Why Do Women Singers Have to Look Like Barbie?

aren't from here.

I'm a metalhead and some of my favorite lead singers/songwriters are Floor Jenson (ex-After Forever), Simone Simmons (Epica), Angela Gossow (Arch Enemy), Liv-Kristine Ullaes-Krull(Leaves' Eyes) and Sharon den Adel (Within Temptation), to just name a few. These women are beautiful in their own ways, but they are not showcased like brainless Barbie dolls. These women have major chops and easily put any pop tart singer here to shame. It's interesting that a lot of European bands seem to have no issue with having a strong female lead.

Of course, we do have awesome singer/songwriters here too, but one must do the work and seek them out rather than depend on television and radio.

Also, check out the annual Flight of the Valkyries music festival which showcases the best of female-fronted bands from different genres.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I grew up playing guitar as a teenager, and back then the only strong metal chick with a guitar was Lita Ford, who was often seen dry-humping it. There was Joan Jett when I was younger, but really, by the 90's the pattern was set: MTV gave us babes and bimbos but no real musicians.

While I've now been playing over 20 years, I gave up "the dream" as a teen, when I realized that my pale skin, not-blonde hair and yeah, I had freckles too, were not what music execs were supporting. If I had only known what the independent music movement would bring, bolstered by the internet and cheaper technology.

Support independent media with your money and your mouth; spread the word about the musicians you want to see succeed and please don't illegally download their work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Linda Ronstadt? She may have been talented, but back in the day, looks were a significant factor in her success. It seems odd to include her in that list of examples. Rootsy rock and country wouldn't have made it today, but I'm betting she would have sang something else to fit the times, because she was more of a performer than an artist.

Still, the article makes a good point, even as it oversimplifies the case. Looks always mattered more or less, depending on what you listen to, but during the past few years, we've had an oversupply of barbie-dolls who can't sing. And it seems they keep lowering the bar talent-wise to make room for any shopaholic bimbo who wants to take a shot at a singing career.

Simon may be a jerk and a pig, but to be fair, he will choose talent over Barbie-doll looks when it matters. The past season was a perfect example, when he favored Allison, and told Megan to take a hike.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just listen to some Ani Difranco, it'll fix you right up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At least we have Bjork--a bonafide genius who doesn't look a bit like a kewpie doll.

Likewise Kate Bush, Tori Amos, and Regina Spektor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Buggles said it best and quite prophetically - Video Killed the Radio Star. And it's not just women, Meatloaf would never have made it today, and remember Milli Vanilli?

This from Wickipedia:
"When Frank Farian developed the concept of Milli Vanilli, he chose to feature vocals by Charles Shaw, John Davis, Brad Howell, and twin sisters Jodie and Linda Rocco; however, he felt that those singers lacked a marketable image. He then recruited Morvan and Pilatus, two younger and more photogenic model/dancers he found dancing in a Berlin dance club, to front the act."

Thanks to Video, today's music scene is more about appearance than ability, it's affected both women and men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One might be moved to wonder if Janis Joplin would have stood a chance in today's industry?

I also continually see on the tube new "bands" that are nothing more than models with heavily processed vocal tracks.
But, that's the industry for you,... selling style over substance every time.
And the industry is in the business of selling image. It is indeed a paranoid industry... much like politics. The insecurity level among agents, producers and studio execs is as high as the position level turnover rate.
Hence the drive to constantly seek out the 'ultimate' new recording industry persona. Someone who can be sold on name and image alone for the next few years. The vocals can always be fudged in the mix. Notice also how studio producers when left without any original ideas for their new "talent" they reach into the catalogue of classic hits, erase the vocal tracks, tack on a sleek phunky beat and sell it as a new song from a new artist to the music illiterati.

And then they wonder why we prefer to download pirated tunes... when they've done no less the same.

Mind you, the writer here does have some pretty MOR tastes.

