Jump to content

Can you be HUGELY successful and NOT a wh0r3?


wwwjd

Recommended Posts

  • Members

ALL great responses.

Technically, I am not using the tern wh0re as in "media wh0re" or "money wh0re" I mean the REAL LOOK of a real wh0re: stripped down, beat up, slutty, dressing for sexsex (pun thank you!), like actaual sex wh0res... music noise or talent can be there or not.. just dressing, acting like wh0res as a sell point

 

please delete my links if deemed inappropriate - but it is totally topic related meant in a professional way

1310228188-29.jpg

kesha_keha.jpg

rihanna_white.jpg

pussycat-dolls_2011_1303345750046.png

Katy_Perry_California_Gurlz_19_by_i_hear

 

The above pictures tell me they have NOTHING ELSE THEY CAN SELL, so they stoop to the lowest most common denominator.

 

In contrast to older music as someone pointed out, the charts appeal to a certain group of people: teens and dance clubbers. Yet, the current trend is empty dance clubs songs AS the hits. What? Are there THAT LITTLE talented pop music songs out there that the DANCE chart has to bleed all over the pop chart? Pop was never as proliferated with boring dance songs about banging and such as it is now. So, this leaves pop teens with nothing but club hits? Clubs they can't even get into legally yet.

 

Well.... I say, BRING ON THE PORN STAR POP STARS! It's practically there already. People are numbed to it. It's time to go ahead and blend the breeds. Maybe I'll be the first to REALLY break out that action. While I'm at it, and marketing to teens, tweens, and pres, I'll do music about "Mr. Creeper" and cleverly turn that illegal experience into nothing more than a little fun teen (preteen) experimentation. Oh, I will put a sticker that says [EXPLICIT] on it, but then it will sell even more to underage kids. This is great! Ima be rich soon! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

That's why I was never a fan of Madonna.

I'd been to strip clubs, and there were plenty of hotter women there who could dance better.

She ended up having some decent material, but her early stuff sounded like horrible carnival music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was flipping channels while eating breakfast this morning and I saw where Kelly Rowland has broken ties with Beyonce's dad, her manager for some 15 years and is releasing a solo record.

 

And she says she 'found her sexuality' while making this record. :facepalm:

 

All this being reported with shots of her in a photo shoot, writhing around on the floor like she all horny n sh*t.

 

Another one bites the dust......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was flipping channels while eating breakfast this morning and I saw where Kelly Rowland has broken ties with Beyonce's dad, her manager for some 15 years and is releasing a solo record.


And she says she 'found her sexuality' while making this record.
:facepalm:

All this being reported with shots of her in a photo shoot, writhing around on the floor like she all horny n sh*t.


Another one bites the dust......

 

 

yeah it's a simple metamorphesis to observe: just look at the OLD, yet twas very successful for it's time Britney Spears, then the ho she had to become to stay on top. Cristina Agularia same thing: GREAT SINGER, but needed to ho out to stay profitable. and many more.

 

REBECCA BLACK of "FRIDAY" fame is young and innocent at 14, but wait until her (future) market appeal goes south.... once she hits 18, here come da ho! Unless she's moved on to a real life.

 

Goodbomb, by hugely successful I mean tons of sales, known by everyone, 4 or 5 or 10 songs currently charting at the same time... there are several artists doing that right now - thanks to marketing - but most are ho's or guys singing about banging etc NONE Of which will EVER be listened to as "Classics". The classics that will live forever were not throw away sex songs, and also were not wh0reWare. You'd think someone would notice this effect, step and do something amazing. I guess greed is the king

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Stop the presses: Sex sells!

Check out Josephine Baker in the 1920s. She was posing nude before Madona's mother was born. Bessie Smith and Ma Rainey sang songs that were way beyond acceptable. The "jazz singers" of the 40s/50s were 40% pipes/60% cleavage.

Has anyone mentioned Wendy Williams and the Plasmatics?

 

While there will always be a market for sex -- and sexy music can be good (see above) the bottom line is that "pop" music reflects the general ignorance of the mass market. Fortunately, the niche market continues to grow. So artists who stay true to themselves still have a fighting chance -- probably a better one than in most other decades.

 

 

www.faqme.com/Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

we have seen anti-mainstream backlash in the past; the mid '60s, the early '80s...and it is overdue, but with the mainstream system in such a state of self-delusion and denial, will it survive a sudden shift away from it's core investment stable? We saw them stumble briefly when rock music fanned out into subgenres, we saw them fall flat on their face when the 'new wave' and the punk movements came along...unwilling to believe that we were tired of disco...:rolleyes:

In the old days, the majors owned and supported smaller sub-labels which were more in tune to some of the niches (jazz, folk, blues), but those sub labels have been spun off over the years. We see that the majors are not even trying to be forward looking, just rehashing the same tripe over and over...when the REAL next big thing happens, will they be able to shift gears fast enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes its all about the 'it' factor. You want to be like them, or be with them.

But it is refreshing to see someone like Adele becoming so successful. Maybe it is signs of a change. Bottom line the music industry is a 'business' and businesses want to make money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

ALL The above pictures tell me they have NOTHING ELSE THEY CAN SELL, so they stoop to the lowest most common denominator.

