Time for a discussion topic. It seems many bands are turning to gimmick's or get-up's to try to sell more albums and hook more fans. Do you think gimmicks help a band or make the band lose credibility? Can you think of bands with gimmicks? What are your views on these sorts of marketing plots? Personally, I think it's pointless. A band should be themselves instead of hiding themselves under masks or make-up or a certain wardrobe. I'm not hating on a band like Good Charlotte, but why all the make-up portraying tears? They can't be sad, they're selling millions of albums! It seems like they catoring only to a certain demographic. If they toned it down I'm sure there'd be less haters. And Slipknot, they'd be just as good a band without the masks. They wouldn't be portrayed as evil and scary then. People probably wouldn't blame them for school shootings if they also toned it down. There are also other examples like Marilyn Manson and his shock-rock. Eventually people start to realize it's all for show and they become less sensitized. I just wish more bands would concentrate more on their music instead of their appearance. Does anyone agree? Please don't hate on others bands. Please don't hate on other people for saying a band you like has a gimmick. This is a debate and we're all mature teens/adults and we should conduct ourselves that way. . Let the discussion begin!
Very good point, Mark. Many bands who do that (Good Charlotte is a perfect example) are capitalizing on trends (also musically too) to compensate for their lack of talent/creativity as musicians. There are other bands who do that and all of the sudden people buy the music 'cuz its 'in'. Yeah they serve as marketing tools but in some cases they are resembling the persons personality (Marilyn Manson).
erm...hmm. I don't like gimmicks, eventhough I do like a gimmick band. I could really care less about gimmicks. I don't focus on them.
I don't really pay attention to gimmicks, although I do think that GC looks like they're trying a little too hard to be "punk". Punk is not an article of clothing. It's an attitude. And it's okay to be non-punk. It's not okay to be bad musicians. (And I'm not saying that GC's bad.)
Mark I salute you To be honest I can't stand the gimmicks, but you can't say anything if they're selling records. I mean I like the darkness and they're going in for christmas number one - you haven't seen a christmas video like this one...but I still like them for some odd reason. Maybe it's the gimmicks that make you like the band? But yeah - they're trying to be different by starting a trend...annnnnd it ain't working...most of the time
No, I don't agree. Not with this part, at least. If you actually listened to Slipknot and Manson, you'd know they focus a lot of time on their music. Slipknot stopped wearing masks shortly after their second album came out, anyway. Marilyn Manson has always dressed the way he has, even before he decided to get into music. Why should he change his appearance just because he's into music now? You're basically saying that, if a person has been one way before music, that they have to change who they are once they get into music. Slipknot always wore masks, even way back before they were mainstream. It's just that people are stupid and look to blame anything on music, so they see masks, and go, "Oh, look. The anti-Christ." Personally, I hate it when people care more about the appearance of a band than their music. This post proves that a lot of people care more about how they look than their music.
I don't really care if a band has a Gimmick. If they like what they wear and feel comfortable in it, the more power to them. I don't think wearing something is going to stop you from everything else. For example, I'm a person who usually wears black, but if for one day I wear pink, I honestly don't think it would affect my grades in any way. So if a band has a gimmik, its probably not because they think its cool, its cause they like it. Maybe Slipknot wants to wear masks. Maybe they have some reason to it. Like, it doesn't matter what you look like. You can still do what you want. I honestly don't think that looks have anything to do with your music. If you take an hour to dress up, who cares? I take 3 hours to take a shower, but that doesn't affect my grades or my way of life. So to put it short, no, I don't think its pointless. If a band wants to do something. Let them. Perhaps it makes things more interesting. Or maybe they just like dressing that way or wearing makeup. Who are you (not anyone in particular) to say they shouldn't do a certain thing because it might affect their music? Its their life and they have the right to be who they want to be. At least thats what I think.
And then you said: You kind of contradicted yourself there, Will. Anyways, I beleive that we should focus on the music instead of a bands' image or what ever they choose to do in their personal life, so I guess you can say that I don't believe in gimmicks.
