How important is image - REALLY??

[Zed10R]

Recently I've been thinking about this. I personally don't care one whit about the image presented by a band, musician, singer, whatever. I actually tend to think less of a band that relies on image. Take Slipknot for example. They make decent metal music. Not my favorite, but decent. The reason I will never buy a Slipknot cd, T shirt, or go to a show, is because of the heavy emphasis they put on their image. If they relied more on their musical abilities and less on their weird costumes, I would be much more open to them. Afterall, you LISTEN to music. You don't LOOK at it.

Is it a smart "buisiness" move to invent some eye catching image to promote your music visually, or is it a cop-out done to "trick" people into thinking your music is really really good because, well, because you LOOK like your music is really good.

 

[melodiousmonk]

Hmmm. Good question. I would argue that the music is definately the purpose of a musical group (as ironic as it sounds), but when a record label looks at a band I think they want to see something they can sell. So image does matter a little, but the music is the most important part, cause if your music sucks you could have the best image ever and wouldn't get a contract.

 

[Zed10R]

Hmmmm.....ok. I would agree than image could and should be used to that extent. But how do you explain the multitudes of R&B and Hip Hop "artists" that seem to be nothing more than a badass image? I doubt their music is what got them signed.

 

[juststartingout]

Ok, here is how it is. To a record company, they don't care about the image, and they really don't care about the music. They care about cd sales. That's all.

If you want to get signed, you need people to follow you, cd sales, sold out shows and radio play. The music doesn't matter, the money does.

When you write record company, you don't send them a CD and say, 'Hey don't I sound great'. No, you will not even get played. You send them a CD and a press kit that has your airplays, what type of people are listening to you, how many CDs you have sold, where you have sold them at, how many people a showing up for your shows, etc... This is what matters to them.

 

[Bass40]

Ok, here is how it is. To a record company, they don't care about the image, and they really don't care about the music. They care about cd sales. That's all.

IMHO they actually care about all 3 just some more than others maybe in this order

Sales , Image , Music .. because music is last doesnt mean that you can have sucky music and still be on top I mean someone has to like it inorder to sell. I I dont know about other gernes as I am into R&B and Hiphop/Rap might be the same. Image definitely matters. As of alot of teenage girls would love a rapper such as a nelly and 50 cent type.. ya know the ones who take off the shirts all the time and appear to only be about the ladys that an image. 2pac image is what helped him become a big star. Because he had a "hard" for a lack of a better term image.

I say sales is first because dont matter how good you sound to them and how good of an image you have , if you cant sell what they want you to sell or close then they think theres no need for you to have a " record deal" thats my 2cents.

 

[glynb]

I thnik the point is, if you are packing venues, if you are selling CDs, if you are gaining airplay, then as far as the record company is concerned your music is good (even if they haven't heard it).

Their job is to sell units, if people like an artist enough to attend shows and buy merchandise, then that's what they are in business for. No use having 'good music' that noone is prepared to turn up to see played live, or wishes to fork out for a CD, T.Shirt etc. In other words people vote with their cash - At least that's the viewpoint of a record label.

About image. It's important the image fits the genre of music to some extent. Don't underestimate the sexaul element, at least in some genres. The thing about many rock stars for example is that they look great, which appeals.

Given the right exposure there's no reason why someone who makes and performs great music, but doesn't look too good, could still be succesful, but it's gaining the exposure/access that's the problem in order for that to happen.

Here's something to think about...if EMINEM looked like Warren Zevron would he have been succesful?

 

[Zed10R]

Here's something to think about...if EMINEM looked like Warren Zevron would he have been succesful?

Hell No!! And if Averil Levene (sp) looked like hippo with acne, she would never have gotten as far as her hometown night clubs, so I don't totally agree that image is not as important as demonstrated sales. Take Fiona Apple for example. Granted she is nowhere to be found now, but she got a multi million dollar contract DEFORE SHE EVER EVEN PLAYED ONE SINGLE SHOW. All she did was mail a crappy recording of her music and some photos of herself to one record cmpany, they LOOKED at her promo shots, and signed her the next day.

I do believe it is all about selling. You bet. But selling what? In Fiona's case, and in many other cases, I think it was selling sex. She's a sexy little beast. I'll bet millions of men bought her cd just to see if there were any revealing photos of her in it. And since it IS all about selling, we also know that it is far easier to sell a female image to men that to sell a male image to men, or even a male image to women. So......doesn't that mean that if you are female you have a built in automatic advantage? I think so. The only other advantege you can have that even comes close is to be a sexy rock n roll (or urban tough guy) bad boy. Women flock to SEE those guys, and men flock there to SEE the women. Men go where women go. So the key is the female image. Either portraying it or manipulating it. Either way, it seems like the music itself and PROVEN sales are in fact less important than image. IMO. But it DOES boil down to what sells. And nothing sells more than sex.

 

[glynb]

Varies depending on the genre of course, at one extreme there's the pop idol/Nsync/boyband perfomer type thing - then at the other end there's what most of us would class as the more 'serious' artist. But even respected songwriters got their break because they looked cute at one stage - Bob Dylan's an obvious example.

In the genres of country music & blues - looking old and gnarled is acceptable, but being sexually appealing would still be an advantage!

Not sure i agree with you about women having an edge, if that was the case the 'charts' would have been dominated by female acts for the past 40 years and that's not the case.

