Tired of seeing Talented/Gorgeous Female artist looking like Soft Porn star's!

[Moddie777]

Do you feel this way too? I am fully aware I have the control of turning the channel but that still doesn't make the problem I see in the music industry go away any sooner: What is the problem?- I am no music critic but as one of the older members on this board, I can tell you; the music industry and most of its female artist have ''lowered" the bar and instead of relying on real talent and true vocals like legendary artist from past era's, we and our children are being beseiged with images of our favorite female singers parade around in video's looking like soft porn stars.
How I long for the days of Motown or the Philly sound. When singers were real singers and they didn't rely on gimmicks, sampling or being half dressed in order to sell records.
I once heard r&B singer Patti Labelle say in an interview how she would not let the music industry ''Pimp Her". (or something like that), I remember being blown away at her honesty. It also revealed something very unsettling about the way show business really work
esepcially when it comes to the promotion and marketing of the female artist.
One of our male cousins who happened to have been quit the ladies man and always out to score with the ladies, said to me and another relative how he thought everything on the radio to him sounded like "junk" (his words, not mine). And he went on to express how disappointed he was in 2 particular female singers( whom he adores), for putting out video's in recent years exposing too much of their bodies. He said he no longer see their video's as art anymore. he literally sounded angry/disgusted and said these 2 female artist( in his opinion)have lost respect for themselves. He is in his early 30's.

You don't have to be my age, to understand exactly where I am coming from on this subject.
I've heard many younger people discuss this very topic on tv and radio. Critic's for years have been writing about the decline in today's music, they site various reason's but the matter of the female artist lowering the bar, seems to make it's way into the discussion.

Wanna hear your opinion. hope I explained myself good enough so you could understand.

Thanks.

 

[DuranDuran]

Apparently lots of people are watching it, or it wouldn't be made. If the performers in question have no problem with it, then it's no one else's business to criticize it. Just don't watch it. Do you see Tracy Chapman doing that? She has control over her image, the same as Lil' Kim. Jill Scott has been told to lose weight and be thin. Did she do it? No. Like those "booty girls" on rap videos. No one is forcing them to do that, they volunteer. Donna Summer has said she didn't feel comfortable with her earlier sexual image anymore, so she changed it.

 

[Moddie777]

Apparently lots of people are watching it, or it wouldn't be made. If the performers in question have no problem with it, then it's no one else's business to criticize it. Just don't watch it. Do you see Tracy Chapman doing that? She has control over her image, the same as Lil' Kim. Jill Scott has been told to lose weight and be thin. Did she do it? No. Like those "booty girls" on rap videos. No one is forcing them to do that, they volunteer. Donna Summer has said she didn't feel comfortable with her earlier sexual image anymore, so she changed it.

Duran, I have already established in my original post, that I know, I have the power to change the channel. That is not the issue or reason for this thread. I appreciate your post and I knew this topic wouldn't be an easy one to get across.

Suprisingly so many music critics have recently agreed with alot of what I said; I've been reading stuff online in recent weeks. I think an article was posted here just last month about the industry and the decline of good music, can't remember all details from it though.

Perhaps I failed to make my point more clear: New incoming artist do not have the power of control as the more established artist do, unless of course the new artist brings something extra to the table, like for instance; writing their own material, playing their own instruments(my cousins told me this). Our arguement in the car was this: How come established female artist are as my cousin points out and I agree; 'lowering the bar"? And then we got on the topic of this: The more establshed artist are competeing with the young girls in the industry.
Even call in radio stations have discussed this topic it was even a discussion on the abc show called "The View".

I hope other fans will post, their thoughts and not feel intimidated or scared. I really would like an open mature dialogue on this subject with NO ATTACKS!!!!!!

Thanks duran for your post.

 

[Moddie777]

I almost forgot to mention this also: Anyone remember 2 or 3 yrs ago when Diana Ross was given some major award on a show with all 5 of her kids on stage with her and it made news everywhere the following day? Do you recall her words of wisdom to the female artist of the day? She said something like :Keep your clothes on. You can be classy and sexy with your clothes on! You can have longevity with clothes on. Do you remember the audience reaction to her saying that? There was very loud clapping and a few shouts ( i think) of audience members agreeing with her. The radio stations went nuts the next day.

