"outsider" wrote in message

Will in New Haven wrote in
:

On Jun 1, 8:18 pm, D Mahoney wrote:
I don't understand why any decent person, who doesn't harm anyone,
should ever get negative media attention - regardless of
appearance, intelligence, or any other noteworthy features or
talents. The kind of cruelty she's had to endure is inexcusable.
If her singing were less impressive, that wouldn't have made it
more excusable.

Unfortunately society as a whole is deplorably insensitive and
cruel. It seems that as time goes on our society becomes less and
less civil. "Common sense" and "common courtesy" are both very
UNCOMMON commodities. The more I see of society, the more I
appreciate my cats.

I think the impression that things are getting worse in this respect
is quite wrong. I am not excusing the treatment this wonderful and
talented singer got from some quarters but this isn't new. Janis
Joplin was the victim of a huge amount of unkindness from people all
over the world, especially from the people in her home town. And
Janis was, in my certainly fallible opinion, an even greater talent.

I think that the media may actually _be_ worse today in this respect
but huge segments of society as a whole had no interest in seeing a
woman who was not conventionaly attractive back then. And some of the
worst of the abuse came from women.


--
Will in New Haven


Agreed about things have not changed in general and strongly agree
about Janice. I love the bus scene of her and Garcia in Festival
Express (I think it was those two). And if you want to talk about
one of the best voices ever Cass Eliot was right up there and she
suffered for her looks. Roy Orbison was overshadowed by the "pelvis
of elvis" but another "top 10" voice. This is not anything new. For
me, I could never understand why a singer's looks mattered.

Back when singers were simply singers, looks weren't such a big deal. Folks
didnt necessarily *watch* a singer, rather, they *listened*. The band and
the singer were often in the corner, and they were't *supposed* to be the
focal (ie visual) point of the room.

But now singers are supposed to be *entertainers* and a large part of that
entertainment is the visual component. Therfore 'entertainers' of the modern
world also have to give a good TV show and a 'spectacular' live performance.
The still need to be sexually attractive, they need to be able to act (at
least a little) they need to be able to dance (in general) they need to be
able to 'banter' with the audience and other members on stage and keep to
the script. To be a successful *entertainer* they need to give a good visual
performance as well as sound half decent ( I would argue that the visuals
are probably *more* important these days).

If Susan's management are smart, they'll distance her from TV and large
'entertainment centres' where a *show* is expected. If she does theatres and
smaller venues where its pretty much just her and whatever music is on
stage, and the audience is small and more intimate and she is not required
to act, dance, and keep to a script, i thinks she'll do OK. I also think
she'll do fantastically on CD sales & downloads and perhaps thats where
she'll excel the most. However, great 'entertainment spectaculars' I think
are out.

Bless her, I hope that whatever she does, she finds happiness.

Yowie
--
If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.