Image Bands and their Discontents

pfunk was a whole package not just limited to image.

Death Metal band in corpse paint

wait did no one point out something here? (i think you mean Black Metal)

http://www.thenation.com/article/p-funk-politics

trying to find an article with Clinton's involvement with that crazy sect that I momentarily have forgotten the name of.

but before i say anything else

SUN RA

Process Church of the Final Judgement is what I was thinking of re Clinton

the process church of the final judgment

dagnit

such a creepy name, even just "the process church"

like something grant morrisson would come up with

teaching mark s a *LESSON* response three: FUNKADELIC

read that for a further explanation of clinton and Process Church of the Final Judgement

Should note btw that Clinton was never actually a part of that sect though he did use quotes for the early album sleevenotes

yay! This is the best *BURSTS ONTO THREAD LIKE KOOL AID MAN* entrance ever.

I'm going to come back and read the links, but in the shower, I was thinking through this, about P-Funk, but mostly about this whole thread of "glam" that had nothing at all to do with Bowie/Roxy (or did it? I don't know. Afrika Bambaataa being influenced by Kraftwerk, it's not impossible) and wondering where it came from - Afro-Futurism, Sun-Ra, what?

And realising how my "blind spot" is just another example of white privilege, like, when I see a white Britishes band dressing up, I assume that's about Art and Image, but when I see an African-American band dressing up, I think that "Bling" is about class and race positioning, but it can't be an aesthetic decision, too? That's capital B Bullshit, BB.

Sun Ra, Sly Stone, Hendrix amongst other things yeah. Clinton was a hairdresser and a very well read man so he was up to date on fashion and could combine it with his other knowledge and developed something really amazing.

ps got no idea what kool aid man is!

oh an um yeah lots and lots of acid

(Kool aid man:

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/7666/1099409-koolaidman.jpg

I feel like such a weird sometimes that I get both Kool Aid Man jokes and Beano jokes :-/)

the motherpage is gone but it appears to be available here
http://archive.is/nFt0

xp. see i'd get beano jokes!

Discussing "Image Bands" without Hendrix = ???????? but then again, Hendrix had to go to the UK for his thing to take off so, like, hmmmm.

The English consuming cartoons of other cultures, too.

which leads to the pfunk pedro bell cartoons!

FWIW, I think that there is some odd quirk of both British and Japanese cultures which actively encourages Image-Making, though I am not awake enough to work out what it is.

England-wise it feels like a long & deep social tradition to me - 1660s (at least) afaik - the image-provocateur has one of those liminal relationships to authority & the establishment - a figure of fun but also close to seats of social & political power (since they're often mates with the King or regent or whoever) - often an arriviste - & reaching one ultra-self-conscious & intellectual terminus (=starting point for the 20th too) with Wilde. The cause… something to do with the rigidity and complexity of British class-coding (& signalling) making that a playground for the imaginative self-maker? I dunno, that feels a bit a simplistic, turning things to class. Early development of the press in London? The theatre may come into it.

(I know nothing about Japanese culture, so I'll ignore that bit of the q)

that is a fucked up kool-aid man. normal kool-aid man does not involve corpse rubble. he is just a normal guy on packet beverage.

http://84d1f3.medialib.glogster.com/media/1d/1db0b92e8e29ad2b87fde09bdd0fe3cb565d867cfee9d0c2595ccb0f9ec7fa50/kool-aid-man.png

he does belong to the weird category of food being offering itself to be enjoyed by man

Kool-aid man bursts through walls! This is what Kool-aid man does! This was one of the most distressing aspects of American children's television in the late 70s/early 80s, when I first moved to the US. Like, I could just be at some normal kids' party and someone would just say "Hey, Kool aid!" and then this terrifying creature would burst through a wall. American was a TERRIFYING place to a 9 year old Brit.

(Sorry - thank you, Woof, that is an excellent post and something I'd love to dig deeper into.)

Back to previous subject, like, I should have been thinking of this - I was re-watching Dreamgirls recently, and although I assumed it had been brushed up for Broadway/Hollywood, the whole manufacturing of Image, and toning down of Image, was so centrally placed at the *heart* of that narrative. Both in the flamboyant Little Richard/James Brown character, and in the Supremes characters.

it's true, wall-bursting was totally his thing, though he seemed pretty careful abt bursting through in a manner that wouldn't squash babies or w/e, at least not on camera. along with the hawaiian punch guy (who lived only to sock people in the face and may actually have been named "hawaiian punch"), it was a dark time for powdered children's beverages.

as well as discussing what in certain cultures encourages self-as-image play, we might look at it from the other direction. what is it about american culture that sometimes seems to discourage (or at least constrain) that sort of thing? residual puritanism? homophobia?

without wishhing further derailment here's an awesome Peter Bagge Kool-Aid Man comic: http://www.againwiththecomics.com/2008/07/alan-moore-peter-bagge-and-kool-aid-man.html

oh shit it's Alan Moore too, I never realised that!

