J: ICARUS WITCH: New Album Details Revealed - "mysteriously entitled"
how is that anymore mysteriously entitled than anything else?
also, the band name sucks! check em out on marchives: http://www.metal-archives.com/
M: drawing down the moon is some bullshit wiccan ritual, i don't see how it's mysterious at all. omg: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL at the marchives pic!
J: there only seems to be two members now. i can't really see why anyone would want an image like that :)
M: like a gay rock pirate?
J: it's as though crashdiet and that lame pirate metal band who's name evades me collided and formed this
M: swashbuckle D:
i was trying to think of what it was, could only think of "ramshackle" for ages XD
J: them!
makes me rage hard >.<
M: yea. i wish they were called ramshackle.
J: i think that'd be worse >.<
M: i don't know. if they were stilll a theme band then i don't care...i don't really like theme bands in that 5 year old dressing up sense. i like theme bands in the tankard sense - but i dunno, whatever, i think swashbuckle are the epitome of lameness.
J: being themed as in content not appearance you mean?
M: i guess so, themed in content is okay, as most people have specific areas they're interested in...but themed appearance as well makes you seem too novelty and too much of a joke. only bm bands can be themed in appearance and content ;D
J: that.
M: X[
J: like how thrash bands always had a content theme, and crossover was usually about partying. taking to appearance means you're attention seekers, or your music sucks so much you need to.
M: that.
i know image is obvs a big part of music, across all genres - but some people take it too far and make it all a bit too cosplay, like its all just an act and it draws attention away from the music. dressing like pirates is the equivalent of the women that dress up as "sexy witches" for halloween.
J: > and make it all a bit too cosplay
motley crue don't come under this since their music is fucking amazing! as with early kiss too.
M: but at the time, glam bands weren't dressing up to "be dressed as glam bands" that was just what they were all wearing at the time - it was about being shocking and subversive and silly, pissing off the parent generation at that time who were still very conservative. they didn't come out specifically dressed up as anything.
J: kiss just look like immortal and tuff collided at high speed :)
i see what you mean - it's like with slipknot in a way, they made such a big deal about the costumes when they first came out, but their first album was good enough to not have an image, but now, it's that and the live shows people care about.
So people, to theme or not to theme? It's usually a little bit of both (metal often being highly theatrical anyway) but what happens when your image starts to overshadow any actual capabilities? Where I work, I'm pretty sure that about 80% of the people on my team have heard of KISS. But I'd bet money that not more than one of them would recognise a KISS song. I know plenty of people who've heard of GWAR, but I also know that if questioned, they'd hazard a guess that they sounded like Lordi.
For many bands, having a distinct theme helps to brand your group, which helps the fans know where they're at. You only need to see Rob Darken to understand what Graveland is all about and almost all black metal bands can be spotted without ever having to hear their music.
A little goes a long way, though. Everyone wants their reputation to precede them, but when you beome defined by ideas of how you should look and sound, you can become pigeonholed and restricted. No-one really wanted KISS to take off the make-up back in '83. Alestorm have pretty much committed themselves to singing about wenches and mead forever more. Even bands like Tankard - if they wanted to release a serious track, unless it's about serious beer drinking, most people ain't gonna want to know.
Your thoughts?
M: like a gay rock pirate?
J: it's as though crashdiet and that lame pirate metal band who's name evades me collided and formed this
M: swashbuckle D:
i was trying to think of what it was, could only think of "ramshackle" for ages XD
J: them!
makes me rage hard >.<
M: yea. i wish they were called ramshackle.
J: i think that'd be worse >.<
M: i don't know. if they were stilll a theme band then i don't care...i don't really like theme bands in that 5 year old dressing up sense. i like theme bands in the tankard sense - but i dunno, whatever, i think swashbuckle are the epitome of lameness.
J: being themed as in content not appearance you mean?
M: i guess so, themed in content is okay, as most people have specific areas they're interested in...but themed appearance as well makes you seem too novelty and too much of a joke. only bm bands can be themed in appearance and content ;D
J: that.
M: X[
J: like how thrash bands always had a content theme, and crossover was usually about partying. taking to appearance means you're attention seekers, or your music sucks so much you need to.
M: that.
i know image is obvs a big part of music, across all genres - but some people take it too far and make it all a bit too cosplay, like its all just an act and it draws attention away from the music. dressing like pirates is the equivalent of the women that dress up as "sexy witches" for halloween.
J: > and make it all a bit too cosplay
motley crue don't come under this since their music is fucking amazing! as with early kiss too.
M: but at the time, glam bands weren't dressing up to "be dressed as glam bands" that was just what they were all wearing at the time - it was about being shocking and subversive and silly, pissing off the parent generation at that time who were still very conservative. they didn't come out specifically dressed up as anything.
J: kiss just look like immortal and tuff collided at high speed :)
i see what you mean - it's like with slipknot in a way, they made such a big deal about the costumes when they first came out, but their first album was good enough to not have an image, but now, it's that and the live shows people care about.
So people, to theme or not to theme? It's usually a little bit of both (metal often being highly theatrical anyway) but what happens when your image starts to overshadow any actual capabilities? Where I work, I'm pretty sure that about 80% of the people on my team have heard of KISS. But I'd bet money that not more than one of them would recognise a KISS song. I know plenty of people who've heard of GWAR, but I also know that if questioned, they'd hazard a guess that they sounded like Lordi.
For many bands, having a distinct theme helps to brand your group, which helps the fans know where they're at. You only need to see Rob Darken to understand what Graveland is all about and almost all black metal bands can be spotted without ever having to hear their music.
A little goes a long way, though. Everyone wants their reputation to precede them, but when you beome defined by ideas of how you should look and sound, you can become pigeonholed and restricted. No-one really wanted KISS to take off the make-up back in '83. Alestorm have pretty much committed themselves to singing about wenches and mead forever more. Even bands like Tankard - if they wanted to release a serious track, unless it's about serious beer drinking, most people ain't gonna want to know.
Your thoughts?
