TubeNet

In my work at a radio station I read a lot of musician press releases and reviews (some with and some without photos ) and it does seem like the "pretty" or "handsome" performers seem to get a lot more favorable coverage (and recording contracts and gigs.) The "average" looking folks have a big step to climb up to big success - it shouldn't be that way, but that seems to be the way it is. I suppose, even given equal musical talent, a more "attractive" person is more likely to make it in professional performance situations - even in bands or orchestras where it really should not make any real difference.

For just one example, read this recent review in the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/m ... ont12.html

If someone made a movie about the Claremont Trio, who are returning Tuesday to the UW Chamber Music Series at Meany Hall, the Olsen sisters (Mary-Kate and Ashley) could play Bruskin twins Emily (violin) and Julia (cello), while Lucy Liu might be pianist Donna Kwong.

Picture 6.png

The only problem with this casting is that the actual musicians are more gorgeous than the actresses who would play them.

However, it is a clip like you posted that is so exceptional - Google search on Susan Boyle and see how quickly she has already hit the "big time" - but even with her very good voice (and great personality) she will probably always be more of a novelty. Check back in 5 years... I hope I will be proven wrong.

David Richoux wrote:In my work at a radio station I read a lot of musician press releases and reviews (some with and some without photos ) and it does seem like the "pretty" or "handsome" performers seem to get a lot more favorable coverage (and recording contracts and gigs.) The "average" looking folks have a big step to climb up to big success - it shouldn't be that way, but that seems to be the way it is. I suppose, even given equal musical talent, a more "attractive" person is more likely to make it in professional performance situations - even in bands or orchestras where it really should not make any real difference.
...

I seem to remember reading a study in one of the management journals that more attractive people are more likely to get promotions everything else being equal. In fact, from what I remember, more attractive people can have lesser work performance and still do better career wise in raises and promotions. It is also true that taller men tend to be more likely to be promoted. This doesn't mean that less attractive people or shorter people can't do well, it's just that they usually have to work harder to have the same results as their taller and more attractive peers. I suspect that I was considered for certain promotions not because I was better than my peers at doing my job, but because I happen to be 6'5".

If this is true in business in general it shouldn't be a surprise that it is also true in show business. If anything one would expect this in popular music because it's not just about the sound, but the look has always been part of a performer's appeal. I'm not saying that it's fair, but it happens to be true.