What do you mean? One one hand you realize she's gotten far, one the other hand you seem to be unhappy about the reasons for it?

I mean she got far despite being extremely ugly, doesn't that prove that looks in fact dont always matter?

There have been some really ugly talented singers who have won talent shows in the past. A win for the under dog. Every dog has its day. Being a good singer and good looking are mutually exclusive events. Pop stars tend to be good looking but have little  singing ability.

SuBo is an opera/classical singer which is totally different from pop singing.

Society tends to judge people primarily on their physical appearance due to being brainwashed with a narrow/shallow perspective on the world. If you look weird aka ugly people will judge. It is a cruel unfair world. But that is the way life is. Anyway who cares what people think, be happy with who you are. If someone tells you to change then they are not worth knowing.

What do you mean? One one hand you realize she's gotten far, one the other hand you seem to be unhappy about the reasons for it?

I mean she got far despite being extremely ugly, doesn't that prove that looks in fact dont always matter?

This is the situation; Britain's got talent and other shows like this aren't exactly talent shows at all, they're popularity contests. Susan Boyle does have the talent to go far, but so do many people like her. The reason she won was that she was sold as an oddity like "Hey look, you know how singers can only be thin, blonde and stunning", well here's one that isn't... Isn't that wonderful", manufactured to be different and that was her selling point.

The fact is that Susan Boyle isn't unique, I would be willing to bet that thousands of women in Britain are amazing singers like her, but also like her they don't have the image to succeed. Susan Boyle got a lucky break being on the show, because they decided to push her as something unique.

This rejection happens all the time. There is a popular music industry term called "the wrong side of 25", perfectly talented singers get rejected from record companies because they are too old and old singers don't sell as well because a lot of popular music is more based on the image as opposed to the music. The music can be perfect but they will be rejected on image alone.

KT Tunstall, a popular singer here, was constantly rejected for years because she was in her 30's when she was trying to get signed. Eventually she managed it, but she is a lucky case amongst thousands. I think she has amazing talent, her albums are incredible, I'm glad she got signed; But I also can't help but think what other great music got rejected.

The point I'm trying to make is that Susan Boyle is the "wrong side of 25" as it were, and she has been marketed as a unique talent due to this. But she isn't unique, she's just the latest strategy that record producers have come up with to sell something "new" to public, because the public have got it into their heads that you have to be a perky blonde teenager to be able to sing.

I mean just look at the thread title "Do you think Susan Boyle can become a sexy popstar", like sexy is some kind of prerequisite.

It annoys me... That's why I like thrash metal, the politics isn't as shit j/k.

Ok, I understand now.

But it's not only the record companies or medias fault, it's also the consumers who prefer the pretty over the ugly. If the market was there, the ugly good singers would get contracts. But most common people, the market, are shallow.