RoR: Forum

"...next to Rosita, Mama Cass would look like Karen Carpenter..."

evil, EVIL...:p

"Karen Carpenter died at 32,
and if you don't eat a thing, You'll die, too."

Now I want a ham sandwich.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/17, 2:10am)

Post 1

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 4:36am

PS - Rosita won! :-)

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 5:26am

The format of this show was created in the UK with the original Pop Idol. Simon Cowell created the show and earns phenomenal amounts from the international success. He earned a reputation for being a 'nasty' judge.

Interestingly, in the second series of Pop Idol, there was one very fat lad, Rick Waller, who made it through to a late stage. Simon Cowell continued to battle against his success, pointing out that a pop idol needs to be attractive. Meatloaf was successful, but by packaging himself as a rocker, not as a pop singer. I recall Cowell saying something like "If Rick wins the competition, this show has been a complete failure".

So Rosita won. The voting public have said that she is their pop idol. Clearly the public's consistency will be shown by the amount of her CDs they purchase, and by how many of them decorate their rooms with pictures of Rosita.

Post 3

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 6:50am

Hahahahaha!!!

Excellent commentary Linz.

Though I fear Rosita will not fade away so quickly. It isn't her musical talent that will win her publicity but her weight. I predict that she will hang around in the NZ Woman's magazines and NZ reality TV shows for about 1-2 years gaining mileage about her struggle with her diet, fatophobic producers, Howard Morrison etc etc etc.

Witness how the similarly proportioned Joe Cotton - from the truly awful band True Bliss - kept popping up every 6 months. Now Joe has slimmed down to "normal pop-star proportions" she will now fade out of the lime-light in favour of Rosita.

Such is life in the F-grade celebrity-media biz.

Post 4

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 8:04am

PS - Rosita won! :-)

How could she lose? She had the sympathy vote after her drubbing down. Champions of the underdog are legion and they always root for a victim.

Post 5

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 7:28am

I guess it's over cause the fat lady sang *rimshot*

On a more serious note I do believe its possible for a overweight woman to have perfected aesthetically integrated body, looking at the Venus de Milo, the works of Peter Paul Rubens, or my girlfriend is all the proof I need. And no this does not mean I believe that "everyone is beautiful" line, there are plenty of ugly people.

edit: I seem to be practicing word omission instead of measurement omission these days

(Edited by Stephen Nonte on 10/17, 12:02pm)

Post 6

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 10:53am

"On a more serious I do believe its possible for a overweight woman to have perfected aesthetically integrated body"

Queen Latifah, Sophie Dahl, Marylin Monroe - all "overweight" by today's standards and all hot by mine. Some have said that I'm a "chubby-chaser" because I like women who look like women, not racing toothpicks!

But beauty isn't what the 'Pop' industry is about, it's about tits & arses in ultra-tight, skimpy clothing (in other words: sex). And large girls dancing around in ultra-tight clothing don't look good on TV (which adds about 10-20 lbs, if you believe the magazines), thus Howard Morrison's criticism is valid. Rosita isn't cut out to be a 21st Century Pop Star.

If the Pop industry was about singing, none of the "stars" would be expected to do hard-core aerobic dance routines on stage while "performing." Even Mario Lanza would sound awful if he had to sing while doing jumping-jacks.
(Edited by Robert Winefield on 10/17, 12:57pm)

Post 7

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 11:00am

DAMN MTV. The visuals have replaced the music. Time was, back in my day, you could be ugly, fat, have three eyes, but as long as it sounded good, who cared? Music plays second fiddle, and you're lucky if you even hear it among the chatter of 10 year olds given shout outs to friends (WHO THE FUCK CARES!)?

Jill Scott, an R&B singer, at least bucked the trend. After a successful first album (WHO IS JILL SCOTT, the actual title), it was said it wouldn't last because she was heavy set. She proved them wrong.

Video killed the radio star, but let's hope the iPod kills video.

Post 8

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 12:34pm

Unfortunately, America's first "idol," Kelly Clarkson, has neglected to fade into obscurity, and is instead churning out one musical abortion after another. She is kinda hot though, so I can't bring myself to complain too much.

Post 9

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 12:53pm

Exactly Andrew,

Half of MTV = soft porn in the guise of music (The other half is nihilistic dross in the guise of music.) Now there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you recognise it for what it is.

As for the music, I'm with Joe - Long live iPod and iTunes!!!

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 10/17, 12:54pm)

Post 10

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 1:02pm

MTV is one of those companies that I criticize for making money at the expense of the product. It used to be MUSIC Television, but they found they could make more money with game shows, beach parties, and Beavis and Butthead. Sure, I know, I know, they are in business to make money, answer to stockholders, etc..
If that's what they want to do, fine with me. Just one small favor: Change the name. Don't call it MTV if music is not the focus. Hell, they started an MTV 2 to play videos, and even that's been co-opted.

Seriously, is there no money in music that they have to focus on non-music? It's like Avon selling power tools because they lack the male demographic.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/17, 1:03pm)

Post 11

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 5:05pm

There's got to be a philosophical principle in there somewhere.

You know, a reason why such mediocrity is so widespread that it is resoundingly successful.

After having to produce some of that pop-type shit as part of my job at a recording company in Brazil, I just lost the enthusiasm for trying to discover it.

One person chooses the song. Another the wardrobe. Another the choreography. Another sometimes actually sings while the "artist" lip-syncs. Another does the sound and video production, including arranging, playing instruments, camera work, editing, etc. Then the "artist" looks at all that and says, "I'm a fucking genius." The public eats it up.

(yawn)

(Not all pop is shit, however. For some reason, I can't get the James Bond theme of "For Your Eyes Only" out of my head these days - what a beautiful song...)

Enjoy yourself in NZ, Linz. I change the channel in both the USA and Brazil. I wonder if this crap is widespread in Bangladesh, too.

Michael

Post 12

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 5:46pm

Good point, Michael, there CAN be good "pop." I get pissed at people who dismiss pop simply because it's tuneful and such. (Knew a little punk girl who wouldn't let us play a Motown Christmas CD at work one time because it was "overproduced" and "too commercial." The Motown sound can be beautiful, because they took the groove and liveliness of blues and soul and applied an orchestral approach, incorporating classical ideas and instrumentation. But that makes it "appropriated" by the white man, I suppose.
Pop music wouldn't be "popular" if it sounded like shit, would it? No avant garde warbling, there has to be tight melodies, tight performances, and tight productions to be a good pop song, at least.

Post 13

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 10:34pm

There�s an Australian Idol as well. I watched the first half hour once, which was more than enough. The majority of what passes for music these days is just cacophony.

Post 14

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 1:40am

The other day I forgot my earplugs when I went to the gym, where, as usual, they had headbanging caterwauling blaring. I had to cut short my workout, so unbearable was the din. Mindless, unspeakable garbage, fit only for sub-animals.

Post 15

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 3:05pm