Why doesimage actually count?

I actually honestly think the thrash sterotype looks a bit stupid tbh with the hightops and what not.

Holy Crap! Lions! wrote:

jonny_boy34 wrote:Personality is much more important than image. Bruce Dickinson has short hair now and wears rubbish clothes, but that doesn't stop him from still being the best frontman this earth has ever seen. Sure, he had his own image back in the day, but the way he is now proves that didn't really matter because his on stage personality is so powerful and glorious.

So Bruce doesn't dress up as 19th century redcoat and wave a huge flag about?

I was thinking about the more recent tour where he just wore a suit jacket and a t-shirt with an alien head on it all the way through. The Dance of Death tour was a more theatrical thing for fun boys, but I'm just talking generally. On the Brave New World tour too he didn't really wear anything extravagant other than a sleeveless denim jacket from what I remember.

Dethhead wrote:Why doesimage actually count?

I actually honestly think the thrash sterotype looks a bit stupid tbh with the hightops and what not.

And yes, I agree and I also think it's pointless and doesn't really do anything to enhance the musical experience, but then again if people want to have fun doing it, there's no harm.

How should a Thrash band look?

Like this:

As long as the music is good it doesn't really bother me what a band looks like. Sometimes it can help build up an impression of what style of music they play - I mean, if I saw a picture of a band claiming they were thrash and they all looked like scene kids I would be a little dubious, but then if the music turned out to be decent then I wouldn't care....but I think it would be just stupid for a thrash band to get on stage dressed in thrash t-shirts, hip tops etc. when the rest of the time they don't really dress like that.

If you don't gots massive hightops, then FUCK YOU.

jonny_boy34 wrote:On the Brave New World tour too he didn't really wear anything extravagant other than a sleeveless denim jacket from what I remember.

He wore a pair of trousers that were made out of every pair of trousers he had ever worn on stage previously. Not exactly your every day going to sainsbury's wear.

Ok well bloody hell, my point is he usually doesn't dress as ridiculously as he used to do and it doesn't matter. Let's just use the AMOLAD tour then for an example, he just basically looked like a normal man dressed in smart casual wear.

WHITE THRASH wrote:If you don't gots massive hightops, then FUCK YOU.

Aye.

Bestial Bill wrote:I think Metallica really were more just influenced by their NWOBHM heroes, surely glam wasn't really very established in 82/83? Or am I wrong here?

yeah you are TBH, cuz in 82/83 glam was well established especially in LA in particular with bands like quiet riot, motley crue, wasp, dokken, malice and ratt. Metallica may have been influenced by NWOBHM bands to some point, but i have never seen a pic of them dressed like sean harris or Brian tatler at all, so i do think they did just play as they dressed, making this their image, wether that was a decision to use that look as an image or not who knows???

as long as they dont look like emos and make decent music i dont care what they look like

Everyone should just look like this:


I'm pretty sure it'd make the world a better place

Stu shall we start a psychedelic thrash band, and dress like this every days, and you can play the hand flute and bongos.

psychedelic trash

take loads of acid and listen to sadus

i want a psychedelic thrash band. dont think it would work though....thrash flute???!!....this country