It always confuses me that pop stars aren't *better* looking, if it's all so dependent on looks. I think with pop stars in particular, their looks are part of a broader context - most of these kids seem to have come off some child talent quest circuit where the parents push them obsessively to make names for themselves (surely the preponderance of Mickey Mouse Club members is not merely a cosmic joke). Obviously good looks are important if the kids want to have any staying power at that sort of game, but I bet it's the parents' networking that
counts in the jump from talent quest to pop single.
This is why Popstars as a phenomenon makes so much sense to me - the "ordinary people becoming pop stars" angle only works if you believe that the good looking, competently singing/dancing finalists who make the cut are actually different to the "real" pop stars. The difference is that Popstars the show is an isolated experience; the "real" pop stars have probably been effectively competing in Popstars their entire lives. The "judged on their merit (according to chartpop values)" philosophy behind Popstars is in some ways a democratisation of the real process, allowing the contestants to basically walk out of their "other" lives and straight into the heart of the machine.
― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 07:38 (twenty-two years ago)