Sorry, I don't have her quote word by word but I hope you can get her message. If anyone has the link, please post it.

 

[DuranDuran]

I realize that a new act might not have much control over how they're packaged, but still there is a big demand for the "hot" image, and since the music business is about making money, it's going to give the audience what it wants. There is little demand for a Polly Purebred act in the pop market, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense for a record company to spend a lot of money to promote that. If the act doen't want to be "pimped" they can do a Ani Difranco and put their music out themselves and skip the major companies. They might not reach as big of an audience, but will have control over their image, and make more money because the middleman (record company) is cut out.

 

[LindaC781]

Amen, I hear ya!! You think someone like Aretha Franklin would make it in todays industry?? No way! How about Gladys Knight, or other very very talented good female singers? Yep, the bar's been lowered. And Duran Duran, I hate to disagree, but if there were some variety other than the same old stomach-pierced, hot pants female artists out there, you'd see people actually want to see them. Todays female star? A over-produced, over-sexed young woman with little to no clothes on, and not much talent to boot. Sorry.

 

[Moddie777]

Amen, I hear ya!! You think someone like Aretha Franklin would make it in todays industry?? No way! How about Gladys Knight, or other very very talented good female singers? Yep, the bar's been lowered. And Duran Duran, I hate to disagree, but if there were some variety other than the same old stomach-pierced, hot pants female artists out there, you'd see people actually want to see them. Todays female star? A over-produced, over-sexed young woman with little to no clothes on, and not much talent to boot. Sorry.

Thank You LindaC781, you get what alot of people are talking about!

"Over-Sexed" is the exact term I was thinking of after I had to get off the computer earlier today.
And we are not alone either, apparently from their own mouths, R&B Singer Patti Labelle and Legend Diana Ross feel the same.

Did you see when she said those things from that award show? She spoke so elegantly. I don't think anyone expected that from her. She recieved nothing but Kudos for stepping up and saying something.

 

[Moddie777]

Apparently lots of people are watching it, or it wouldn't be made. If the performers in question have no problem with it, then it's no one else's business to criticize it. Just don't watch it. Do you see Tracy Chapman doing that? She has control over her image, the same as Lil' Kim. Jill Scott has been told to lose weight and be thin. Did she do it? No. Like those "booty girls" on rap videos. No one is forcing them to do that, they volunteer. Donna Summer has said she didn't feel comfortable with her earlier sexual image anymore, so she changed it.

Oh yeah, about Tracey Chapman. She along with female artist like Indie. Arie don't recieve no where's near the same or half of the recognition they deserve as their over-sexed, scantily clad female peers do.(and alot of peeps in that perfession dont even think the attention is just) Tracey Chapman and Indie. Arie both have more talent in their baby finger(imo) than these female artist who have been told to or have choosen to "pimp" themselves (as patti labelle puts it) have in their entire near naked bodies.
These women play instrument(s) and do alot of their own writing I hear. They have beautiful, rich and powerful voices.
Unlike the female artist who's parading around like a soft porn star, Tracey Chapman and Indie. Arie, appear to be taken by the industry as serious musical artist. They should have what Diana Ross was speaking about-Longevity.

 

[LindaC781]

Case in point. THe Pussycat Dolls. Okay, I can't say I don't like them, but they are oversexed. Same with Britney Spears, and X-tina. I can't say that any of them are going to have much staying power. The staying power that say Aretha or Gladys had and still has.

 

[DuranDuran]

Oh yeah, about Tracey Chapman. She along with female artist like Indie. Arie don't recieve no where's near the same or half of the recognition they deserve as their over-sexed, scantily clad female peers do.(and alot of peeps in that perfession dont even think the attention is just) Tracey Chapman and Indie. Arie both have more talent in their baby finger(imo) than these female artist who have been told to or have choosen to "pimp" themselves (as patti labelle puts it) have in their entire near naked bodies.
These women play instrument(s) and do alot of their own writing I hear. They have beautiful, rich and powerful voices.
Unlike the female artist who's parading around like a soft porn star, Tracey Chapman and Indie. Arie, appear to be taken by the industry as serious musical artist. They should have what Diana Ross was speaking about-Longevity.

