The Music vs the Look

[GentlemanJim]

The Monkees were a TV show that used music to promote it. Fans fell in love with the music to the extent that they supposed the TV stars into something they were not. The TV stars could not live up to the fantasy image the music fans had created, And the whole thing crashed and burned in a smoldering pile.

I remember it happening, I was duped just like everyone else, I bought a few records, ended up feeling betrayed..... "Boyce & Hart" yada yada........everything seemed so fake, the Monkees, The Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam war.....

So, in my youthful wisdom I decided that I deserved something "real", and became an Alice Cooper fan.....how fitting is that?

Somewhere over the years, I finally made peace with the past, and accepted that it was okay to be a Boyce & Hart fan. I liked the music, and was no longer ashamed to admit it. Even when further discovering the ugly truth about the Wrecking crew.

All in all, it makes an interesting tale. Many of those talented studio musicians really were too ugly to market their talents in person. The youth demanded a "hip" look, that the pre-fab four could deliver on.

Many musical performers really go all out to amp-up their visuals, to put sizzle around the steak. The costumes, the cosmetic surgery, the implants, the light shows, the props, the PR hype.

A couple years ago a co worker and I were listening to the radio announce one of the legacy concert tours coming to our town, and he mentioned that he could never understand all the obsession with appearance among music performers....that he "came for the music, not the make up".

And, while that sounds very noble, it got me to thinking....how important to the fan experience do you think the "star appearance" is? Performers such as Robert Plant and David Coverdale have gone to considerable length to cultivate their "Rock God" images.

So, I'm thinking that there must be some intrinsic need that we have to envision our idols as.....for lack of a better expression..."above the common plain"?

Does the music sound better when there is a beautiful person singing it?
What do you all think?

[AB]

The Metal Hair Bands of the 80's cultivated that image of handsome guys with flowing long hair. But they could actually play and sing. I guess the handsomeness just adds to the experience. I do like some of the heavy metal bands and some of those dudes are scary looking but I still enjoy their music.

[GentlemanJim]

Originally Posted by AB

The Metal Hair Bands of the 80's cultivated that image of handsome guys with flowing long hair. But they could actually play and sing. I guess the handsomeness just adds to the experience. I do like some of the heavy metal bands and some of those dudes are scary looking but I still enjoy their music.

So then you are saying that Frank Sinatra would have been just as big, even if he had looked like Fred Mertz?

[AB]

Probably not!

[GentlemanJim]

Well, kinda the point I'm trying to make is,....we always hear about the Monkees as though they were villians, they deceived the public, they played music that wasn't theirs, THEY EVEN DIDN'T PLAY SOME OF THEIR MUSIC AT ALL!!

but really there are two sides to this coin. They got a lot of peoples music out into the world and collecting royalties, that otherwise may never had much of a chance. If you've seen the movie about the Wrecking crew.....great movie, btw,. but not a lot of good lookers among that crowd, so in a very real way the Monkees playing "faceman" for that bunch did them all a favor.

Even when you think exclusively of Boyce & Hart.....they had that hit "What's she's doin tonight",....yet they really weren't filling up stadiums on their own, were they? So, there definitely was, IMO, some "synergy" there, going both ways. (Between the Monkees and their support musicians)

If you follow some of Hal Blaine's interviews, he acts like he (and the rest of the wrecking crew) made the Monkees, and other beneficiary bands. But I'm not so sure that both parties didn't benefit from the other.