What's more important? Music or image?

[SpaceNorman]

 

You know, what you say is real true, but it perhaps brings up another point: You have to be comfortable in your own skin. What I'm trying to say, is the only time you should be thinking about your "image" is when you're picking something to wear, applying makeup, whatever.

 

 

Now THAT I agree with ... you do have to be comfortable in your own skin. I can also pretty much agree with your point about only thinking about your image when you're face to face with your closet - provided you're not one of those sad souls who aren't bright enough to dress to keep themselves happy - but instead succumb to the urge to dress to offend. The "dress to offend" approach usually doesn't work if you're in show biz at the level most of us are at.

[12Pack]

Would Angus Young be Angus Young without his image?

[sabriel9v]

Exactly. Back in my young stage days, I was standing at the door chating with some girls between sets. I'm the talent that night. Right in front of me walks a guy, 6' 2", wearing a wife beater, a vintage vest, thick long black hair, black jeans, chains around his neck with crosses, some makeup etc... he looked like a rock star. I was dressed right, but I was playing, he wasn't. He was out getting noticed. "Who's that ?" I said to the girls. "Why? Jealous?", they answered. I guess I was. We met and became good enough friends on our scene. He went on to be a famous guy in the 80's. I never forgot that. I knew he was someone, or was going to be someone. By what he wore.

 

He sounds like he's a pansy

[chevybusa]

Hi MuddyJohnson...once again we share the same exact sentments!!! I couldn't agree with your post more. It is so sad and frustrating and discouraging to see and experience first hand. It's a big part of why I stopped gigging and playing with other musicians or doing anything with music other than playing it for my own enjoyment. I can understand (even though I'm disgusted by it) how the non-musician public is much more concerned with and influenced by image, but unfortunately so are the vast majority of the musicians I've met or played with, and it's rediculous. I mean, don't get me wrong, I totally understand that it's a necessary evil to increase exposure and acceptance for folks who want to gig or "make it" or whatever, but like I said in your other thread, for me it's always been (and always will be) MUSIC FIRST!!!

[cephus]

 

I disagree with most of the previous posts. Its about music. Our audience is mostly 40+ red neck/biker/working joes at working class bars, weddings, and parties. There's nothing fake about us - we're old, we don't look pretty, we drink and smoke - we don't pretend to be other than exactly what we are.

 

 

OK. So it wouldn't make a difference if you showed up wearing khaki pants and a golf shirt to the gig at the biker bar?

[Andrew JD]

I can pretty much always walk into a gig wearing the clothes I've had on all day.

 

Being a metalhead who sings in a metalband is pretty easy: a cut off pair of shorts I made from some pants because I was too cheap to buy shorts in the summer and a t-shirt confessing your love for some metal band.

[toddkuen]

Look at it this way - people who read my posts here form an image of me. To them that is my "image". But the image they form really has nothing to do with me at all, its their image of me.

 

Now I have a choice - I can care (by acting on the factors that influence their image making) about what image others form of me or I can not care (by ignoring them).

 

Personally, I don't care about what image you form - its your image of me - not mine. The only thing your image of me does is color how you view my posts, hear my music, and what you might write - but I'll probably never know about or understand your image of me.

 

Now, I can choose to "create" an image for you to have of me - by adding things to my posts, for example big hair or big guitars or whatever, to influence your thinking.

 

The same in real life when playing out.

 

I think the original questions is about the willful act of creating of image as part of the music - and that image is overcoming music as "what's important".

 

Personally I want the music I write or perform to be what someone uses to form an image of me as a musician. That's why I only list those items in my signature. I am other things besides a musician - but I wish to express those aspects of me through music.

[tim_7string]

To the OP: I hear you on the image/big amps/huge PA & lights thing. I joined a band like that 10 years ago (everything except the hair, haha) and when factoring the huge bus, PA rental from the two brothers that owned everything (one owned some of the PA, the other owned the bus, rest of the PA and lights), I came out of the gig with less than $55. I was like, "hmm...something's wrong with this picture."

