Re: Appearances (was Re: Bjork :-()

[greg@deming.eng.ufl.edu (Greg O'Rear)]

scasterg@cd.columbus.oh.us (Stu Castergine) writes:
>I have noticed that it seems to be almost necessary to be a knock-out
>babe to succeed as a woman in music.
>...
>It ain't fair.

I remember making the same point some time ago.  I agree.  When watching a
video of guys, the comments might be "the dude sure wails on guitar" or
"he can't sing worth ****"; when a video of a woman comes on, usually the
first comment is "what a babe" or "she's not very attractive, is she?".
So, as far as the comment on Bjork's looks goes, Bjork isn't a model; she
doesn't have to be good looking--it isn't her job.  She's a musician.  I
happen to think she is attractive, but it doesn't matter.  I also recognize
the limitations in her voice.  I don't expect her to win awards for her
stunning beauty or her versatile voice.  She shouts well, we whispers nicely,
and has some good songs.  At the Sugarcubes concert, I couldn't take my
eyes off her (although Einar the Nazi was trying to be distracting).  And
anyway, almost always the ones who complain about a female artist's appearance
are nothing to write GQ or Cosmo about, either (reminds me of a "Far Side"
cartoon...).  "But I don't have to look like a model; I'm just a computer
nerd!"