Think it's p obvious why White American culture doesn't do it. The horror of being scene as effeminate, the policing of masculinity. But also the terror that dressing up, being a Dandy is fey and foppish and European and contrary to the Frontier Mythos. In the 20th Century, fear of Black culture, fear of the Other.

The connection of English + theatre is an interesting one. Because of the whole "women not allowed onstage" thing, there was a longstanding tradition of men dressing as women without it reading as a *homosexual* thing to be doing. Plus, the origins of British Theatre - spent last semester reading Cornish passion plays, which are some of the last surviving remnants of Cornish (late Medieval) and there is some *fantastical* stuff in there, about appearances being deceptive (never trust The English), world turned upside down, men as women, women as men stuff in there.

Think it's p obvious why White American culture doesn't do it.

why is say New York different to the rest of the USA then?

But also the terror that dressing up, being a Dandy is fey and foppish and European

pretty funny when so many like to boast of their euro roots!

Though I guess Scots/Irish tend to be very non-dandy so its acceptable to them.

every bands that make music videos presents an image. moneyfornothing.mp3 and when i am interested in a song i often care what the band looks like , mainly for the singer's visual performance, their "acting", because some emotions invested in the song may not come across strictly in audio, or differently than i imagined. many artists say that it doesn't really matter what the song is about, the fans can make it theirs and invest the meaning they want into it, or variations of this, and i am fine with this, but i also like to see how some lyrics are delivered to have a better understanding of the meaning / complexity of the emotion/humour/and what not.

1) NYC is way more like a European city than an American one; for much of the US's history it was the point of entry for many, many immigrants and it has still retained that flavour

2) Because of the boundary constraints of being located on (2 or 3?) tiny island(s) (where the rest of the US is so far flung apart) I think that historically, races were able to mix and cultures rub up against one another more freely. That happens more easily in a constrained space than in deliberately segregated neighbourhoods, which dominate much of the US.

Feel like there's a lot that could be said about "natty dressing" in Black music whether that's jazz dudes in suits, or the deliberate ostentatious competitive dressing of hiphop acts and "GucciGucciGucci"

in college, i took time out from my normal pursuit of punk and indie bands to see a show by the spinners. my friend peter and i dressed the way we normally did for concerts: jeans, t-shirts, whatever. we get there, and every single person in the theater is dressed either in suits -- nice suits! -- or dresses. we felt like party-crashing drunk assholes. (and yet we were treated great by everyone around us, totally welcomed, never made to feel the slightest bit out of place.)

Think it's p obvious why White American culture doesn't do it. The horror of being scene as effeminate, the policing of masculinity. But also the terror that dressing up, being a Dandy is fey and foppish and European and contrary to the Frontier Mythos.

the entire histories of hair metal, new wave and of course steven tyler may choose to disagree with you on this.

I'm guessing Sigue Sigue Sputnik belong here? Tony James called them a 'fantasy band', iirc.

One thing I kind of regret about my band years is not giving more thought to how both I and the rest of the band dressed. "Just about the music" seems like a bullshit posture when you're playing a live show, given that a big part of people's experience in a live show is WATCHING you play. I think the mere idea of suggesting to my bandmate dudes that we give more thought to our clothes probably seemed too embarrassing to even occur to me to bring up. I mean not that we were playing relax-fit jeans and rockports or anything, but we could have put more effort into it.

the entire histories of hair metal, new wave and of course steven tyler may choose to disagree with you on this

Not to mention those tiny cult acts beloved solely of rock critic nerds: Kiss, Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson...

I want to respond to something way upthread, though:

I don't know that "image bands" are solely the province of The Young; the continued careers of Bowie, Bryan Ferry, Madonna, Prince, Suede etc seem to suggest that they are not.

Bowie's current image is very much about being old, though; where his personae used to be in some way built around sexual desirability (up to you whether you want to fuck an alien or not), since re-emerging he's become Cool Artist Dad and is about as dressed-down as he's ever been. Ferry, on the other hand, seems to be playing the role of rich bored hobbyist making music to amuse himself - he's the Roger Sterling of pop, or something. And Madonna isn't so much an image as a collage of increasingly poorly chosen signifiers. I'm posting from the US, so as far as I'm concerned Suede never had a career to continue. And Prince, I think, is managing to stay relevant only in that he continues to fascinate music critics. The general public could give a fuck, is my impression, and I think the charts bear that out.

in this bullshit world the more someone's image gets trashed the more i respect them

the entire histories of hair metal, new wave and of course steven tyler may choose to disagree with you on this.

Look, the whole premise of this line of questioning was "why is it so much rarer in the US than the UK" not "why does it not exist in the US at all" which would be absurd, because we've discussed many examples from the US.

Yes but an entire decade of bands topping the charts, selling out arena concert tours, etc. doesn't exactly scream "rare."

