|
||||||||
Does anyone else feel sickened about how a lot of today's artists are sex symbols? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
|
Does anyone else feel sickened about how a lot of today's artists are sex symbols?
E.G. One Direction - the main reason they've been successful is because they are 5 good looking teenagers who are trendy and all the girls fancy - its not s much about their voices, which are IMO very average. If it was 5 middle aged men up there, no one would take them seriously and they would get absolutely no attention, even if they were really talented. Why does it have to be this way??
Back in the 60s , 70s and 80s, image wasn't important. As long as they had talent, that's literally all that mattered. The Beatles, Freddie Mercury, Bonnie Tyler, Michael Jackson etc....not the most attractive people in the world, but nobody cared back then!!! They were all exploding in talent, and that is how they made success. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 445
|
I dont think anyone views 1D as sex symbols do they
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,200
|
People such as critics or fans automatically claim these popstars as sex symbols, not the pop stars themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,526
|
I'm not sickened but I am fairly sure that everyone including One D themselves knows that they just got lucky...........they are certainly not 'artists',they are not the least bit creative as far as I know but are the product of extreme hype and marketing.
One D are just the latest in a long history of here today gone tomorrow 'teen idols' for pubesent girls it scarecly matters what they look like,they have been put into that mould by the media so thats what they will be......within reason it could have been anyone. One thing the X factor has proved is that being able to sing well enough to make records is nothing particularly outstanding or special ......loads of people can do it......what really makes the difference is the marketing machine that kicks in behind you if someone somewhere decides to take a chance on you. Hopefully real talent will shine through anyway but in the meantime we have to make do with hyped up fabrications like One D.......no harm in it but nobody is under any illusions....I hope. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 953
|
Quote:
E.G. One Direction - the main reason they've been successful is because they are 5 good looking teenagers who are trendy and all the girls fancy - its not s much about their voices, which are IMO very average. If it was 5 middle aged men up there, no one would take them seriously and they would get absolutely no attention, even if they were really talented. Why does it have to be this way??
Back in the 60s , 70s and 80s, image wasn't important. As long as they had talent, that's literally all that mattered. The Beatles, Freddie Mercury, Bonnie Tyler, Michael Jackson etc....not the most attractive people in the world, but nobody cared back then!!! They were all exploding in talent, and that is how they made success. Madonna of course didn't exactly look like the back end of a bus when she broke through in 1984, the girls from ABBA were not exactly unpleasant on the eye and so on ad infinitum I'm not saying it's "right" that looks help, and I admire your apparent desire for "talent" to shine through, and there are examples of artists who shall we say are less good looking than others who do very well (and good on them) but plain fact is that no matter what we want, or even want to think we want, visual image is often all part of the entertainment of taking us out of our daily lives and transporting us within our minds to a different "better?" place. It's not "fair", but neither is the fact I can't play football like Lionel Messi, or sing like Pavarotti. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 695
|
One Direction are not sex symbols
I think Britney is the best example of a modern sex symbol not these idiots who's success will soon be smaller than their six inch rockets. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Yeovil
Posts: 877
|
omgz u r so like...... rude 2 tulisa she iz my idoll ur all haterz. i wanna flop me tits out 1 day on a beach 2. hopefully when i'm 12 in 2 weekz time they can let me go 2 tht nudist beach nd practise lolxxxx.
Seriously though, I think OP is barking up the wrong tree here. One Direction are far from sex idols. As far as sex idols go, they're more like Ken dolls: a bit plastic-y and guaranteed to leave you in doubt as to whether or not they actually have any sexual organs to be sexual with... They're still marketed as the type of boys who'd have your daughter home by 10pm and no later because, let's face it, no-one wants to see 17-19 year-old lads talking about how they're going to bump n' grind your daughters, and so they stick to sugar-coating their affections with twee little compliments like "You do know your beautiful". And no, I don't feel sickened - it's not my place nor my desire to feel sick for other people too incompetent to possess a fair taste in music - I just feel pity (not aiming this at One Direction - there's far worse artists out there). |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,764
|
Quote:
E.G. One Direction - the main reason they've been successful is because they are 5 good looking teenagers who are trendy and all the girls fancy - its not s much about their voices, which are IMO very average. If it was 5 middle aged men up there, no one would take them seriously and they would get absolutely no attention, even if they were really talented. Why does it have to be this way??
Back in the 60s , 70s and 80s, image wasn't important. As long as they had talent, that's literally all that mattered. The Beatles, Freddie Mercury, Bonnie Tyler, Michael Jackson etc....not the most attractive people in the world, but nobody cared back then!!! They were all exploding in talent, and that is how they made success. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
|
Quote:
E.G. One Direction - the main reason they've been successful is because they are 5 good looking teenagers who are trendy and all the girls fancy - its not s much about their voices, which are IMO very average. If it was 5 middle aged men up there, no one would take them seriously and they would get absolutely no attention, even if they were really talented. Why does it have to be this way??