 

While the taste of the above photos is certainly questionable, I think it's wrong to believe that just because they pose this way they have NOTHING else they can sell. It IS possible, both theoretically and practically, to use different sales approaches for the same product simultaneously.

 

I also can't fault these girls specifically for using "what they've got" to sell their music. I'm often amazed at how often I hear people chide pop singers for being too sexy and then turn around and slag on Adele or Lady Gaga or Amy Winehouse for not being perfectly-pretty.

 

It also isn't an entirely new phenomenon.

 

album-hasten-down-the-wind.jpg

 

5829.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

we know it isn't new...just a lot more blatant...today's promo pics for pop tarts would have been the stuff of girly mags forty years ago...

 

 

So would what pretty much every 13-year old girl wears to junior high school these days. Our society is more sexualized and liberalized overall. What the pop tarts wear is just a reflection of that more than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

So would what pretty much every 13-year old girl wears to junior high school these days. Our society is more sexualized and liberalized overall. What the pop tarts wear is just a reflection of that more than anything else.

 

 

Is it?

 

Which comes first, people dressing like Ga Ga or Ga Ga? In the 80's did Madonna reflect what people wore, or did large quantities of women dress like her AFTER she was popular. No one wore a red naugahyde pants and suit with a black stripe and a glitter glove until AFTER Michael became popular. Remember Grunge? You didn't see flannels and ripped jeans and Doc Martens in Dillards until AFTER Nirvana hit. Not the other way around.

 

Ask junior high and high school teachers who have been doing it for 20-30-40 years, who have seen trends come and go and they'll tell you what comes first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Is it?


Which comes first, people dressing like Ga Ga or Ga Ga? In the 80's did Madonna reflect what people wore, or did large quantities of women dress like her AFTER she was popular. No one wore a red naugahyde pants and suit with a black stripe and a glitter glove until AFTER Michael became popular. Remember Grunge? You didn't see flannels and ripped jeans and Doc Martens in Dillards until AFTER Nirvana hit. Not the other way around.


Ask junior high and high school teachers who have been doing it for 20-30-40 years, who have seen trends come and go and they'll tell you what comes first.

 

 

It's a bit of chicken-or-the-egg and it all feeds off of each other. Nirvana didn't invent grunge-wear. It just wasn't yet mainstream when they made it such. Is it Britney pushing the envelope of what-is-acceptible for 13 year old girls to wear at school? To a large degree, sure. But, like Madonna's outfits, they existed in a sub-culture BEFORE she wore that stuff. She just made it massively popular with the mallrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here we go again.

 

So you don't see how this:

 

 

Our society is more sexualized and liberalized overall. What the pop tarts wear is just a reflection of that more than anything else.

 

 

Which is saying that the artist reflects what is popular in culture in general.

 

 

But, like Madonna's outfits, they existed in a sub-culture BEFORE she wore that stuff. She just made it massively popular with the mallrats.

 

 

And this quote that says that the style was a sub culture first, then she made it popular in culture in general.

 

Conflict.

 

It is not a chicken or the egg question either. It is merely a matter of influence. If I wear a meat dress, no one is going to put it in a glass case as a monument. But they did with Ga Ga. Whether wearing meat occurred in a sub culture is of no consequence as to HOW it became cultural phenomena. I became as such because SHE wore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Again, only if you take such statements hyper-literally.


If I haven't learned anything else in my 50 years on this planet, I've learned that very few things in life are absolute and events rarely take place in the extremes.


So...regarding this topic...as I ALREADY STATED in my explanation of my comment: it's a bit of chicken-or-the-egg thing. YES---artist reflect what is popular in culture in general and YES---artists often take sub-culture fashion and help to make it mainstream.


As far as sexualization goes? Both feed on each other. The meat dress is a poor example because it neither existed in subculture prior to Lady Gaga wearing it nor it didn't become something you see 13 year old girls wearing to junior high class.




It is not a chicken or the egg question either. It is merely a matter of influence. If I wear a meat dress, no one is going to put it in a glass case as a monument. But they did with Ga Ga. Whether wearing meat occurred in a sub culture is of no consequence as to HOW it became cultural phenomena. I became as such because SHE wore it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The op is talking about the fact that PORN is accepted as a way to sell product, not to act or behave. You are all defensive cuz you think he's being a prude.

 

 

I don't think he's being a prude, really (OK, maybe I am, but that's not the point). More than that, I think he's being incredibly naive, purposely dense, unaware, you name it.

 

It's freaking 2011; ever hear of the 'sexual revolution'? That took place almost FIFTY YEARS ago. What would one expect happen as a natural result of that kind of sociological change to behavior generations later?

I'll give you and the OP a hint, however: ain't NOTHING remotely pornographic in any pop music today, unless you consider titillation the absolute equivalent of porn. I've always considered titillation the steps up to, but never crossing over into porn.

Maybe you and the OP consider Playboy magazine hardcore porn, though...