It kind of seems like you're just starting from your conclusion here Branwell

The subgenre of "hair metal" is still a tiny subsection of "metal" which is a tiny subsection of "rock music" which, although I know it looks like the whole world to some people, still, really isn't.

And hair metal bands are kind of a weird area to start with, because they were the rare image band subculture which came out of LA rather than NYC (I suppose that's fitting, Hollywood "glamour" etc, but it's still curious.)

you mean like Kiss?

I get that you're from England, BB, but are you really gonna posit that the whole lineage from Kiss to Bon Jovi, Poison, Mötley Crüe, Guns N' Roses et al. are somehow less important in the global pop culture scheme of things than David Bowie and Bryan fucking Ferry?

No, I place Kiss in first wave glam. I mean, like, Motley Crue, Poison, LA Guns, GNR, classic hair metal.

I mean, I do not argue that there have never been image bands in the States. I just think that e.g. the per capita number of members of Image Bands in the UK or Japan per general population, vs per general population in the US. Yes, you have Aerosmith and hair metal, but it's really nothing like on the same scale.

I am NOT arguing that they don't exist, FFS!

now too many x-posts and you guys are just being silly

What I'm arguing here is that while we may have fewer "Image Bands" as a percentage of total bands in the US, they (largely by virtue of being from America) are more culturally influential on a global scale than their UK equivalents. And forget about the Japanese acts, which have virtually no presence outside Japan.

(BTW, I reviewed a concert by Japanese band L'Arc-en-Ciel for the Village Voice in 2012; here's my review, and here are some photos I took.)

Actually, on second thought, one of the biggest instigators of my impression of "WAAAAAAYYYY more Image Bands in the UK than in the US" may be because for many years, the UK had a functioning weekly music press, which the US never really had. More space to parade and represent your Image, much quicker turnover of bands and music micro-scenes = more Image.

Key paragraph from that Voice review, my description of L'Arc's lead singer:

hyde has to be the single most androgynous frontman I've ever seen—he makes Antony Hegarty look like Henry Rollins. He wore a waist-length black blazer with shoulder pads over a black tank top, pants baggy enough to hold a spare microphone or two, and his hair was in blond cornrows, dangling loose for better whipping. His primary stage move (other than sticking his tongue out at the audience) is a version of Axl Rose's snake-hips dance, but with added twirls and what can only be described as flouncing. Oh, and five songs or so into the set, he donned a floppy, wide-brimmed hat Alicia Keys would envy, making him look like a '90s R&B diva having a rock moment.

more culturally influential on a global scale than their UK equivalents.

...Americans always over-stating the effect of their ~cultural influence~ on the rest of the world... pfffftttt

You're bigger. That's about it. Now go wave your flag somewhere else, unless you're going to do it like the New York Dolls. :-P

for many years, the UK had a functioning weekly music press, which the US never really had. More space to parade and represent your Image, much quicker turnover of bands and music micro-scenes = more Image

This is related to a crucial difference between how the US and UK music industries function, I think. The US music industry, at least where rock is concerned, has always played a long game, signing bands to multi-album deals with the intention of building a years-long career for them. The UK industry is, I think, much more singles- and quick-hit-oriented, not so much worried about five - or even two - years down the road. I doubt the majority of UK bands plan a two-year touring cycle when they release an album, but that's pretty much standard practice, at least where I work.

Yeah, this is the thing I'm trying to get at, when I talk about "Image Bands in the UK" and why it's so different from the States.

Because we are a country whose entire landmass and population could fit inside just *one* of your 50 states (OK maybe not Delaware or Rhode Island?) and yet for a significant period of the late 20th Century, we somehow supported 2, sometimes 3 weekly music papers, and a dozen monthlies. That's a lot of pages to fill.

And when I was trying to express why I did not think Kiss or Bon Jovi or "hair metal" compares, is that, during the "golden era" of that music press, it wasn't just one or two Image Bands or even one or two Movements. During the course of a decade it went, like: Glam, Bay City Rollers style teeny bop, Punk, Classic Long Grey Overcoat Post-Punk, Romo, Goth, Blue-Eyed Soul, Synth-Pop and on and on and on. I could draw you a recognisable cartoon of a musician or fan of any one of those "styles". And probably any British person who obsessively read the music press between 1980 and whenever Melody Maker folded, could do you a similar (probably expanded, because my memory is poor) list, and similar cartoons.

We have a *ton* of stylistic churn, because of our music press, because of our shorter cycle. To stand out in that churn, "Image" is one of the ways to get column space. I'm not saying this is better or worse than the US, it's just different. I was looking for *why* we were different, and there's probably a host of reasons why, including the ones I touched on above. But this stuff is definitely the *how*.

(And I've been thinking about the steady parade of US bands from Nirvana Pixies onwards, who came over to the UK to "break" first in the UK press, then sell themselves back to the US on the strength of that success. But I'm tired, and if anyone wants me I'l be in my bunk with my £3 Interpol CDs...)