Did the New York Dolls drag gimmick kill their chances commercially?

Their look wasn't their biggest problem. Their sound was.

The public showed it would accept "drag" performers, so long as they made commercially viable music. David Bowie had a bunch of hit singles in the '70s and '80s, and by 1983 Boy George was a household name.

But the New York Dolls made raw, ramshackle music. Not only didn't they have a potential hit single, but (to be blunt), they sounded too amateurish for rock radio. That kind of sound was beloved by rock critics and the kind of audience who would later take to punk rock. But it didn't grab Joe and Jane Public.

To put this in perspective, in 1977, the first Clash album didn't even get released in the U.S. because of its sound. I'd say the Dolls came off sounding even more crazed several years earlier. College radio was the only place you could hear music like this. Probably still is, to a degree. I've never heard early Clash or the New York Dolls on any commercial station.

Had the Dolls come out with a "Changes" or "Time (Clock Of The Heart)" and still failed commercial, well, then I'd say it was their outfits.

 

It's worth remembering that a lot of great bands never make it. A lot of bands that, given time, would have been great, break up before it happens. In fact, most fade away - ask any musician.

Secondly, if you've decided to do something shocking (and dressing as they did was back then) then you're doing it for effect and must accept that you'll lose the people you offend. It's obvious, really. The same thing happened to Kiss. Their debut had the iconic cover with their painted faces, and that will have turned off more people than it turned on.

In the end - from what I know - internal issues were the seed of their breaking up. We lost some potentially great music to drugs and ego. It's not the first, or last time.

 

One thing about this whole Dolls did drag misconception. Those clothes they wore were not drag as defined by what you'd see in NY drag/gay bars or in the Village streets. They did a variant of it by using their girlfriends clothes and lots of makeup. It was more more glam/queer identifying than drag , and it was mostly, as I said, to piss off the straights and inject a little rebellion into the whole jeans and t-shirt rock'n'roll thing. I know of one time David wore a dress at Club 82 (it's on the DVD) and that was a drag club. Arthur sometimes wore a tutu. It seemed to me that it was more dress-up than drag.
David once said they dressed like the people who came to see them at the Mercer in order to mirror them, and that crowd was very gay from what I understand.
It certainly got them some attention and criticism, but they had the talent to back up the stance.

 

Alice Cooper and Kiss weren't so much glam as horror-movie rock, which was maybe a thing that American kids could better relate to.

 

The only thing I was shocked by back in the day was their first album being produced by... Todd Rundgren! As a kid growing up in the boondocks, their music, lyrics, and attitude were... perfect. I even went to live in NYC at the age of 17 for a year and a half partly because of them. For me, maybe others, too, they were perfect for the time.

 

I could understand those who didn't like them, but I have to disagree about them not having talent or being able to write good songs. To each his own I guess. All I know was that for me and my best friend (as suburban 12 year old kids ) the drag thing didn't bother us at all as we were already into Bowie and Alice Cooper.....just another extension of that to us.

 

Exactly, The Dolls didn't dress in drag.

 

Johnny once said he always shopped for his shoes/boots in the women's section cause they had much better selection of fashionable styles. But he did draw the line at wearing a dress. For Arthur ( aka "Killer Kane") on the other hand, wearing a ballerina's tutu just made his lurching zombie, Frankenstein-like stance all the more ridiculously absurd and surreal.. LOL

 

Indeed.

The band said they understood early on that they could not make it as "another Dolls" and eventually emphasized a stronger focus on both image and songwriting (relative to their New York peers).

And while Kiss were noted by many to be the strongest group musically in the New York scene, even they didn't land immediate success in terms of album sales.

As Paul once said, "We adored the Dolls. The difference was essentially that the Dolls were looking to be the biggest group in New York. We wanted to be the biggest group in the world".

I'm not sure either group can claim they fully achieved their goals but, regardless, I certainly enjoy both groups.

All the groups in that early New York scene were great and each added their own charm to it.

 

As a 12 year old at the time, this was rock n roll! Still is!

 

The two Dolls albums, L.A.M.F and So Alone, Johansen's first two and Sylvain's first . . . good times.

 

I, for one, am happy it didn’t grab Joe and Jane Public. They tend to have terrible taste!
Hahaha. I kid, I kid... sorta.

When Paul Nelson was at Mercury, he had three projects: The New York Dolls, Blue Ash and 1969 Live
by the Velvet Underground. I say he had impeccable taste.

 

The demos Paul Nelson cut with them are actually much closer to their live sound than the first two albums. A must own if you ask me.
And the No More, No Less album by Blue Ash is a power pop classic. As for the Velvets album, well, words cannot express...

 

I’m certain that the cover of their debut did them a lot of damage - either turning off a chunk of their potential audience or making some of that audience too worried about taking the album to the counter and being mocked by record store staff.

There’s also the fact that they could be pretty sloppy live, as could be seen in their Midnight Special appearance, and this doesn’t endear an act to mainstream audiences.

 

I'd say that the world just wasn't ready for their sound and glorious sloppy trashyness in 73/74. Their glam image was no big deal because there was so much of it going on at the time. I first heard of them when they mimed on The Old Grey Whistle Test and they came across as a sort of distorted Stones clones (with Bob Harris famously terming them "mock rock"). I only got into them in 76/77 thanks to the Pistols who pretty well based their whole sound on them.

 

I bought the first album because I loved the cover!

 

The glimpse into the NYC music scene of the 70's courtesy of @ralphb and others has been a fascinating one for me, as I was too young and half a country away. The Velvets, The Dolls, Talking Heads, Ramones, Patti Smith, Television, Blondie. They've all had a major impact on my musical taste and sensibilities. Thanks to everyone for sharing their memories.

 

I think they were too "New York". Like the Ramones, way too much critical fawning, and when you actually heard them you'd go "huh? Those kids in the garage across the alley are better."

Aside from the Talking Heads (who were really their own whatever non-genre), Patti Smith (alas way too much time in her own head), Blondie (who really wanted to be the Archies with balls and succeeded) the only band from that scene that interested me was Television. And what you know? They could actually play and were musically ambitious, almost on a cosmic scale.

This wasn't going to get anyone excited:

 

I’m probably in the minority here, but although I love both albums I enjoy Too Much Too Soon a little bit more than the debut.

 

They definitely weren’t the Stones…..

 

Well Glam Rock was huge in the UK in the early 70's and I didn't think their look looked out of place at all. It was the music that wasn't commercial enough.
It was their look that first caught my attention...

 

I don't think the Dolls did anything wrong visually or musically - they were what they were and you loved them or hated them. It was a gang mentality - you picked your side. They were never going to be huge. I adore them and think they deserve to be better known than they are outside of music fan circles, but I'm hardly surprised that they're not. The general public have never been great arbiters of taste.

 

And thank Christ for that...

 

I go back and forth, but on most days I agree with you. Too Much Too Soon doesn't have as many classics as the debut, but it's a little more consistent throughout I think.

 

"Did the New York Dolls drag gimmick kill their chances commercially?"

The answer to your question is yes - partially.

No consumer or potential fan wanted to be associated with that type of deviancy.

Then or now.