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.
