"Women have to be HOT to succeed in the music biz"

[HCarlH]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/05/18/music.sexysingers.ap/index.html

 

Seems like guys don't have to worry as much, even if image is still important.

 

I think guys have to have more of a visual, confident attitude to succeed.

[alphajerk]

{censored} janis joplin.

[Gus Lozada]

* "Music biz" I am not sure.

 

* "SHOW Business", YES.

 

 

They are not the same.

[alphajerk]

music biz is gone... only show biz remains.

[Billster]

Can you say "pointing out the obvious" ?

[tradivoro1]

Yeah, the sad thing about this whole music video thing is that it has created this whole phenomenom of music as being something you watch, not something you hear. The best thing that could happen is the abolition of music videos for ever. We really need to bring back an esthetic in which music is something that you hear first and foremost. People sold records before the invention of the music video, and by removing music videos, the budget for creating a record is greatly reduced.

 

anyway, I'm just stating this as an opinion, I know that this will never happen because the public is just too weaned on these music videos, and the public that pays the most money for music is teeny boppers and music videos are the new cartoons.

[Mikeo]

Stop watching MTV , VH1 and what every else that the huge record companies try to push down your throat.

 

There's a lot of great female artists that may not be as eye catching as some of the acts you see in the videos, but they make great music and are sucessful.

 

And sucess is not always measured in multimillion dollar record sales either, so smaller atrists (example: Lucinda Willams, Gillian Welch, just to name a few) ain't doing that bad with sell out shows and making a decent living.

 

I will see a few smaller club shows a month, but rarely hit an arena show (once a year or so), I can afford to get out at 20 bucks or less for a ticket, I can't afford 65-100 bucks to check out a huge name act

[Hard Truth]

With Bollywood films there are actresses who perform the songs in the films and there are the singers who actually sing them. The singers are often one of a handful of older women who have been doing it for a long time. The expectation is that you watch a pretty actress who can dance and you hear a singer seleceted for her abilities, not her looks.

 

There have been some examples in the world of MTV such as Black Box and Milli Vanilli, but for some reason the practice is consider deceitful. I think it would be better to do it the Bollywood way than to be forced to hear the attempted singing of pretty dancer-actresses.

[Lee Flier]

 

There have been some examples in the world of MTV such as Black Box and Milli Vanilli, but for some reason the practice is consider deceitful.

 

 

Because it is!

 

 

I think it would be better to do it the Bollywood way than to be forced to hear the attempted singing of pretty dancer-actresses.

 

 

No, it would be better to have the actual singers appear in the damn video. If they want eye candy they can have some dancers on the side or something. The whole thing is ridiculous. I don't see how hiring talented people to make untalented but pretty people seem as though they have talent, is any better. At least if it's "really" the untalented person singing (albeit with a lot of help from Autotune) then it's obvious why that person is onstage, and it ain't for their singing.

 

But as others have pointed out... that's why I don't watch MTV or give a crap about the mainstream music biz anymore.

[Lakesidedave]

And sucess is not always measured in multimillion dollar record sales either, so smaller atrists (example: Lucinda Willams, Gillian Welch, just to name a few) ain't doing that bad with sell out shows and making a decent living.

 

Lucinda Williams has it all: she writes great songs, sings wonderfully, makes great records, AND she's hot

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

 

Lucinda Williams has it all:

 

 

Sabrina Salerno has more!

 

Sabrina - "Boys"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TOAP2aiKRM

 

Sabrina - "Yeah Yeah"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auQ_pmretEE&mode=related&search=

 

Sabrina - "All Of Me"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mix-saSsbC8&mode=related&search=

 

.

[Anderton]

I guess I'm one of those stupid people who listens to music with my ears.

[alphajerk]

Lucinda Williams has it all: she writes great songs, sings wonderfully, makes great records, AND she's hot

 

ewww. id rather have neko case if we are shooting for that genre.

[Lakesidedave]

 

ewww. id rather have neko case if we are shooting for that genre.

 

 

Too smooth and polished for my taste. A bit safe. She doesn't sound like she's lived much.

[Anderton]

 

Too smooth and polished for my taste. A bit safe. She doesn't sound like she's lived much.

 

 

A couple dates with Alphajerk will fix that!

[Lakesidedave]

[Billster]

 

With Bollywood films there are actresses who perform the songs in the films and there are the singers who actually sing them. The singers are often one of a handful of older women who have been doing it for a long time. The expectation is that you watch a pretty actress who can dance and you hear a singer seleceted for her abilities, not her looks. There have been some examples in the world of MTV such as Black Box and Milli Vanilli, but for some reason the practice is consider deceitful. I think it would be better to do it the Bollywood way than to be forced to hear the attempted singing of pretty dancer-actresses.

 

 

But Bollywood films are films. They happen to have those huge production numbers with singing and dancing, but they are functioning first as movies. I don't really expect actresses in films to sing their own parts.

 

Of course in the old days, when movie stars were folks who came from Vaudeville theater, those guys and gals did it all - sing, dance, act, look presentable. Maybe folks these days aren't trying hard enough (on both sides of the entertainment coin).

[Lee Flier]

 

Of course in the old days, when movie stars were folks who came from Vaudeville theater, those guys and gals did it all - sing, dance, act, look presentable. Maybe folks these days aren't trying hard enough (on both sides of the entertainment coin).

 

 

I'll tell you what... I'm pretty convinced after seeing some recent local events featuring some talent that I hadn't had occasion to see before... there are still plenty of extremely talented young performers. I think they could act, sing, dance and all the rest if they were given the opportunity, and they do get opportunities on the smaller, indie scale.

 

But most are never gonna get on MTV etc. I really think it has gotta be about control and manipulation... the producers and labels now would rather deal with a pretty face that they can manipulate to their liking than a legit talent who might actually have an opinion or want to be paid fairly.

