G
Greg_L
Banned
That's actually an interesting dichotomy in the MTV age. For women, looks do matter at least a little in all genres of music. If you're pretty to look at, you'll sell more records even if you're playing intentionally-unpleasant death metal.
How many female extreme musicians can you name who are at least moderately attractive (even if it's in that "ooh, body modifications" kind of way).
How many can you name who are straight-up homely? I'm guessing the first number is much bigger.
Guys still have a lot more freedom to be ugly than girls. Unless, of course, they play pop. Then they have to be pretty too.
Females in rock or metal don't have to be too attractive. L7 was butt-ugly. Half of The Donnas are pretty cute, the other half are fugly. Kim Deal was flat-out hideous. The chick in the Smashing Pumpkins and White Zombie's bassist were pretty ugly too. The Runaways? Okay, I'd go back in time and hit that. Liz Phair was pretty good looking back in the day. That's all I can think of off the top of my head.
Guys have it easy. The uglier, the better. The ugliest rock bands are always the best.



My idea is valid based on if the kids are taught to expect better than the substandard stuff (ie most of the top 40) then the substandard stuff will disappear because it isn't good enough in the first place so musicians will have to be musicians and songwriters will have to be songwriters. Today's productions are excellent, I'd have to bow to that but the substance (the song itself) often borders on puerile and ultimately insignificant. Mozart was a pop musician in his day, look at the standard his work was at. There's been a succession of dumbing down over the last 20 years or so, a lot of it attributable to MTV where what you look like exceeds your musical skills........ or lack of them. As I said earlier, music is for the ears. That's where the focus needs to be.