I mainly interpret, image/gimmick, (as "manufactured/untalented artist & music") as one example, Teen Idols, from Lief Garret, Shaun Cassidy, Keith Partridge, Hanson, Michael Jackson..so on. Although, a few do actually have singles that I do like, for example, Silverchair & Debbie Gibson, and Jackson. 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.

:confused:
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.

That is what I was getting at his contribution shouldn't be seen as less because of his image.

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.

That is the very point I told Starry about The Beatles, they change several times making them in many respects very image driven.

The post your referring to is actually basically a quote taken from Wikipedia concerning "Image", I just used my own words of explanation but quoted the same artist. But back to the subject. Why would you rate today's or any era of music for that matter on image and gimmick over the music itself? It Could reflect as to suggest a decline in talented artist of the modern times, and instead, concentrating more toward manufactured, untalented music acts.

I really don't know what you mean about or implying when you say "if there was an internet back in the 70s"? You need to explain your position and theory a little more coherently.

Based on your logic every artist has an image, which to be fair is stating the obvious as very few artists would survive without some type of image, there are some artist that don`t really have an image as such but its contrary to the majority of artists.

The point being made here, is that some artists are more image driven than others whether it be Bowie, Slipknot, Kiss, Alice Cooper, Sex Pistols, Marilyn Manson etc to state some obvious references and just because I/we are accusing them of being image driven, is no reflection on the quality of their music, some of my all time favourite bands and artist are image driven.

Whatever way to dress up your debate, artists will always be judged on their image, especially if its an outrageous image such as Bowie had. People judge Bowie not just on his music but also his image as it was such an obvious feature..........perhaps if he had looked more like Phil Collins, then he would be judged solely on his music.

So you say it's just a gimmick and then you say there is an element of truth.

Really I think these outlandish statements are more that if people hear something often enough they believe it as fact even if it isn't. That's how human beings are, they easily believe what they are told. People will go with the bandwagon. All it takes is for the marketing to get enough coverage/penetration and the wagon gets rolling and people start to jump on. People feel security in going with what they are told rather than daring to actually question something.

And of course the death of an artist, particularly if they are relatively young, is given a mystique by the media and gives an opportunity for others to make more money out of them with the new hype they will get. These people have a vested interest in encouraging the hype. Record companies tend to make up these titles for singers or groups.

Yes
I don't see how that negates the other. A lot of gimmicks tend to be an exaggeration of the truth, or an extension of a personality.

So you're saying there's no truth in anything I listed?
So Motorhead are not known for being a loud band ?
I think a rather large majority if not all who have seen or heard them would beg to differ.
James Brown wasn't one of the hardest working performers around?
I guess the 50 or so studio albums he recorded 60s 70s & 80s as well as the sheer number of shows the guy played prove that he's a bit of a slacker.
I'm not saying those claims are not used for marketing, of course they are but you need to be at least a little convincing in what you are trying to claim and market.
If Coldplay's record company suddenly started billing them as 'The worlds most bangin' techno band' you really think that's going to catch on?
Really?
Or why not bill Adele as being 'The sexiest singer in the world'
That'll work.

That's great and you may have a point but all the ones I listed and I think all the ones I've seen in this thread were alive when they got their 'gimmicks'.

In fact I'm hard pressed to think of one dead artist who's gimmick has changed since they died. Maybe you can think of some.

I'm not saying they get a title after they die. That point was separate, I'm saying some get hyped after they die early which I think is true

Or course record companies will use titles that relate to the kind of music someone produces, but they do tend to exaggerate too much and people just follow what they say and repeat them.

I think you're giving record companies too much credit.

I think in most cases it the bands themselves or the media that are making the claims or giving the reputations. The record companies just latch on to them as an angle to sell.

Maybe, it could be someone in the media sometimes who sees it as a way to make a group or singer more interesting. But it's definitely something record companies would very enthusiastically take up whether they invented it or not.

I guess if I was planning a career in Musicology, instead of just being a music enthusiast/fan. All the image, popularity, and record sales might matter.

Or of course, if I was a record producer at the record company itself, I might care.:cool: I agree with Urban, some people give record companies to much credit. And in my opinion why be over concerned and put so much emphasis on image and all that crap?

Just listen to the music for your own pleasure, all the other **** doesn't really matter.