Very rare is the heavy metal album that does not contain photos of the band. This is natural because it increases the degree of credit given to the musicians, makes the sense of "I did this" more acute. Heavy metal to the core. However, band photos have gone beyond simple identification and often are given their own artistic effort. Photo shoots for album credits also double as shoots for ad copy. The image of heavy metal hangs in the balance. What does a heavy metal band photo look like? What characteristics would be decidedly not heavy metal?
The first thing that we can identify as 'pure' and completely unpretentious band photos would be pictures of the musicians in the studio as they were recording the album. World Downfall comes to mind as an eminent example of this approach. Second to that would be live photos of the musicians, as they are still performing music in the pictures.
But things are never that easy. Band photos are usually posed shots (and if we're in mid-90s Sweden we get them taken with Hasselblad equipment!) of some sort. Whether it's done by a professional photographer in a studio or done by a friend somewhere in the woods, musicians feel the need to make their photos an extension of their musical work. I think musicians that do this are not confident in their ability to write music that creates its own atmosphere.
First of all, anyone holding a sword in a band photo is a poseur. Unless it is Bruce Dickinson (he is a fencer, remember?), doing this sort of thing just proves a musician is pretending to be something they are not. It is one thing to tell tales about swordfighting and knights and dragons, but inserting yourself into the role and pretending the songs are about you is just fake. It's not just swords, either. People carrying axes (unless they are firemen or lumberjacks in their day jobs, then it's OK), maces, spears, or any sort of weapon they never have actually used outside of photography sessions, as well as wearing armor, are just projecting an image and exhibiting showmanship and entering the world of popular entertainment music instead of being honest and straightforward musicians.
Whether acting all gangsta and holding a gun in your photo (notice it's usually only black heavy metal musicians keeping it gangsta this way?) is heavy metal depends on personal habits. Countries like Finland that have compulsory military service might breed plenty of legitimate gun-happy wackos (yeah right, we all know the heavy metalheads all did the civil service), but it's a fair guess that not many of these guys are packing heat in many places other than photograph sessions. Fake!
Next up is the leather and spikes. Haha, that's so not heavy metal. Bottom line is the look came from two places: Gay clubs and biker bars. So, leather-wearing heavy metalheads are just flaming assgrabbers. Remember, Rob Halford introduced the look through his connections to the Village People culture, and heavy metal musicians everywhere picked up on it. In the 80s you either went leather or went spandex, so you were kind of poofty either way. That got expanded to include all sorts of studs, spikes (ooohhh, those big ones in those black heavy metal photos are so impressive!) which just ingrained gay fashion and ideals into the heavy metal culture. Leather and all its affectations and extensions are GAY, and if you wear it, or admire musicians who wear it, get ready for the next Pride parade, you little sissy boy.
Actually, I'm just kidding. It's too much fun to get homophobes all wound up and angry. Truth is that denim and leather is the archetypical heavy metal look, and even if wearing a 'uniform' is un-individual and therefore un-heavy metal, you can't complain about everything. This is heavy metal, not some anarchist nudist camp.
Those dinks who wear head-to-toe bondage outfits do make me wonder though
Women's fashion in heavy metal is a nightmare. Heavy metal is still a male-dominated culture, so to stand out women must exploit their womanhood. It's sad to think that not standing out, not accentuating their gender, is considered a lost opportunity. The truth is women in heavy metal will never be equal until they are invisible, when they are not wearing the dresses and having a 'soft look' versus the Neanderthal males in the group. I think that if we follow this entire definition of heavy metal, a lot of the 'heavy metal' that women are currently involved with isn't even heavy metal. Women that truly are heavy metal dress just like the men do, will not encourage ogling, and will not exploit the trait given to them by birth in the context of their musical career. Heavy metal is not 'feminine' and does not need feminization. It is what it is and will continue to be so whether its practitioners and listeners have dangly bits between their legs or not. Heavy metal does not discriminate on the basis of a birth trait but it will suffer no minority asking for special treatment.
Bottom line on dress is that whatever the person wears on a day-to-day basis is the correct and heavy metal look to have in the publicity photos, and any attempt to 'dress up' creates a façade that separates one from authenticity and therefore heavy metal.
Corpse paint is showmanship. Corpse paint is make-up. Non-negotiable. KISS equals King Diamond equals Immortal equals Satyricon equals Dimmu Borger equals Twisted Sister equals Poison equals Faster Pussycat. As long as we all understand this, it's fine.
I suppose this is a logical time to address an essential point of the heavy metal look. Long hair is heavy metal. When you see a man with long hair (and I mean below the shoulders, not this horribly half-assed chin-length bob that some people seem to want to have to say they have long hair), you know they have made an ongoing conscious effort to separate themselves from the mainstream. People really do treat you differently when you distinguish yourself like that, and you are often separating yourself from economic and political opportunity. Think of every business executive or politician you've seen. Ever. They tend to have a certain uniform look, don't they? Ever seen those repulsive makeover reality shows? There is a standard that is considered "normal" as well as "good looking," and by growing your hair out it is a declaration that you have no interest in any of it. Hairstyles such as a Mohawk or dyeing the hair weird colors will set one apart from the every day person. One thing that is absolutely not heavy metal is shaving the head. It's no big deal to be bald in the world, so it makes no difference. Shaving your head because of hair loss is not heavy metal at all because that is a fashion decision based on factors beyond the individual's control. Devin Townsend's magnificent skullet stands as a tribute both to his ultimate embodiment of heavy metal and refusal to submit to nature.
Visible tattoos are perhaps even more heavy metal than long hair, as it is a more permanent feature. Piercings are not so much heavy metal as simply decoration as there is absolutely no commitment to them after their initial installation. Inappropriate? Take them out! Home from work? Put them back in! Feel the rebellion.
One thing we all need to object to in photos is the "replaced musician" syndrome. A band goes in to record an album, and has a lineup change between the time the album is recorded and when it was released. The band photo and lineup credits will have the new lineup, with the actual person performing on the album hidden somewhere in the liner notes. This is complete bullshit on every level. The photos and the lineup should reflect the musicians that recorded the album! Always! Always! Always! There is not a single reason for putting the 'new and improved' lineup in the album when that lineup was not the unit that recorded the album. Period. Album credits are not political and marketing tools, they are album credits.
The first thing that we can identify as 'pure' and completely unpretentious band photos would be pictures of the musicians in the studio as they were recording the album. World Downfall comes to mind as an eminent example of this approach. Second to that would be live photos of the musicians, as they are still performing music in the pictures.
But things are never that easy. Band photos are usually posed shots (and if we're in mid-90s Sweden we get them taken with Hasselblad equipment!) of some sort. Whether it's done by a professional photographer in a studio or done by a friend somewhere in the woods, musicians feel the need to make their photos an extension of their musical work. I think musicians that do this are not confident in their ability to write music that creates its own atmosphere.
First of all, anyone holding a sword in a band photo is a poseur. Unless it is Bruce Dickinson (he is a fencer, remember?), doing this sort of thing just proves a musician is pretending to be something they are not. It is one thing to tell tales about swordfighting and knights and dragons, but inserting yourself into the role and pretending the songs are about you is just fake. It's not just swords, either. People carrying axes (unless they are firemen or lumberjacks in their day jobs, then it's OK), maces, spears, or any sort of weapon they never have actually used outside of photography sessions, as well as wearing armor, are just projecting an image and exhibiting showmanship and entering the world of popular entertainment music instead of being honest and straightforward musicians.
Whether acting all gangsta and holding a gun in your photo (notice it's usually only black heavy metal musicians keeping it gangsta this way?) is heavy metal depends on personal habits. Countries like Finland that have compulsory military service might breed plenty of legitimate gun-happy wackos (yeah right, we all know the heavy metalheads all did the civil service), but it's a fair guess that not many of these guys are packing heat in many places other than photograph sessions. Fake!
Next up is the leather and spikes. Haha, that's so not heavy metal. Bottom line is the look came from two places: Gay clubs and biker bars. So, leather-wearing heavy metalheads are just flaming assgrabbers. Remember, Rob Halford introduced the look through his connections to the Village People culture, and heavy metal musicians everywhere picked up on it. In the 80s you either went leather or went spandex, so you were kind of poofty either way. That got expanded to include all sorts of studs, spikes (ooohhh, those big ones in those black heavy metal photos are so impressive!) which just ingrained gay fashion and ideals into the heavy metal culture. Leather and all its affectations and extensions are GAY, and if you wear it, or admire musicians who wear it, get ready for the next Pride parade, you little sissy boy.
Actually, I'm just kidding. It's too much fun to get homophobes all wound up and angry. Truth is that denim and leather is the archetypical heavy metal look, and even if wearing a 'uniform' is un-individual and therefore un-heavy metal, you can't complain about everything. This is heavy metal, not some anarchist nudist camp.
Those dinks who wear head-to-toe bondage outfits do make me wonder though
Women's fashion in heavy metal is a nightmare. Heavy metal is still a male-dominated culture, so to stand out women must exploit their womanhood. It's sad to think that not standing out, not accentuating their gender, is considered a lost opportunity. The truth is women in heavy metal will never be equal until they are invisible, when they are not wearing the dresses and having a 'soft look' versus the Neanderthal males in the group. I think that if we follow this entire definition of heavy metal, a lot of the 'heavy metal' that women are currently involved with isn't even heavy metal. Women that truly are heavy metal dress just like the men do, will not encourage ogling, and will not exploit the trait given to them by birth in the context of their musical career. Heavy metal is not 'feminine' and does not need feminization. It is what it is and will continue to be so whether its practitioners and listeners have dangly bits between their legs or not. Heavy metal does not discriminate on the basis of a birth trait but it will suffer no minority asking for special treatment.
Bottom line on dress is that whatever the person wears on a day-to-day basis is the correct and heavy metal look to have in the publicity photos, and any attempt to 'dress up' creates a façade that separates one from authenticity and therefore heavy metal.
Corpse paint is showmanship. Corpse paint is make-up. Non-negotiable. KISS equals King Diamond equals Immortal equals Satyricon equals Dimmu Borger equals Twisted Sister equals Poison equals Faster Pussycat. As long as we all understand this, it's fine.
I suppose this is a logical time to address an essential point of the heavy metal look. Long hair is heavy metal. When you see a man with long hair (and I mean below the shoulders, not this horribly half-assed chin-length bob that some people seem to want to have to say they have long hair), you know they have made an ongoing conscious effort to separate themselves from the mainstream. People really do treat you differently when you distinguish yourself like that, and you are often separating yourself from economic and political opportunity. Think of every business executive or politician you've seen. Ever. They tend to have a certain uniform look, don't they? Ever seen those repulsive makeover reality shows? There is a standard that is considered "normal" as well as "good looking," and by growing your hair out it is a declaration that you have no interest in any of it. Hairstyles such as a Mohawk or dyeing the hair weird colors will set one apart from the every day person. One thing that is absolutely not heavy metal is shaving the head. It's no big deal to be bald in the world, so it makes no difference. Shaving your head because of hair loss is not heavy metal at all because that is a fashion decision based on factors beyond the individual's control. Devin Townsend's magnificent skullet stands as a tribute both to his ultimate embodiment of heavy metal and refusal to submit to nature.
Visible tattoos are perhaps even more heavy metal than long hair, as it is a more permanent feature. Piercings are not so much heavy metal as simply decoration as there is absolutely no commitment to them after their initial installation. Inappropriate? Take them out! Home from work? Put them back in! Feel the rebellion.
One thing we all need to object to in photos is the "replaced musician" syndrome. A band goes in to record an album, and has a lineup change between the time the album is recorded and when it was released. The band photo and lineup credits will have the new lineup, with the actual person performing on the album hidden somewhere in the liner notes. This is complete bullshit on every level. The photos and the lineup should reflect the musicians that recorded the album! Always! Always! Always! There is not a single reason for putting the 'new and improved' lineup in the album when that lineup was not the unit that recorded the album. Period. Album credits are not political and marketing tools, they are album credits.
