General Music Chat

It does matter.

How many press pictures do you see of bands or musicians where they are dressed in every-day clothes?

I doubt that in every case that these musicians are choosing to dress that way.

It also depends on what genre it is. Every genre has a dress code.

Jay, do you think in those press pictures they are dressing JUST for the picture itself, or the picture happen to be taken during a performance. Not that it matters, do you think they are being told how to dress for that performance or are they choosing their own rags? I'de like to believe that they are dressing themselves. I would not want to lose that freedom and I honestly don't know how I would react if I was being told what to wear. If you're in a stage play and the part requires you to dress like clown, you're going to play the part or course. And I guess if the band is putting on a show in a particular genre, you dress the part. Maybe it's a trade-off when you make it to the big-time, kinda, the price you pay for fame and fortune, but what about the everyday musician, playing for the love of it, and not making the fortune? When you go to the local bar etc., do you care what the artist is wearing?Thanks for joining in by the way!

so what yer sayin is reading the life story of a musician is more convenient than actually learning to play his stuff?

wow you have kids... that scares the hell outta me.

Are you sentient?. I was trying to find a nice way of saying that some of us can learn to play something by listening to it. I'm sorry if you can't. The music is the obvious. It's right there pressed onto a shiny plastic disc for your personal consumption. The purpose of a biography is to provide insight into an artist which may or may not help you to understand or maybe even apreciate the art a bit more. Keeping up? Shall I tap my foot to keep you in time?

The inabillity to comprehend typed word that you often demonstrate is why someone might doubt that you ever read books. A good example is how you missed when I clearly said "IF I had kids." Do you bother reading what people write before responding to it?

Reading your thoughts is like listening to a broken record. "Boohoo... inferior musicians make more money because they look and dress pretty." Maybe we should call you a Waaaambulance. Are you that bitter because you're not marketable to 14 year old girls? In all this time you've never figured out that the music industry is an entertainment industry? We respect the fact that you seek out music from those who place a higher premium on the art rather than the presentation. Just let it go and stop embarassing yourself...please!...its hard to watch!

Have you ever seen a painting that couldn't be made to look nicer by giving it a well crafted frame?

Would you have more difficulty eating the food of the world's finest chef if it were served to you on a dirty plate?...or their were cockroaches under your feet?

I sure would.

If you want to justify your lack of success by saying "its cuz i didn't sell out" then so be it. Whatever.

If you want to keep tyrading the same poorly concieved, redundant, nonsensical arguments then go right ahead...You'll just get the same response from me ...Whatever gets you thru the night Mike.

Just do me the favor of actually READING the posts you respond to.

Have a nice day.

Commentary and dissent have now combined to form dysentary (hope I spelled that correctly)

do you think in those press pictures they are dressing JUST for the picture itself, or the picture happen to be taken during a performance. Not that it matters, do you think they are being told how to dress for that performance or are they choosing their own rags? I'de like to believe that they are dressing themselves. I would not want to lose that freedom and I honestly don't know how I would react if I was being told what to wear. If you're in a stage play and the part requires you to dress like clown, you're going to play the part or course. And I guess if the band is putting on a show in a particular genre, you dress the part. Maybe it's a trade-off when you make it to the big-time, kinda, the price you pay for fame and fortune, but what about the everyday musician, playing for the love of it, and not making the fortune?

Wow ...interesting stuff to think about.

Lots of people are forced to dress a certain way when they play, they're called sports teams tess! (just joking)

I used to play in a university jazz ensemble where sometimes we all had to wear the same ugly matching white suit. It was excrutiating! Situations like that asside, most adult performers I would think have the ultimate say so in what they wear. The "David Cassidy scenario" is prolly the exception and not the rule.

Among the more succesful its different I guess. Problems likely start when a person gets hooked into a bad clothing deal financially. Take pro golfers for example. Tiger Woods endorses Nike. So whatever shirts Nike may be selling that year in their golfing line is prolly what you're gonna see on Tiger's back when you watch TV. It's great promotion from Nike's perspective. I'm sure however that Tiger has a few shirts in the closet that he's not really that crazy about. Similar situations likely exist among the more highly successful pop music stars. At what point though would the shirt be so ugly that you gave Nike's money back? When its several million dollars that would have to be ONE UGLY SHIRT!