That's what I was trying to explain. The mainstream audience doesn't want those type of acts, so they won't recieve any big recognition. They sell to a niche audience. It's like more people want burgers and soda and not seaweed & water. The Pussycat Dolls are like Starbucks, it's in big demand, so it's everywhere. Tracy Chapman & India.Arie are tofu, the general population doesn't want that. They want the Starbucks/McDonald's. So obivously the record companies, who are trying to make stockholders happy, are going to more heavily promote something that is more likely to be bought. There's no Polka music on the radio, because it doesn't appeal to many people, and so isn't promoted.

 

[LindaC781]

That's what I was trying to explain. The mainstream audience doesn't want those type of acts, so they won't recieve any big recognition. They sell to a niche audience. It's like more people want burgers and soda and not seaweed & water. The Pussycat Dolls are like Starbucks, it's in big demand, so it's everywhere. Tracy Chapman & India.Arie are tofu, the general population doesn't want that. They want the Starbucks/McDonald's. So obivously the record companies, who are trying to make stockholders happy, are going to more heavily promote something that is more likely to be bought. There's no Polka music on the radio, because it doesn't appeal to many people, and so isn't promoted.

So what you are saying is that the public is stupid, and just wants McDonalds instead of something from somewhere a little more expensive, like Capital Grille? Yeah, I agree with that...but that is only because the only really marketed option available was the oversexed, undressed female star. So that is what they are used to, and that is what they expect.

 

[DuranDuran]

I didn't say anyone was stupid, but people in general like junk food more than health food.

 

[LindaC781]

I didn't say anyone was stupid, but people in general like junk food more than health food.

Yeah, but people know that healthy food is better for them than the junk...yet they still go to the junk...so they're stooopid!! lol

 

[Moddie777]

Lemme say this, about the 2 female artist my cousin and I were talking about.

One of those two has a significant age difference (older), than the other, he has always loved her and was most disappointed in her and he apparently isn't the only fan of her's to feel this way. Her last 2 CD RELEASES WERE COMMERCIAL FLOPS and news hit on the radio about her record label dumping her. I am not sure if they did or not but I do remember hearing on the radio discussions about how upset the music exec's must've felt after investing so much into her contract; years prior She had signed a Huge contract that was unprecidented. Radio personalities joked that her record label didn't get their money's worth.

How's that for an over-sexed image? What do you suppose the geneal public was saying about her as they bypassed her cd on the shelves, not once but twice.

It's sad how very talented female artist are playing the "lowering the bar", game. It doesn't always pay off!

 

[LindaC781]

Right-o Moddie.....there is another problem going on here too....ageism. Let's face it. Patty LaBelle and Diana Ross couldn't pull off the hot-pants numbers any more....it just doesn't fit well with their ages....

Problem is, this is a youth oriented, oversexed crowd we're discussing here. If there were more outlets for older, talented performers, believe me they'd be out there. Unfortunately, there isn't.

 

[Moddie777]

Right-o Moddie.....there is another problem going on here too....ageism. Let's face it. Patty LaBelle and Diana Ross couldn't pull off the hot-pants numbers any more....it just doesn't fit well with their ages....

Problem is, this is a youth oriented, oversexed crowd we're discussing here. If there were more outlets for older, talented performers, believe me they'd be out there. Unfortunately, there isn't.

Yep! I agree with you 100%! The older female artist who are still out there performing are in competion with young ladies almost half their ages and instead of relying on their talent and having faith in themselves and their built fan base, they seem (imo) to have forgotten their own self-worth in the industry.I dont mean a personal self-worth; I am trying to find the right word for it and I hope it can be understood what i am trying to convey? Sometimes, I dont do a very good job at explaining, lol.

 

[DuranDuran]

Age affects most acts, not just female acts. There isn't any airplay for B.B. King, Al Green, Willie Nelson, or the Rolling Stones new material. Their old stuff might be on "oldies" or "classic rock" stations. Sting, Michael McDonald & U2 had to put their newer music in commercials for cars, etc. to be heard. But that's a different subject.

 

[Moddie777]

It's funny how there are over 100 hits to this thread and only 16 post, well now 17 and just 3 fans participating in the dialogue.

Come on guys, I know you have a mature non-attacking( is this a word, lol) opinion on this subject.

Yes, Duran you are right age doesn't just effect the female artist, but as you stated, thats a totally different direction than the one, I am asking us to stay on in this thread. Maybe we can explore that one later?

