Monday December 29, 2003 @ 20:52 GMT
Features Issues and Advice Cool Stuff My Pupiline Forums Local Areas
Search for: on
Home » Cool Stuff » Music »
Featurespupiline interactives
Issues & Advice
Cool Stuff
  Fashion
  Film
  Freebies
  Gadgets
  Games
  Going Out
  Music
  Retro/Kitsch
  Sports
  Staying In
  Worldwide
My Pupiline
Forums
Local Areas
About Us
Links

Popstars - Good or Bad?

So, Popstars then - what did you think about it? ITV's latest ratings phenomenon has become the first major TV event of 2001, and millions tuned in to discover who the "final five" would be.

For the two of you who haven't seen it, it's a fly-on-the-wall, "reality" TV show charting the fortunes of hundreds of young wannabes as they audition themselves for a real life pop band.

By process of elimination, the hopefuls sang and danced their hearts out in front of a panel of judges (Nigel Lythgoe, Nicki Chapman and Paul Adam) in the hope that they might get one day closer to being in the band.

Ok, so we all know who made it in the end - (congratulations to Noel, Kym, Suzanne, Myleene and Danny) but did the judges choose the right people? Or did they just choose the usual, safe stereotypes when they could have used the program to maybe change our perception of what a pop band should look and sound like?

Because lets be honest, the five who did make it all had one thing in common: they were all slim, young, good looking and wore the right clothes - and this no doubt had an enormous influence on their success.

But is all this really fair? Time and time again we're told by the media that looks aren't everything and it's personality that counts - but try telling that to size 18 Claire who appeared on the show with a great personality, an amazing singing voice and dancing ability, but was told "she wasn't right for the band". Was this really the truth or was it just a nice way of saying "you're too fat"?

Or how about the hopeful who was told that, at 30, she was too old to be in the selection. She left the auditions crying and emotional, apologising to her mum on national television that she was sorry, and that all the doors of opportunity had been closed to her in the music industry because of her age.

Yes, the final five were really talented, no doubt about it - but wouldn't it have been nice for the judges to pick a less safe bunch, a group who went against our good looking expectations. It would surely be a novelty to have a "normal" looking band in the charts, taking on the dry-brushed likes of Westlife and Atomic Kitten….and being a novelty, a one-off - isn't that all important in the making of a great pop band?

Because of programs like Popstars, the idea that good looks equals success was reinforced once more. True, sex appeal is an all important factor in pop music - but does this mean that pop stars always have to have traditional good looks? Doesn't sex appeal amount to more than just appearance? Ask yourself, do you really want the hunky likes of Westlife or do you just accept them because that's all the record companies deliver?

Popstars makes for addictive TV that's for sure, and from the safety of your settee it's easy to laugh at the contestants who you think are useless or don't like. But at such a young age (most were 18-20), and when negative personal comments can seriously dent confidence for future adult life - was it responsible for ITV to publicly show the downfall of many optimistic and motivated youngsters? (and in the case of "Nasty" Nigel, bringing the bad news in such a blunt and cold manner) You couldn't really blame them if they've been put off performing for good.

The world of pop music is harsh and cut-throat, so you could argue that they all knew what they were getting themselves into when they agreed to be part of the program - and yes, the show wouldn't have been half as good if it didn't have such a harsh and nervy edge to it. But does that make it right to use the shattering of dreams as a way of entertaining people? Just imagine what some of the "less than talented", unsuccessful applicants are going through right now - the ridicule of friends and the depression of failure are sure to set in as their efforts are broadcast for all to see.

So, as an idea for a television program, was Popstars really just an excuse to exploit - cruelly - the hopes and dreams of hundreds of young people? Did it just reinforce the message that "looks are everything"? Or…is this all just nonsense and is it just a really great, entertaining show? Tell us your views in the Forum! Or e-mail us at editor@pupiline.net.

- Eddy Vista

Popstars
Do you think the Popstars band will get to No.1?
Yeah because they're really good
Yeah because of the TV programme
No because they're crap


The Music Industry
What do you think of the British Music Industry at the moment?
Great, all the music in the charts is fantastic
OK, there's not too much good stuff around though
Terrible and Westlife are the worst band of all time!

©1999-2003 Pupiline Limited, 2003-2008 Creative Commons. For info email Oli Originally powered by KeConnect Internet, now powered by XCalibre and the Big Boost, recovered thanks to Warrick


©1999-2003 Pupiline Limited, 2003-2008 Creative Commons. For info email Oli Originally powered by KeConnect Internet, now powered by XCalibre and the Big Boost, recovered thanks to Warrick


©1999-2003 Pupiline Limited, 2003-2008 Creative Commons. For info email Oli Originally powered by KeConnect Internet, now powered by XCalibre and the Big Boost, recovered thanks to Warrick