But if you look at the roster of major festivals in the UK say for instance Glastonbury and the women singers that perform for thousands of fans. And all are at the top of their profession. Most of them are very strong assertive performers fronting such bands as The Ting Tings, Bat For Lashes, Lilly Allen, Gabriella Cilmi, Alyssa Bonagura, Regina Spektor (who's no cover girl... but nonetheless enormously talented and successful)and I don't care what you say but I really like Lady Gaga. I find her also to be very talented.

What you see on the TV is not always what is actually going on and each generation finds their way to the scene and the values of their own choosing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author is not old enough to remember the payola scam of the fifties. Teen idols were manufactured then just like now except the payola marketing method was made illegal in 1960. The show is as much a part of the attraction as the music. The great thing about America is that our pursuit of happiness can be different for all individuals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is a bad example unless you call an "A" cup barbie doll. Without a complete breast enhancement you can call her boyish but not barbie doll.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's been a huge paradigm shift in music as well as many other aspects of our culture. It used to be that emotions were the subject of music and much of society. Now it seems to be all about attitude. And attitude is much easier to convey visually. One can react to attitude whereas one reflects on emotions. Society no longer promotes reflection but rather reaction. React viscerally - don't reflect on the words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I write for a Blues publication and interview vocalists, guitar players, and other very good musicians. I pick ones that are good and in the Blues community looks is not the key to determining who is good. Aretha Franklin and Bonnie Raitt are good no matter what they look like. There are some young Blues musicians that are great too but nobody here on Alternet would know their names if I mentioned them. When I talk to young who are not in the Blues scene and tell them about a band they may like to hear, the ask "Are they cute or are they famous?" I say "Neither, but they are good" and I get a look of total confusion. Young people seem to decide if someone is good at music depending on whether they look like Britney or The Jonas Brothers. None of them will listen to a slide guitar master like Sonny Landreth or the vocal greatness of Janiva Magness and understand what they are listening too. I just interviewed a great female vocalist who prepared to record for years and when her kids left home she hit the airwaves. She is now getting national attention and some air play in England. Singers like that should get more attention from the mainstream press but they wont.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...off.

What the hell? I thought you were for whatever a person wants to do with their bodies. Sorry if "choice" offends you anti-choicers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To mention ability to actually sing, or talent in general, in the same context with discussion of today's "get something out there for the kids, the abysmally ignorant, and the braindead to pay for with their somebody else earned money," corporately-excited stampede over the cliff of mediocrity (would that we could so much as climb somehow back up to that), entertainment industry is downright comical,

That's entertainment!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm so glad that I've always been into jazz.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are You Kidding? And Restrict a Woman's Desperate Need for Grande Narcissism?


You'd be taking away 1/2 of her reasons for her entire existence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't forget Lucinda Williams or Sarah McLachlan, and many others. Unfortunately, the young kids don't get exposed to artists like them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wonder what 'kids' in their 20's would say about this issue? Is it because I'm 50 that I just about got physically sick when I saw the music video by the new country singer Jessie James' recent video of her song 'Wanted'? She's ALL SEX - music is barely involved in the production.

I've wondered if jealousy is a part at all; I don't quite look like that, and I'll never have the money she already has. But I truly don't believe so, as it's never been my moral character to display my femininity in such a lewd way.

Give the girl a year or two... you'll see her on the centerfold. Money and fame talks loudly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...by Susan Boyle.

I don't know if the education he got that day will stay with him, but he DOES now know that sometimes, "diamonds" come in a plain paper bag.

And for me, music is something to be enjoyed by my ears, not my eyes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You might turn off the tv and radio, or change the channel, or correct children who are rude in your home - as a parent you're in charge, yes?

You also might look in areas of endeavour other than the disposable industrial pop "non-culture". It's not just the grotesque aesthetic that harms young minds; more harmful is looking for role models of female success in only the pop music industry. There are many ways to be a woman. And there are many women whose accomplishments won't be forgotten when the next fad prances its booty across the screen.

Expand your vision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Exhibit A: Pepsi And Shakira

This is what your kids are watching in SCHOOL. This is their EDUCATION. This is their definition of NORMAL.

A great quote from political scientist Leonard Schapiro:

"The true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as a jarring dissonance."