 

Then again, I can still vividly remember playing a gig in early December 2001. The club was desperate for a band since one canceled on them, so I quoted them what I thought was a reasonable price for a four, occasionally five-piece band. They agreed to it. However, I did it thinking that the other guitarist/vocalist would be bringing his large-ish PA system with him. Unfortunately, his truck kept breaking down when he tried to leave town and he had to take only a small rehearsal PA instead in his car. You know the kind, the 8 channel powered mixer box with a couple of small main speakers and two small floor monitors from Radio Shack.

 

Needless to say, when we showed up to play, the bar owners were disappointed. They were used to seeing bands with PA gear stacked up to the ceiling. Didn't matter that our drummer spent thousands on his drums, cymbals and hardware, the bassist had a full Hartke stack that cost him thousands and I certainly had several hundred in gear myself with my Randall half-stack, guitars and vast array of floor pedals. They told the drummer's sister that if we ever played there again, they would only pay us 3/4ths of what we got that time. I told her she can tell them we won't be playing there ever again if that's the case.

 

As Tele-vania65000 said, people hear with their eyes. People want to go out to a club, even to a local small bar, and see something exciting onstage. That could mean cool lights, a lot of PA speakers, good-looking people, nice clothes, or some combination of all the above.

 

Now, do you need to look as good as the national acts? No, but you should look somewhat presentable onstage.

 

If your band is just jazz-based, hey, some fairly nice clothes are all you really need. But if you're playing rock and/or country hits, you should step it up a notch. Our lead singer wears a tuxedo-coat, jeans, big belt buckle and boots. I will often wear a black t-shirt with a colorful, filmy shirt on top (red with skulls in stars, blue flames or satiny black with skull buttons).

 

So, image or music? A good helping of both is important, but people will remember you from your image first. If you look good, but can't play worth a {censored}, they'll remember you as that 'hot' band. If you play good, but look like crap, they'll remember you as that boring band and probably go see someone else instead. In town last night, there were at least five other bars with bands, one of which was just two blocks away from where we were playing. Competition is fierce, so it's to your best interest to be firing on all cylinders and try to do the best you can with everything. And that includes image.

 

I know that I get more excited when I go see a band that moves, interacts with the crowd and looks like they know how to do laundry.

[SpaceNorman]

 

Personally, I don't care about what image you form - its your image of me - not mine. The only thing your image of me does is color how you view my posts, hear my music, and what you might write ....

 

 

Todd - I think I see why we're not getting through to you on this. Many of us have put forth the argument that our appearance cultivates an image - and that if you're visible to your audience - you've put forth an image.

 

Your argument seems to be that if you make no conscious effort to cultivate that image - that's the same as not having an image. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

Nothing personal Todd - but I read the "I don't care..." qualifier as bull{censored}. I suspect what you're really saying is "my no real effort put into it image" is working well enough for me and I'm happy where I'm at so I see no value in any effort to enhance my image." I'll bet dollars to donuts if you found yourself in a situation where your "no real effort image" was a turnoff to all possible gigs (including the biker bars you're currently working" - you'd be all about paying attention to trying to influence others' image of you.

[SBF3000]

look the part. the "part" is different based on the stlye of music you play. Look like you belong on the stage @ that venue. And don't suck.

[Terry Allan Hall]

Looking/acting "pro" is only important if you want to get paid what your musicianship is worth.

[flemtone]

I think it depends on your target audience. I can't see either being more important from a musician's standpoint, but I can definitely see a difference depending on who which butts you're trying to get into seats (or to the bar).

[axepilot]

This goes back to (here we go again) the original vs cover act...................

 

 

Original bands have the onus on them of projecting the image - they're selling unknown tunes to uninitiated crowds. They can play basically what they want to play......................nobody has heard it before and , if they have, it's artistic license. Their image sells the band.

 

Cover bands have the onus on them of projecting faithfully reproduced music for the crowd - no quarter given....................a much harder row to hoe.

 

While cover bands still need an image, it's not nearly as important to them as it is an original band.

