Quote:
Originally Posted by Necromancer
I mainly interpret, image/gimmick, (as "manufactured/untalented artist & music") as one example, Teen Idols, from Lief Garret, Shaun Cassidy, Keith Partridge, ..., Michael Jackson..so on. ...There's not really very many artist mentioned above that actually do produce good music. But there's one that comes along every now & then with a decent single (Pop music).
I for example do not consider image, if I'm considering or rating the music of a band like KISS?--Kiss is Icon because of writing & having actual good rock music that was revolutionary for its time. Personally not concerned with image or status of an artist. All personal rated emphasis is on the music itself.
|
If there was the internet back in the 70s and I had a time machine and I could traveled back in time - this would be the kind of post I would expect to read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier
I've never once stated that no one ever imitated Bowie
|
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.
|
Well you did said "nobody" so I thought iyho (in your honest opinion) that what you meant.
And response never really address the question- Why should Bowie be thrown under the bus for having an image, and not The Beatles?
Whether you are talking about the Ramones in white t-shirts, torn jeans, and leather jackets, or Slipknot with jump suites and mask they both have an image. Just because one is more common and the other more shocking doesn't make the (former) less of an image. Another thing I can not totally agree Bowie was
the most image driven because everyone has an image, from wearing street clothes to wearing expensive costumes every artist has an image. And there are plenty of examples of outrage images in music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier
For the record as is common knowledge, Bowie is one of the most influential artists ever both visually and musically. He basically single-handedly started off the glam rock movement in the early seventies and the new romantic movement in the eighties.
|
That is what I was getting at his contribution shouldn't be seen as less because of his image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier
Flamboyancy and image can be different, but in a medium such as music where visuals are an important aspect they become pretty synonymous, as an artist tries to put out an image that matches their sound, whether this is a straightforward image or a flamboyant one depends on a number of factors.
|
What I got from her was she was saying only outrageous or flamboyancy equals image, you are missing the point Starry is making seem like The Beatles didn't have an image like Bowie who had an image (a flamboyant image).
The reason only flamboyancy as image is what I stated above, everything is some kind of image, from wearing street clothes to wearing expensive costumes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier
The difference is with Bowie, is[B] that his image has changed drastically several times, making him in many aspects very image driven.
|
That is the very point I told Starry about The Beatles, they change several times making them in many respects very image driven.