Tonberry

General => Music Discussion => Topic started by: Alice the Sister on November 19, 2007, 04:51:41 AM



Title: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Alice the Sister on November 19, 2007, 04:51:41 AM
How do you know if a band is just being 'visual' with their music, or if they're part of the so-called "Visual Kei" scene? Like a lot of post-Visual Kei bands like that of L'arc~en~Ciel and Dir en grey still used a lot of visuals, but weren't really part of the established Visual Kei genre anymore due to it being a completely stripped down visual and m.o compared to the other active bands.

So yeah. How do you tell it's a "visual" band between just a Visual Kei sort of thing?

And when I say visual band, I mean....like you know how you don't go callin' Kiss Visual Kei or all the black metal bands with face paint, visual kei? Yeah sorta like that.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Culo on November 19, 2007, 05:28:12 AM
In Japan, bands who used to be involved with the VK scene will always be associated with it. Maybe the newest GLAY or L'Arc en Ciel fans don't, but the old fans will still see them as VK people I think.
Just today I was looking at some "top 10 best visual kei bands" thread in 2ch (japanese bbs) and 1st place was GLAY, 2nd L'Arc... later came DEAD END, X, BUCK-TICK, etc.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: signal to noise on November 19, 2007, 08:54:50 AM
i kindof think that visual kei is just an immature phase before growing into your own thing. L'arc is an example, as well as Luna Sea, Dir en grey, etc. a lot of bands that are strongly associated with that scene end up growing up out of it. i bet in a few years bands like Alice Nine and The Gazette will be doing the same thing.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: nekki_chibi on November 19, 2007, 09:11:29 AM
alice 9 and gazette won't appeal to non-visual audience - their music isn't that great (especially Arisu9 - though they could dive into jpop and catch some attention), and I'm pretty sure Gazette will disband if they distract from the scene - they won't get popular enough without VK-fans support.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: yuna001 on November 19, 2007, 10:02:17 AM
i kindof think that visual kei is just an immature phase before growing into your own thing. L'arc is an example, as well as Luna Sea, Dir en grey, etc. a lot of bands that are strongly associated with that scene end up growing up out of it. i bet in a few years bands like Alice Nine and The Gazette will be doing the same thing.

.. What? What about the visual kei greats that actually stayed visual throughout their entire career like Lareine, Malice Mizer, or JILS? Are you calling their entire discography byproducts of an "immature phase" ? VK, to some bands, is more than just dressing pretty to gain an audience(like trash such as Gazette and A9. Pure garbage) It's an art.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: MY BABY DADDAY P-GWIDDLES on November 19, 2007, 11:23:42 AM
That's right motherfucker
alice nine does suck though


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Do As Eternity 6 on November 19, 2007, 02:48:36 PM
i kindof think that visual kei is just an immature phase before growing into your own thing. L'arc is an example, as well as Luna Sea, Dir en grey, etc. a lot of bands that are strongly associated with that scene end up growing up out of it. i bet in a few years bands like Alice Nine and The Gazette will be doing the same thing.

actually i agree with you for the most part. Maybe not so much a byproduct of an immature phase but for most bands it passes by.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Karasu on November 19, 2007, 07:45:16 PM
alice 9 and gazette won't appeal to non-visual audience - their music isn't that great (especially Arisu9 - though they could dive into jpop and catch some attention), and I'm pretty sure Gazette will disband if they distract from the scene - they won't get popular enough without VK-fans support.

Hopefully you didn't just piss off 50000 kids and they go apeshit in this thread.



Well as i've said with friends and in other debates regarding this subject. Some bands who were VK dropped it completely and focused more on IMAGE. There's a difference between Visual and Image, and bands like Dir en grey, MUCC [i guess], and Merry now I think...are focusing more on the image they're trying to portray, rather than how Visual they could be. Plus, lets not forget some bands don't even like the scene anymore and have expressed that.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Alice the Sister on November 19, 2007, 08:55:51 PM
What about bands like Noir Fleurir? They had a small time frame where they completely stopped dressing up altogether and just looked like a regular rock/punk-rock sorta jig.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Alice the Sister on November 19, 2007, 09:01:56 PM
But if they're music was still the same and they were still playing in the Visual Kei 'circuit' wouldn't they still be socially considered as a Visual Kei band?


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: カレン on November 19, 2007, 09:19:09 PM
I pretty much go by... if a band is still featured in visual music stores and visual magazines, then they are considered visual, even if they don't think of themselves as part of the scene.