[Roy Brooks]

If I go into a bar to hear a band I am going to stay because I like the music. I don't really care what the musicians are wearing.

[Chicken Monkey]

 

If I go into a bar to hear a band I am going to stay because I like the music. I don't really care what the musicians are wearing.

 

 

The fatal shortcoming in all of these conversations is that we're all musicians, and thus the mind of a casual music listener is completely inaccessible.

[pjrake]

image is important, especially in an original band trying to create an identity.

 

-PJ

[toddkuen]

 

... Nothing personal Todd - but I read the "I don't care..." qualifier as bull{censored}. I suspect what you're really saying is "my no real effort put into it image" is working well enough for me and I'm happy where I'm at so I see no value in any effort to enhance my image." I'll bet dollars to donuts if you found yourself in a situation where your "no real effort image" was a turnoff to all possible gigs (including the biker bars you're currently working" - you'd be all about paying attention to trying to influence others' image of you.

 

 

No - you'd lose your donuts - I'd go back under a rock - its not hard to sit home and whip up computerized band mates or collaberate over the web.

 

In the band I'm in we push each other hard musically - that's what I am in it for. And yes, there still are places in the world where people are interested in just that and they will pay money to hear it. Can you have a "great image" and do that - sure - I don't disagree. But for me its overhead that I am not interested in carrying.

 

At the end of the day I suppose I'm just an old hippy that thinks not being your simple honest self is just "selling out to the corprate man".

 

Clearly a few others (MuddyJohnson, chevybusa, roy brooks) share my sentiments here - its about music and not about image.

 

And feel free to pick any "image" you like for me if you want me to have an image.

[U&I]

I disagree with most of the previous posts. Its about music. Our audience is mostly 40+ red neck/biker/working joes at working class bars, weddings, and parties. There's nothing fake about us - we're old, we don't look pretty, we drink and smoke - we don't pretend to be other than exactly what we are. When we play a song like "Good Hearted Woman" or "Down by the River" or about some cheating woman the audience goes nuts because the song speaks directly to them about something in their life: relationships, their past, their family, etc. We're pretty good musicians and we are able to put part of ourselves (for the same reason) into each song in some way to make the song part of us as well. I guess we'd rather be real than fake - so when fake finishes taking over the world we'll probably just sit home.

 

 

And don't tell me HOW YOU LOOK doesn't effect they relate or view you because a room full of bikers or rednecks would wanna lynch you if you turned up to the gig and weren't being no bull{censored}'n'upfront.

So in a sense that IS YOUR IMAGE.

[cephus]

 

But for me its overhead that I am not interested in carrying.

 

 

 

I don't think most people have the luxury of that choice. People who keep the bars in business can't tell if the music is "better" after it reaches a certain threshhold. At that point, you have to make the leap from being a musician to being an entertainer. Frankly, I have been a little bored with musicians myself for a while.

 

One thing I noticed recently, is that "real" musicians wear alot of bracelets and wrist bands and stuff. Did you ever notice that slash and joe perry and even big local cover bands? In the band pictures, the guys always have ten or fifteen chains or bracelets or string or leather or whatever. Nice way to get called a "fruit loop" back in my day. May have to try that since my cultivated musicality has failed to afford me escape velocity from this place.

[jaxn slim]

 

I don't think most people have the luxury of that choice. People who keep the bars in business can't tell if the music is "better" after it reaches a certain threshhold. At that point, you have to make the leap from being a musician to being an entertainer. Frankly, I have been a little bored with musicians myself for a while.

 

 

+1

 

That's an important concept. For me, being a musician is about connecting with the audience. And most audience members can only appreciate the music up to a certain point. Then a lot of the excess over that threshold goes right over their heads. At that point, image becomes more important IMO. Not because I give a crap what you look like but because the people in the audience paying cover and buying beer care. In the end, they are the customers, and their satisfaction is key.

 

No matter how good you sound, if your image is sloppy or unprofessional to the point of being distracting, that will have a huge impact on their impressions.