I think my problem is that I always hated uniforms and even in decorating my home, I go for a very eclectic look. I have my own way of doing things, totally unafraid to be different. It's my anthem! I constantly go for the unusual. I like things off balanced. Uniforms are boring and restrictive, but I know they serve a purpose at times. They also represent commitment ,to me. I guess it's kinda like, "To everything, there is a season." I'm a very positive person and try to see the good or purpose in everything. But there was never anything I liked about Sgt. Pepper's look EXCEPT, the music itself!

Well...its interesting that you mentioned the Beatles. Early on in around 1964 they all wore matching little mop tops and suits. Over the next 10 years though they developed their own styles and looks. The music as well demonstrated a radical change in both sound and song writing. John Lennon said it was the band "growing up." Do you think they got tired of dressing to match? Or did the social changes of the 1960's lead them to the decision to appear more free and individualistic?

Sometimes a predesigned, well thought and executed band wardrobe has been crucial to a band's success.

* DEVO

* KISS

* GWAR

* The Tubes (early)

Just a few examples. Your mileage may vary.

now you've gone too far. I think kiss was good cause paul stanley can belt, gene simmons can wail and is a mean bassplayer, and... ok well the rest of the band sucks but I wouldn't go so far as to say the makeup and outfits DID IT ALL for them. I think it certainly helped...

Tubes... I don't think I've seen them... what did they wear?
'step right up and don't be shy, because you will not believe your eyes... she's right here behind the glass, your gonna like her cause she's got class' is that the tubes? I'm not sure they had much success. Devo... 'crack that whip'
I think you picked some bad examples to defend yer point(except kiss). Gwar isn't all that decent musically from the admitted three or four songs I've heard of them... tho I do have to say that they are entertaining... with the giant appendages and all... And I guess I'm going to concede that a little bit of stage presence and fireworks and giant replications of stone henge might be more important than I would have thought at first...
but there are all kinds of examples of people who didn't neccessarily dress up and they made it. On some level what bruce springsteen wore became a costume in the sense that it was 'his look'... but I never got the impression he was wearing a costume. Perhaps if yer good enough, what yer wearing becomes a costume.
So, can you go without a costume: I would say yeah.
can you go with a 'getup': sure.
Is a getup gauranteed to help you: no it can harm you under the wrong circumstances ie you show up to a concervative venue dressed in a gimp suit.
Can it help you: yes... under the right circumstances. It can give you credibility if it's with a like-minded crowd... or it can make you the outsider.
If you suck ass and can't hardly play your instrument -hell even if yer mediocre... and you go out dressed like elvis, prince, gwar, kiss, ziggi, hendricks or srv... the crowd might seem to be laughing and having a good time... but you will be the monkey grinding the organ.

The Tubes.....you don't know about their look? The lyrics you posted were from a song from their album "Completion Backward Principle" and that was long after their hayday. Back then, they had an established look - very elaborate shows as a matter of fact. Fee Waybill (vocals, guitar) looked like a twisted version of King Louis XIV in platforms - his nom de guerre was "King Quay Lude" The drummer was in a leather S&M outfit, complete with face zipper mask. Their shows were so outrageous that they were banned in some cities (Ok the sex on stage thing probably had something to do with it, but I'm not judging). That was their "look" and it was a large part of their fame too. Sometime, look up "White Punks on Dope" live (The Tubes), especially their San Francisco shows.

KISS? Give me a break. Mediocre music AT BEST. Their costumes and makeup sold that band. Period. It was all a Kibuki schtick. And it worked marvelously. Good for them.

DEVO? "Whip It" was their first radio hit. They broke out long before that, with an Album called "Are We Not Men", a stinging satire of suburban American life in the technocratic age. They wore tight onepieces, weird plastic hats or false hairdos, that sustained their theme giving a poke-in-the-eye to the factory establishment. I bet my last copy of "Peekaboo" that, had they dressed like coffee house bums from Seattle, you'd never have heard of them.

GWAR was the weakest example, because they are like a comic book hitting the stage with guitars. Their music is not memorable, but you have to admit - the stage show is what sells the thing. Dress them like "Beck" and the audience would probably murder them.