Even thought I don't AGREE with it (Like seeing SID in Cure kinda pisses me off), but that's just the way it is.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Do As Eternity 6 on November 19, 2007, 09:21:47 PM
@ alice: yes but i think what naja said is right anyway. That in japan if you where associated with the vk scene to begin with you pretty much are still considered vk.

as far as gaze or a9 or whoever surviving without their image... I think they would be able to. For one thing a9's sound would fit in the J-pop-rock thingamajigger sounds. So i don't think it would be that hard for them. Gazette would be harder because their sound doesn't fit so easily into that but i don't think it would be much of a problem look at dir en grey >.< ah and alot of bands seem to be increasing in popularity lately looking on oricon but i could be wrong. I don't know much *hides*


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: signal to noise on November 19, 2007, 10:52:13 PM
i kindof think that visual kei is just an immature phase before growing into your own thing. L'arc is an example, as well as Luna Sea, Dir en grey, etc. a lot of bands that are strongly associated with that scene end up growing up out of it. i bet in a few years bands like Alice Nine and The Gazette will be doing the same thing.

.. What? What about the visual kei greats that actually stayed visual throughout their entire career like Lareine, Malice Mizer, or JILS? Are you calling their entire discography byproducts of an "immature phase" ? VK, to some bands, is more than just dressing pretty to gain an audience(like trash such as Gazette and A9. Pure garbage) It's an art.


Malice Mizer was always immature. i cant take a band that dresses up as winged demon/angel things seriously at all, and neither can the general public.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: yuna001 on November 19, 2007, 11:03:44 PM
i kindof think that visual kei is just an immature phase before growing into your own thing. L'arc is an example, as well as Luna Sea, Dir en grey, etc. a lot of bands that are strongly associated with that scene end up growing up out of it. i bet in a few years bands like Alice Nine and The Gazette will be doing the same thing.

.. What? What about the visual kei greats that actually stayed visual throughout their entire career like Lareine, Malice Mizer, or JILS? Are you calling their entire discography byproducts of an "immature phase" ? VK, to some bands, is more than just dressing pretty to gain an audience(like trash such as Gazette and A9. Pure garbage) It's an art.


Malice Mizer was always immature. i cant take a band that dresses up as winged demon/angel things seriously at all, and neither can the general public.

Judging from your avatar, I can see you are a fan of Dir en grey.

You can't take Malice Mizer seriously.. But you can take Dir en grey's ridiculous, prepubescent angst seriously? When Kyo cuts himself and throws his body around on stage like a 3 year old child throwing a fucking tantrum? Oh, yeah. I think that's way more easier to mock than a band dressing up in elaborate costumes to tell a story (as cheesy and sappy as that story may be)

And since when has the popularity of something within the general public been an indicator of quality?







Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Alice the Sister on November 19, 2007, 11:11:07 PM
And it would be preposterous for anyone to suggest that it is somewhat immature for what Dir en grey does/did and what Malice Mizer did.

Then again, I'd argue that Dir en grey had a much more 'mature' sense in the fact that they didn't do "goofy" stuff that people would scoff at.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Do As Eternity 6 on November 19, 2007, 11:14:08 PM
i kindof think that visual kei is just an immature phase before growing into your own thing. L'arc is an example, as well as Luna Sea, Dir en grey, etc. a lot of bands that are strongly associated with that scene end up growing up out of it. i bet in a few years bands like Alice Nine and The Gazette will be doing the same thing.

.. What? What about the visual kei greats that actually stayed visual throughout their entire career like Lareine, Malice Mizer, or JILS? Are you calling their entire discography byproducts of an "immature phase" ? VK, to some bands, is more than just dressing pretty to gain an audience(like trash such as Gazette and A9. Pure garbage) It's an art.


Malice Mizer was always immature. i cant take a band that dresses up as winged demon/angel things seriously at all, and neither can the general public.

LMAO xD

Quote
And it would be preposterous for anyone to suggest that it is somewhat immature for what Dir en grey does/did and what Malice Mizer did.


