In terms ofv publicity/financing/image/crop of men/women you bone.... yes.
It matters drastically.
Doesn't much in the end though.
Everybody greets the reaper again and again.
brENsKi wrote:
i don't think it matters that much, however, from a personal point of view - i think it's a cross i have to bear. a burden i carry quite well. :-)
Be strong! Salvation is on the way. They say this burden will become significantly thinner in just a few decades of time ;-)
A little man named Prince Rogers Nelson found it extremely helpful for getting himself out of a contract around 1995.
I think he lost the moronic public after that bit, but he continued making a variety of music almost all his own. Some even that has surpassed his iconic work on Warner brothers
O (+>
I reckon they would have ZaZa. Maybe not to the same extent though. But there were heaps of faceless American album bands that disappeared when MTV came in, and I think Queen's music has been far too good to have been ignored, even if the band looked like the back end of a bus. Sio I would say that back then it was (even more?) about the music. And of course it probably matters a whole lot less to the majority of the male fans.....lol.
What do you mean? Are you saying that The Queen would make it in their day even if they all looked like Spike Edney?
kkkkkkkkkkkk interesting that you said, but just see now, which artist that make sucess today counteins a appearance "uggly"? The world of music change a lot these years, musically and appearance speaking
Heavenite wrote:
I reckon they would have ZaZa. Maybe not to the same extent though. But there were heaps of faceless American faceless album bands that disappeared when MTV came in, and I think Queen's music has been far too good to have been ignored, even if the band looked like the back end of a bus. Sio I would say that back then it was (even more?) about the music. And of course it probably matters a whole lot less to the majority of the male fans.....lol.
Well, good looks don’t matter when you hear the song on the radio and I agree it was less important in pre MTV era, but still, it’s The Queen. They always invested a lot into their stage appearance; some sources even define them as “glam rock”. It’s hard to imagine them ugly. It would be a completely different band then, maybe even musically different.
Yes ZaZa. I agree. I reckon their sound would have been different if Freddie especially didn't look the way he did. It was the whole effect he was going for I think, so no looks and image and the whole package might have been quite different.
Uhm, well... not sure you got the whole depth of my thought XD
When I said they might be different musically, I meant there’s a lot of theatrical stuff in their music. I’d define The Queen as one step closer to the future in their day; which means closer to MTV I guess :-D
Zaza Gabor wrote:
Uhm, well... not sure you got the whole depth of my thought XD
When I said they might be different musically, I meant there’s a lot of theatrical stuff in their music. I’d define The Queen as one step closer to the future in their day; which means closer to MTV I guess :-D
I didn’t mean to argue with your argument, Heavenite. There can’t be better argument than agreeing with me anyway ;P
I meant it in general, a very-very general remark to the general public XD about the fact that The Queen obviously were part of that sex icon formation process in pop music that rules today and what MTV is responsible for.
waunakonor wrote:
I, personally, disagree, but to each his own.
Tasteless outfits, no curves, and a nose like old good Barbra’s… but you are right. To each his own!
Besides, I never said Gaga isn’t sexy. I’m not the one to tell if she is but anyway XD Rather, that sex icon thing seems a bit gone over the top in Gaga’s case, so that sexy seems no more beautiful to me. To each his own, still :-)