But there's still nothing in pop imagery that is quite there. Close, yes. RIGHT up to the edge, absolutely. Still doesn't cross that line: you have to be a past your prime and out of the limelight FORMER pop star to get away with showing even a nipple, and you'll still apparently get crucified by the indignant press for it, but let's not go any further into what a steaming pile of hypocrisy that was...

 

 

 

The OP is talking about something that's been happening with regularity in pop music for more than the past few decades: hell, Madonna's first album came out in the early '80's; Britney Spears' first album was released in '99...

 

This is not NEWS, nor is it remotely NEW.

 

What it is is someone saying the exact same thing that's been said for ages about things someone doesn't agree with and/or understand:

"You darn kids!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

a couple things. First, I think it is cool Adele has become a hit. This is probably a direct restult of two things: 1. she is geninuely talented, and 2. she DOESN'T look like a ho. Yet anyway. Maybe people are getting tired of the often immitated ho look and embracing this change to something more interesting? Just a thought.

 

I'm no prude at all. I LOVE music.... no so much into porn personally, and it bugs me that my music (pop) has BECOME porn. Pick something you like.... anything - sports, car racing, golf, church services... whatever... now lace it with nekked chicks and tell me what that does to your taste of your favorite entertainment.... yeah.

 

The text book definition of PORNOGRAPHY (and why I use the term in relation to the original topic) is:

WEBSTER: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement, the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

DICTIONARY.COM: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit, Origin: 1840–50; writing about harlots

Titillation IS porn by definition. What is it doing on pop radio? Titillation is for a strip club, not morning drive time. (Not that I wouldn't mind it then under the proper circumstances ;)

I could quote lyrics to RUDE BOY and other similar songs, point out the above titillating photos above, but music has crossed the line and become porn where it shouldn't be. Yeah sex sells bla bla bla, but at least the Adele example PROVES you don't HAVE TO BE a ho to get hugely successfull.

If you think about it, even the morally bankrupt ADVERSITING circuits haven't gone this far. Why is that? IF sex sells THAT good, why don't ALL ads show mostly naked women writhing about? Maybe Progressive should have "Flow" in a thong on a lil white cloud?

 

So..... I say, if Adele can do it, can't the rest of them? If ONE PERSON can achieve it, the rest can to. I want to buy MUSIC, not SEX MUSIC. Unless that is specifically what I am looking for.

 

 

BTW GREAT discussion here! Exactly what I was hoping to provoke: interesting level discussion of the issue at hand with mature adults coming from many different angles and opinions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

What it is is someone saying the exact same thing that's been said for ages about things someone doesn't agree with and/or understand:

"You darn kids!"

 

 

Yeah. Ages? Tell me when the last "age" was where we had 13 and 14 year old girls dressing exactly like, or worse and more provocatively than actual street walking hookers? When? I'm just not desensitized like many and and am still able to call it like it is. "You darn hookers! Get off my lawn!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Logic fail by you, maybe.


It's nothing more than a case that people IN GENERAL are more accepting of things now than they were then; the line one can cross is different than it was then.


I'll give you and the OP a hint, however: ain't NOTHING remotely pornographic in any pop music today, unless you consider titillation the absolute equivalent of porn.

 

 

You are missing a bigger point. Sex has always sold. We are not talking about cleavage. We ARE talking about PORN...HARDCORE PORN BEING USED TO SELL MUSIC AND THE CELEBRITY THAT IS ATTACHED. Here's a short list:

 

1) Vince Neil and a porn star make a vid. Cash in big and get pub from it. Helps his 'bad boy' image

2) Dude from the same band (coincidence?) Tommy Lee makes a vid with Baywatch star after her new bewbs healed. Strengthened her position as the trashy blonde,and his as a 'bad boy' in the media. Cash galore too.....

3) Kim Kardashian makes a vid with Ray J. Lays there and acts pretty. Ray J gets some distance from his squeaky clean sister and gets some street cred. And cashes in.

4) Paris Hilton....OMG I'm a VICTIM.....I LOOOVED him....porn as damage control.

5) Britney Spears bj vid. Nice girls don't show the whole thing...

6) Anne Hathaway softcore. Couldn't get hired until she gave it up.

....and the list goes on and on.

 

Oh, and don't forget Blink 182 using the same girl in the Vince Neil vid for an album cover and video....porn zeitgeist.

 

And this is just what is in the news.

 

 

The OP is talking about something that's been happening with regularity in pop music for more than the past few decades: hell, Madonna's first album came out in the early '80's; Britney Spears' first album was released in '99...

 

 

And he is also talking about a line MOVING....can you be an artist in the future without moving the line?

 

And where does it move to? That's what I'm talking about. Titillation is a form of inspiration. And that is different than 'shock'. Which is what these aforementioned people are all about. Using not just titillation, but a movie with them performing sex to bolster their position in the biz.

 

 

This is not
NEWS
, nor is it remotely
NEW
.


What it is is someone saying the exact same thing that's been said for ages about things someone doesn't agree with and/or understand:

"You darn kids!"

 

 

Porn as part of a marketing strategy is a new phenomenon.

 

Does the line for cleavage and whatever get pushed around? Sure. Porn is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...