=]


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Culo on November 19, 2007, 11:16:50 PM
Wearing extravagant/goofy costumes doesn't make a band immature.
I mean if that would be the case then every band should be wearing suits like some office empoylee... MATURE KEI!! (or kurofuku XP)


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Do As Eternity 6 on November 19, 2007, 11:23:24 PM
why not just wear normalish clothes for mature kei! or would that just be normal kei or people kei.... hmmm although every band wearing suits sounds like fun then every band shall be kurofuku y/y >_> <_< >_> *hides* (i'm very bored indeed)

i wouldn't say that wearing extravagant/goofy costumes is immature but it is kind of hard to take seriously at least for me anyway. It's just a little over the top for my taste but to each their own.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Culo on November 19, 2007, 11:37:31 PM
And you know, Peter Gabriel used to look like this in Genesis during the 70s
http://mitkadem.homestead.com/files/genesis_petergabriel_foxtrot_paris_januar1973.jpg

and noone would say Genesis was a immature band  ;D


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: klavierbarrette on November 19, 2007, 11:52:58 PM
i lol'd

never seen that pic of him before.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: signal to noise on November 20, 2007, 12:08:53 AM
You can't take Malice Mizer seriously.. But you can take Dir en grey's ridiculous, prepubescent angst seriously? When Kyo cuts himself and throws his body around on stage like a 3 year old child throwing a fucking tantrum? Oh, yeah. I think that's way more easier to mock than a band dressing up in elaborate costumes to tell a story (as cheesy and sappy as that story may be)

so... big sports macsot outfits have a story but self mutilation doesnt?

i think Kyo cutting himself during his songs show more emotion than Gackt coming out in a Grimace outfit by wires.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Do As Eternity 6 on November 20, 2007, 12:11:30 AM
lmao xD me neither ...that's interesting




Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: yuna001 on November 20, 2007, 12:33:19 AM
You can't take Malice Mizer seriously.. But you can take Dir en grey's ridiculous, prepubescent angst seriously? When Kyo cuts himself and throws his body around on stage like a 3 year old child throwing a fucking tantrum? Oh, yeah. I think that's way more easier to mock than a band dressing up in elaborate costumes to tell a story (as cheesy and sappy as that story may be)

so... big sports macsot outfits have a story but self mutilation doesnt?

i think Kyo cutting himself during his songs show more emotion than Gackt coming out in a Grimace outfit by wires.

.. I wish Gackt dressed up as Grimace  :(


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Alice the Sister on November 20, 2007, 12:58:28 AM
It's not really a question of whether 'that band' is doing immature things or not. It's a costume, and part of a performance. I'm just comparing the two. It's all kinda silly really, but I mean that's what makes it kinda interesting, you know?

Though compared to malice mizer, one has to admit that Dir en grey is far less childish, IMO.

Let's not even get started on oshare.

At any rate, I think some bands use these "gimmicks" (whether it be face paint and wings or cut wrists and vomit blood acrobitcs raping prostitutes) to strengthen the image their band has going on. Like some punk bands had the mohawks and orange hair in the old days. Well that's just what these guys do. I dunno, I guess I wouldn't really call Visual Kei "immature" although often times it does seems like the bands the use less visuals put more stock into the music, and the ones that put too much stock into the visuals don't put much into the music.

There are obvious exceptions though. And sometimes bands will even try to have a theme to go with their music, and their image...but just because a VK band attempts a theme doesn't make their music good even still sometimes.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Culo on November 20, 2007, 01:28:19 AM
Wait, someone define immature.

I got these two:
1. Not fully grown or developed.
2. Marked by or suggesting a lack of normal maturity

Malice Mizer was more than developed, especially during the merveilles times when they had all the money they (..er, Columbia) wanted to prepare the stage and all, and while it isn't my favorite Malice Mizer era at all, I think their music was developed enough.
"Normal Maturity", now in this one i'll refer to Dir en grey. Self mutilation is normal maturity? Anyone would associate it with emo, angsty teenagers being rebel against their parents. How mature is that?

About "childish", what's wrong with being childish? I don't mean stupid like the oshare bands, but if a band isn't taking them enterly serious or overdramatized then that's perfectly fine to me - actually better and more fun.

It's like with videogames (and many other things but I remembered this one example I've read once in some VG forum).
People often talk about how Nintendo games are childish and immature, and that games with violence are real mature and adult.
But in reality, these people who talk about "adult games" are just teenagers who want to look tough and, again, rebel.
People who like games just because they enjoy them, will play any game that's good, wether it haves violence or not.
I don't want to turn this into a vg war or anything, by all means XD but all this "Dir en grey is mature" talk made me remember that.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Alice the Sister on November 20, 2007, 01:56:46 AM
I never said that there was anything wrong with being childish. Just because someone states their observations, doesn't mean they're trying to slam it. XD

Come on tonberry kids, don't live up to the hype.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Culo on November 20, 2007, 02:36:55 AM
How boring :(


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Karasu on November 20, 2007, 05:00:51 AM
I'd like to know how come every discussion always in the end....goes to Dir en grey.


