Music Banter - View Single Post - Paul McCartney

Neapolitan · 07-13-2011, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Because loads of bands looked like the Beatles, but nobody ever quite looked like Bowie and went through the amount of image changes that he did. Regardless of his music, Bowie has always been very image driven and probably the most image driven artist in the history of rock.

Just because people imitated The Beatles and (to you) hardly anyone if not no one imitated Bowie doesn't refute what I said about The Beatles having an image. You even go on and talk about their image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

I see your point but there is still a big difference in the images being projected here. The Beatles image was seen as being trendy and generally accepted as being a popular fad. Whereas, Bowie`s image was decadent and and androgynous, and parents didn`t want their kids coming home looking like that

You are equating flamboyancy with image, well anything can be an image, Heavy Metal gangsta rap, or whatever genre you can bring up - have some kind of image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

That was part of what I was thinking. Rock is as much about image as pop, in some ways maybe much more so. Bowie was seen to epitomise the glam scene and established himself as much because of his image as because of the music. There is plenty of good music in the 70s but most of them never had the image and fame Bowie had.

Elton John, P-Funk?

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

I don't think The Beatles were as much about image. That's shown in that they changed quite a bit through the 60s, they are not remembered specifically for certain costumes, makeup or a kind of attitude like Bowie is. He even made up names for himself like Ziggy Stardust and became them in concert.

Yeah exactly, they were constantly changing their image.