OK, that looks like a bit of a non-sequiter at the end there, but I forgot to make my point about the same thing holding true for the Beatles as well, who were initially a boy band that then learned how to write songs.
I know, that’s why I never said different. But I’m sure that was after she proved her worth and had some pull.
See also: The Monkees
Their appeal was about being sexy and dangerous, yes, but I’d hardly say Jagger was a looker, even from the get-go. He’s a great showman, but probably wouldn’t win a whole lot of beauty contests.
The Beatles were not a contrived like The Monkees, New Kids on the Block, or the Backstreet Boys, and their practice of playing mostly covers at the beginning of their career is no different from the careers of any other major band.
From what I remember about Reuben Stoddard, one of his selling points was his weight. The more vapid news/entertainment shows were proclaiming how great it was to see someone overweight do so well in the contest in between segments discussing if a fat person could be an “American Idol.” And it isn’t too far into the run of the season that the image consultants move in on the contestants. Clay may have been a spaz to start, but it wasn’t long before he became the cute, nice, sensitive boy next door type. :rolleyes:
Entertainment has always been about looks. It just seems moreso nowadays.
1)looks
2)connections/name recognition
3)talent
Here’s Billboard’s top 200 from 15 years ago (just because it was easily accessible; not sure how to find other years):
http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/ago/rewind.jsp?which=bb200&REWIND_YEAR=15
A list of ones where good looks and/or image helped, or certainly didn’t hurt:
#1 Paula Abdul
#2 Milli Vanilli
#4 Janet Jackson
#5 The B-52s
#10 Bobby Brown
#11 Skid Row
#12 Michael Bolton (certainly couldn’t have been talent)
#13 Young MC
#14 Motley Crue
#15 Linda Ronstadt
#16 New Kids On the Block
Plenty others, I just got tired of typing.
I think the issue is that the artists the big record companies toss at us are almost always very image-conscious, be it of the beautiful (Shania Twain), rugged/counterculture (laugh Avril?), or freakshow (Marilyn Manson) variety.
If you don’t get sent up on the big record company image rocketship, the road to the top has probably become harder than in the past, as there is only X amount of total artist exposure available, and if there is a larger amount of exposure being given to the image artists, then there will be lesser amount given to the others (as compared to the past). Thus, relatively unattractive people like Elliott Smith do end up making it big occasionally, but it’s getting to be quite rare and often due to a fluke (in Elliott’s case, it was because Gus Van Sant was a fan and put “Miss Misery” and other Smith songs in the soundtrack of Good Will Hunting).
Couldn’t have been his looks, either - the man could turn Medusa to stone.
Obviously there are instances in the past of what we’re talking about - I didn’t say there weren’t. I was trying to point out that there was a time when there were quite a few musicians that were signed based on their talent - or at least, we can infer that they were based on the body of work they produced. My point was, now there really aren’t any (at least, I can’t think of any).
I don’t like the fact that all they do is sing. I’d rather see people who also play instruments and bands on there, preferably their own dang songs…
When you look at the prevalence of looks in the music scene, it’s mainly in the teenybopper pop genre, however, nearly every band today has a visual aspect to it, even if it’s not attractive (see: death metal, hardcore punk).
One of the problems with being a musician is having to deal with that aspect of it. To me, I feel like it’s pandering to teenagers, and I try to refrain from cliched visuals, i.e. posing, prancing, scowling, dressing like some friggin holiday ornament. etc.
I find it utterly staggering that anyone would think
- That pop music has ever NOT been about looks, or that
- American Idol, which gave us a winner who could swallow Refrigerator Perry whole, and a star who looks like Barry Manilow after being melted, is particularly responsible for making looks more important.
Who was the biggest star of old time pop 'n rock? Elvis, because he was handsome. The 50s, 60s, and 70s had just as large a proportion of beautiful people in the music industry as today, and we’ve got just as many uggos pushing their way to the top today as we ever did. Eminem’s an ugly little spud and he’s everywhere now. The current #4 song in the USA is a Green Day song, and Green Day are basically three band nerds; I see Maroon 5 with a few singles in the chart right now, and they’re FIVE band nerds.
