The stars of the Sixties had had no such compunction about showing themselves. Everyone knew what Mick Jagger and Diana Ross looked like, even if you weren’t such a big fan of their music. In those days, rock stars conceived of themselves as showmen, or in Bob Dylan’s case, as a song and dance man.
It was sometime around the time of Moby Grape that rockers decided it was really all about the music, man, and they didn’t want their faces plastered on album covers or The Joey Bishop Show or on teenage kids’ walls. By the time of Steely Dan, and Chicago (q.v.), and the Steve Miller Band, it was considered a sign of your seriousness that no one knew what you looked like.
The age of MTV and music videos killed that off pretty good, but I'm not sure why anyone thought this was a good thing in the first place. Rock stars are entertainers, after all. The persona they present is a big part of why we love these performers in the first place.
It's kind of fitting, though, for Steve Miller, who churned out the most generic imaginable MOR Seventies rock. I don't mean that to be entirely negative: His songwriting was solid and unpretentious, his band rocked without being flashy. If you heard a Steve Miller Band song on the radio, you were unlikely to change the station.
But is that really what we want to be honoring here? A journeyman's competence? Is there anything distinctive or influential enough in the entire Steve Miller oeuvre to warrant immortality? I vote NO for Steve Miller.