Why is having a good look so important for a band when it's

i suppose it's because both music and visual art (photography, fashion, posing, etc) are subsets of the realm of aesthetics

i don't entirely agree with your thesis though OP, some bands look really cool and sound like shit

see every punk band ever

>>71815637
When Green Day first started, they both looked cool and sounded great.

Later on their sound got watered down and they started looking strangely glam.

File: 2891_photo.jpg (41KB, 321x451px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 321x451px

Most of the good bands never gave a fuck when they were being photographed, or at least made it seem like they didn't

Usually, taste transcends across mediums.

it's not important in the slightest

File: 10389396-beach-house.jpg (290KB, 2200x1306px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 2200x1306px

Some bands know how to market themselves to get traction and interest. People a attracted to attractive bands and if that gets them to listen to their music, mission accomplished.

Because

>1) Art is multifaceted; if you sound great but have a bland or unappealing aesthetic people won't have a good mental image listening to your music

>2) Being an entertainer means having a good presentation; if you're tight and play great music but look like frumpy retards, nobody will like watching you live and you'll look like you don't give a shit about what you're doing.

File: download (2).jpg (7KB, 273x184px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 273x184px

>>71815609
Image is everything.

Do you think Nirvana would have got as popular as they did if Kurt Cobain was fat and ugly?

Would anybody care about him today if it wasn't for his facial aesthetics?

File: rs-356-pixies.jpg (45KB, 782x439px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 782x439px

>>71816019
imagine how big the pixies would have been if they looked halfway attractive and didn't dress like college slobs

>>71816019
>Daniel Johnston

>>71816343
His music sounds as autistic as he looks, so it still fits a kind of marketing scheme.

>>71815609
Dan?

>>71816343
Daniel Johnston isn't a rock martyr god and on the same level as Cobain

>>71816138
frank black was cute

>>71818492
Kinda agree on this in a way, but I think he was
already balding at this point or some shit.

Maybe frank should've grew his hair like an inch or two more and then worked out a bit. But then again this is the late 80s we're talking about, the "alternative rock" image didn't really exist until 1991 with the exceptions of maybe R.E.M

>>71816512

Oh shit lol. Who is this??

>>71818770

lmao i knew it was you faggot. hahahahahahah jesus why are you such a loser?

>>71815609
Literally all /mu/ core bands contradict your "cool bands tend to look cool" statement

The heavy dude with glasses and long hair on the left looks like this ogre I see roaming my SUNY campus

File: bowie changes.gif (1MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x500px

Your music is a product, you have to look cool, dress cool, be cool.
You are selling your music to a market, what is your market, black people, white people, hipsters, teenagers, women, etc
You have to embody that market physically.
You have to have teenagers thinking you are so cool they start cosplaying you.
You have to be so cool other bands and musicians start ripping off your sound and look.
But get this, your so cool, you already thought of a new sound and look while those plebes are playing catch up.

Look at bowie, fucking look at this beautiful motherfucker, how you go from being a gay space alien to a black and white neonazi named the thin white duke.

There is this video of bowie talking about how he made personas, its an interesting concept, basically he had a hard time thinking of music to write about his life so he just made up a character

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIDXXDsxAo

>>71815609
Because good music requires creativity, which doesn't uncommonly affect other areas of a person's life, such as their visual presentation.

Music is also performance.

There is a difference between james brown running out on stage in a cape, and dancing his ass off and some hipster fuck staring at his shoes.

The people are there to see a fucking show man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vruy2GRUsV8


Music is a business, you are a performer,

Christ, as an artist you got to sit down and contemplate this stuff right.
We live in a capitalistic society, what gets the people going, what is good music, why is music

>>71819045
>Music is also performance.
Why was shoegazing so popular at the time?

>>71820315
It was never popular.

>>71815609
You probably have this misconception because you don't what good music actually is. :^)

>>71818847
Who said mu-core are cool bands. If they were cool you'd think we'd be outside conversing about our favorite music, but no, that isn't the case. Instead were stuck making in-jokes on an anonymous imageboard.

People want to see some personality and style. People want to the band having fun.

>>71815609
Because, regardless of everything else, people see you first - then they hear you. It's just a fact of life.

>>71815935
>Art
>Performer's physical appearance matters more than the music itself
That's not how it works.

>>71818894
This is true if you're creating a product. If you're creating music, it's not in the slightest.

>>71821366
>>71818954
>>71816019
Could you then explain how a talented band like Steely Dan became so popular? I don't like them at all, but they are very talented people and also very ugly people. And here's something else:
>>71821422
>>71821440

Straight up, boring people make boring music.
That's why people like Prince and Bowie are so revered, because the average person couldn't handle more than a 4 minute glimpse into their minds.

Music is still sound-based. Image cannot cover up for terrible music.
But the two definitely go hand in hand. If you're an interesting person, you're probably going to make more interesting fashion choices and have more interesting opinions to go along with all your little idiosyncrasies that normies can barely even comprehend.

>>71821681
creative people take more risks in all aspects of life

>>71820974
idk dude lots of /mu/ core bands are cool with "artsy" normals. Kanye, loveless, and anco are all pretty huge and considered "cool".

>>71815700
green day never looked cool or ever sounded great

File: 7427dd06768c0e7e18eaeb74466fd39c.jpg (251KB, 600x409px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 600x409px

>>71815609
>Why is having a good look so important for a band

it's not

pic related

>>71823144
they look like their audience

the beatle's mop top was definitely a marketing tool that they came to resent … their music changed with their fashion

>>71815609
Because it gets inattentive idiots to listen to the fucking band.

The bands that are successful aren't just successful on their looks alone, their success has brought their publicity machine to craft their image for them.

File: 19870811_001.jpg (77KB, 370x463px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 370x463px

>>71823181
>they look like their audience

not really. and that's irrelevant to the fact that the Dead were one of the worst dressed bands of all time, and that didn't factor one iota into their success

>>71823249
their audience was too high to notice

just an excuse to party

trey is way overrated

A band name is even more important than looks.

GWAR

/thread

>>71821422
It's also not what I said.

>>71823430
>trey is way overrated
u wot m8

>>71824367
fight me