I’m willing to accept that others may like that style, but please, let’s stop throwing around that ridiculous “musical genius” title. It’s used so much that it is a completely meaningless phrase.

That song you describe… It sounds like the whole album from a few years ago by Matthew Herbert “Bodily Functions”. The whole album is about a break-up and the process of going through it. At the beginning there is are a couple songs about missing the person. Then not letting them come back. In the middle a song about how important friends are. And then at the end being able to date and then a final song where there’s actually hope for meeting someone. It’s a fantastic album. And it’s totally palatable to other genre listeners. Most of it anyway. A little bit of it might be too glitchy for some.

Smoke some more weed and chill out. Ok fine, I might be missing good music. But he must not be all that interested in accumulating more listeners if he has no desire to even attend his basic grooming. That’s a clinical sign of mental illness. He can keep crazy all to himself.

Oh and I love Rushmore. He looks nothing like Rushmore. From a non-rocker hipster perspective, he looks like he doesn’t groom himself.

I think you missed my previous post. The world doesn’t revolve around rockers. That’s not my taste.

Everyone on the internet has their opinion; mine is you have no idea of what valuing “art for art’s sake” actually MEANS. A real musician is not his clothes or hair products; your music library must be hilarious to listen to if it only contains musicians you think LOOK good.

By your approach to “art” and your logic (?) in general, you don’t consider, let alone value, anything if the artist who creates it doesn’t meet your shallow, narrow surface “style” criteria…Lighten up and don’t take clothes and hair so seriously; open up and you might discover a lot of art you’ll actually “dig.”

“Gee, those Ramones…their hair was stupid, so I couldn’t possibly listen to and appreciate their music or their influence on pop music. So what if they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Ratty jeans are just so stupid and overdone. Why would a band all wear black t-shirts and tennis shoes??!”

“OMFG that David Bowie, did you SEE the cover of his Aladdin Sane album? Does he think he’s an alien? And that eye shadow – eeew – it bugs me, it’s so contrived; to me his appearance ‘communicates’ that he’s confused and into sci-fi, so his music must suck and I’m certainly not going to even listen to it!”

“Why would anyone like James Brown? Godfather of Soul my ass; the Hardest Working Man in Show Business wore silly gold capes with fur on them, that’s just WRONG so I’m not going to listen to it and I have no idea why anyone else would like, think he’s great or something; when an artist’s external appearance annoys me, I can’t break through my facile assumptions to consider they might have creative genius and produce things that make my heart bump, my spirit soar and my mind expand to new ideas and directions. Seriously, his hair is just icky, not in a cool way and that’s what I judge artists on first. I watch music videos and read magazines and subsist mostly on imagery, so I should know. He’s just not (my kind of) stylish or photogenic and he should care what other people think!”

“How can Vincent Van Gogh’s paintings bring millions and millions of dollars at auction? Have you SEEN him? He wore shabby clothes, had spooky eyes, and that whole cutting-off-his-ear-thing was so just over-dramatic and contrived. He looked like a unwashed dork trying to get attention, so I’m sure he has nothing to offer in his paintings.”

Actually, your huffiness curved back on itself in such a clueless display of irony that I had to giggle:

“Mature people realize that what’s on the outside is not what makes you different and interesting.”

Bingo! It’s what on their inside – what they create, experiment with, dream up and put into the world that makes people different and interesting. That’s what mature people *actually* care about and appreciate. If an artist also *looks* appealing, hey, that’s sweet icing on a considerable cake. The man in the photo didn’t start out as a “Style Icon” he started out with, and continues to make, good music. (Please repeat this paragraph out loud to yourself until you understand it.)

Mature people don’t get so worked up when an artist’s personal, random external self-expression doesn’t make a “tribute” to what’s considered “stylish” by vapid pop culture lightweights, and that’s because they consider the whole package and start with the art THEN the artist—something you’re apparently hard-wired to do backwards.

Ryan Adams’ day-to-day clothes and hair is…whatever HE feels like, and anyone who appreciates his art (music) for the art’s (music’s) sake couldn’t care less. The man can stand quite comfortably on his musical talent and accomplishments; I doubt he’s desperately concerned if fans are “eating up” his sartorial choices. If he shaved his head, wore filthy overalls and ballet slippers to come play and sing in my living room, I’d be thrilled. Maybe his clothing idea that day was a tongue-in-cheek homage to glitter rock with the boots, mashed up with Rushmore-esque school blazer and tie, topped with 90’s complaint-rock bed hair. Or, he felt like having a bit of a laugh with it all, because really it. doesn’t. matter. I feel sure however, those concepts might make your head explode.

Many artists are batshit crazy by default.That often soaks into how they look as well as what they produce, and it’s sad how much art you’re losing out on by judging a book by it’s cover. That’s what communicates “so high school.”

WTFBLOG