Janszoon

Every genre? Dubstep? Grindcore? Cumbia?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

starrynight

That was part of what I was thinking. Rock is as much about image as pop, in some ways maybe much more so. Bowie was seen to epitomise the glam scene and established himself as much because of his image as because of the music. There is plenty of good music in the 70s but most of them never had the image and fame Bowie had.

I don't think The Beatles were as much about image. That's shown in that they changed quite a bit through the 60s, they are not remembered specifically for certain costumes, makeup or a kind of attitude like Bowie is. He even made up names for himself like Ziggy Stardust and became them in concert.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

djchameleon

that's so not true!

yes Bowie was a bit more flamboyant but The Beatles were just as much about image as he was. They are specifically remember for those matching bowl hair cuts they had

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

Unknown Soldier

I`d hardly put the funny haircuts that the Beatles had, in the same type of image category that Bowie was projecting. Also the comparison is not great, as the Beatles look was quite some time before Bowie kicked in.

djchameleon

My point is they still had an image with that haircut, an image that was even replicated by other bands.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

Unknown Soldier

I see your point but there is still a big difference in the images being projected here. The Beatles image was seen as being trendy and generally accepted as being a popular fad. Whereas, Bowie`s image was decadent and and androgynous, and parents didn`t want their kids coming home looking like that

djchameleon

that's why I used the word flamboyant to describe that whole part of what you said :P

IMO, Starrynight was saying The Beatles had no image whatsoever or that's what I got from what he was saying.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

Unknown Soldier

Well dreamynight got that part wrong.

starrynight

Except that I never said The Beatles had no image. Where did I actually say that? In your imagination.

Bowie intentionally set out to shock visually, his image was part of his whole act. The Beatles didn't really shock, they took their image from the time they were in. Their originality was more in the music as that is what they concentrated on.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

[MERIT]

Very true. If anything, the initial clean-cut image of the Beatles was intended to do the exact opposite of that of the image that David Bowie portrayed. Beatles were designed for mass appeal, Bowie was designed for counter culture.