Re: "ugly" vs. successful female vocalists

[dambik@fnalo.fnal.gov (Ed Dambik)]

In article <2D08CD37@msmailgate.canadorec.on.ca>, "Moynes, Laurie" <MOYNESL@CCOURT.CANADOREC.ON.CA> writes:
:
> I think that, if you consider the situation carefully, you will discover 
> that good looks became a requirement for a successful female vocalist at 
> about the same time that videos caught on.  
:
> But, with the onset of videos, we were forced to look at the performer's 
> face on TV.  The looks (or lack of same) became just another piece of data 
> input for our subconcious mind to use when formulating an opinion on a 
> performer's music (emphasis on sub; I would hope that I do not base my 
> opinion of a song on whether or not I like the looks of a performer).  
:
> Is it possible that promoters, etc. purposely look for "presentable" folks 
> to market a product?  Watch CMT some time.  It seems that there are NO 
> bad-looking folks in country music (OK, Hank Williams Jr.  So sue me!!).
:
>  The mentality is "maybe if I sell my product in a prettier package...".  
> We've always known that "sex sells"; just look at any commercial for beer on 
> TV!

Well, there are a number of things going on here. First, I think that
videos *did* make appearances more important BUT good looks are *not*
a requirement. Any artist can be made to appear beautiful or handsome
in the skilled hands of a makeup person. Stay home sick a day from
work and you're bound to see some "amazing" makeovers on the talkshow
circuit sooner or later. This look does not fit the image of some
artists (many of them men) so they do not always use this (grunge
bands, etc. for example). The only time I've seen video producers
experience a problem with handling the looks of a performer is with
overweight people. They seem scared to death to show any overweight
persons, especially women. Some even attempt to use FX to solve this
"problem". It seems that weight is currently more important than
"looks".

Secondly, I think you are right that *some* "promoters, etc. purposely
look for 'presentable' folks to market a product". These folks,
however, usually don't last very long because their talents cannot
sustain them. These particular performers are truely disposable and
can be spotted very easily. There's a whole industry for recycling
these has-beens once they've been replaced (e.g., The Love Boat).

Finally, I think that looks are considered very important in marketing
a CELEBRITY. I really wonder if the degree of one's "celebrity-ness"
really translates to record sales though (perhaps as a means to make
up for a lack of talent?) My guess is that good looking celebrities
probably sell more records only for some specific types of music.

Just a few thoughts.

Remember, television is a shared illusion. Life is music.
(Does that make Life the soundtrack to hallucination?).


The Other Ed