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

Personally, I agree. I love the Dolls too but as someone who is all about the songs and hooks first and foremost, they don't move me musically in the same way that Kiss, Aerosmith, or really any number of other artists do. For me it's all about that "chills factor" and wanting to return to the records again and again. The Dolls do that now and then for me. Those other artists do that consistently and enduringly.

As you stated though, others are perfectly free to feel the exact opposite.

 

Well said.

 

It takes a lot of things to come together at exactly the right time and in the right place to break an act. Many of those things are completely beyond the control of the artist

Case in point Nick Drake. He had the songs. Incredible songs yet nobody much cared until years later.

 

totally, it’s all good and I don’t think you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing. I think it’s just a difference of opinion in that I just hear a certain lack of tonal quality in David’s voice that results in a failure to connect with the mass audience.

yeah, exactly. And a good example is how for me, LAMF is vastly superior to the Dolls. It’s got better songs and is eminently more listenable. Que sera sera as Johnny would say

 

Well the New York Dolls' songs were great (well, most of them), but I will agree that KISS' songs were better. Or should I say, greater.

 

It made me not take them seriously. It was as if their visual image was more important than their music. That might not have been fair for me to think back then, but it's what happened in my record-buying/listening experience.

 

Maybe a little too raw and sloppy to make it. One of my friends saw them back in the day without knowing a thing about them and hated them although I don’t think think he was the the type of guy who would care for them. I think Johnny Thunders expressed displeasure with the two albums but David Johansen thought they were reasonably good at capturing the band.

 

Probably. The NYD lacked the subtlety of glam rock which toyed constantly with androgyny. The over-the-top side of their image made the Dolls seem closer to Weird Al than Bowie or Mott the Hoople in a time when novelty acts were lucky to be one hit wonders. They always came across more like an in-joke than serious, never in the league of groups with a powerful stage image like KISS or Alice Cooper. KISS had mystique and highly identifiable costumes, and Alice Cooper could pull off his high-wire act by portraying himself as the product of society while he and his group churned out one anti-establishment teen anthem or hit after another.


Cat

 

Only a bit off-topic, but I'm reminded of a story Joe Perry told in Aerosmith's epic (and harrowing) autobiography.

He was reflecting on seeing the Dolls live when Aerosmith was just taking flight and how cool and sleazy a vibe they had going. He said he was there when they crashed and he seen them self-destruct before his very eyes right there on the stage. He said "I'll never forget telling myself that no way will that ever happen with my band..."...

 

Well, they all have teased hair, heavy make-up, and apparently women's shoes/boots. David is checking his compact mirror. The guy on the left is wearing a woman's shirt, cut to expose a shoulder, a beaded necklace, and possibly a woman's belt. Looks like another is wearing a woman's belt, two are wearing scarves. Of course the band name written with the lipstick is suggestive, too. None are wearing dresses, but they look like they could be a group of downtown prostitutes. I suppose that was the idea.

I couldn't say whether the image turned off kids in Middle America or not, but I think "New York Dolls" is an insular sort of name to start. And if they didn't have songs that could stick on the radio, they were going to have a hard time, anyway. They would've needed to keep themselves together and tour like crazy to build a following over time, but they couldn't do that, either.

 

What they are actually wearing is not that different from what lots of rock bands were wearing at the time - I mean, wearing scarves is not drag! This thread has been educational for me because I had no idea Kiss were a band of top class songwriters fronted by highly skilled vocalists capable of projecting gut-wrenching emotions.

 

Time by David Bowie name checks Billy Dolls the original drummer who overdosed on “Quaaludes and Red Wine” though I think it was the coffee they were pouring down his throat killed him. ( I had to reference wiki for the coffee thing, I couldn’t remember what actually killed him)

 

You seriously think Gene Simmons is a better singer???

 

You are right that KISS had better songs for the most part. So many critics heads would spin at that. The Dolls are legends to some degree because they went for it so hard and failed. If KISS had split after the first 3 albums, they would’ve been an even bigger underground band that had way more respect. Selling out to the kids killed their credibility.

 

When I look at the bands of the early seventies, and the tv shows, and all the other stuff..... no, being in drag made no difference at all.
There were people in drag everywhere, so it is hard to see why these guys in drag would have, or get negative reactions over it.

 

I love the Dolls. There certainly wasn't a lot of bands who were like them during their time. However, I find myself listening to and enjoying LA.M.F. a lot more. You can't pin your hopes on a junkie though, you'll end up being disappointed. If you're a fan of both bands, do yourself a favor and pick up the Jungle Records the found L.A.M.F masters. It's the best that album has ever sounded.

 

Not seeing them at the Mercer is one of my very few regrets when it comes to music.
I've seen them on really off nights (Coventry) and nights when they were the best band in the world (Palladium St. Valentines Day Massacre). Lack of consistency as a live band was a big problem for them, a lot depended on what the audience gave them in response.

 

I think that's correct. The cover of the first album doesn't really represent their actual look, which was more bohemian chic, as @Rising Sun eloquently put it.

It's a stylized, airbrushed photo that actually make them look like girls, 20 years before Motley Crüe.

 

Except KISS could write good tunes and play their instruments.

 

Except the New York Dolls could write better tunes (than Kiss? How difficult could it be?) and play their instruments in a more entertaining and interesting way.

 

In the long list of "SHF overrated bands of all time" the atrocity known as Kiss are in the top 3.........

 

I genuinely had no idea anyone took Kiss seriously.

 

I genuinely had no idea anyone took the NY Dolls seriously.

 

We're even then. I love bubblegum music, so that's not my main objection to Kiss. Nothing wrong with not taking music too seriously!

 

They had me with that telltale can of Schlitz in the photo on the first album cover.