 ProgMetaller2112 wrote:
Pekka wrote:
ProgMetaller2112 wrote:
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
I saw them twice recently
They are definitely not the same but still rock hard and look good. |
What is this supposed to mean? Why does it matter if they "look good"?
|
I think it's safe to say that with Kiss the music has always been only part of the equation along with the looks and the showmanship. So at least they still got that thing going for them if the music has taken a turn downwards during the years. |
Then I guess Kiss will never be for me. I honestly don't care how a band "looks" as long as the music is good |
Yeah, if you ask me I'll obviously say the same, but then thinking about it I realize that looks indeed are quite important in metal as well. Think Iron Maiden and their stage shows, and as a more down to earth example I thought about Metallica's Seattle 89 show from Live Shit. Everything from how low Hetfield wears his guitars to how far apart he keeps his feet to how he hovers above the mic and how the sides of Jason's hair are shaved add to them looking so incredibly brutally metal, and that really really adds to the viewing experience. Now imagine them looking like a bunch of office workers.
Sure looks are not the starting point in metal like perhaps in some other forms of music, but they do make some difference I think.