Back in the 60s , 70s and 80s, image wasn't important. As long as they had talent, that's literally all that mattered. The Beatles, Freddie Mercury, Bonnie Tyler, Michael Jackson etc....not the most attractive people in the world, but nobody cared back then!!! They were all exploding in talent, and that is how they made success. you might want to delete your thread after watching that |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,372
|
If their talent spoke for itself and was enough on it's own, they wouldn't need to do FHM photoshoots and be faces for brands.
However it doesn't and it's not for most of them. See Lana Del Rey's multiple reinventions until she found one that worked as well as Katy Perry's from Christian virginal crooner to woman in PVC outfits, lying half naked in candy floss on her album covers. I never saw Yma Sumac squatting legs akimbo in a bikini while making the lesbian V sign. Then again, she remains one of the greatest singers of all time with one of the greatest vocal ranges of all time so nobody dared asked for fear of demeaning her and her talent by trying to reduce her to a sex object. Same goes for Edith Piaf. She stood up, sang her ass off and made people listen and feel so nobody felt the need to ask her "mind doing the can can while you're at it?" because their was an implicit respect for her as talented performer of integrity. I don't think the same can be said for folks like Perry, Rihanna, Kesha and most of their modern ilk. Hell, if Cheryl Cole didn't look good in a swimsuit I doubt she'd have a career based off her "talents" vocally given more attention is given to her thigh tattoo and cleavage. It makes me sad that singers have to have "a look we can sell" in the words of Louis Walsh, not a talent that can sell itself. When I listen to the radio I want to hear a good song, I don't care if the person singing it could model for Calvin Klein. I'm pretty sure Solomon Burke would be a double page spread by necessity if he had been offered a similar job but he could make you feel what he felt as he sang. Then again, that's why I'm not on Syco's payroll and Sinitta is. Has to be said, she still looks good in a bikini even if she's not exactly the ultimate arbiter of taste or talent. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,281
|
Welcome to the 1960s. Would the Beatles have been succesful if they weren't heartthrobs? You could say they had talent but a very manufactured image to appeal to young girls. Nice looking young men delivering a catchy danceable song will always sell.
Even artists and acts that arn't recognised as heartthrobs are seen as unconventionaly attractive. Even the likes of Pete Doherty have fangirls. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
|
Quote:
If their talent spoke for itself and was enough on it's own, they wouldn't need to do FHM photoshoots and be faces for brands.
However it doesn't and it's not for most of them. See Lana Del Rey's multiple reinventions until she found one that worked as well as Katy Perry's from Christian virginal crooner to woman in PVC outfits, lying half naked in candy floss on her album covers. I never saw Yma Sumac squatting legs akimbo in a bikini while making the lesbian V sign. Then again, she remains one of the greatest singers of all time with one of the greatest vocal ranges of all time so nobody dared asked for fear of demeaning her and her talent by trying to reduce her to a sex object. Same goes for Edith Piaf. She stood up, sang her ass off and made people listen and feel so nobody felt the need to ask her "mind doing the can can while you're at it?" because their was an implicit respect for her as talented performer of integrity. I don't think the same can be said for folks like Perry, Rihanna, Kesha and most of their modern ilk. Hell, if Cheryl Cole didn't look good in a swimsuit I doubt she'd have a career based off her "talents" vocally given more attention is given to her thigh tattoo and cleavage. It makes me sad that singers have to have "a look we can sell" in the words of Louis Walsh, not a talent that can sell itself. When I listen to the radio I want to hear a good song, I don't care if the person singing it could model for Calvin Klein. I'm pretty sure Solomon Burke would be a double page spread by necessity if he had been offered a similar job but he could make you feel what he felt as he sang. Then again, that's why I'm not on Syco's payroll and Sinitta is. Has to be said, she still looks good in a bikini even if she's not exactly the ultimate arbiter of taste or talent. the media today are willing to publish articles of artists if they are good looking regardless of the talent they have, so the artists use the media for publicity as much as the media uses the artists. these days talent alone doesn't get you far, so even if you are a great musician, it's getting yer tits oot fer the lads mags that gets you noticed if yma sumac was starting out today, i'm sure she would be doing the same thing as everyone else, and likewise anyone popular today would do the same as her back in her period marlyn monroe wasn't asked to appear in movies because she was a talented actress. elvis used his sex appeal to become the biggest star of all. the beatles used theirs to be the biggest band of all if you want to hear good songs, turn your radio OFF. you aren't going to hear them |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,177
|
I think that's the problem of Today's artists, they are actually not sex symbols at all...They're perhaps more sexual, sexier, "good looking" than some of sex symbols from previous generations but they don't have the appeal nor the charisma or impact to be sex symbols.
