i guess theres a fine line?

is a band's "image" different from their general "aesthetic"? for instance get some random mainstream band and they have their you know specific image that theyre pushing for marketing motives and all that, but is that different from a general visual energy that a band puts out? for me visual imagination and what i hear go hand in hand. in most instances i associate music visually. its just not strictly the sense of hearing for me, even though that sounds kind of confusing... . there are some bands out there that just like, have the same aesthetic to themselves and i dont think they're pushing it to like, be super avant garde or anything but just thats what they like so why not push it over the top and dress like it was 1912? maybe all these indie bands im thinking about want to carve a certain niche for themselves, which can't be blamed because it would be boring if no one was trying to do that. but im pretty sure i dont consider that marketing, its just who they are, and when your together making music you can pretty much go wild with whatever you're really into...i'm not sure if this makes much sense to anyone else.