I don't think so, it helps if they are stylish but bands like Rush, did not have what I would call "style". But they have 24 gold records and 14 platinum (3 multi-platinum) records. So yeah it's the substance that wins in the end.

mikeywayishot said:

I don't think so, it helps if they are stylish but bands like Rush, did not have what I would call "style". But they have 24 gold records and 14 platinum (3 multi-platinum) records. So yeah it's the substance that wins in the end.

yeh exactly. and its the bands music you listen to you dont stand around and look at them all day!! lol and thats kinda superficial. if they have a good style then thats ok but its not the most important thing.

Image is important but it's just the packaging, an eye-catcher to get attention. It may attract you or repeal you. Once you have the attention it's substance that matters because it's about the sound and feeling that is translated by the band. Packaging or style is only on the surface, then it's all about what's inside. I think that's true for anything!

If everyone said no the majority of them would be talking bull. When Mikey lost his glasses, people made a fuss. When Gerard changed his style to waist coats and shirts everyone started to complain.
If a band played really good music, but dress in burberry not many people would like them. I think it doesnt TOTALLY matter, but yes it is a factor.

Well, I don't really know. I guess when a band like MCR try something new with their music their style changes a bit too - though they never really move away from black! They said they like to try new things, coz if you do the same thing it starts to sound the same and gets boring...people's sense of style do change...so I guess the image does really matter in a way

Image shouldn't matter at all. It's about the music, at least it SHOULD be about the music. If you're paying attention to image over music, that's pretty superficial. When you first hear a song on the radio and like it without knowing who's singing it, you're not seeing the band. If all the anti-preps hear a song that songs like a7x and then see the band wearing polo's and khaki's on MTV are they going to not like them?

No image doesn't matter to me because music is all that matters. It's the music that should inspire the listeners to want to listen more and to go to their concerts not who was on MTV or how hot the lead singer is. If I like a song im going to find out more about the band and more of their music. Also I hate it when MTV kills a artist or a band by over playing ONE song thats really good for example The Klaxons, Fall Out Boy (in the begining), Cobra Starship, Paramore, and My Chemical Romance.

yeah it matters to a point, no one wants to listen to a band that looks like trash we'd rather listen to a band wearing black parade marching jackets or an original style. but for the most part the music is the only thing that matters

The image of the band shouldn't matter at all. If the music they make is something that you enjoy, is meaningful, and is also something you can relate to, then you shouldn't be turned off just because the band's image is not one that you would consider 'cool'.

I don't think a band's image matters, but it doesn't bother me if they do have one. Seriously, all the bands I've liked, I've listened to their music before ever seeing the people in the band. So, I think bands should bring you in with their music and not they're looks, which let's you like the band for the music.. not the "gorgeous face" you see on the cover of magazines.

I'm going to keep this short and sweet....I think that it doesn't matter...it's all about the meaning of the music!

Sometimes it might seem like it matters. But without the music, a person on stage trying to looking cool, is just a person on stage trying to looking cool. In the end, it's the music that matters.

People might try and say "oh it's all about the music, it's all about the music".. But honestly when it comes down to it, the bands that are selling and making major amounts of money are the bands with images. Why did Good Charlotte sell more than MEST? Even though the bands were extremely similar, and in someways MEST was quite possibly better, Good Charlotte had the gimmick of the twins and more of a faux "punk" image, which at the time was what was selling. I could go through a ton of examples, but to keep it short I'm just going to ask you all one question... If Jeffree Star didn't have the image he has, would ANYONE have downloaded his music or go to one of his shows?

for me whether a band has style or not doesnt really matter.
its about the music, not how they look.
i mean, just because they might have amazing clothes and are totally drool worthy doesnt mean thats going to make their music more appealing.
i think when someone takes a look at a band and decides that they hate them and think they suck just because of the bands clothing choice is just totally pathetic and childish.
im a fan of cradle of filth, and personally i love the way they dress, but when i told a girl i used to be friends with to check them out, she looked them up, saw how they dressed and goes "im not listening to that crap, look at them, they freak me out. they suck."
If you can appreciate the band for their music, which is the main thing, then i dont think looks or style should even be in the line of thought.
And people who think that the look of a band is more important clearly need to grow up and stop being so shallow.