 I wouldn't call Visual Kei immature, but what I would call it is shallow and empty, at least from 2002 and now. Before that time, it was theatrical and mezmerizing, and the music had quality, but now it's become almost a franchise and become so refined, that it's not about the theatrics and music, but more about 'how multi-colored can I get?' and 'How pretty can I look, but still "try" to make music that's not even good to begin with?' At least back in the day, the music had substance, had integrity, and now...its hardly that. It's like fast food, taste kinda good coming down, but 30 mins. later, you're in the bathroom shitting it out, feeling disgusted and embarrassed you even had it. Well that's what VK's become. Shit.

Which brings me to my first point, some bands are thinking smart and leaving that scene, and focusing more on the image. Image is more important than how visual you are.



Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: カレン on November 20, 2007, 05:30:05 AM
Which brings me to my first point, some bands are thinking smart and leaving that scene, and focusing more on the image. Image is more important than how visual you are.

...Um, what?


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: signal to noise on November 20, 2007, 07:03:54 AM
Which brings me to my first point, some bands are thinking smart and leaving that scene, and focusing more on the image. Image is more important than how visual you are.

...Um, what?

ssshhh it kindof makes sense.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Karasu on November 20, 2007, 07:50:15 AM
lol I dont know why it's being questioned.

Image: form; appearance; semblance


Visual: Optical


For instance, Velvet Revolver has an image, not visuals. Their image is the whole 'badass, rock n roll with my geetar and jack daniels', where as a band like...Malice Mizer is very visual and theatrical with stages, costumes, etc etc.



Does that make sense now?


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: カレン on November 20, 2007, 08:02:42 AM
Your example basically proved you wrong. How are those two things any different?

I think I know what you're trying to say, that a band concept is more important than image, but the way you stated it makes no sense, lol.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: nekki_chibi on November 20, 2007, 09:17:37 AM
(http://kimon.ru/lj/pics/1193831661828.jpg)


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Karasu on November 20, 2007, 07:52:49 PM
I don't see how I was wrong for what I said, perhaps you could elaborate?


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: klavierbarrette on November 20, 2007, 09:06:07 PM
to me you basically were saying they both had images they were just different. ie one badass, one theatrical.

you just really pointed out what each band's idea or whatever was; it made no sense because we already knew that.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Karasu on November 20, 2007, 09:49:26 PM
I'm using examples because people were not understanding what I said really. What im trying to say is that visual kei bands have more theatrics, and have more shock or elaborate designs, where as a regular band, focuses more on its image that it is portraying.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: ghostface on November 20, 2007, 11:07:25 PM
Lol, I kind of get it. Visual is all about the looks and style, image is more about how you want to be perceived.

Like Dir en grey is not visual anymore, but they have themes to their music and performances which create a strong image.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Culo on November 20, 2007, 11:14:34 PM
visual
(http://www.espacioblog.com/myfiles/epicentro/Loco_Mia_-_Party_Time-front.jpg)

image
(http://g8.undercoverhd.com/imgsresized/article/070222dr-dre.jpg)


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: klavierbarrette on November 21, 2007, 12:01:41 AM
I'm using examples because people were not understanding what I said really. What im trying to say is that visual kei bands have more theatrics, and have more shock or elaborate designs, where as a regular band, focuses more on its image that it is portraying.
i can see how they can sort of be different, but also how they can sort of be the same.

i think it comes down to how certain people think about it.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Do As Eternity 6 on November 21, 2007, 12:02:33 AM
@primesub7:  well the whole point of the thread i think was to find out what makes makes a visual "visual kei" so the original topic makes since. Now the whole image thing is being put into it but i think image isn't exactly the same as visual but you need visuals to create an image. And in the end i think we may be confusing concept with image.

i wonder if that made sense ...probably not..


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: GEWALT on November 21, 2007, 12:34:39 AM
I think the visual part in visual kei is overrated.

And the current fanbase and bands mostly suck. Good bands leave the scene as fast as they can (lab. for example).

And anyway I am mostly about non vk or borderline vk bands at the moment (VAGERKE,harvest,音鬼,PLASMA JET). I do still like some "visual kei" bands that are active,like √eight ,SUICIDE ALI and ギルガメッシュ. But only a few.