 

[DuranDuran]

How's that for an over-sexed image? What do you suppose the geneal public was saying about her as they bypassed her cd on the shelves, not once but twice.

It's sad how very talented female artist are playing the "lowering the bar", game. It doesn't always pay off!

The general audience today has a really short attention span. There's very few acts starting around 1990 with any longevity. Here today, old school 2 weeks from now, lol.

 

[Moddie777]

The general audience today has a really short attention span. There's very few acts starting around 1990 with any longevity. Here today, old school 2 weeks from now, lol.

so true, Duran. So true.

 

[Raylo]

Ok, so these are my thoughts as I read through the thread:

The public can't like something if it hasn't heard or seen it. Most people don't get to hear someone like Tracy Chapman. India Arie doesn't get much mainstream exposure. So it's not like people reject their image or music, but people can't opt for an artist that they are not exposed to. Certain companies in certain countries dominate distribution channels - they largely control our options of what to listen to and buy. Unless you go out of your way to find something else, you're stuck with the Pussycat Dolls and you might like their songs, but whose to say you wouldn't like something else better? The assumption is that the market gives people what they want, but imo it doesn't, it gives people what it thinks they want and thereby limits their actual choices. This goes for music, movies, news etc.

Secondly, women should not have to "pimp" themselves to access the best distribution channels for their work! That should not be a requirement for mainstream success! Telling women who do not want to achieve success that way that they should be happy with other, much more limited options for their careers, is extremely offensive. I realize that is probably the reality we're dealing with, but we should not come to accept it as right. I mostly ignore the women who "pimp" themselves. I like some of their songs and have nothing against them personally, but I don't spend my money on them.

 

[DuranDuran]

Secondly, women should not have to "pimp" themselves to access the best distribution channels for their work! That should not be a requirement for mainstream success! Telling women who do not want to achieve success that way that they should be happy with other, much more limited options for their careers, is extremely offensive. I realize that is probably the reality we're dealing with, but we should not come to accept it as right. I mostly ignore the women who "pimp" themselves. I like some of their songs and have nothing against them personally, but I don't spend my money on them.

No one said that selling out yourself was right, but that's how the major labels work. So if someone doesn't want to do that, the indie route is the only way to go. The majors aren't going to change, and have always worked that way. Anyway most of the stuff on the radio is there because of payola. That's where that radio money & prize givaways or "free" concerts come from. A indie act can't afford that, so obviously their exposure is limited. Let's face it, people want flash. Let's look at an act like Robert Palmer. He wouldn't be considered very exciting to watch by the average person, so they stuck some female band and dancers behind him in his videos so he would get attention. People always think music is about "art". It isn't, it's about money and always have been. People in all kinds of jobs and career fields "pimp" themselves and do stuff they don't like to get ahead or just to keep their job, why is the music "business" supposed to be any different? It's like "Video Killed The Radio Star". Many older acts had no interest in making videos (or didn't have an image or the looks that translated to music videos), but had to do so anyway to get exposure. Is there really any reason for a James Taylor, Kenny Rogers, John Lee Hooker, Shirley Caesar, or Tracy Chapman music video? Not really, but the record companies made them do videos. Even Boy George who has a visual image said he thought music videos were stupid and he hated making them. REM never even appeared in their earlier videos. James Brown & Little Stevie Wonder appeared in Frankie Avalon beach movies. Do you really think that was their idea? The majority of Elvis Presley movies were because of Colonel Tom Parker, Elvis didn't choose them. Many black acts in the 1960s had white people on their album covers instead of themselves. It was Clive Davis idea for Carlos Santana to get a bunch of young acts on his Supernatural album & the records after that. I doubt Carlos was sitting around at home one day and thought "I really must work with Michelle Branch". Clive also tried this with Prince when he signed with Arista briefly on "Rave Un2 The Joy Fantastic, but it didn't work with Prince as it did with Carlos. I don't know how Clive convinced Prince to do this in the 1st place, since Prince has always been about control. Music acts, even really successful ones don't really have any power. MJ, George Michael, Mariah Carey, Terence Trent D'arby amonst others have all complained about Sony or Tommy Matola. Mike was an employee of Sony, they don't work for him. People forget that. TLC & Toni Braxton sold lots of records but were still broke. Most acts don't own their master recordings. U2 and Motley Crue are a couple of exceptions. U2 managed to get that because they were willing to take a lower royalty rate when they were 1st signed. Their record company figured they weren't going to be around long anyway. They weren't successful right out the box. But they won in the long run.

