I'm sorry, but this debate is just idiotic. You people are arguing over semantics, guided by nothing more than inconsistent terms and arbitrary definitions.
Visual, visual kei, glam, gothic... who the hell are you people to draw the line, anyway?
What is the fundamental truth to visual kei? An emphasis on VISUALS - ie, hair, makeup, clothes, nails, vivid pv's, etc. That IS the common denominator. Period. END OF DISCUSSION.
I love you.
I agree completely.
As for my own two cents, I say that while X doesn't fit the STEREOTYPE of Visual Kei we have today - early Dir en grey, Phantasmagoria, Malice Mizer, Versailles etc - they are certainly a visual band, and in my opinion "visual" and "visual kei" are basically two ways of saying the same thing. Emphasis on visual - especially visual SHOCK.
It depends, then, on one's definition of VK. If you're using the looser and more
accurate definition of VK, then X couldn't be anything but.
If you're using the current cookie-cutter manifestation of VK, then of course they aren't.
Because we are using two different definitions, this argument is entirely pointless and will NEVER be resolved. :roll: