A-Heart-Of-Gold said:
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?
As the resident music industry corporate whore on this place I suppose I should say something about this:
Someone who looks good enhances the ability of any music attached to them to be marketed more effectively. Their face (or body) becomes something equivalent to the logo by which you can market something.
Ever wondered why metal bands always have those fancy logos and the bands tend to keep them the same for every album? It's because the guys in the band are usually ugly across the board, so rather than using their faces for marketing, they use something else as a visual identifier. Thus, a change of the logo in heavy metal music often corresponds to a directional shift in the music - it's an attempt at "rebranding".
When you've got someone pretty like Taylor Swift, you don't need a logo - your fonts and text can change from album to album and nobody cares - her
face is the brand identifier. If Taylor Swift wanted to rebrand herself, she wouldn't write her name in a diffrerent font, she'd wear different makeup and different hair. Of course, as she gets older, nature will "rebrand" her... and her music will also change and mature in correspondence with the image (if she wants longevity as an artist).
Now, is it possible to be successful without this brand? Well yes, but what happens more often than not is that the lack of a visually pleasing identifier is eschewed for something else entirely, and then THAT becomes the brand. If you're just that fucking talented or unique that people are more than happy to completely overlook the image, or you're able to play to the edges with your image a bit, well, you still have a brand - Amy Winehouse, Peaches and even The Escapists' favourite, Lady Gaga, are all fine examples of artists who really aren't that attractive in the traditional sense but brought something musically interesting and new to the table, with a unique aesthetic and stupendously huge creative talent. Image is still important to these artists, but it's
their image, not
the rubber-stamped industry image. This is the most effective type of branding IMHO.
Abe_Z said:
Oh, and no matter how "pretty" your face is, you have to be thin to be "sexy". Name one over-weight pop icon. Didn't think so...
Beth Ditto theoretically shouldn't exist in the industry but the fact that she does anyway is testament to the power of branding. Who can think of The Gossip and not think of THOSE photos? In fact, at this point I think that if Beth lost weight she'd be less marketable, because that look is part of her brand. Not that she would care either way - having cut her teeth in the punk scene she's as grounded as they get, no pun intended.
In summary, what I'm trying to say is that
beauty is not important, however
image is
very important, and any artist that can't come up with a
visual image of some sort to go with their music (whether it's a logo, a dress style, a face, or even a unified graphic design/visual concept idea as in the case of something like Pink Floyd) had better get one, or... well what are we going to PUT on their adverts?
.
