02-14-2014, 12:56 AM
(02-13-2014, 05:40 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: With their dyed hair, make up, and puffy shirts? It was so not about the music. It was image, which is why they had so many screaming girls.
That's like One Direction saying "it's all about the music".
If your argument were true, then The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, KISS, Nazareth, U2, etc...were not so much about the music either. They all had styles/images and I don't doubt that making the girls scream (and other things) was a rush, but I think they are/were very much about the music.
Visual style and stage have gone together forever; "performers". When MTV and music videos exploded and all the world became the stage in the early 80s, image became an even bigger focus for a lot of emerging musical acts, naturally. Better looking bands probably had an advantage breaking through as a result. But, Duran Duran had already been playing the clubs before then. I don't doubt that they were very much about the music (though they were never a favorite of mine). I think the same was true of Van Halen, Motley Crue, Guns N Roses...
Being a "pretty boy" doesn't make someone less of a musician, anymore than it makes him more of one.
Joan Jett is and always has been very sexy to me and she made a lot of girls (and boys) scream, no doubt about it. Doesn't mean she's not passionate about making music, does it?
Why do you discount their passion for the music or their talent if male performers are good looking and they like the girls and sex that go with the territory? It doesn't make sense to me.