 

[mjroxworld]

Moddie, you are absolutely, 1000% right! It's sad to hear, and more than that, very sad to see. Diana Ross' words were filled with wisdom. Today's musical young ladies are having to rely on their bodies and booties to market themselves as musicians...and cover up whatever talent they may or may not have at all. People aren't necessarily looking for "Polly Purebred" as Duran put it, just DECENCY for crying out loud! If a woman is good enough with her voice, that itself can be marketable enough. That's where the talent lies. She doesn't have to market her body to boost her sales...although many do, anyway. Sure, she can look attractive. But she doesn't need to ruin her reputation. Those who aren't so great with their voices, however, very often feel like they have to depend on their looks to get them anywhere.

One thing that us women are particularly oblivious to is the enormous temptations the male gender is bombarded with each and every day. There's a lot they DON"T want to see, and yet at the same time, they DO want to see. And they see it EVERYWHERE, whether they want to or not. For married men it's particularly difficult. A lot of women think, "oh he should just control himself!! He shouldn't think those things, or he shouldn't look!" Yet so many women out there are flaunting themselves, for the sole purpose of attracting men, and they wonder why they get in trouble in some way? It's up to US, ladies, to keep decency, to protect not only ourselves, but also the male gender whom we claim to love so much. Believe me, when all is said and done, he appreciates it FAR more and has more respect for us when we keep our clothes on.

So if the ladies in the music industry, DO keep their clothes on, they will indeed have much more respect, much more longevity, more of an appreciation for their talent, etc. If they are uncomfortable with dressing down, they HAVE to take a stand and have their own amount of power and control over what they do in the biz. I am not positive, but I believe those in control may just yield to that, respect it, and not exploit her so badly. If she feels she can't do anything without dressing down, but does everything the biz tells her to do, then they will exploit her in every way possible and she will very shortly be ruined. If they don't yield to her, and she loses her place with the label, well they weren't worth working for and she can look for a more respectable label, whether its major or indie.

I HATE seeing wonderful talent go to waste. Case in point, Brittney Spears has always had a gorgeous voice, even when she was little. God gave it to her. But she wasted it when she began exploit her body as a teenager and sing songs far too mature (especially for her young audience). I can't stand hearing her and I can't stand seeing her. It makes my heart sick. Sometimes it actually makes me cry to hear a beautiful voice be wasted like that. I don't hate HER, I just really don't like what she DOES with her music. I am absolutely positive her personal life isn't a very happy one...although I hope that someday she will find her peace and begin making GOOD music.

Moddie, great post. The music industry will find their revival once Michael enters the scene again, and they won't have to rely on girls' good looks to continue making money.

 

[babyface34]

It's the entertainment business. What's entertaining to one person might be trash to the next person. Who's wrong? No one. It's not about the people who DON'T buy an artist's music, come to their shows, or watch their videos. It's about those who do, so that's who they cater to. The argument that there is such a thing as "real" music is bogus to me. It's all a matter of personal taste. All music is relevant, if you ask me.

 

[Moddie777]

Ok, so these are my thoughts as I read through the thread:

The public can't like something if it hasn't heard or seen it. Most people don't get to hear someone like Tracy Chapman. India Arie doesn't get much mainstream exposure. So it's not like people reject their image or music, but people can't opt for an artist that they are not exposed to. Certain companies in certain countries dominate distribution channels - they largely control our options of what to listen to and buy. Unless you go out of your way to find something else, you're stuck with the Pussycat Dolls and you might like their songs, but whose to say you wouldn't like something else better? The assumption is that the market gives people what they want, but imo it doesn't, it gives people what it thinks they want and thereby limits their actual choices. This goes for music, movies, news etc.

Secondly, women should not have to "pimp" themselves to access the best distribution channels for their work! That should not be a requirement for mainstream success! Telling women who do not want to achieve success that way that they should be happy with other, much more limited options for their careers, is extremely offensive. I realize that is probably the reality we're dealing with, but we should not come to accept it as right. I mostly ignore the women who "pimp" themselves. I like some of their songs and have nothing against them personally, but I don't spend my money on them.

