| previous by date | index | next by date |
| previous in topic | topic list | next in topic |
On 26 July 2011 22:15, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/07/2011 19:37, Norman Fay wrote:One might reply that it is better to be OTT and stupid-looking, even
if you do wind up looking like an idiot, than to get up onstage in
plaid and scuffed trainers or the like, like just about everybody else
does.
Why?
Because it suggests that the artist has put some...thought? effort? something like that...into their performance.I mean, personally, Todd Rundgren posturing in his pink hair
with ankh-spaped electric guitar is more likely to keep my attention
that Liam Gallagher in a hoody, squatting onstage like he's about to
take a dump.
Does that really keep your attention? For how long? Why?
Well as long as I'm interested in the music I suppose. It is more interesting to watch while you're listening to the music.
It's more interesting to look at. this is a false
dichtomony, black & white, yadda-yadda. If ELP's mighty stainless
steel drumkit and persian rug, or Yes' fibreglass mushrooms is OH NO
BURN IT W/FIRE WAGE KULTURKAMPF UPON IT then what is actually OK for a
band to adopt as a look I wonder.
Oh don't misunderstand me. I think most rock bands look idiotic on stage, largely because they think they have to, and that might be dictated by the audience.