Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Justin Timberlake, One Direction. These artists, among many others, earn hundreds of million annually. Their songs are endlessly repeated on the radio and their record companies are constantly bombarding the public with their picture perfect images.
Together, these artists mostly prove that in order to be commercially successful, singers must be physically attractive. Or so it seems.
Ever since commercialized music became common, record companies have signed artists based on their physical appearance rather than their actual musical talent. Even bands such as The Beatles and The Beach Boys wouldn’t have been as successful if they were older or overweight.
When music videos became a popular form of art in the ‘80s, the artist’s “look” became even more important to his or her success. MTV, through its popularization of music videos, caused a major transition in the music industry.
Genuine musical talents, such as Adele and Ed Sheeran, who write their own songs, have been relatively ignored in comparison to many of the aforementioned artists, most likely because of their lack of “appeal.” One may argue that Adele and Sheeran do get radio time, but they aren’t featured as frequently on mainstream magazine covers or posters as Justin Bieber or One Direction.
Singers who can’t have their “look” marketed have to work twice as hard to get the same amount of exposure as their relatively talentless counterparts.
Try to picture an alternate universe in which listeners listen to music, but never see the artists who sing or write the songs. Listeners would most likely opt for the musicians whose music they believe sounds the best rather than those who look the best.
If listeners would only choose their preferred artists based on musical artistry, rather than simply listening to the artists backed by the strongest advertising teams, they might help counter the sad state of the modern music industry.
