Poll: Do musicians have to beautiful?

[StriderShinryu]

All of those pointing to The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, AC/DC, etc. should keep in mind that they aren't exactly bands coming out now. They are, in essence, legacy groups that formed in a time with "rules" for popularity a lot different than the ones that exist now, and much of their fanbases were either from that same time period or were built from generational ties to that time period. Also, sure Mick Jagger and Steven Tyler don't look like much now, back when they were first gathering their huge followings they looked a tad better.

 

[War Penguin]

Okay, first off, to those who keep saying Mick Jagger, look at him at about 30 years ago, back when the band was early but still popular, then say that.

Secondly, yes, sadly, if you want to be popular. If you want to be good, however, no, you don't have to look good.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Umm, have you seen metal bands before? No. Especially Slipknot, I mean they are either so bad looking or scared that they have to wear masks and can't even say their real names...

And before any of you nu metal fanboys come after me, that was a joke... [small]kinda[/small]

 

[Metal Brother]

One word: Lemmy.

/thread

 

[greenyboy27]

I'm a heavy rock and metal man myself, and in that world there isn't a whole lot of beauty going on to be honest, but the music still slays so i say no, its about the music not the look.

Although there's a few exceptions

 

[Fatalistic]

Meh. If you look good and make bad music, you're an over-glorified Disney musician.

Looks mean nothing. Just don't go mutilating your face if you want to be a Black Metal frontman and want to feel badass.

You've got what you've got, and if you're a hot girl who's being the fearsome frontwoman for a Death Metal band, so be it.

 

[Get_A_Grip_]

They don't have to be beautiful.
Thier music however does have to be beautiful.

 

[Flying-Emu]

No they don't!

Rolling Stones

Aerosmith

Journey

I could go on, but I think I've proved my point.

Oh God, the mouth... THE HORROR

For fuck's sake, it looks like he's trying to eat the mic!

 

[StBishop]

Susan Boyle.

She became pretty big and she looks like an -enter text here-

Susan Boyle's basically a novelty act. "Oh come along children, look at the crazy ugo sing!" She's not even talented, she's just better than we thought she would be.

Anyway, I'd say it depends on how much your music is actually about the music and what type of band/singer you are. Metal bands don't generally need to, because people will listen to them if they're good and they're not likely to break into the mainstream whether they're good looking or not. But with pop stars you need to form an image. Do you think Justin Bieber or Justin Timberlake would be famous if they didn't have girls swooning over them? No. Do you think Girls Aloud or The Saturdays would be famous if they weren't such massive sex symbols? No. You can be a pop star and not be "conventionally attractive," you'll just need a bit more talent than most.

I've never heard of Girls Aloud or The Saturdays before this thread. I feel a mixture of old and happy that I don't put up with, what I assume is, teeny-bopper shit music outside of Justin Beiber.

OT: I don't mind either way. Usually a female singer must be either Attractive (almost everyone) or Gimmicky (Lady Gaga) to succeed in pop-culture/main stream music.

Edit: I forgot to mention something. Obviously this was not always true, it seems to be the trend recently though.

 

[Wardnath]

Yes, sadly, for both genders. If you want to get anywhere in the mainstream, it's pretty much a requirement.

And let's face it, since when has the LCD ever cared about history?

 

[The Stonker]

They don't have to be beautiful.
Thier music however does have to be beautiful.

Look at Lady Gaga.
She looks like a clown and does horrible music for the masses.

 

[Kryzantine]

No, I don't think so. Although I won't expect many people to know this guy, but he's pretty major in Russia. By major, he's one of the very few people popular enough to deliver a 3-minute speech on the lack of freedom in Russia and suppresion of media rights to MOTHERFUCKING VLADIMIR PUTIN to his face at the dinner table on TV and walk out of the building without bullet holes in his coat or pollonium poisoning. By contrast, even Obama can't do that shit. That's how popular he is.

And his music is really quite amazing.

 

[Lord_Panzer]

It sure helps.

 

[fletch_talon]

I think Amy Whinehouse is proof you don't have to be. Not saying I like her music but she seemed to do ok for an ugly disgusting crackwhore.

She actualy used to be more attractive.

The lack of tattoos and over the top makeup and especially the extra flesh on the bones is a big improvement in my opinion. Also she just looks nicer, like a decent person as opposed to a drugged up whore.

 

[Miller iz Life]

keith richards...nuff said

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

For fuck's sake, it looks like he's trying to eat the mic!

Compared to some extent photos of the man, that one is practically flattering. Here's a much better one for selling the point that he is hideous:

[small]Pictured side by side - Stephen Tyler and a Salt Vampire from Star Trek[/small]​

It's so hard to tell them apart! [small](The Salt Vampire is the one on the right, in case you couldn't tell.)[/small]

 

[Devil's Due]

When does beauty of the body determine beauty of the song? A lot of decent musicians didn't look that great when they first started, only after they made their large amount of cash did most start to look beautiful. Said no.

 

[Kurokami]

I have been thinking about this for a while. Most artists and singers who have record deals are beautiful, gorgeous, cute... whatever you want to call it.

So is it possible if you look like nothing special?

Is it possible to create a career when you don't look like Taylor Swift or one of Girls Aloud and will it make it harder for you to do that?

Or is it nothing to do with looks in the Music business and more to do with the fact that you can sing or not?

Musicians nowadays are mostly performers, if you wanna become a performer you'll have to dress you, or your act up a bit. Musicians on the other hand are free to be so. (Keep in mind that its these performers that become famous and make most the money)

I'm sure there'll be an 'Ugly Betty' performer out there soon, if not already.

I think Amy Whinehouse is proof you don't have to be. Not saying I like her music but she seemed to do ok for an ugly disgusting crackwhore.

She actualy used to be more attractive.

The lack of tattoos and over the top makeup and especially the extra flesh on the bones is a big improvement in my opinion. Also she just looks nicer, like a decent person as opposed to a drugged up whore.

I would never have even guessed that to be the same person.

 

[HerrBobo]

I have been thinking about this for a while. Most artists and singers who have record deals are beautiful, gorgeous, cute... whatever you want to call it.

So is it possible if you look like nothing special?

Is it possible to create a career when you don't look like Taylor Swift or one of Girls Aloud and will it make it harder for you to do that?

Or is it nothing to do with looks in the Music business and more to do with the fact that you can sing or not?

Only if their skill as a musicians are lacking. If they are only ok musicians, then yes, they need to be good looking.