If it comes to visual kei, I rather like the disbanded bands like そろばん/天照/WERKMARE/Uma/カリメロ/AURORA/Variable Messiah/PINK OPAQUE.

Lots of the current VK bands are just lame wannabe pop.

I hope the scene will die and come back again with new stuff.

To be more ontopic:

I think many vk bands rather use the vk image to gain some fanbase as fast as possible. Visual Kei fanbase seems pretty loyal. They should spend more time on the music then the visual part.

I don't count bands like Larc en ciel and mucc as vk bands anymore. They lost their alternative touch(music and visual wise). It's just regular (pop)rock.



Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Yumeko on November 21, 2007, 12:44:45 AM
I really like VK, I guess the fashion is what really appeals to me since I like to design clothes all the time.  But I'm not so die hard for VK that I'd ignorantly insist all or even most VK bands have substance.  Still, I'm not going to hate VK because everybody else is.  To me, regardless of it's genre or style, if the music is good; I'm going to like it and that's that. 

As far as the topic goes, I don't think there's a difference between visual and visual kei.  It's all visual kei; it just a band can fall anywhere on that spectrum of VK.  They can be super VK lol like Malice Mizer or Versailles or whatever, or they can hardly be VK such as say Gackt or L'arc en ciel who really don't do the costume thing as much.

As far as something to hate that is guaranteed to be crap...host bands; especially the ones that imitate VK; as if that genre doesn't have a hard enough time proving it's worth.  I just recently learned what they are and I checked out a couple...they really irk me.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Alice the Sister on November 24, 2007, 08:58:19 PM
What's a host band?


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Vessicator on November 24, 2007, 10:47:41 PM
since when was mucc vk


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: カレン on November 25, 2007, 04:11:26 AM
What's a host band?

http://xxxknightxxx.net/


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Yumeko on November 25, 2007, 02:39:04 PM
What's a host band?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_club

basically a host band is a band where the members all come from a host club.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pbTpLYJBMYo


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Alice the Sister on November 29, 2007, 05:26:13 PM
Oh yeah. I forgot about bands like Kabukicho Knight. When I went to Japan a few years ago I wound up with a free mini-album of theirs. I was confused because there was like a schedule of some sort. I figured they were just a bar band of some kind. Back then, I didn't really know about Host Clubs except the concept, so it didn't click. XD


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: baka_neko on November 29, 2007, 07:32:22 PM
I wouldn't call Visual Kei immature, but what I would call it is shallow and empty, at least from 2002 and now. Before that time, it was theatrical and mezmerizing, and the music had quality, but now it's become almost a franchise and become so refined, that it's not about the theatrics and music, but more about 'how multi-colored can I get?' and 'How pretty can I look, but still "try" to make music that's not even good to begin with?' At least back in the day, the music had substance, had integrity, and now...its hardly that. It's like fast food, taste kinda good coming down, but 30 mins. later, you're in the bathroom shitting it out, feeling disgusted and embarrassed you even had it. Well that's what VK's become. Shit.

Hi "hardcore" fan. You do realize that 90% of pre-2002 vk bands were shit just as 90% of post-2002 vk bands are shit. There will always be good band and always be bad bands. Whether or not a band decides to be "visual" doesn't make them any better or worse. Anyone who needs a reality check on the whole non-visual > visual, just take a look at almost any band on audioleaf. Most of the bands on there aren't visual and sound terrible.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Alice the Sister on November 30, 2007, 07:25:43 PM
The bands that are "too poor" to be Visual, but still want to be VK, usually suck ass cause they're also usually too poor to be talented (in more than one sense of the word poor)

I think perhaps that ones that got popular and gave up being visual, has nothing to do with it. Like, they're popular to a point where they can drop the visuals, right? But just because a band drops the visuals or keeps them, doesn't mean they're music will automatically be good/bad.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Karasu on November 30, 2007, 08:10:55 PM
I wouldn't call Visual Kei immature, but what I would call it is shallow and empty, at least from 2002 and now. Before that time, it was theatrical and mezmerizing, and the music had quality, but now it's become almost a franchise and become so refined, that it's not about the theatrics and music, but more about 'how multi-colored can I get?' and 'How pretty can I look, but still "try" to make music that's not even good to begin with?' At least back in the day, the music had substance, had integrity, and now...its hardly that. It's like fast food, taste kinda good coming down, but 30 mins. later, you're in the bathroom shitting it out, feeling disgusted and embarrassed you even had it. Well that's what VK's become. Shit.