Of course any marketing rep with Psych 101 knows the power of peer pressure. Solomon Asch demonstrated long before Milgram that if a group of 7 people swears that black is white, most of us will go along with that premise.

Why do we expect teens and pre-teens with their poorly developed faculty for abstract reasoning to stand up and say Shakira is dressed like a skand, and what is this kind of crap doing in a classroom anyway? Look at her hundreds of adoring fans! Who needs math?

The sad reality is that (if you start reading about Channel One) most kids really believe it's a news service, not lucrative advertising to a captive audience. Here we have a video of a pop singer instead of history or square roots, awesome, and we can all aspire to her job because she is a successful latino and hey, she likes pepsi - me too! These days corporate sponsors are not just sellinng a product - wake up and smell the coffee - they are selling an entire prepackaged consumer lifestyle.

The feminist ideal has been co-opted by the corporations. A woman who does not feel pressured to conform to modern ideals does not buy product, and successful women are supposed buy more expensive products.

Women are invaluable in the work force because young women play along in the belief that sexiness = empowerment and the older women willingly submit to authority for the sake of their families. With women leading currently leading men in the work force, it becomes easier to send the surplus of disenfranchised young men either to jail or into the military (the main options for those not destined to become rap stars).

Small wonder that mainstream music has become a monotonous litany of love/sex/betrayal or bling/fun-in-the-sun (or all of the above). The perfect consumer rat is not supposed to think about revolution, pyschedelics or freedom of thought!

Obviously we need to start helping ourselves here or we will never get a leg up. For starters, who the hell lets their 13 yr old wear mascara to school? Never mind fashion, what about the effects of that toxic goo on your daughter's EYES? Also it is my pet movement to reclaim folk music for the people, as it was meant to be: "Songs of Freedom". None of this jetting off to the city with a $100 ticket to see a pop star; we need to start manufacturing our OWN entertainment again.

My other case in point (if rastaman can forgive my "grande narcissism" lol):

How I got 150 000 youtube views without wearing makeup or showing my boobs and btw I am old enough to be Britney's mom ;.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am right now looking at a picture of Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong that is on the cover of a Verve CD. I have often showed this picture to folks and asked "Would these folks be a success today?" We know the answer. What a tragedy.
I love good singers and absolutely despise the attention given to ones that bring fake beauty to the table and not much else. Taylor Swift surprised me at literally how badly she sang--how low can we go. But the message has been around for some time. Do you know the story of Connie Francis--insecure about her facial looks had plastic surgery on her nose and ruined her ability to sing!! Janis Joplin was insecure about her looks, treated badly because of them as a young girl, and it shaped her whole persona--including the self-destructive part. Listen to Janis Ian's song "At 17" Who would have thought that post-second wave feminism, we are even moreso stuck in Barbie doll singer land. An overall artistic tragedy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you expect female pop singers to not look like dolls, or to sing meaningful songs, then you are asking for what has never been and never will be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only relavent point to this whole article was the decline in actual talent of the musicians the industry forces down our throats.

A few of the authors quotes:

#1 "These icons of my generation were sensual, real women, clad in ribbed sweaters and peasant blouses."

What she was really saying: "These girls look like whores. I like my singers to look like school marms."

#2 "My own over-exposed, naturally beautiful 13-year-old daughter won’t leave the house until she has molded her likeness to the popular culture ideal: Hair flat-ironed, blemishes concealed, skinny jeans tight and hitting the Converse high-tops just right, Lash Blast and eye liner caking the wide-eyed peepers and all body hair erased."

What she was really saying: "I'm affraid to act like a parent and refuse to buy my daughter tight jeans and a ton of makeup so I'll say its the singers fault"

#3 "She doesn’t know from icons who can actually sing, write, compose and perform without the bells and whistles, smoke and mirrors, butt pads, hair extensions and boob jobs"

What she is really saying: "I never took the time to expose my daughter to real musicians because it was easier to let MTV raise her"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We merely had a brief respite during the '60's and early '70's and with the "punks" since the late '70's.

