Lord_Iniquitous
Junior Member
Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove
There is nothing wrong with having an image. Where there is a problem is when a music artist is selling off of the image and not the music.You're wrong about not getting getting popular without an image. Does Metallica have an image? or Radiohead for that matter? Neither in my mind have an image and both have been extremely successfull, because they make great music.
What bands fit into the "no-talent Metal crap" in your opinion?
"No Talent-Crap" is Slipknot, and the various other "bands" that claim to be metal.
And yes Metallica had an image, their image was that of angry, long hair, not gonna put up with your b.s. anymore. That is an image.
When I talk about image, you just assume I'm talkin' make-up, and costumes.... I'm not. An image is what you put forth to the people that are there to see you. If you just want to listen to the music, then stay home, and put on the album. When I go see a band, I want to be entertained. Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, they entertained. I'm not gonna get into the whole Radiohead issue, I'm not into that kind of music.
When you talk about the artist selling off of the image, you're thinkin' of bands like Poison, and Winger, and so on, most of the mid 80's to early 90's hardrock bands. Yeah, Motley Crue had the make-up and such, but it was just theatrics, you can't tell me Tommy Lee has no talent to back it up. As for Dokken, please, you're gonna sit there and say they had no talent, have you even heard them, have you even heard or seen George Lynch play? Anyway, this isn't an aggressive response, I'm not arguing with you. To each, his own. Everyone has there own idea of what sounds good, and what doesn't. It's pointless for people to argue over such things.... some people like Modonna, some people like Cradle Of Filth 😈 (I fall into the Cradle category myself). Anyway I'm kinda gettin' off subject here 😄