I'm tempted to think that what you're thinking - or complaining about - is the oversexualization of lots of Today's acts, which in some cases, actually overshadow the quality of the music. If so then I'd agree to a certain extent, especially in the case of female acts. Nowadays being sexual is a Must-be for a female pop-star to be successful and that's quite sad because when Madonna was pushing the enveloppe, being sexual and dealing with sex in her videos, she had a political agenda but the likes of Rihanna, Katy Perry or any other pop tart of the moment seem to sexualize themselves as much as they can for the sake of it... |
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,076
|
1D are not sex symbols. trey songz is a male sex symbol
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
|
Yeah, as many have already said, I never thought One Direction were seen as sex symbols. Maybe it'll happen in the future, but now it's not. They're guys that girls fancy, but not lust after.
A sex symbol, at least for a male artist, is someone who's music revolves around sex for starters, which One Direction don't do (or at least not to an extreme level). I agree with the poster above that someone like Trey Songz is more of a sex symbol. Not only in his image, but also his music. People will have sex to a Trey Songz song, but not to a One Direction song, since their songs aren't very sexual. To sum up, there's a difference between being attractive and being a sex symbol. Also, there's a LOT of ugly people in the charts. T-Pain, Lil Wayne, Snoop Dogg, will.i.am, Timbaland, Rick Ross, etc. certainly aren't successful due to their looks (no offense to them, but let's be honest here ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,076
|
Quote:
Yeah, as many have already said, I never thought One Direction were seen as sex symbols. Maybe it'll happen in the future, but now it's not. They're guys that girls fancy, but not lust after.
A sex symbol, at least for a male artist, is someone who's music revolves around sex for starters, which One Direction don't do (or at least not to an extreme level). I agree with the poster above that someone like Trey Songz is more of a sex symbol. Not only in his image, but also his music. People will have sex to a Trey Songz song, but not to a One Direction song, since their songs aren't very sexual. To sum up, there's a difference between being attractive and being a sex symbol. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 695
|
Quote:
1D are not sex symbols. trey songz is a male sex symbol
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
|
Quote:
Could you imagine? Somehow, What Makes You Beautiful might kill the mood.
Quote:
He is not a sex symbol, he is an attractive singer. Completely different things.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 695
|
Quote:
What male pop stars would you consider to be sex symbols then? What about Justin Timberlake? |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
|
Quote:
Well both One Direction and Justin Timberlake are more of a sex symbol than Trey Songz is.
I don't really know how to explain it, but One Direction are viewed as "kids" at the moment (and their cheesy pop music is a large part of the reason), Trey and Justin Timberlake are viewed as men (partly because their discographies are littered with sexually chared R&B songs). |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 3,133
|
It's because a majority of record labels want quick sales & profit, they're not after musical integrity. Marketing 'good looking'/scantily clad people to the masses that's exactly what they get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,076
|
Quote:
Well both One Direction and Justin Timberlake are more of a sex symbol than Trey Songz is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 1,663
|
Quote:
E.G. One Direction - the main reason they've been successful is because they are 5 good looking teenagers who are trendy and all the girls fancy - its not s much about their voices, which are IMO very average.
Someone else mentioned Duran Duran. I'm a huge fan of them, love their music, they wrote all of their own material - but even I admit their looks were what brought them so much attention and gave them such a big teenage fanbase. I think now a days record producers look at what was popular in the past and just try to emulate it. 'Boy bands' in the past wrote their own material - The Beatles, Duran Duran, Spandau Ballet, even The Osmonds and The Jacksons wrote songs - they were talented as well as being good looking. And their good looks helped to sell the music. Now a days, the record companies probably don't have the time and money to invest and find talented acts (and also wait for them to disappear and produce the records) It's easier to find an established song writing team and then audition for attractive people to sing the songs. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Devon
Posts: 1,116
|
I was entirely unaware of One Direction before the Olympic close. Thgere music was forgotten before they had finished but their hair made me angry and nauseous in equal measure, especially the one with the hat, which he wore as an integral part of his overcoifed hairdo, like some bizarre fascinator. It would be a pretty shallow girl or boy of limited intellect who found any of the talentless, personality vacuumed fashionplates a sex symbol!
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,789
|
Well, this isnt a "new" thing, popstars have always been like this.
They look good, wear stylish clothes, and do sexy photoshoots, why? Because sex sells, everyone knows it, and thats why labels get their artists to do it. |
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:31.




).