Funny you should point that out about the Beatles, B25, cos I was thinking about how I disliked th Sgt. Pepper thing, and forgot that they were so "Uniform" at first, back in '63. Being a fan of black and white, the whole suit thing kinda did it for me, of course what did I know at the age of 10! I have to agree with Gopher, that they had a lot to do with leading the 60's, but, they did grow musically and I think boredom set in, they wanted to expand their creativity, and now they had the money to back up anything they wanted to do. I look at clothing as an extension of a person, very personal though. I don't judge anyone by their clothes. I just think it can tell you things about someone. Gopher made another good point when he said, "PLAYING ENTERTAINER, I LIKE TO LOOK THE PART, WHICH GENERALLY MEANS LOOKING A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN EVERYONE ELSE IN THE ESTABLISHMENT". Point well taken, it goes along with what I just said, that your clothes, on and off stage, makes a statement at times. Another tool in the creativity box!

okay....when it comes to bands like GWAR and KISS i dont agree that a major part of their sucsess was due to stupid outfits(i can walk around in hull and see that kind of sh*t everyday and none of these freaks are famous!) i think a huge part of it is atitude and image as far as public view...think about it, how many pictures of gene simmons st cking his tongue out do you see!

KISS? Give me a break. Mediocre music AT BEST. Their costumes and makeup sold that band. Period. It was all a Kibuki schtick. And it worked marvelously. Good for them.

yeah, I recall the devo hats and some song about donuts... but they were ok at best too. again... perhaps the outfits were to help compensate for an otherwise boring band... no offence if you like them... I think their ok, but they aren't a band that will be remembered for their music... other than whip it, maybe.

KISS... you don't have to like heavy rock to admit that paul stanleys voice is tone wise a 10. Sm with gene simmons voice... look at 'dominoe'. Gene was also a great bass player. You can't dispute that they had several top of the chart hits... ones that ppul still remember unlike the tubes or devo.
r&r all night, detroit rock city, dominoe... beth, etc -I'm sure kiss fans could chime in with a long list of other too.
I'm not even a big kiss fan but they were musically pretty together. I only mention that bcuz they were your example, and they went on to have a long "mediocre" career -post makeup.
Lets look at another... ziggy stardust. Did his costume "make the music"? If so, how can you explain his best selling works were after ziggy as plain old david bowie in a nice suit? china girl/lets dance/etc.

How do you explain john lennon going from 'sgt peppers' to his mundane outfit with 'give peace a chance' and still selling tons of records. Frankly I think the best stuff the beatles where ever tied to would have been johns later works. I do like the beatles and admit freely their look had a lot to do with boosting their popularity... but how did all four/three(ringo) members go on to do well as regular joes... paul doesn't dress up, perhaps harrison did a little.... I'm not sure.

Elton John too. Altho I'd say his best work was while he was wearing those giant sunglasses.

Do you think boy george's act was enhanced by his image too? I think it was hurt. I don't think he was all that great to begin with but he certainly lost most of the 'straight' crowd with his look. No guy in his right mind would be caught listening to that when I was in school. Even if we liked his music.

Obviously someone cares about 'the look'... but it isn't ALL the fans or there wouldn't be room for bob dylan, bruce springsteen, tom waits, willie nelson, johnnie cash, morrisey, john denver, george jones, billy joel, elvis costello, post ziggi david bowie, eric clapton(I hate that I am even using him as an example cause he SUCKS!), nora jones, traci chapman, sheryl crow, john cugar menstralcramp, and a long list of others.

BTW irminsul... there is a documentry about bukowski out that has several short clips of commentary by tom waits. very interesting. I know you mentioned him before(bukowski) and am a big fan myself.

As a teen when KISS came out, I can tell you that the first thing that grabbed their audience was the look. Once that stage was set, I know it sounds like sleight of hand, the music somehow sounded better. We just won't agree on the quality of KISS's music, but that's OK. I'll let it sit there.

John Lennon - he had his look too. He went from Sgt. Peppers to that famous "Jesus in an ice cream suit with Yoko in tow" look. The round little spectacles, the 60's hat, he always had a look. It changed, true.....but dont they all. I respect any musician with the ability to reinvent themselves.

Boy George - not only was his androgenous look enhancing to his career, it probably MADE it. In fact, it set a trend that was picked up by several others from across the gender line...most notably, Annie Lennox. I recall when Boy George first came out. I was going to concerts and seeing legions of his adoring fans dressing just like him. Fast forward to today - have you seen him lately? YIKES. I predict he doesn't revive his halcyon days looking like a prison escapee who put his make up on crooked.

Let's wrap it up to say that looks and wardrobe aint everything; but they sure are something. You know, I once heard a great definition of "fashion" from Yves St. Laurent. He said "Fashion is nothing more than being so comfortable in your own skin, what you choose to wear, that it attracts others." That could be a flannel shirt and jeans, or a bumblebee costume with enormous spectacles. When you're a performer, it's just plain negligent - even stupid - to leave your appearance out of the equation.