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

Their look at times probably did not help with some rock fans. That cover of the first album was what made me buy it without hearing it. It is the most listened to album in my entire record collection.

 

Please continue. Explain your position further.

 

"Deviancy"! Oh, please.

I hope you're joking, I really do.

 

Er, what?

 

You got it right.
That crowd at the Mercer was interesting. The two times I saw the Dolls there they were pretty good/great. Johnny was terrible one of the nights though. Very friendly people went to see them.

 

Has no-one else noticed they aren't actually in drag on the cover of the first album?

 

Well, exactly. The whole thing is a non-subject - it's just amusing to see who still gets wound up by men in lipstick in 2021.

 

That's a good point. Probably Arthur comes the closest and even with him its a toss up.

 

Is this pre or post Bowie’s arm round Mick Ronson on Top of the Pops?

 

Gotta be post.

 

I bought the first record without knowing anything about them...cool cover to p#ss off the older generation.you had Rundgren name recognition,so how bad could it be?...I liked it.Funny how later in the 80's Johansen with the Buster Poindexter shtick ...I'll take Personality Crises over Hot Hot Hot any day.

 

Some bands actually did dress in drag on their album covers. Oh the humanity!

 

Holy. Crap. Lots of dislike for the Dolls here. I always thought it was assumed their two albums were genius pronto-punk, glam etc. To me, they never made a bad album in their short career. They were in and out like wildfire.

I love the band.

 

And the Dolls' make up is kabuki level, Mick Jagger probably wore more feminine make up.

 

I love the Dolls but they didn't really have good enough songs or a good enough singer. Hard to make it big commercially if you're missing both of these qualities.

David may have been a great frontman with attitude and style, but he didn't have a voice with emotion, range, versatility or 'listenability". Just compare him to ANY of the three lead vocalists on KISS' debut or to Steven Tyler on Aerosmith's first album. Again, I hate saying it cause I love the Dolls, but he sounds like a total amateur compared to them.

And of course, while they had fun songs, they didn't really have any great songs.

 

I couldn't disagree more on every point. Sorry! I wouldn't swap David up front for Paul Stanley or Steven Tyler - are you kidding? And great songs? Personality Crisis, Jet Boy, Trash - these are songs written the year I was born and I listen to today - each of which instil thrills n' spills into my very spine! If that doesn't make them great, I don't know what does. Personally no KISS, Stones or Aerosmith song does anything even similar for me!

 

For my money, The Dolls align closely with The Replacements. Both bands are the pure essence of rock and roll. And - anyone who's thinking the vocals are poor is missing the point entirely.

 

Did I just read people here saying they didn't have good songs? The moderators really should be doing some banning around here.

 

100% agree. I like Kiss (who stole their shtick from the Dolls, then took it to a cartoon level), the Stones, and (‘70s) Aerosmith, but I LOVE the Dolls and would take them over those bands any day of the week.

 

You sure you “love the Dolls”?

 

And you have the late, great Rowland S Howard as your avatar - my absolute guitar hero - so your opinion counts above anyone else's on this thread on that basis alone! ;-)

 

Hey I appreciate your passion and like I said I am a big Dolls fan. Of course no one is trying to take away how one person feels about this band versus other bands. The discussion was really about commercial success and that’s what I’m talking about, not whether or not they inspired passion amongst their fans which they obviously do.

But if you’re talking about songs that are going to connect with millions of people, they just didn’t have them the way Kiss and Aerosmith did.
People react to vocals that convey emotion, not just attitude. David is great out front but just didn’t convey emotion in his voice that would connect with (many) people listening to the radio.

 

Yes, I can love a band for all that was great and brilliant about them and also understand why they didn’t have huge commercial success.

Again, the topic was whether or not their image killed their commercial chances. It’s not a diss to say that the Dolls were lacking in some keys areas that determine commercial success. That’s just reality. What’s also reality is they were f**ing fantastic and if I could go back in time, watching the Dolls at the Mercer Arts Center would be high on my list.

 

I'm not arguing for the sake of it and I get we all just feel differently on this matter - much respect to another Dolls fan - so it's just a bit of banter. But I still don't agree. I'm not sure how you differentiate attitude and emotion - or if you even need to. I mean, David's attitude portrayed his emotion. It's not like the Dolls did epic ballads or anything, where David had to express a deeper side to himself - the passion and the enthusiasm were the emotions. The attitude was everything. That's what the Dolls were about.

 

To answer the question...No, it didn't "kill" their chances commercially, but I do think a certain percentage of potential fans were turned off, passed on the album, and ultimately never heard the Dolls' music. Now, the album cover for Too Much Too Soon, that's one of the greatest in rock & roll history!