wow now sir

I know, I know, I just posted a blog but I've been thinking and wanted your opinion.

I began this argument in my head as I was confronted with a young popular artist, just over a year older than me, presented on my television screen. A close up of her bony fingers against a custom made, sparkling guitar revealed the playing of alternating chords; G, D, G, D, G, D etc. Looking at my new, comparatively cheep acoustic next to me, I began to wonder: so what is it that she has, that I don’t. Similarity: we can sing. Similarity: we both, I assume, want to pursue a career in music. Similarity: we can both play the seemingly impressive G-D chord progression. Difference: she possesses a set of tall thin legs, big eyes and has the body-type of a Victoria Secret model.

My gaze then finds its way through the glamour to the slightly over-weight, unattractive lead guitarist supplying the accompanying riff. This prompts me to wonder “is that all it is?” Is the only reason the twiggy-look-a-like gets all the fame and glory, her picture on millions of CD’s and a tour with thousands because she’s attractive?

Here, I would like to make a few clarifying statements. I do not mean to suggest that all famous people are attractive and that they gain fame through that quality. No one can deny the fact that many idolized musicians are unattractive, for instance, Alanis Morisette has never won prizes for looks and neither have the boys from The Shins.

So is this then perhaps just a pop culture thing? I give you the The Backstreet Boys, Jonas Brothers, Hanson, Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift and the obvious McFly as examples.

Here I do not want to create the idea that popular musicians are, in fact, not musicians. I have been an ambassador for popular music, for some time, as I believe that it is much more than the ability to look good. I have had, in past, many conversations in which I defend the musical talent and authenticity of artists such as The Jonas Brothers and Hanson and wish to in no way suggest otherwise.

The issue I would like to struggle with, however, is the question of “How much is the attractiveness of an artist or band a help or a hindrance?”

And here's what I've come up with.

Attractiveness as a help

Being attractive can help you in many different areas, but what of the music industry? Most people would confess that they would rather a charismatic, tall, dark, handsome man singing love songs than someone who looked like that bus driver with the weird smell. And how often do you see a girl holding up a sign at a pop concert reading "I really appreciate your musical ability" as apposed to something commenting on a physical attribute. Here we can see that attractiveness does, in fact, influence the fans of a band, how many and how crazy.

Attractiveness as a hindrance

Here comes the discussion of "high" and "low" music. This is an inbuilt judging system that everyone has. It's that decision that you make scrolling through your friends ipod, concluding that they're into "good or "bad" music. Firstly, I would like to state that this mind view is narrow minded and judgmental and that we all do it. Generally pop music - such as the artists I've previously mentioned - is considered "low" in the spectrum, and can only be excused by indie-snobs, and the like, as "a guilty pleasure". This discounts any musical ability and assumes talent or authenticity merely based on genre. People that do consider pop music as "low" and the accompanying attractiveness of the teeny-bopper-eye-candy, immediately attribute a bands sucsess on the attractiveness factor.

This is a hindrance as the attractiveness factor can cause people to pass artists music off and attribute fame to looks as apposed to talent.

No ones really written anything on this so i thought i'd give it a bash and have a ramble.

So what do you think?

p.s. hope some of you got the Mighty Boosh reference in the title, however subtle it was.