[Mojo Marty]

 

Our audience is mostly 40+ red neck/biker/working joes at working class bars, weddings , and parties. When we play a song like " Good Hearted Woman" or "Down by the River" or about some cheating woman the audience goes nuts because the song speaks directly to them about something in their life: relationships, their past, their family, etc.

 

 

Hey Todd,

 

Not to get off topic, but do you play "Good Hearted Woman" and "Down by the River" at weddings? That would be funny, in a twisted sort of way.

[wades_keys]

He sounds like he's a pansy

 

It was the 80's, man...that's just the way it was.

 

You wouldn't understand if you weren't there.

[RadiationNation]

It was the 80's, man...that's just the way it was. You wouldn't understand if you weren't there.

 

Scientists could spend decades and still not understand the 80s.

[marko46]

 

Scientists could spend decades and still not understand the 80s.

 

 

I lived/played in the 80's and can't explain it still to this day.

 

Unfortunatly today, image sells, as it has since the afforementioned 80's. I prefer a great player and believe that comes first over a "look", but what is expected by the general public is what they've been spoon fed. We don't have a look or image and are doing fine at this point, but you do have to "sell" yourself to a degree- it's expected, especially in the larger markets. I'm never going to be a "Rock Star", nor do I want to be- I'm way too old. I want to have fun, make some extra cash doing what I do and enjoy it. If I was 25 again, I'd be just as concerned with the "image" as the music.

 

If I have my choice today to go see a band in a club, I'd personnaly rather go see a killer prog metal/rock; heavy tight band that looks like a bunch of disheveled misfits, than a really loud thundorus medioce rock band that has some "look". But that's just me.

[Jimbroni]

 

I've been reading a lot of posts from people complaining about band members who don't dress right, smoke or drink onstage, or just don't portray the "right image". Unless you play at the local Holiday Inn or have a specific type of stage show, who gives a {censored}? If a band has top notch musicians who come out and play their asses off, does it really matter what they look like? If you're getting paid to play music, you are obligated to show a certain amount of "professionalism" by putting on a good show and not doing things like getting {censored} faced drunk or pissing off the audience or promoters & club owners. It's only my opinion and experience, but a band's best "image" is how well they play music and their ability to make a connection with the audience. Here's an example that some of you can relate to. Back in the '80s, I was in a band that played the local hard rock/metal circuit. Most of the bands wore spandex, had big hair, played with big name amps & guitars, and had PA systems & light shows that were overkill for most clubs. We had a small but adequate PA that we ran from the stage, had lights we made out of coffee cans, and usually came to gigs in our work clothes. We rocked hard and made more money because we didn't have to pay a sound & light guy, and didn't spend a ton of money on the latest gear. I still know some of those guys and they cringe when I show them pictures in their spandex and makeup. I have played in bands with a truckload of big PA & lights along with a crew to run them, but we still never cared about any stage image except to rock out and play hard. I was once hired to play with a country band for several months and I was usually the only person in the club who wasn't wearing cowboy boots, a cowboy hat, and a belt buckle the size of a hubcap.(I did play a Telecaster, which is kind of country) My point here is that popular music is becoming more about the performer than the music, and each generation of musicians are becoming less proficient on their instruments and more narrow in their knowledge of different styles. By popular music, I mean the music which gets mainstream airplay and exposure. There was a time (not so long ago) that DJs actually got to play songs they wanted to. With big media companies now owning all the radio stations, playlists are now pre-determined as to who and what gets heard. Thankfully, there are now outlets like the internet, indie labels, and affordable equipment capable of making fairly high quality recordings for musicians who are creative and innovative. The negative side is that every American Idol reject has the same resources. In fact, that moronic piece of TV {censored} is proof that glorified karaoke singers can be turned into stars overnight and sold as a product by creating an image, which leads us back to the original topic...... What's more important? Music or image?

 

 

To be successful they are equally important. You need to have great music, and an image that people can identify with the music. Whether your hippies, punks, hip hop, rockers, jocks, etc. doesn't matter as long as it helps sell the show. It is show business afterall.