djchameleon

yes that was my point, you just worded it a bit better.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

Necromancer

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.

Neapolitan

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.


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.

__________________

Unknown Soldier

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.