Discuss

Galvasean

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I thought the whole thing seemed very scripted/cleverly edited to me.

As with 99% of those TV talent shows.
Am I the only one who initially taught her voice had been altered/enchanced by editing? Or am I just completely blinded by preconception?
I dunno, call me cynical but I can't help but feel reminded of the Michelle McManus PR stunt of a few years ago.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

I dunno, call me cynical but I can't help but feel reminded of the Michelle McManus PR stunt of a few years ago.

more please?

Catari Jaguar

OMG! That Cry me a River song is incredible. Is that her??

I don't think she's unattractive as such, it's just that she seems a bit special maybe... And she looks a bit naive and innocent. A bit of a tweeze, some make up, a nice dye and cut, a stylish outfit and she'd be a star ready for any stage.

Acacia

Galvasean wrote: »

Now that you mention it I can't think of too many female rock stars off the top of my head.

Metal and rock is still a bit of a boys' club, imo. And most female rock stars still have to fit into another convention of beauty (the hot goth/rock chick) to get recognition, e.g. Cristina Scabbia of Lacuna Coil and Brody Dalle of the Distillers. The emphasis is still more about what they look like , than their music. Or the very fact that they are a 'woman in rock'. Granted, it's not quite as bad as other music industries, but still, the double standards are there.

Dudess wrote: »

And if they're not conventionally beautiful, journalists won't shut the **** up about it - it defines them. E.g. Beth Ditto, Janis Joplin, Amy Winehouse.

Yep, patronising bullsh1t on the part of the tabloids , constantly bleating on about ugly girls achieving their dreams 'against the odds'. :rolleyes:

Galvasean

Deleted User wrote: »

more please?

Won pop-idol a few years ago. Wiki.

She basically won as 'the big girl with the big voice' even though TBH her voice wasn't all that great. Clearly won only as a gimmick because shows like Pop Idol were getting a lot of flak for only going for certain 'types'. The fact that they only bothered letting her record one album ever shows that they were just doing it to avoid more criticism. Basically "Hey look, we let the big girl win once now sod off".

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Won pop-idol a few years ago. Wiki.

I remember her winning but didn't realise it was a PR stunt! I wasn't obviously paying much attention!

Sure didn't that other guy Rick Waller get a "sore throat" during pop idol and never was seen again? I heard at the time that he was paid to leave the show - no links or proof btw.

Jules

Even "beautiful women" are subjected to things like this by record companies, anyone remember the whole Anastasia thing. She has Crohns Disease and has a scare on her tummy which was airbrushed out of pics and single/album covers and was also made to lie about her age, as people at her company thought she was too old and would be marketable!

Wibbs

Dudess wrote: »

Agreeing it's a reality isn't the same as accepting it. There are factors to consider too, such as: is it nurture or nature? In the case of the latter, can it thus be helped? Although, seeing as men who aren't that blessed looks-wise aren't subject to such scrutiny, I'm inclined to think it's a good deal to do with nurture... but also nature. Hasn't it been established that men are more visual creatures than women?
And are our notions of beauty constructed or simply objective? Would e.g. Cheryl Cole have been considered such a ravishing beauty 200 years ago?

I'd say nature is the majority of it. Beauty is an external indicator of reproductive health and that external visual indicator is more important for women it seems. Now there are societal factors, but even those IMHO are still based on the nature part. Loads of studies, including cross cultural ones show similar results for female attractiveness. I read a good one where they got an amazonian tribe and took pictures of the women and asked western types to pick out those they thought would be considerd the most beautiful and they matched with the tribes men's results.

Fashion especially as far as something like women's weight does vary over time and the society(abundance of food resources etc. Scarce food, bigger women, plentiful food, skinnier women as a general rule). It seems more so than for men anyway.

What fashion goes for is only part of it. I would pretty much ignore high fashion anyway, as it's mostly decided by gay men and other women, so the reproductive attractiveness bit is largely missing. Very very few straight men are attracted to hipless women that look starved, ehnce not too many of that type in porn. Indeed fatter women would have a much bigger pron market. Anorexia is not a good indicator of health in general or reproductive health in particular.

I would look at what the average looks for in both genders and that is pretty consistent. Cheryl cole? Over time and societies fashions, she is too skinny in general, but if she had an average healthy weight? I would be very surprised if she wouldn't be considered a beauty as far as her facial features are concerned. Big eyes, lips, small jaw, regular features all good signs of oestrogen levels.

It did feel like a bit of a fix to me too I must say.