The music industry is always about cranking out more of the same - whatever it is that happens to sell at the moment. They will continue in this manner until the public is sick and tired of the current "thing" and they get caught in "the next new thing". (Which they will then copy ad nauseum.)

The "Woodstock Generation" had a bit of a lucky break. With their fascination with drugs and politics, and with the state of the art of sound recording and playback being greatly enhanced as well, it was a rather unique time in pop music history. Anybody remember the first wave of "high fidelity" stereos? quadraphonic sound? headset earphones? Columbian Gold? Thai sticks? Maui Wowee?

It was truly all about the music, the message , and the state of mind in those days.

I believe (personal opinion) that it was also important to the powers-that-be to co-opt the "Youth Movement" through their music - to gain corporate control over content and distribution. The message in the music at that time scared the Bejeezus out of them. It was never to be again...

The focus had to change. If the message could be subverted from "revolution" to image, fashion, and consumer goods, all the better. It's a win-win for the corporations.

Like the article implies, MTV bears much of the responsibility for the "Barbie-ization" of the music industry. Image became everything. Talent is a plus, but weak talent with glam-doll looks trumps talent every time.

Now we have come full circle. We are back to the modern day equivalents of the Nancy Sinatra, Leslie Gore, the Supremes, and the dozens and dozens of groups all ending with "-ettes". Except now they are all about being trashy and slutty - unlike all of those "-ettes".

And finally, when I play a CD or MP3, I'm not looking at the pretty people, I'm listening to the music. I don't really give a damn about looks. I care about the music. Are you even listening RIAA???

Pax...
Pope Urban XXIII

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How could you forget her???

The women listed in the author's second paragraph all looked pretty good, but Janis was downright homely. But, gawd, could she SING! I had the privilege of seeing her live, and it was an experience I will never forget.

And Mama Cass. What about her? And what about Aretha Franklin?

I also remember how the industry fronted some fat lady's fantastic voice with a Barbie Doll...

But, c'mon. It isn't just women. C&W is filled with MEN who can't sing, but have the "look" that fans adore. In fact, the whole C&W genre is now filled with cookie-cutter stars of both genders who mostly depend on their looks. What happened to the Johnny Cashes, Waylon Jenningses (he was a special fave of mine, but mud-fence ugly), Loretta Lynns, etc?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I loved Linda Ronstead for this reason alone. She was natural and talented.

If they decide only dark hair or black singers are their choice Barbie like singers would be gone.

The media decide what we hear and what we like. I not liking much music today which is new. It's a bunch of noise to me. No melody or point.

They wonder why their radio stations are dying? sports, religion, and talking heads is not enough relaxation for us women. It's an all male media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...blame porn!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First of all, it's been well documented that this was the most hostile and exclusionary era ever for women to do their thing in the realm of pop/rock music — they just didn't exist unless they fit the prescribed mold of wispy, long-haired, dreamy girl folkie which, by the way, WAS the "perfection" image of the time. The models wore peasant blouses. Every guy out there lusted after Linda Ronstadt whose physical charms were openly displayed on her album covers. Almost all the singers you mention were selling the appealing image of the era – and were jammed into the sensitive acoustic girlie mold of the day. Jennifer Warnes was drop-dead gorgeous. So was Grace Slick. The only exceptions were the blues mamas trying to emulate Joplin, but even there, the industry honchos — who were ALL in men; I'll never forget reading in 1971 that the two businesses most hostile to women were the record industry and architecture — were looking for the era's Joss Stone equivalent, the hot-looking, barefoot, busty, peasant-blouse-wearing babe with the voice of an old blues belter. The Tracey Nelsons never got anywhere.

In fact, during that time, MOST women never got anywhere. It was no golden age for female performer. I know, I was a music journalist at the time. The pickings were slim and the label executives were mostly extremely sexist. Not to mention the music press — I recall back in 1973 picking up an issue and seeing not a single woman's byline in the entire issue.

