Anyone else agree with this statement?

Mel C has a valid point, I don't remember seeing the Spice Girls wearing virtually nothing let alone groups like Eternal. Sure maybe less was more sometimes, but don't think they were ever provocative.

Btw I'm not being sexist, because to me it looks very cheap when boybands flash their abs or whatever.

sex sells these days i guess i mean look at the PCD, Destinys Child, Girls Aloud ect

I see her point, and I agree with her. Pussycat Dolls, anyone? They're probably the best example of this.

I agree with Mel C. You've only got to look at the videos for Ego or Get Sexy and at any All Saints or Spice Girls video to see that she is right.

She is spot on. Girls Band's thesedays need to rely on their looks to carry them. Say what you like about the Spice Girls but they had personality in buckets, No girl band could have matched them when at their peak. They were ace.

Sex may sell, but aren't these groups then not making themselves look 1 dimensional.

Destiny's Child were suggestive but never provocative

I agree with this. Destiny's Child infact picked up from where the Spice Girls left off. It was a case of good timing for them.

I will say this. If Girls Aloud had tried to launch in 2000 they would have just been one of the many forgotten girl bands of that era. Lack of true competition is the only reason they have managed to last. Just like how Eternal did until the Spice's arrived.

DC also had vocal talent.

It's true, but I don't get the idea that "sex sells"

Go to a Girls Aloud concert - the majority of people are female or gay men.

Why would they buy a single from the group because they looked sexy?

In fact, that's a rather silly statement, why would ANYONE, male, female, gay, straight.. buy MUSIC from someone because they're sexy? You can't see them when listening to a song on your ipod

Being good looking may get them into the magazines and promote the music, sure, but people are still only going to buy a song because it's good. Look at Shakira's Did It Again - very sexy lady, very cool performance on The X Factor in front of 15m people - yet she sold only 11,000 units the week after compared to Leona's 85,000

Get five fat and very average looking girls. Put them in a band and give them a song like 'Something Kind Of Ooh' and they would flop.

Simples.

While they weren't fat, GA were very average when they started - http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...-Girls-001.jpg

very plain, very ordinary, chavvy, dodgy teeth, etc. and they still sold and even beat the "sexy" boys

Why? Their song was better.

No because they launced on a reality show.

Had they not have come from that they would have gone the same way as this lot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwU2zwVVQWU

But it's not even looks that are being discussed here (sorry, I meant to edit my post )- it's being sexy and provocative. Mel C isn't saying that modern bands are better looking than the spice girls, just being more sexual. The Spice Girls weren't that ugly, they just didn'tr try to be sexy or dressed
provocatively.

Girls Aloud, on the other hand, do try to be sexy and dress 'dirty' - like this picture for example: http://www.funny-football.co.uk/news...irls_aloud.jpg

However my point is that I don't think that that sales music, that is if they were to dress down and casual like in this performance of Something Kinda Ooh - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3iM1johByk - they'd still sell music. i.e. the fact that they may be sexy is irrelevant.

Of course this is all hypothetical, unless GA return this year with a completely "non sexual" image we'll never know whether they'll sell more or less with sexiness

The point the poster you quoted was making though, was that they beat the boys who were in the same Reality show as them, so if they needed to be sexy and half naked, which at the time GA weren't, to sell records, this disproves that fact and when it really comes down to it, it's about the songs.

Personally I think as some people have said, Destiny's child were Suggestive but never provocative, but also had some pretty amazing vocals for a girlband, all 3 members have gone on to successful solo careers (Varying levels of success, but I think all 3 have now been Grammy Nominated (Kelly with David Guetta's When Love Takes Over) and stayed in the limelight well, again without getting all sexual) the two elements combined however could have made it more difficult for other girlbands.

The bands need a good mix of Vocals and image, if they are lacking in one, for example vocals, they oversell the sex like PCD who only really have Nicole as a good vocalist, or if the vocals are up to scratch, the image is less sexual, like Sugababes pre-Get Sexy.

Basically this could all be Beyoncés fault lol

The boys were all mingers who got slaughtered by the press during the live shows for a crying incident which made them a national joke....

I am well aware of what the set up on that show was.

Sugababes aren't sexual. Get Sexy and About A Girl are pretty straight laced.

I think its that they seem to have gotten a sexier image that was never what they were really about.

However, i agree with what Mel C is saying, it just seems almost that people come out with this idea that sex sells however i think certain people have proven that this isn't neccessarily the case. Case in point PCD they may have success in the beginning but i think their last album proved that a sexy image cannot be solely relied on.
I think that with the image you need to have the good catchy songs like GA and DC have had consistantly.

Compare Spice Girls to any girlband in the 00s or even any solo artist in the 00s they were seen as provocative but in comparison they were extremely tame.

a simple rule of thumb

the less clothes worn = the weaker the material. (that is the music , not the fabric!)

I would actually agree with that

to the op

it makes up for there lack of talent......sex sells not good voices anymore

A little food for thought...(click)

Exactly why I agree with Mel C