I agree with your post and can tell you really understand what is taking place with the female talent in the music biz.

So many of us have just opted to not spend our hard earned cash on these very over sexed but talented female singers.

 

[Moddie777]

Moddie, you are absolutely, 1000% right! It's sad to hear, and more than that, very sad to see. Diana Ross' words were filled with wisdom. Today's musical young ladies are having to rely on their bodies and booties to market themselves as musicians...and cover up whatever talent they may or may not have at all. People aren't necessarily looking for "Polly Purebred" as Duran put it, just DECENCY for crying out loud! If a woman is good enough with her voice, that itself can be marketable enough. That's where the talent lies. She doesn't have to market her body to boost her sales...although many do, anyway. Sure, she can look attractive. But she doesn't need to ruin her reputation. Those who aren't so great with their voices, however, very often feel like they have to depend on their looks to get them anywhere.

One thing that us women are particularly oblivious to is the enormous temptations the male gender is bombarded with each and every day. There's a lot they DON"T want to see, and yet at the same time, they DO want to see. And they see it EVERYWHERE, whether they want to or not. For married men it's particularly difficult. A lot of women think, "oh he should just control himself!! He shouldn't think those things, or he shouldn't look!" Yet so many women out there are flaunting themselves, for the sole purpose of attracting men, and they wonder why they get in trouble in some way? It's up to US, ladies, to keep decency, to protect not only ourselves, but also the male gender whom we claim to love so much. Believe me, when all is said and done, he appreciates it FAR more and has more respect for us when we keep our clothes on.

So if the ladies in the music industry, DO keep their clothes on, they will indeed have much more respect, much more longevity, more of an appreciation for their talent, etc. If they are uncomfortable with dressing down, they HAVE to take a stand and have their own amount of power and control over what they do in the biz. I am not positive, but I believe those in control may just yield to that, respect it, and not exploit her so badly. If she feels she can't do anything without dressing down, but does everything the biz tells her to do, then they will exploit her in every way possible and she will very shortly be ruined. If they don't yield to her, and she loses her place with the label, well they weren't worth working for and she can look for a more respectable label, whether its major or indie.

I HATE seeing wonderful talent go to waste. Case in point, Brittney Spears has always had a gorgeous voice, even when she was little. God gave it to her. But she wasted it when she began exploit her body as a teenager and sing songs far too mature (especially for her young audience). I can't stand hearing her and I can't stand seeing her. It makes my heart sick. Sometimes it actually makes me cry to hear a beautiful voice be wasted like that. I don't hate HER, I just really don't like what she DOES with her music. I am absolutely positive her personal life isn't a very happy one...although I hope that someday she will find her peace and begin making GOOD music.

Moddie, great post. The music industry will find their revival once Michael enters the scene again, and they won't have to rely on girls' good looks to continue making money.

Awwwww Thanks for your understanding and support. Yes, Diana Ross's words were filled with wisdom. The next day she recieved alot of kudos for it too.

I feel the exact same way as you do about Brittney Spears. I really liked her in the beginning but now as you've so accurately pointed out, she has been exploited and her image was wayyyyyy to sexual at a very very young age. It was nothing short of disgusting.
I like her voice and I think she is pretty but I can't look at her now either and sadly, she isn't the only one.

 

[DuranDuran]

I agree with your post and can tell you really understand what is taking place with the female talent in the music biz.

So many of us have just opted to not spend our hard earned cash on these very over sexed but talented female singers.

That doesn't matter as there is a lot more who do, and that's what the labels care about. Just check out the view counts on You Tube. Teens and young people pretty much decide what is popular, and what do they look at? The Pussycat Dolls, Beyonce, Snoop Dogg, Lil Wayne, Eminem, etc. They also like watching stuff like playground fight home videos, which is not something that is marketed to them by companies. Anime is popular as well, which is mainly just a lot of violence and big boobs. Kids don't really want to look at or hear "clean" stuff, so as long as that is the case, these images are going to remain. Look at the past, back in the 1950s, teens didn't want to listen to their parents "clean" big band or Pat Boone records, they chose "Rock & Roll". The term itself was slang for sex. Elvis had the same complaints you have here about being too sexual and was only shown waist up. In the 1960s, they chose druggy psychedelic music and so on. If I don't like something, I just don't watch it or listen to it. I don't need a conglomerate or focus group to tell me what to like. Or listen to something because "everyone else" does. If someone does need that, that's their business.