Personally, I disliked all the earnest girlie seinger-songwriter stuff you're mentioning, but it was virtually the only thing women were allowed to do. People like Fannie, Isis and Suzy Quatro were treated as novelties, and yes, the much-vaunted Runaways were a sleazy joke — they weren't ground-breaking, people — they were selling jailbait sex (Anyone remember how skinny and blonde Cheri Currie was? And how much plastic surgery did Lita Ford end up having to emerge in the ’80s an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PERSON?)

Certainly, there was a huge breakthrough in the 1990s when it became unexceptional for women who looked like your sister or girlfriend or roommate to be playing in or even fronting a band. But eventually, the record labels recoopted that: what was Natalie Imbruglia but a cleaned-up, sexed-up, prettified version of the messier Alanis Morissette?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

American Idol, the Big 3 record companies, and the whole dying machinery of the mainstream music biz are certainly trying to shove their ideas of music and hotness down all our throats, but lots of young people aren't buying, and there are lots of even better female role models making even better music today than there were back in the day.

How about Beth Ditto and her band Gossip, the Vivian Girls, Amanda Palmer, Karen O, Cat Power, Care Bears on Fire (and they're not even in high school yet), the ladies of Le Tigre, Kim Gordon, Kim & Kelley Deal, Sleater-Kinney, Kimya Dawson (whose songs are featured in the movie Juno), Aimee Mann, not to mention all the talented young women in jazz, classical and world music?

Frankly, I'm tired of baby boomers insisting that the only good pop culture ever created in America happened on their watch. Wrong. Carole King, Janis Joplin and Judy Collins do not represent the end of the line, or even, in my opinion, the high point for non-Barbie singers and songwriters.

If the author were to think back, she might realize that even back in the good old days there were pre-packaged pop stars on the one hand, and actual musical talents who happen to be female on the other. These two have always been worlds apart; the only thing that's changed is the music business and it's near-total emphasis on business rather than music.

Look into what's really happening now and you'll see it's not as discouraging as you think. There are a LOT of talented, interesting and incredibly inspiring woman making great music these days. And give your daughter a chance- most of us outgrow our prepubescent musical taste.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She's blond and she's thin, but most of the pics I've seen of her, she would be wearing something like black pants and a black tank top with little makeup. This has been a while though, since she first joined the band. Maybe she's gotten more (or been encouraged to) glammed up since then. I haven't seen Arch Enemy live, but we have a couple of their DVDs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"...female vocalists ruled with a good set of pipes and an inspirational message."

and legs. Really long, pale legs.

Bring it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It seems to be a Law of Female Journalism that the most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself (or maybe her daughter in this case) will be considered hotter-looking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Music videos nowadays are simply selling sex
to the unwashed masses. It's what sells...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not a Barbie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Linda Ronstadt had her ups & downs, but has always been quite beautiful. I could still listen to her all day long - even if I couldn't see her. Her work with Nelson Riddle redefined the big band sound.

It is odd that the "Barbie" image - with its usual "chestiness" - runs a distant second to the wiry thinness of the runway model with today's girl singers like Taylor Swift. Then again, Katy Perry may rule the music world one day, and physical beauty is a definite asset for her.

So nice to hgave a topic not dominated by political hatred.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this issue over musicians being half naked while singing is relatively new.

Very talented singers have had to sing simplistic children's songs to be played over the radio. The most popular Jazz genres were always the simplest genres. This phenomenon is pretty old.

This equation works best: TV + thrown heavy object= good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm glad this post got people thinking, and not just knee-jerk reactions (well, maybe a few). Some readers really understand the thrust of this post was about media images foisted upon us by those who control the business. It really isn't about my skills and upper hand as a mother. I'm sorry some were confused about that. All 13-year-olds I know wear make-up to school. I did, too, in the 70's. And as an eco writer, I have purchased natural cosmetics for my girls. Sometimes they sneak the bad stuff cause it builds bigger lashes.

My own 13-year-old is 5'8" and has already been to Stanford to study. She is extremely mature, and has freedoms. They are growing up faster, you know. Again, not my fault. Can't keep the Mary Janes on her no matter what!

Also, one reader said I have failed to expose her to music. Wrong again. My daughter is a singer who works with a voice coach and loves the classics. But she and her friends are bombarded with pop icons everywhere they turn: Not Rosemary Clooney and Etta James.

