sez who? wasn't there a big stink just a few years ago about the lack of royalties received from Col Parker & Co by writers of earlier Elvis tunes?
right you are, eoe, he automatically got 1/3 songwriting credit, a col. parker brainstorm no doubt. at least he didn't take total credit. anyway, i'm not trying to defend presley; i just didn't care to see led zeppelin being touted as moral paragons.
don't know if it was coming across this way, but i was totally not putting led zeppelin down. (i'm a huge fan, check out the thread "led zeppelin, the greatness of") i was just saying bands like the sex pistols and led zeppelin were undeniably great, and they too used image in their favour. but there image never overpwered the music which is the most imprtant thing.
Most entertainers must develop some kind of professional physical image or style for their fans to relate to, whether it's their clothing and hair, their props and accessories, whatever. Ya gotta have a gimmick. But gimmick is secondary. At least, it's supposed to be.
From the forties soap commercials featuring pin-up girls or the look of the day's Andrew Sisters to Rosemary Clooney, the music industry and advertising industry were born for each other. Imagine if today John Lennon, or Crosby, Stills Nash and Young or Bob Dylan went out looking for a recording contract based soley on looks. Not gonna happen...
So why listen to the crap they feed you. There is a ton of talented musicians who will never make the big time, at least not on the contrived pop charts top 10 lists.
I listen to public radio and it never occurs to me to think about thier looks, just the output and surprisingly...The music is phenomenal.
These musicians can't afford to pay or care about the gimmeckry. So why listen to those who can?