 

[Raylo]

No one said that selling out yourself was right, but that's how the major labels work.

I agree.

People in all kinds of jobs and career fields "pimp" themselves and do stuff they don't like to get ahead or just to keep their job, why is the music "business" supposed to be any different?

There is a difference between having to do stuff you don't like and women (specifically) having to take their clothes off to succeed. Of course everyone has to do stuff they don't like in their careers, but for most people this would mean making coffee, doing paperwork or attending conferences. It is different when women are required to expose their bodies to succeed. It's not an option, it's not a choice, but a precondition? In every other industry (apart from the obvious exception) you would be sued for asking a female employee to dress like Britney. It is a gender and power issue. If black artists today had to use white people as covers (in the way you mentioned) there would be an uproar, so why are women still widely exploited? And imo it just seems to get worse over the decades, not better (with regards to the music industry that is). And sure, young people like something that is edgy, but when it comes to female artists, why does edgy equal naked? I agree that the public (which consists of large numbers of female consumers) in some way "wants" this, but it's not just as simple as that. As I said before, you can only want what you are told is available. There is a dynamic between supply and demand - neither one controls the market completely, it's a contested issue, but when it comes to female artists there is something very off in this area if you ask me.

 

[DuranDuran]

How about acts like Madonna or Grace Jones, who chose their image? Madonna made the Sex book or made a video having a boy go to a peep show (Open Your Heart), or another one about making out with Jesus (Like A Prayer, which got her fired from Pepsi). Her record company didn't have anything to do with these. It was her ideas. Everyone isn't told to dress a certain way, some choose that themselves. There's males who sell a sex image like LL Cool J, Teddy Pendergrass, David Lee Roth, Tom Jones, Prince, etc. And many other guys sing sexual songs, way more than other subjects. What's the difference?

 

[mjscarousal]

That doesn't matter as there is a lot more who do, and that's what the labels care about. Just check out the view counts on You Tube. Teens and young people pretty much decide what is popular, and what do they look at? The Pussycat Dolls, Beyonce, Snoop Dogg, Lil Wayne, Eminem, etc. They also like watching stuff like playground fight home videos, which is not something that is marketed to them by companies. Anime is popular as well, which is mainly just a lot of violence and big boobs. Kids don't really want to look at or hear "clean" stuff, so as long as that is the case, these images are going to remain. Look at the past, back in the 1950s, teens didn't want to listen to their parents "clean" big band or Pat Boone records, they chose "Rock & Roll". The term itself was slang for sex. Elvis had the same complaints you have here about being too sexual and was only shown waist up. In the 1960s, they chose druggy psychedelic music and so on. If I don't like something, I just don't watch it or listen to it. I don't need a conglomerate or focus group to tell me what to like. Or listen to something because "everyone else" does. If someone does need that, that's their business.

DuranDuran I agree with just about everything you have said and I also see the point of the original poster because I agree as well. I understand that you dont have to turn on the radio, you dont have to look at the awards or buy the popular acts albums. I undestand why things are the way they are in popular music but then again I dont understand why they have to be that way. The media brainwashes the public into these acts and if something is push into your face 24/7 how else is SOME people going to form their opinion. Some people just base everything off of what they see, what they hear and of course what IS popular. I know the systematics and everything you have said. I dont pay attention to what is popular or commericial crap because thats not me or interests me. Im into real music and real artists. I wish the media would promote more of that instead of what is sexy or "sexy" If they made that a trend just like they do with these mediocre artists, people might want to watch and just might appreciate real artists but like you said its always been this way in music. Im just personally tired of crap artists, artists that suck that get praised for doing nothing while artists who are really talented get nothing.

If you really think about it and really break it down. There is no one playing on mainstream radio that is spectacular to say the least or that is doing something that has not been done. Kids and people look at them like it is something new not knowing its the same recycled crap most popular acts have been doing for years. Its nothing interesting or entertaining about it. It gets tired and redudant which is why Im not going to waste 16.99 on crap music or bother listening to the radio but I agree with what you said and you talk a whole lota sense.