Piste

I don't think it's a fix, but maybe I'm just being a bit naive. I don't think she was putting on an "act" either, I think she's genuinely a bit strange.

It is a bit sickening alright how people are treating the fact that she's fat and unattractive as if it's some sort of disability. There's a good article about what the reaction of the media would be if she couldn't sing, would people be so forgiving or would they feel justified in ridiculing her?

http://ow.ly/3c2m

The Huffington Post wrote:

Like millions of viewers, I was thrilled and moved when 47-year-old Susan Boyle wowed the judges and audience on Britain's Got Talent with her superb singing. As everyone knows by now, the unmarried, "never been kissed" woman from a small village was greeted by both the audience and the talent show's judges with derision when she first took the stage. Looking matronly in her somewhat frumpy dress and unkempt hair, her appearance initially elicited smug, condescending and even cruel smirks, smiles and chuckles. What could this "un-cool," plain-spoken woman have to offer? What right did she have to share the stage with all those young, pretty, talented people?

Then Susan opened her mouth and sang. And her voice was so powerful, so achingly beautiful, so full of yearning, that even the usually heartless Simon Cowell was blown away. As were the other judges, and the audience, all of whom gave Susan a standing ovation. And now, online and elsewhere, Susan's voice, and the story of her triumph on that stage, are known throughout the world.

There's even news of a record contract, and the odds-makers who track these things believe she's the current favorite to win the competition. More tellingly, everyone is talking and blogging about her "inner beauty," and how Susan reminds us that we shouldn't judge a book by its cover, etc.

I'm happy for her. She appears to be a solid, decent person for whom, God knows, some good luck is long overdue.

But I can't help wondering, what would have been the reaction if Susan Boyle couldn't sing?

What would the judges and the audience have thought, and said, had her voice been a creaky rasp, or an out-of-tune shriek? Would she still possess that "inner beauty?" Would we still acknowledge that the derisive treatment she received before performing was callous, insensitive and cruel?

The unspoken message of this whole episode is that, since Susan Boyle has a wonderful talent, we were wrong to judge her based on her looks and demeanor. Meaning what? That if she couldn't sing so well, we were correct to judge her on that basis? That demeaning someone whose looks don't match our impossible, media-reinforced standards of beauty is perfectly okay, unless some mitigating circumstance makes us re-think our opinion?

Personally, I'm gratified that her voice inspires so many, and reminds us of our tendency to judge and criticize based on shallow externals of beauty. What I mean is, I'm glad for her.

But I have no doubt that, had she performed poorly, Simon Cowell would be rolling his eyes still. And the audience would have hooted and booed with the relish of Roman spectators at the Colosseum. And that Susan Boyle's appearance on the show would still be on YouTube, but as an object of derision and ridicule.

So let's not be too quick to congratulate ourselves for taking her so fully to our hearts. We should've done that anyway, as we should all those we encounter who fall outside the standards of youth and beauty as promulgated by fashion magazines, gossip sites, and hit TV shows.

We should've done that anyway, before Susan Boyle sang a single note.

Lobelia Overhill

Lil Kitten wrote: »

OMG! That Cry me a River song is incredible. Is that her??

Yes that's her!

The Daily Record has been doing bits about Susan all week, apparently she was oxygen deprived at birth and has a "learning difficulty", she lived with her elderly mother, until she passed away two years ago, and has been practically a hermit ever since. Seems she's mortified at the way she was wiggling her hips on the stage and won't be doing that again!

Fair do's to her, she looked like a drunken aunt at a wedding who was going to start singing something very badly before falling off the stage, until she actually started to sing!

Galvasean

Was reading in the paper (think it was Friday or Satuday's Indo) that apparently that was not the judges' first time seeing Susan Boyle perform, so all the mega-shocked reactions were faked for the cameras.
Kinda takes away from the magic if it's true.

Walls

I'd doubt that one. I think that the show's producers would have been well clued in as to her talent, and Ant and Dec (daft names) would have known as well. But no, the judges on the night didn't know.

JC 2K3

How do you know?

I suspected from the start that it was all faked. You can't trust anything you see on TV as being genuine.

Walls

JC 2K3 wrote: »

How do you know?

I suspected from the start that it was all faked. You can't trust anything you see on TV as being genuine.

Me? Em...well, I'm psychic, but I usually use my powers for good.

It's just my impression from watching it, they ran the short montage of her beforehand to set up the view that she was frumpy, and then the reaction of the two men on the side of the stage was too triumphant rather than surprised. They were in on it.

JC 2K3

I meant that the judges didn't know. I suspect they did.