Appreciate the astute observations. Especially love hearing from people of my own generation. Every comment from that crowd was spot on!!!!

Luanne (author)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I remember when I first noticed Barbie cited as an explicit inspiration for the way actual women were trying to look - or at least the way some males wanted women to look: the late 80s, the first decade of the right turn this country has been on since Reagan was elected, and I think the insistence on women looking as stereotypically sexual and as unnaturally hyper-female as possible is another sign of our right-wing times.

There is a parallel insistence, in the US particularly, that men look as masculine as possible these days, and the gender appearance rules are much narrower than they were when I was coming up in the 70s. Take a look at pictures or films of the hordes of people at rock concerts or in high schools or colleges in the 70s, the peak era of looking natural, when there was a cultural striving for equality in all areas. The men and women dress almost exactly the same - same long unstyled hair, same worn-in jeans, same t-shirts, same practical shoes. We're told today that everyone in the 70s wore enormous platform shoes and rainbow afro wigs and sequined tube tops, but that was rare (except for the platform shoes, which were themselves usually in natural fibers with wood or cork soles). People from that era would laugh if they could see the cartoon-ish way people look today; they'd also probably be shocked at how sexist the appearance norms are for women. Didn't we get rid of all that outdated 1950s stuff in the 60s and 70s? The "no body hair" tendency has gotten so extreme that even guys are getting waxed and shaved to keep from being rejected by women - my teenage nieces think any leg hair on men is absolutely revolting and a sign of bad grooming.

And speaking of cartoons, I've heard numerous young people explicitly cite animated characters as inspiring their appearance, so no wonder body hair and freckles are considered "ugly" - no Japanese anime character or female Disney carton character has them, do they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think one of the best female rock vocalists of all time was Cass Elliot. And she definitely didn't look like Barbie. I think the record executives and concert promoters of today would have laughed her out of the office. Michelle Phillips had the Barbie look, but Cass was the Mama who could really sing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Back in 1999, a young 14-year-old girl by the name of Shannon Curfman was hailed as the new blues-rock prodigy for the 21st century. Only, it seems, after the first album, she and her record company did not see eye to eye as to the material to be recorded in future albums. She didn't want to sell out and become a "commercial" artist, another pretty face who would sing all the "right" songs to make her a commercial success. So what did the record company say? Bye-bye, Ms. Curfman. She went on to finish high school, but never gave up on her music, in spite of not having the support of a record company. It took her 6 years to make a comeback, but she's back, without compromising, and can hold her head high: she stuck to her artistic convictions, and her fans love and respect her for it. She rocks! Shannon Curfman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even back in the 60's they always hired studio musicians to play on the records because the artists had "the look" but the studio musicians had the talent to cut a whole album in 1 day. Carol Kaye, one of the most prolific female musicians in recording history played guitar and electric bass on thousands of hits in the 50's and 60's, working for people like Sam Cooke, Richie Valens, Ray Charles, The Righteous Brothers, Ike & Tina Turner, Joe Cocker, the Beach Boys, Stevie Wonder, Supremes, Temptation, well you get the idea...
She was a single working mother of 3. Try selling that as a rock & roll image.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and all the Moms who let their little girls get into Britney the wholesome Disney freak. So they let them dress in belly-less shirts and sequins to elementary and middle school.
And dream of being Ariel, or Snow White or Cinderella. Or better yet, Hannah Montana!!!And enter beauty pageants dressed like 20 year old hookers. Then wonder why they get sexually abused.

Or better yet, have your daughter lie and say her Dad is in Iraq so she can win concert tickets. That'll teach character.

Face it my fellow ladies, women are our own worse enemy as women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anybody remember Ronnie Gilbert of the Weavers? She wasn't glamourous but sure could sing. Patsy Cline had a hell of a voice as well, but she was no Barbie. As previous posters have said, music is meant for the ears, not for the eyes. I remember when MTV first made its appearance and the dumbing-down of popular music began because what bands and individual singers looked like started to take priority over the music itself. Peace be with you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]