dress alike on stage. I went out and bought this outfit here. I'd like all of you do to the same. See you at the gig"

[Vito Corleone]

"Being sold a product" has nothing to do with anything. Everything's a product, so what? The Village People had their shtick, the Ramones had theirs. I don't recall either group wearing the "corporate casual" uniform of the day just to conform to some antiseptic idea about "respectability," though. Just the opposite, in fact.

Exactly. They dressed the way they did to fit in with some group-think notion about what constituted "rebellion" or "anti-establishment" or "anti-corporate". But that was just the product they were selling. Not the WHY or HOW they were selling it. "Look at us! We're so cool! We don't dress or sound like Foreigner! So what if we both work for WEA!"

 

 

Again, if you can't see the distinction between those two mindsets, there's not much more to say to you. You don't get art and culture, it's no big deal. Lots of people don't. That's why we have cover bands and guys in dockers and button down shirts. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. There's a place for that, too. But don't try to say that's the same as what original artists do, because it isn't.

 

 

To the degree we're talking about dressing to please a particular client or audience (which is the subject of this thread), it IS the same.

[wades_keys]

Exactly. They dressed the way they did to fit in with some group-think notion about what constituted "rebellion" or "anti-establishment" or "anti-corporate". But that was just the product they were selling. Not the WHY or HOW they were selling it. "Look at us! We're so cool! We don't dress or sound like Foreigner! So what if we both work for WEA!" To the degree we're talking about dressing to please a particular client or audience (which is the subject of this thread), it IS the same.

 

See what happens when we don't know our bandmates?

 

Now granted, we're not bandmates here.

 

But this kind of {censored} can and WILL happen if the band doesn't talk these things over - any change of direction should be handled very carefully.

 

Also - the person suggesting the change should be on good standing with the band and have diplomatic skills.

[walrus1]

Exactly. They dressed the way they did to fit in with some group-think notion about what constituted "rebellion" or "anti-establishment" or "anti-corporate". But that was just the product they were selling. Not the WHY or HOW they were selling it. "Look at us! We're so cool! We don't dress or sound like Foreigner! So what if we both work for WEA!" To the degree we're talking about dressing to please a particular client or audience (which is the subject of this thread), it IS the same.

 

 

groupthink notion? No one was putting safety pins in their faces before punk. What, the people at the IBM company picnic were wearing mohawks and ripped homemade t-shirts and jeans? Not quite.

 

And how is it the Ramones fault that corporate culture then COOPTED punk style (or any style, like it eventually always does, cannibalizing anything they can, though usually years/decades late, way after the fact), turning it into just another mainstream "option" for them to sell?

 

These artists were creating culture, not copping it. How old are you anyway, junior? You obviously weren't around during the 70s-early 80s. The Ramones first albums were made on shoestrings produced on the cheap by local producers, not WEA. Your misplaced cynicism is a little bit humorous, but you seem to be missing the trees for the forest.

[wades_keys]

groupthink notion? No one was putting safety pins in their faces before punk. What, the people at the IBM company picnic were wearing mohawks and ripped homemade t-shirts and jeans? Not quite. And how is it the Ramones fault that corporate culture then COOPTED punk style (or any style, like it eventually always does, cannibalizing anything they can, though usually years/decades late, way after the fact), turning it into just another mainstream "option" for them to sell? These artists were creating culture, not copping it. How old are you anyway, junior? You obviously weren't around during the 70s-early 80s. Your misplaced cynicism is a little bit humorous, but you

 

Hint: 61 -> 1961.

 

He was around then.

 

Hell, call me junior please - I'm younger than him but old enough to where "junior" is a compliment.

 

LOL

 

"Groupthink" HAS to apply on some level: what if johnny rotten wore polo shirts and penny loafers? I mean, they COULD have made that work - but for the most being on the same page is what you see.

 

There are exceptions.

 

Bass players get a pass, always.

