Printable View
The "Who are the cutest,sexiest, hottest chick/guy in rock" threads put me to thinkin.
Back in the day musicians were, at least a sizable minority, some plug ugly hooligans. Men and women. You would hear a voice on the radio, or a composition, that would make you want to do wicked things with them, but if you saw them without the music you would likely bleach your eyes.
Are those days done? Are there still ugly rockers out there or do you pretty much have to be hot these days?
That dude from Radiohead is pretty sickly looking. I don't know if anyone would want to "do" him, but the band makes good music.
The fact is we are in the digital age. When it comes to entertainment, looks seem to be everything. It's the same with politics too. How many chicks find Obama "a hottie". Alot! So...He becomes president and plenty of untalented, hot musicians use "electronic machines" to make them sound good.
Sooner or later, it all gets figured out. That's when you'll see the revolution happen first hand. No...Not for politicians....That's their game. For musicians...It'll happen.
I think it depends if it's pop music or truly angry rock music.
Pop music often has a pretty face.
But now, as always....angry, ugly people, will sometimes write the best angry, awesome rock music. Much better than any pre-packaged pop/rock crap...
Hey, Lemy's still going strong! Actual rock music, no there's still a lot of bands with just plain ugly fuckers in front, and there seems to be some kind of equation that determines how good the music is compared to how ugly the band is, with a few extra factors (they might be good looking, but ugly mentally, like Axl!).
Worse comes to worse, they could go back to massive amounts of face paint like Kiss, or just go with masks like Slipknot, or even better, huge awesome costumes like Lordi.
society is obsessed with physical beauty. it disgusts me.
Not to start an argument or anything, but does anyone else find that statement kind of ironic coming from a model who is payed for her physical beauty?Quote:
Originally Posted by VoltaireBlue
no, I don't find it ironic at all. I totally expect that beautiful people would find everyone else disgusting.
Yes, it is quite disgusting. I say we close down these "adult" dancer joints where woman are paid due to their physical beauty. It's appalling.Quote:
Originally Posted by VoltaireBlue
I know you're gonna come back with something about how not every beautiful woman can do what you do, but the fact is nobody is gonna pay to see some nasty looking woman dance.
And who is ever telling you, you need to lose 8 pounds, needs to cut the shit.
Actually, I think that successful musicians used to be much more extraordinary in how they came across. I mean, Keith Richards was always a fugly guy, but a hot fugly guy. I think the current promotional machine tends to, on average, prop up more blandly adequate lowest-common-denominator performers and fewer real stars.
Or, to put it another way, can you name ten performers of the past who were successful who you think were plug ugly? What dateline are we using for "back in the day" now that I think of it?
Well, it seems to me that the music industry is more worried about the here and now and not about the future. Thus creating a talent machine, but not really looking towards the future for certain artists to sustain. They know that as easily as one pop/rock star falls, another one will emerge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia G
The music industry is just like every other business today, which is why we're in this hot economic mess right now. The only difference is the music industry, just like the movie business, will always have an endless line of people out there who want to make it. So, they CAN make it work like this and not have to worry about sustained talent. Even if the talent is not really all that talented, as long as they're perty or handsome, the music biz has all kinds of people employed to make the talentless "look" talented.
It's all smokes and mirrors, the flavor of the month and the "single", not the whole album...The here and now.
Well, if you throw in the fugly hot it does tear down my theory some, but would Joplin get a crack at the big time today? Or Steven Tyler?
I mean, if you took a guy who looked like Steven Tyler, no one would give him a second look. But when you take a guy like Steven Tyler, he could look like road kill on a hot day and people would still dig him.
Janice was made sexy by her music.
Maybe plug ugly is going too far, but I remember Duran Duran getting a lot of crap for being pretty boys. Even Kurt Kobain looked a little on the fugly side of life.
Even with rap i don't recall when they all started looking like male models.
So yeah, plug ugly is too far, but bands, even lesser known ones seem to be getting a more and more polished look.
It just makes me wonder if we are missing something amazing cause they don't look good on an album cover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem
Steven Tyler might have that did-a-lot-of-drugs weird look, but he is crazy hot. He doesn't just have good pipes, but he can also wear clothes fantastically well, and, in my opinion, humps the stage better than any other act I've ever seen. And he has large facial features, which tend to be characteristic of people who can successfully sustain celebrity. And Steven Tyler is like sixty something in the second pic here.
https://www.backstagegallery.com/pho...3323-021-l.jpg
http://bittenandbound.com/wp-content...into-rehab.jpg
Kurt Cobain was ridiculously fine. He wasn't even just rock guy good-looking if-you-like-the-type; he was just a handsome man. Regular features. Even healthy-looking white teeth. Beautiful blue eyes. He could clean up and look great in a suit. He could go on a two week bender, with health problems, not shave or even bathe, pull his clothes out of his woman's laundry hamper, and still look beautiful.
http://f1.img.v4.skyrock.com/f1b/cob.../679315724.jpg
http://blogs.librodearena.com/myfile...KurtCobain.jpg
One thing both Steven Tyler and Kurt Cobain had/have, which a lot of modern acts seem to have less of, is star quality and enormous personal presence. But they have not been successful because they were marketed before image mattered.
lil wayne. he looks like shit. I rest my case.
Eh, from where I'm looking most people in any time period have been strongly lacking. Like you, I was just looking at those two threads; unlike you, what surprised me was that I could only really name one bunch of females and no males at all that really impressed me.
I mean sure, if you look at mtv or some shit, you're gonna find a busload of cookie cutter cuties holding the fort at any given time; but they all look pretty much the same, and calling people that have their songs written and composed for them 'musicians' is a bit of a stretch anyway.
Underground musicians are still at least 50% sci-fi con standard stock, but maybe that's just me attending mostly electronica performances.
ODB!
http://corygraham.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/odb.jpg
Hahahahaha!
I don't think that counts since he's now DDB.
Yeah, but his carcass might even be sexier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
I don't think the world will ever be rid of ugly musicians but then again some of those ugly musicians can blow some fo the cute and hot musicians out of the water with talent too.
Today is basically run on sex appeal.
So if you are "ugly" you need to have a lot of money to compensate.
I however find people hot that others would look at me like "wtf is wrong with you"
Such a strange thing indeed.
I don't think it's a matter of rockers being naturally better looking, but rather putting more effort into their appearance in general.
A while ago, all the pop-media around here was making a big fuss about how Chad Kroeger was 'the ugliest man in rock'. Even in the bands of his era, he's no worse than average-looking. Their complete ignorance of the immense umbrella-genre they're making judgements on amuses me endlessly. X3
We're a visual society. I think it's increasingly difficult to make it in any industry if one isn't attractive.