Hi "hardcore" fan. You do realize that 90% of pre-2002 vk bands were shit just as 90% of post-2002 vk bands are shit. There will always be good band and always be bad bands. Whether or not a band decides to be "visual" doesn't make them any better or worse. Anyone who needs a reality check on the whole non-visual > visual, just take a look at almost any band on audioleaf. Most of the bands on there aren't visual and sound terrible.


Uhh, ok?


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Do As Eternity 6 on November 30, 2007, 08:42:56 PM
Quote
You do realize that 90% of pre-2002 vk bands were shit just as 90% of post-2002 vk bands are shit. There will always be good band and always be bad bands. Whether or not a band decides to be "visual" doesn't make them any better or worse. Anyone who needs a reality check on the whole non-visual > visual, just take a look at almost any band on audioleaf. Most of the bands on there aren't visual and sound terrible.

I've always felt that way =/ people are always talking about how the older bands where so much greater but i think they are in no way better than the newer bands. There is crap in both but then again there is good and bad in every genre or period of music. In the end it comes down to matters of opinon i guess. Also i second the point about being visual or not doesn't have anything to do with a band being better or not.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: klavierbarrette on November 30, 2007, 09:09:21 PM
omg intelligence on tonberry?

agree with above etc


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Siniroth on December 01, 2007, 12:15:41 AM
This has been an entire 4-page thread on nothing more than common sense. I'm not sure I'd call that "intelligence," especially with that GazettE trashing on the first page :P


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: klavierbarrette on December 01, 2007, 02:48:41 AM
^ nah the gazette trash was pretty smart

 ::)


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: yuna001 on December 01, 2007, 05:21:07 AM
This has been an entire 4-page thread on nothing more than common sense. I'm not sure I'd call that "intelligence," especially with that GazettE trashing on the first page :P

Because it's impossible to have a negative opinion about Gazette! RUKI-SAMA ~__________________~;;



Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: signal to noise on December 01, 2007, 07:06:54 AM
The GazettE is the fucking pimp juice. i hope in the PV for Guren they are all dressed like pimps with AV stars all around them. even though some of the members of Gaze are probabllyyyyy gay.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: nekki_chibi on December 01, 2007, 08:42:23 AM
I hope PV for Guren will follow general ideas of Hyena and Filth and the Beauty
I mean, the whole band raped at a football court by a gang of 50 + y.o. tinyeyed fat sararimen


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: Siniroth on December 01, 2007, 09:19:55 AM
This has been an entire 4-page thread on nothing more than common sense. I'm not sure I'd call that "intelligence," especially with that GazettE trashing on the first page :P

Because it's impossible to have a negative opinion about Gazette! RUKI-SAMA ~__________________~;;



Exactly ;)


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: yuna001 on December 01, 2007, 09:53:03 AM
This has been an entire 4-page thread on nothing more than common sense. I'm not sure I'd call that "intelligence," especially with that GazettE trashing on the first page :P

Because it's impossible to have a negative opinion about Gazette! RUKI-SAMA ~__________________~;;



Exactly ;)

 :P


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: 凸(。☉౪ ⊙。)▁▇▀▀▀~~~卍 on December 01, 2007, 11:58:13 AM
fuck what they sound like, as long as guys look good in tight skirts and makeup.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: CARMENvalentine on December 30, 2007, 10:26:23 PM
and that's the point.

amen.


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: seiryuu on January 10, 2008, 10:27:15 PM
i kindof think that visual kei is just an immature phase before growing into your own thing. L'arc is an example, as well as Luna Sea, Dir en grey, etc. a lot of bands that are strongly associated with that scene end up growing up out of it. i bet in a few years bands like Alice Nine and The Gazette will be doing the same thing.

.. What? What about the visual kei greats that actually stayed visual throughout their entire career like Lareine, Malice Mizer, or JILS? Are you calling their entire discography byproducts of an "immature phase" ? VK, to some bands, is more than just dressing pretty to gain an audience(like trash such as Gazette and A9. Pure garbage) It's an art.


I agree with you^^


Title: Re: Visual vs "Visual Kei"
Post by: odoroboujohn on February 17, 2009, 04:57:49 AM
Watch a Silver Ash pv, A band who had done V-kei from a totally other country. If you can't distinguish it... I'm sorry W.-V