Is image important?

[Super Dude]

I think the thread title is pretty self-explanatory. I'm sure this is a bad example given the people we've got here, but if you saw an image of the band where they all look like goth creeps, would that factor into your decision to give them a spin? On the converse, would you give the same weight/write them off if they were a bunch of prettyboys, or the album cover had hot girls in sexy poses? And what about younger looking artists as compared to older ones (a question I think is pertinent as DT isn't getting any younger)?

[BlobVanDam]

I very rarely know what a band/artist looks like before I try out their music, so it doesn't usually factor in. If a band looks like a bunch of try-hard douches (like some modern metal bands etc), then it might put me off slightly from giving them a chance, but at the end of the day I'm judging the music for what it is.
Usually I find it works that if a band's image is that offputting to me that it would be a factor, chances are they're not writing music in a style that I enjoy anyway, and vice versa. But it's not really an objective measure of anything.

It might factor into whether or not I'll see them live though.

[Adami]

Usually, for me specifically, imagine only plays a role when I'm scrolling down blabbermouth and see a crap load of band photos. Usually I don't care what they look like, but if I see a hot chick, I'm more likely to check them out.......usually because I love female singers.



However for the world? Image matters a lot.

[King Postwhore]

It doesn't draw me to a band at all but you've got to admit.  Images behind a band enhances a show in a large theater.

I love small clubs to engulf myself to watching a band close up.

[RuRoRul]

For myself I'd like to think it doesn't really. I often get to like a band before I see what they look like so in that case image literally doesn't matter. And there might be bands I do like but don't really care for their image, but I don't let that stop me enjoying the music at all.

However I think for myself and for most people (even people who don't consider themselves to be shallow with regards to their music taste) sometimes image does matter. For example I'm pretty sure a lot of people who've been fans of metal for a while wouldn't give a fair chance to metal bands from the 00s onwards if they percieved them as having a stupid image (e.g. wearing make up or something) - but point out some of the equally ridiculous images of bands from the 80s and they'll say something to the effect of "That's just what metal bands were doing at the time, it doesn't effect the quality of the music which is what's important". I know I was shaking my head at all the "emo" looking bands that were appearing when I was a teenager, and would be pretty unlikely to give a band like that a fair chance. Yet go back a few years when I was first getting interested in music and people were doing the same thing to the "nu metal" era bands that I just considered normal - if I was born a few years later then maybe I'd hve no problem with the "emo" look because I'd think "that's just what bands look like".

I definitely don't think I'd be put off a band just because they look too young or old, but if I've seen the band before hand and I don't like their image that probably will make me less likely to try them out. And obviously certain album covers will put me off too. Part of that may not be to do with "not liking" their image though - if I see a band or album cover that looks as though it belongs to a certain genre of music that I know I'm not really interested in, I'm not that likely to look into them. I like to think that if I actually do end up listening to something I'm able to take their image out of the equation though, even if I don't like it.

[Cedar redaC]

I try not to think to much about image. If your music is good, that's what will sell your music. You can't put image on a record.

That said, I prefer bands that have class and a professional image about them. It just makes their music so much more tasteful. Rush, Dream Theater and others like this usually have it down.

[Zantera]

I don't really care, most bands and artists I listen to look normal.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

I could not possibly care less what an artist looks like.

[Elite]

I could not possibly care less what an artist looks like.

This, but also;

It might factor into whether or not I'll see them live though.

that.

The music is what counts for me, but Adami pointed the following as well;

However for the world? Image matters a lot.

Which is definitely true. Things get judged by appearance way too often and I do this too, but with music, I don't give a damn.

[TioJorge]

Pretty much what Blob said. Actually exactly what Blob said, as I'm attempting to recall if I've ever seen a band before I heard them, and I don't think I ever have. Every single band I like or call my favorite started out as pure sound; and only later on did I see what the person(s) look like. Which still didn't matter at all to me. I may have been surprised at some (Thomas Giles being so tiny and a bit dorky looking when compared to his guttural roars of awesomeness), but still didn't really judge much at all in regards to whether it'd affect me seeing them live, buying an album, etc.

Image holds no water.




I don't know what that means, but I've gotta real big one coming, and I had Chinese last night, so I'm thinking...chocolate waterfall.

P.S. Except boobs.

[obscure]

For me.. no... for us DTF posters.. probably no... for majority yes....

P.S. Except boobs.

[antigoon]

It definitely matters for first impressions, yes.

[MoraWintersoul]

for us DTF posters.. probably no...

That one's a no-brainer really because:

[Jaq]

Generally, no, it isn't, but I don't listen to a whole lot of music where image would be terribly important anyway. I will say, though, there are exceptions. I saw a picture of a band on Blabbermouth once, one of those gothy, wear a lot of black clothes and white make up bands, and everything about how they delivered that image was done so smugly, so arrogantly, that I wanted to punch the band collectively in the dick. They just carried themselves like total assholes, and would have if they'd had no particular image at all. That'll drive me away from a band right fast.

[robwebster]

If they make it part of their art, it's important.

Your reaction to an album packaged in a bubblegum pink sleeve with a pun for a title is likely going to be miles away from an album with a sombre, sepia landscape on the front. Your image is a choice, and every single choice you make gives your music context. It's the difference between Duchamp's "Fountain" and the urinal down at the local tattoo parlour. The title, the context - even the plinth will colour (or are meant to colour) the viewer's reaction to it. Same applies to music. It's the difference between a Weezer album and a Godspeed You! Black Emperor album. It's all part of the finished piece, right down to the gratuitous exclamation mark.

You could argue, if you were being really pretentious (and it'd appear I am - how about that!) that not making image a part of a musician's art can, in itself, be considered an artistic choice. Play music in a t-shirt and jeans and you're saying, automatically, whether you want to or not, "I'm more down-to-earth than that tosser dressed up as a flower." So in that way, even the choice not to make any special choice betrays the artist's mindset, and puts the music into a completely different context. Image shouldn't be important, but I... honestly don't know if it can really help itself. We make stories out of shapes, and we, as a species, are never going to be able to stop.

But that is where this post's going to stop, because if I cram my head any further up my arse I'll risk vomiting my teeth up. Do stop me if I stumble across a sensible point - if I have, I haven't noticed.

[Gadough]

Absolutely, yes. We're humans. We all judge based on image whether we admit it or not.

[Sigz]

I think the thread title is pretty self-explanatory. I'm sure this is a bad example given the people we've got here, but if you saw an image of the band where they all look like goth creeps, would that factor into your decision to give them a spin? On the converse, would you give the same weight/write them off if they were a bunch of prettyboys, or the album cover had hot girls in sexy poses? And what about younger looking artists as compared to older ones (a question I think is pertinent as DT isn't getting any younger)?

In general I'll give everyone a spin. If someone tells me to check out a band and I see their picture before and they look like a bunch of standard metalcore douchers, I may be less enthusiastic about listening, but I still will, and there have been multiple occasions where I've been impressed by the artist anyways.

[Dark Castle]

I could not possibly care less what an artist looks like.

This.

[Lowdz]

There was a time for me when image was important. I'e bought albums (good and bad) based on the cover or the band pic. These days it's not so important. I'm not likely to see the bands live and the days of staring at album covers has gone- most of my listening is done in the car or on my phone. The visual aspect of music just isn't important to me now.

[Kotowboy]

I've bought a few albums in the past purely because I liked the artwork more than the music.

But that's partly the reason I don't like downloading music.

I like the whole deal. - CD, Booklet, Cover etc.