[Billster]

 

I'll tell you what... I'm pretty convinced after seeing some recent local events featuring some talent that I hadn't had occasion to see before... there are still plenty of extremely talented young performers. I think they could act, sing, dance and all the rest if they were given the opportunity, and they do get opportunities on the smaller, indie scale. But most are never gonna get on MTV etc. I really think it has gotta be about control and manipulation... the producers and labels now would rather deal with a pretty face that they can manipulate to their liking than a legit talent who might actually have an opinion or want to be paid fairly.

 

 

I agree with that. I think there is a shift going on that we've talked about in other threads about how the "major labels" are dying. There's a lot of ways to make a living in music without being a rock star. There's a lot of indie artists touring around, playing music and eating three squares a day. It's a commitment, but no different than committing to more traditional lifestyles. This has also come up in the American Idol discussions, as far as how "talent" vs. "easily manipulated" plays out in the audition process.

 

Something I was getting at with the Vaudeville and old-time movies idea was what the audience expects. Movie stars from the 30's and 40's weren't especially glamourous in appearance compared to anybody off the street. We can see this by looking at old family pictures (candid photography was rare before WW2). Older photos tended to be professionally shot studio things, and people dressed up and looked good for the camera. Nowadays, we're used to seeing bad snapshots of ourselves and glamour photos of the "stars". Guess who looks better. But with an eye towards detail, almost anyone can look terrific on camera. Why should I think Angelina Jolie is any more attractive than my wife?

[Lakisha]

 

I really think it has gotta be about control and manipulation... the producers and labels now would rather deal with a pretty face that they can manipulate to their liking than a legit talent who might actually have an opinion or want to be paid fairly.

 

Dam gurl. You gotta watch it or that chip on your shoulder could fall and hurt yourself.

 

People who say "i didnt get a deal cause Im a legit talent and got an opiniona and wanna get paid fairly and the label only wanna a bimbo they can manipulate" I don't know. Sound like a easy excuse. All the label want is to make money. That other stuff is a easy bash an in reality dont matter. Maybe they talk about it at NOW meeting, not at Sony Music meeting.

[Lee Flier]

Dam gurl. You gotta watch it or that chip on your shoulder could fall and hurt yourself. People who say "i didnt get a deal cause Im a legit talent and got an opiniona and wanna get paid fairly and the label only wanna a bimbo they can manipulate" I don't know. Sound like a easy excuse.

 

Easy excuse for whom or what? I'm not personally looking for a major label deal nor am I a singer or actress. Nor do I go to NOW meetings. I just look at what's on MTV vs. young singers/actors/etc. that I've seen recently right in my back yard and I see a huge discrepancy of talent. People assume there is no decent music out there or that kids nowadays don't have the level of talent that performers in the past had... and it's not true because I've seen quite a lot of multi-talented kids lately. So why are these kids not getting signed? Unless they don't want to, which is possible, what other explanation could there be?

 

As a FAN of music, I just think the labels are idiots anymore, that's all.

[Lakesidedave]

I teach part-time at a college of contemporary music. The course includes modules on live sessioning, studio sessioning, performance etc, and, crucially, music business. Most of the students are in the 18 - 25 age bracket. Having taught them all about the Biz and how it works, (contracts, exclusivity, restrictions, ownership of rights etc), they realise that, if they want a successful and long career in music, then the LAST thing they actually need is to be signed. I tell them my definition of success and recipe for longevity: "to play the music you love, to people who want to hear it, and make a reasonable living, while retaining ownership of your work". I then give them examples of artists who have followed this path, and of course, they have never heard of most of them. I then tell them about the very low success rate for artists who HAVE signed a deal, and what happens after they're dropped. And of course, they've never heard of most of these either. My students are beginning to get the point. They can see that the labels are in their death-throws, and that they don't actually need them at all. This weeds out the students who have enrolled on the course because they watched Pop Idol or X-Factor on TV, and want to be celebrities, as opposed to those who genuinely want a long-term musical career. It's actually a very positive time for the latter; the labels no longer own the means of production and distribution - these elements have been democratised by technological advances and the internet. All the labels really have now is the hype-machine. And if you want to be part of that, well, you gotta LOOK the part. Whether you're male or female.

Lee's right, (she usually is!), there's a lot of really talented kids out there. And they're in a vastly better position than my generation was.

[Lakisha]

 

As a FAN of music, I just think the labels are idiots anymore, that's all.

 

The problem with the labels isnt that they change into idiots, its that they havent change. The lables are playin catchup. Everyone knows that. These days a artist with LEGIT TALENT AN OPINION AN PAID FAIRLY is in much better shape than the labels.

[blue2blue]

 

* "Music biz" I am not sure. * " SHOW Business ", YES. They are not the same.

 

 

Also... one has to really ponder what success means to oneself.

[gtrbass]

You'd think that artists like Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, etc, sometimes the combination of 'model good looks' and vocal talent can be a magic formula. When you push youthful looks and marginal talent (Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson, etc.) you get forgettable distractions. It doesn't last.

 

To me the HOTTEST women ever have been the ones who are the real deal. Beth Hart, or Chrissy Hynde are way more interesting, and well ... sexual as artists. They have something to say, and deliver it. That said, I'm one of those men who is attracted to layers of substance in women, so maybe my aesthetic sense is uncommon.

 

If Jessica Simpson (for example) is an ideal, it's like a well carved statue. It's static. In comparison, someone like Beth Hart is dynamic, and far more unpredictable as far as what you're gonna get out of a performance. That sh*t ain't on tape. In my experience, the best women are like that.

 

Lasting art isn't ever about physical perfection, or flawless execution. It's about something that hits home.