I have nothing against bands like Good Charlotte wearing make-up or having the 'punk' image. If that's part of who they are and they like dressing that way, fine. What I would really hate is for those guys to go home at the end of the day and think: Now that the show's over, I can take off my make-up and un-do my spiky hair. In another words, if a band cannot go on stage to play a show without altering his appearance, then their image becomes a gimmick and gimmick in music works both ways. They repel the "hardcore" fans but attract the teenies and popular kids who like them because they look rebellious. In some ways, a band like Good Charlotte does lose credibility but in my eyes, they're good with or without the make up and tattooes. Personally, I think their image is part of who they are. For example, Paul (bass), Chris (drums) and Joel (vocals) look pretty normal. It's only Billy (guitar) and Benji (guitar/vocals) who have an 'extreme' look but that's them. I'm sure they dress that way even if they're not in a band. As for others like Slipknot and Marilyn Manson, I think their music has more appeal than their image. I've never cared about their scary masks or rebellious image. In fact, Slipknot's masks probably do them a favor and stop people from judging whether they're good-looking or not. Marilyn Manson has maintained his appearance as long as I can remember. It doesn't matter how he looks. His music grabs more attention anyhow.
And then you said: You kind of contradicted yourself there, Will. [/b][/quote] How did he? He said that they wore masks from before they were mainstream, than stopped from when their second album came out.
No, I don't agree. Not with this part, at least. If you actually listened to Slipknot and Manson, you'd know they focus a lot of time on their music. Slipknot stopped wearing masks shortly after their second album came out, anyway. Marilyn Manson has always dressed the way he has, even before he decided to get into music. Why should he change his appearance just because he's into music now? You're basically saying that, if a person has been one way before music, that they have to change who they are once they get into music. Slipknot always wore masks, even way back before they were mainstream. It's just that people are stupid and look to blame anything on music, so they see masks, and go, "Oh, look. The anti-Christ." Personally, I hate it when people care more about the appearance of a band than their music. This post proves that a lot of people care more about how they look than their music. [/b][/quote] I was saying it from the viewpoint of the general population, calm down a little. I'm not saying I look at Slipknot or Marilyn Manson that way, I listen to Manson and I understand and know he's very focused about his music (althought quite frankly I don't like Slipknot at all). It's just that if they toned it down a little I think they'd become more widely accepted and less widely accused by the general public and media. You know what I'm saying?
And then you said: You kind of contradicted yourself there, Will. Anyways, I beleive that we should focus on the music instead of a bands' image or what ever they choose to do in their personal life, so I guess you can say that I don't believe in gimmicks. [/b][/quote] He didn't. What he meant was that until Slipknot's second album came out, they always wore masks in the past.
I hate it when band go off stage and in every concert and come back on saying "we only came back on stage because your the best crowd we've ever played for" and the band will do this at evey gig. I love linkin park to bits but they did it. I still luv em (Music wise) but they try and make you think a load of BULLPOO! I saw limp bizkit they didnt do it they played two hours after the support band played for half an hour. And when they went off every1 acted the same as they did at LP but like a band should do they didnt lie and they stayed off stage
And then you said: You kind of contradicted yourself there, Will. [/b][/quote] How did I contradict myself? They wore masks from the time they started, until their second album came out until 2001. Edit: And Mark, I don't think a band should change their looks just to get accepted. Music is about music, not appearance.
That's what I said in my opening post. I just don't think gimmicks are needed at all. [/b][/quote] So if music is more important to you, don't look at the bands. lol.
So if music is more important to you, don't look at the bands. lol. [/b][/quote] I don't like any of the bands (Marilyn only slightly) I was talking about, so why would I listen to them? This thread is about people's opinions of gimmicks and whether they're effective or not, not about how someone who doesn't like gimmicks shouldn't pay attention to their looks. Now let the thread go on with it's intended focus point, please.
That's how I feel...my feeling is just "So what?" They can dress how they want, gimmick or not, it really doesn't bother me.
I think that if you like a band you shouldnt like them just because they have red hair or tears or whatever in theyre clothes. I like LP because of their music....not just because I liked Chester's lip-ring like other people I know. I think that GC (no offense to them) is banking on the people that do like that stuff. For people who arent 'punk' and arent exposed to it at school or something seeing a band that is kind of punk and saying that they like it might make them seem cooler for trying to be 'different' even though they really arent. Sorry if i might not have made sense but this is just my opinion.