Who's more glamourous - movie or music stars?
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Good question and a tough call. Being "glamorous" is a construct that I think the majority of movie stars who go that route, on occasions when they do (red carpet and the like), do well while music "stars" seem to try and cultivate their glamour as a lifestyle rather than an occasional effort. So, I'd give it to movie stars for quality but for musicians for quantity/sustained effort.
Hm.
I choose to take this in the geeky gamer sense: not as glamourous (charmingly or excitingly attractive), but as glamourous (covered in fae magic to make them appear as they are not)!
Then, I say they're both glamorous. The movie stars more Seelie, the musicians more Unseelie. But all fake. And don't eat anything they offer you if you visit them....
I choose to take this in the geeky gamer sense: not as glamourous (charmingly or excitingly attractive), but as glamourous (covered in fae magic to make them appear as they are not)!
Then, I say they're both glamorous. The movie stars more Seelie, the musicians more Unseelie. But all fake. And don't eat anything they offer you if you visit them....
Mary_Crowell
First Post
Either way, they both seem to have busy life styles that probably are a lot less glamourous on the inside looking out than the outside looking in.
I'm voting for actors being more glamorous, but musicians are more...normal.
So many actors seem so concerned about appearances, etc., the glitz, the glam. Seeing and being seen.
Get many musicians off stage, and they're regular joes.
(Full disclosure: I've met more of the latter than the former.)
So many actors seem so concerned about appearances, etc., the glitz, the glam. Seeing and being seen.
Get many musicians off stage, and they're regular joes.
(Full disclosure: I've met more of the latter than the former.)
Last edited:
trancejeremy
Adventurer
Musicians have a shorter glamour window, they burn brightly for a while, then usually become unpopular and end up writing tell all novels about the sick & twisted things they did when they were popular.
Definitely movie stars. It's kind of a requirement for their profession. They need to have a constant or at least consistent presence in the public.
While some music stars might also be called glamorous, in their case it's actually distracting from what they 'should' be known for, i.e. their music.
For musicians it's possible to entirely shun publicity if they're so inclined, not so for actors.
While some music stars might also be called glamorous, in their case it's actually distracting from what they 'should' be known for, i.e. their music.
For musicians it's possible to entirely shun publicity if they're so inclined, not so for actors.
I can't really agree with any of that. For example, I can replace your second line by changing a word or two with "While some movie stars might also be called glamorous, in their case it's actually distracting from what they 'should' be known for, i.e. their acting." