SinisterMinisterX said:
I don't think the band has any such concerns about their image, nor have I seen any deliberate change.
Possible, but I've never heard any talk about that.
But do you think the band would write songs like Prowler, Charlotte the Harlot or 22 Acacia Avenue these days, or even the NOTB?
Perhaps as you say the band are not concerned about their image or any change has been deliberate, but older fans no doubt look back on some of their attitudes from their teenage years and thereabouts and wonder what the hell they were up to. By the same token, perhaps a group of guys in their fifties wouldn't write Bring Your Daughter to the Slaughter, but twenty years earlier?
Of course, whatever the uderlying attitudes, part of the fun of being young is to shock others, particularly the older generation, and rock and pop music has always reflected that, and it also helps sell the product, but by the same token if the shock value attracts one kind of customer, it will alienate others, perhaps unfairly.
Thus those who think IM are unfairly portrayed should perhaps ask what precise image the band want to convey? To a large extent the image is intentional, thus to be an IM fan inevitably means a certain degree of alienation from the wider public, but to an extent at least no doubt that's what attracts fans to IM. And to a degree some fans will revel in the band's generally unfavourable image, perhaps even the satanic aspect.
Of courses, as the young grow old and they are then shocked by the younger generation, values also change over time.
This kind of thing from a newspaper article a couple of years ago always makes me smile.:
"More than half a century ago, the rock fans' bible, the New Musical Express criticised ***** ******* for his 'violent hip-swinging exhibitionism' under a headline asking 'Is this new boy singer too sexy for Britain?'
"The Chief Constable of Manchester announced that he was drafting in extra police to a forthcoming ***** concert, 'because we all know the trouble that this wild young man can incite'.
"The BBC actually issued a guideline that camera angles should be kept above *****'s waist level, 'because his movements are too explicit and morally questionable for family viewing'. And an MP demanded that he be banned 'as a corrupt influence on vulnerable teenagers'."
I took the name out, but for anyone who couldn't guess it's about Cliff Richard
LooseCannon said:
I don't see any cover where Eddie's significance has been downplayed. He's always been the centrepiece of the cover - at least, the studio covers. The one exception is AMOLAD, which remains one of my favourite covers.
Yes, perhaps I didn't phrase that correctly, but maybe the image portrayed by the later album covers is a bit softer? Or less likely to scare the children, sort of thing?
Perhaps that's not deliberate, but visually - and certainly lyrically - the band have gradually conveyed a less foreboding/threatening image?
