Topic: What about glam rock & glitterbands

- Where should YOU place this style of rock?
- What was most important the LOOKS or the MUSIC.

I know it started more as a BRITISH PHENOMENON but the US bands where as important.
- UK = T-REX (Marc BOLAN) SLADE   GARY GLITTER (a kid-lover, it is unbelievable, and even being a medical doc, I don't understand at all what is going on in their heads, even with the knowledge that this was so called "natural" in Ancient Greece) DAVID BOWIE and even bands like THE ROLLING STONES. Who can forget MICK JAGGER'S face full of make-up.
I never understood why the "greatest ROCK band on earth" JOINED that club.
Also their behavior, called bisexual, and ANDROGYNY types. Sexual ambiguity was briefly in vogue as an effective cultural "shock tactic". David Bowie caused a media uproar in 1972 when he told the UK press he was "gay." I believe it was all "FAKE" WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?
WHAT IS IN FACT THE REAL TRUTH?: I don't have a clue, was MUSIC inferior at that time? Was "ATTITUDE" more important or was it all COMMERCIAL. If you see BOWIE now, dressed in fancy costumes. Did mister "average" Paul Jones aka David Bowie one of the trend setters, needed it to perform, being an actor in fact, by taking multiple personalities? What was the purpose? These guys wrote damned good songs.
In the USA we had KISS, always with make-up, LOU REED...
WHO CAN GIVE AN ANSWER ON THIS PHENOMENON?

[color=blue]- GITAARDOCPHIL SAIS: TO CONQUER DEAD, YOU HAVE TO DIE[/color]   AND [color=blue] we are born to die[/color]
- MY GUITAR PLAYS EVERY STYLE = BLUES, ROCK, METAL, so I NEED TO LEARN HOW TO PLAY IT.
[color=blue]Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock.[/color]

Re: What about glam rock & glitterbands

I've always felt real talent should stand alone without image but I'm probably not living in the real world musically. I really lose respect for performers who'll do anything to get signed. A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere and cross dressing should be beyond that line. I guess you never until you're faced with the choice. I'd like to think most of us would just say no to the whole tranvestite rock thing!!!! It is sad there are so many unsigned talented people out there (and even in here in Chordie land) and so many pieces of sh@% signed to labels. Image is worth way too much in todays music scene. I was encouraged by the Seattle think that was going on in the 90's with Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Sound Garden, etc. It really seemed as if the music industry was going to be about music again but then came Rap and then suddenly no one's pants fit right anymore!!

I used to be disgusted; now I try to be amused.
Elvis Costello

Re: What about glam rock & glitterbands

Grunge and Punk were as much about Image as Glam rock was.  Tattoo's, Flannel shirts, Piercings and Mohawks are just a different Image. 
Dude,  They may act like they don't care, but they still show up for the MTV Music Awards.
Good music will always come through no matter what the band is wearing.

Re: What about glam rock & glitterbands

mixter102 wrote:

Grunge and Punk were as much about Image as Glam rock was.  Tattoo's, Flannel shirts, Piercings and Mohawks are just a different Image. 
Dude,  They may act like they don't care, but they still show up for the MTV Music Awards.
Good music will always come through no matter what the band is wearing.

Point taken. I guess the point I was driving at is the first bands to break through; for them it wasn't an image but rather just the way they were. Then  the flood of copy cats but you're right, the flannel was just as bad (in a sense) as the baggy pants or cross dressing (admittedly I'd much rather wear flannel than pantyhose though!). I guess the overall point is in a perfect world bands would be judged on their music not a combination of image/marketing and music. And record sales and signings would reflect the most original music. When you looked at Billboard chart it wouldn't be filled with boy bands and rappers who grew up in the suburbs

I used to be disgusted; now I try to be amused.
Elvis Costello

Re: What about glam rock & glitterbands

Yes AGREE too. Admit there was a period in music history. It started early 70ties in the UK, to become a "subcultural phenomenon" around 1975.
In the USA we had the New York Dolls.
As told it faded away and was almost followed immediately by the PUNK scene, in my eyes also a kind of "image" was more important bands, see a lot of punk bands.
I was doc for years in the biggest dutch speaking theater in Belgium and I noticed a lot that actors when not performing or on stage were quit shy. This too can be a reason to dress up and use tons of make-up. About David Bowie "THE ARTISTIC CHAMELEON" who changed a  lot his looks, he is also a very gifted and talented musician and I remember me getting once as a present the album "Alladin Sane" a great album with great songs. I never heard before of him until that album.

[color=blue]- GITAARDOCPHIL SAIS: TO CONQUER DEAD, YOU HAVE TO DIE[/color]   AND [color=blue] we are born to die[/color]
- MY GUITAR PLAYS EVERY STYLE = BLUES, ROCK, METAL, so I NEED TO LEARN HOW TO PLAY IT.
[color=blue]Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock.[/color]

Re: What about glam rock & glitterbands

Well I think its obvious from some of my other posts what I think about image and music...
I do think that the visual aspect, (videos, album art, etc.), can be a cool way for artists to connect more with fans,  express themselves. ZZ top's always been over the top, The WHite stripes were color cordinated, even little things like Johnny Cash wearing black or slash's top hat, can all add to the experience. The problem is when success is BASED on image instead of sound.
Hopefully the new will wear off the whole music video fad and artists will have to again step up the music to sell. Right now people are still wowed by visuals, living in the age we do (look how many crappy movies make it just because of the special effects scenes with no plot and terrible scripts), but when maybe when its old hat consumers will reqire quality again.

All You Need is Love smile

Re: What about glam rock & glitterbands

yes, style over substance often succeeds, but substance endures.
Kiss notwithstanding wink

it seems to me, pop music these days has neither and is driven by the tabloids with no style or substance required, or panties.

That's alright, I got my guitar
-Jimi Hendrix

Re: What about glam rock & glitterbands

I think its just part of trying too put on a better show then your competors,sometimes its good and vice versa. There are some performers out there that dont  try too be something else and still do get alot of recignition,look at Keith Richards as a great example.    dino

my papy said son your going too drive me too drinking if you dont stop driving that   Hot  Rod  Lincoln!! Cmdr cody and his lost planet airman

Re: What about glam rock & glitterbands

Another point of view is that some members of a band are TOO SHY to play on stage.
In the very beginning of the Doors Jim Morisson faced the band and not the audience. He was too shy to sing with his face in the direction of the public.
Other bands like KISS, they could walk on the street without being recognised, so they used that special make up.

[color=blue]- GITAARDOCPHIL SAIS: TO CONQUER DEAD, YOU HAVE TO DIE[/color]   AND [color=blue] we are born to die[/color]
- MY GUITAR PLAYS EVERY STYLE = BLUES, ROCK, METAL, so I NEED TO LEARN HOW TO PLAY IT.
[color=blue]Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock.[/color]