 

[Rstiltskin]

if the record companies knew what going to be successful,

Recently I've been thinking about this. I personally don't care one whit about the image presented by a band, musician, singer, whatever. I actually tend to think less of a band that relies on image. Take Slipknot for example. They make decent metal music. Not my favorite, but decent. The reason I will never buy a Slipknot cd, T shirt, or go to a show, is because of the heavy emphasis they put on their image. If they relied more on their musical abilities and less on their weird costumes, I would be much more open to them. Afterall, you LISTEN to music. You don't LOOK at it.

Is it a smart "buisiness" move to invent some eye catching image to promote your music visually, or is it a cop-out done to "trick" people into thinking your music is really really good because, well, because you LOOK like your music is really good.

they would never sign anything but!

some want to sign the closest copycat to whatever is hot now, if they can shove it out quick, it may make some money.

some want to try to figure out what will be the NEXT BIG THING. The majors did not think it would be rap, hence all the new labels. they did think it would be reagae (i can't even spell it) hence all the bands signed to major labels that never sold.

you can hear a song by the stones, the who, or sheryl crow and know who it is. you need a signiture sound, and something different, but not too different. you need to continue to grow, but take your fans with you(the beatles were great at this).

if you are really concerned about the part image plays, order 'the 22 immutable laws of marketing' by reis and trout. the single best and most accessable book on marketing I've ever read(and I've read a lot).

I suggest a lot of research, and make up your own mind. if you are serious, start with that book.

 

[David Hooper]

"No image" is still an image, isn't it? A band doesn't have to be the Spice Girls to have an image.

Image is who you are and how you present yourself, whether you work at it or not. So I'd say it's pretty important.

 

[donkeystyle]

"No image" is still an image, isn't it? A band doesn't have to be the Spice Girls to have an image.

Image is who you are and how you present yourself, whether you work at it or not. So I'd say it's pretty important.

i now people normally give you a lot of crap when you post, so i just want to say that this was extremely well said and i agree.

 

[ecktronic]

Of course image is important. Its all about painting a false picture for the fans to kind of beleive in in a fantasy way.
Im not saying that all bands need an image, but it does help. You might not think that image has maybe slightly changed your decision on buying a certain CD, but it probably has. Advertising is sly and subconcious.
The white sripes. Their image is very distinguishable (red and black everywhere!), looks different and is kinda cool although i wouldnt adopt it. Im sure it has helped their career. Also the thing about the two of them being brother and sister/ husband and wife, i would say is bullsh*t and just a way to get people talking about them so that they get noticed more andf ultimately sell more of their products.

 

[Richard Monroe]

Image isn't about what people do to get signed. That is called "posturing", not image. Image is something the record company prays you will acquire. If you have gotten to the point where you *are* a household name, *then* maybe you get to have an image. This means that the big recording company has already made a boatload off you, and if you are smart, you have made quite a bit yourself. "Image" is about how long you will continue to feed hits to the record company. As far as your new lifestyle will be, person with an image, I'd rather be a smalltime happy indie with a wife, a house, and a swimming pool *I* take care of, instead of the pool guy. With enough talent, you can overcome bad image (not bad boy image, which can work), but I'm not feeling hopeful for Jacko's career. Po' folk don't have "image". In order to have an image, people must first know you exist. Hey-even William Chung has an image. It doesn't matter *how* you get the peple to know your name. Image isn't always a good thing. Charles Manson has an "image", too.-Richie

 

[Zed10R]

Image isn't about what people do to get signed. That is called "posturing", not image. Image is something the record company prays you will acquire. If you have gotten to the point where you *are* a household name, *then* maybe you get to have an image.

I cannot agree with that. If you are into mainstream music of any genre, when people go to your gig, they expect to SEE a good SHOW. What you look like and what the stage show is like seems to be more important that the music. A perfect example would be the lip-syncing that pop performers do at "live" gigs. Not all, of course, but many. The fans don't care because they got to SEE thier favorite perfomer. So you see, how you look IS your image.

Aerosmith, for example, is an icon. They will sell out concerts no matter how they dress or what they do on stage. But before they became an icon, they had a simple bad boy rocker party boy image, portrayed by they way they dress and act, on stage and off. That is what I am talking about. I don't think they would have gotten that first record deal if they looked like regular guys off the street who had office jobs, even if the material was EXACTLY the same.

I have come to the conclusion that the farther away you get from the mainstream, the less your success depends on what you look like.

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

I'm with David Hooper.

Your image, whether you're concious of it or not, comes across every time you perform in your actions, your clothes, your instruments, what you say, etc. It comes across in every picture, on your CD cover, etc.

If you aren't aware of it then you are missing an opportunity for your presentation to match your genre and, in theory at least, match what your potential fans will recognize as worth checking out.

Its not about posturing unless the genre your into (hip hop, metal, glam, etc.) demands it. If you don't think that the metal heads are posturing a little, for example, then you've bought the image. Just like country fans admire the utter honesty and sentimentality of their gorgeous cowboys... you think that's really who they are? Maybe, but its such a common image that one has to step back and say "wait a minute..."

So, yes, image is incredibly important. Even if you're just being yourself. Even fantastic, virtuoso musicians have an image. Take a look at Victor Wooten's website. The guy is one of the most humble, down to earth people I've ever met and one of the best musicians who's music sells itself- but he still has an image and has fun with it.

Don't buy the hype that you've been exposed to as a consumer all this time. Understand it for what it is- a method of matching the artist's visual image to a certain lifestyle, emotion, or sub-culture that makes it easy to recognize them as part of a genre. Once you understand that you can use it to your own advantage. Match your image to what you're trying to sell, even if that just means being yourself and not trying to have an image other than that, and you've got another tool.

Take care,
Chris