Ruben has released a few albums, but I get the impression that his weight is holding him back in terms of working as much as Clay does. I’ve read that he is 450 lbs. That’s a lot of lbs! To clarify, I get the impression that he’s so heavy he doesn’t have the stamina or energy to work as hard as Clay.
Anyway, there was the humpbacked heavy girl that didn’t get in this week,and yeah, she could sing and yeah she wasn’t even as big as Ruben, but she didn’t have that endearing personality Ruben had.
What’s annoying about AI and Pop Idol in the UK is that it has launched way too many male and female vocalists who all have exactly the same style of voive. For the Men it’s low level Usher-esque style or for the ladies its crappy vibrato coupled with a big screamy chorus voice. where’s the diversity?
Do you really think Fantasia, Kelly Clarkson and Kimberly Locke sound anything like one another?
Johnny Cash…you’re talking about a different time. I bet if I asked my mother she’d say that Johnny was a hottie back in the day. He certainly wouldn’t be a two-bagger.
I think Bruce Springsteen was considered quite attractive in his most popular days.
Pearl Jam, Nirvana? Tons of girls lovin’ on Eddie and Kurt.
Axl and Steven Tyler? Admittedly, not the hunkiest men in the world, but there were some serious numbers of girls who were hot for those guys. I personally find Axl to be a bit more attractive than Steven.
The people who make up the music scene aren’t always as beautiful as those on the silver screen, but they aren’t “freaks” either. The people you’ve named are not UGLY people. They might not be the most gorgeous people in the world, but they aren’t scary looking either.
Hollywood, Nashville…it’s about image. Image sells. You may not agree with it, but it’s certainly nothing new. Look at Judy Garland…she had an awesome ability to sing. Do you think if she looked like some sterotypical “Maude”…big and round with curlers in her hair and missing a few teeth, she would have made it? Not as an actress, but even on the radio. Once people had the ability to “see” the people behind the music, the perception of what would sell changed. American Idol didn’t change it, it was there all along.
~studiously notes that Bon Jovi has been left out of your lists~ Can’t tell me part of Bon Jovi’s appeal isn’t that Jon is hawt.
I have to disagree with the OP to some extent. I think one of the beauties of AI is that it has shown that America doesn’t care as much about image as one would think. Record producers, yes; record buyers, no. I think if Kelly Clarkson, Ruben Studdard, Clay Aiken, Kimberley Locke, or Fantasia Barrino had tried to walk into a record company and get a deal (before American Idol) they would have been laughed out. To me, none of them fits the ideal “pop star” image a la Jessica Simpson/Britney Spears/Usher/Justin Timberlake. But people voted for them anyway, because they were talented. Personally, I wish the rest of the entertainment world would take a hint from this and give us more talent over looks.
I also think that we tend to find attractive qualities in unconventional looking people when they are talented. Steven Tyler for instance. I personally do not think he is good looking in the least (I’m a Joe Perry girl, myself). But I know there are many people who think he’s hot. In his case, I think it’s a combination of talent and charisma that does it. AI’s Clay Aiken is another example. He’s not ugly, but he’s not drop dead gorgeous either. Yet some people (like my sister) think he’s the hottest thing ever. She was attracted to his voice first, and began to find herself attracted to the rest of him as well. Just a thought.
Darn! Forgot to mention this one. Eminem’s not bad looking. Depends on how he presents himself, but he has a very nice looking face.
Simon said as much night before last to someone who was sent to the next roung.
And An Arky, Nashville Star is the competition for people who play instruments and sing original songs.
I will say one thing, though, about the judges’ decisions. I understand full well that they have to take image into account. But they’re producers, not style consultants. I wonder how accurate their speculations are as to how well someone can be made over.
do they all use that crappy vibrato effect?
I think American Idol being blamed for looks over substance is long after the fact. I would blame the invention of music videos before I would blame AI. I’m 38 years old, and have been into music pretty much since I was born, and I vividly recall how it was to see the bands I’d been listening to for the first time. “That’s what they look like?” Rush is a great example of this - I don’t care for their music, but I respect their talent, but my goodness, that’s an unattractive man. Duran Duran is an example of the opposite - talented enough, not musical geniuses, but basically made their careers on their looks and videos.
I agree with other posters who say looks aren’t enough, but I would say that good looks with some talent will get you further now than great talent and no looks.
You haven’t even watched the show?