 

I like to refer to the cheese blues brothers look that the J. Geils bassist used to rock. J. Geils himself would rock the greaser look though, so still they had a common 50's theme.

 

Hell, I'd guess an incoherent look would work today: what with mash-ups and ADD ruling the day.

 

It's whatever: we "are what we wear" or something, right?

[Vito Corleone]

groupthink notion? No one was putting safety pins in their faces before punk. What, the people at the IBM company picnic were wearing mohawks and ripped homemade t-shirts and jeans? Not quite.

 

 

No, but all the punks were doing it. The Ramones were fully conformed within their "anti-conformity" group. If they were TRUELY anti-conformity and had "dress for success is bull{censored}" attitude, they wouldn't have all dressed the same. If anyone of them had shown up for that photo shoot in cargo shorts, he'd no doubt have been told to go home and change immediately.

 

The point here is that dress DOES matter when crafting a band's image and The Ramones prove that. Why only limit it to those bands who play originals or are on the forefront of some cultural movement? The truth is that bands at ANY level can probably make more money if they pay attention to their image (and that includes dress). So when someone comes in here and asks about ways that other bands do that, why dismiss the whole topic out of hand as "corporate bull{censored} unless your The Ramones or someone 'cool'"?

 

 

How old are you anyway, junior? You obviously weren't around during the 70s-early 80s. Your misplaced cynicism is a little bit humorous, but you seem to be missing the trees for the forest.

 

 

I'm in my late 40s and own original pressings of some Ramones LPs. (As well as Foreigner). Both are great bands. I've been playing in both cover and original bands since the late 70s. I know the business pretty well at all levels. It's you missing the forest for the trees. You seem to think that dress only matters if you're performing in a top level original band and not a low-level cover band. Well, it's exactly that attitude that will KEEP one at a low level.

[walrus1]

Hint: 61 -> 1961. He was around then. Hell, call me junior please - I'm younger than him but old enough to where "junior" is a compliment. LOL "Groupthink" HAS to apply on some level: what if johnny rotten wore polo shirts and penny loafers? I mean, they COULD have made that work - but for the most being on the same page is what you see. There are exceptions. Bass players get a pass, always. I like to refer to the cheese blues brothers look that the J. Geils bassist used to rock. J. Geils himself would rock the greaser look though, so still they had a common 50's theme. Hell, I'd guess an incoherent look would work today: what with mash-ups and ADD ruling the day. It's whatever: we "are what we wear" or something, right?

Exactly - the visual style is part of the musical style. Johnny Rotten wearing khakis would have been as out of place to the overall effect as the band breaking into a jazz standard in the middle of the set. It wouldn't really work.

I can see how guido is confused by the concept, but in fact a band asking a guy to not wear cargo shorts but some other more corporate look is something a bit different than the concept of having an artistically unified visual style to match the music. And i'm not picking on anyone in particular, just using that example because it came up in the thread. But if the one kind of corporate short fits the image of your music better than another kind, I think you've got bigger artistic problems than not wearing cargo shorts is going to solve.

[walrus1]

No, but all the punks were doing it. The Ramones were fully conformed within their "anti-conformity" group. If they were TRUELY anti-conformity and had "dress for success is bull{censored}" attitude, they wouldn't have all dressed the same. If anyone of them had shown up for that photo shoot in cargo shorts, he'd no doubt have been told to go home and change immediately. The point here is that dress DOES matter when crafting a band's image and The Ramones prove that. Why only limit it to those bands who play originals or are on the forefront of some cultural movement? The truth is that bands at ANY level can probably make more money if they pay attention to their image (and that includes dress). So when someone comes in here and asks about ways that other bands do that, why dismiss the whole topic out of hand as "corporate bull{censored} unless your The Ramones or someone 'cool'"? I'm in my late 40s and own original pressings of some Ramones LPs. (As well as Foreigner). Both are great bands. I've been playing in both cover and original bands since the late 70s. I know the business pretty well at all levels. It's you missing the forest for the trees. You seem to think that dress only matters if you're performing in a top level original band and not a low-level cover band. Well, it's exactly that attitude that will KEEP one at a low level.

Like I said, if the image of your band's music is a unified "corporate casual" dress code, then you've got bigger problems than I can help you with. Good luck with it - I've got to go so that's it for me.

[Vito Corleone]

Exactly - the visual style is part of the musical style. Johnny Rotten wearing khakis would have been as out of place to the overall effect as the band breaking into a jazz standard in the middle of the set. It wouldn't really work. I can see how guido is confused by the concept, but in fact a band asking a guy to not wear cargo shorts but some other more corporate look is something a bit different than the concept of having an artistically unified visual style to match the music. And i'm not picking on anyone in particular, just using that example because it came up in the thread. But if the one kind of corporate short fits the image of your music better than another kind, I think you've got bigger artistic problems than not wearing cargo shorts is going to solve.

You're way too caught up in this concept of "corporate". Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!

You agree that a visual style is part of a musical style. So why does it matter if that style is "corporate" or not? If a band is looking to increase their chances for success, why wouldn't you give the same advice about visual style to a "corporate" band as you would The Ramones?

[SeniorBlues]

I think this is on one of his live albums . . . . Some guys in the crowd are ragging on the security, to which Frank Zappa responds, "We're all wearing uniforms."

I've worn lots of uniforms, some matching, some not, some hip for the times, others a lame acquiescence to our agent who was sending us to Kriegsmann in NYC for 8X10 glossies.

I can't see how anyone can argue the merits of making a conscious effort to dress coherently as a band, consistent with the image they want to portray for their clients. I don't understand how anyone can care about what they sound like and not care about their appearance. You can wear red shirts or not; you can cover Brown Eyed Girl or not. You can all learn to play the chart correctly as a group or not. Your degree of conformity is your choice . . . but try to look and sound coherent.

[SeniorBlues]

A question for you all. When people look at you on stage, what exactly do you want them to see. I'm asking this from the perspective of a photographer who's interested in graphic design. The eye will be attracted to bright colors. It will go to high contrast areas which normally means we'll look at your white shirt instead of your face, which would otherwise be the brightest thing if you were wearing dark clothes. A bass player explained to me that he wore red sneakers and a bold black and white paneled shirt because we thought he was ugly and didn't want attention drawn to his face. He didn't seem to get that if the rest of us were dressed down, he'd attract a great deal of attention, and mostly not positive.

Why do some musicians wear T-shirts with graphics on them? Seriously, I'd like to know.

[Marko]

They

[cooterbrown]

 

Why do some musicians wear T-shirts with graphics on them? Seriously, I'd like to know.

 

 

Mostly because they are advertising for their favorite band or gear manufacturer, or if they're a bit on the pretentious side, they want to appear hip with either a graphic of an iconic musician, or some sort of ironic slogan, or goofy pun. They may wear a shirt that is identifiable with a certain era...usually one that relates to the kind of music their band plays.

 

But seriously, we wear t's with graphics, because we like they way they look, and whatever is on the shirt probably means something, to us.

[Vito Corleone]

I can't see how anyone can argue the merits of making a conscious effort to dress coherently as a band, consistent with the image they want to portray for their clients. I don't understand how anyone can care about what they sound like and not care about their appearance. You can wear red shirts or not; you can cover Brown Eyed Girl or not. You can all learn to play the chart correctly as a group or not. Your degree of conformity is your choice . . . but try to look and sound coherent.

[TrickyBoy]

From Wikipedia:

The Ramones' art and visual imagery complemented the themes of their music and performance. The band members adopted a uniform look of long hair, leather jackets, t-shirts, torn jeans, and sneakers.

Not that I'm dying to break into this argument, but this is different from adopting a uniform look of "a red shirt with slacks" how?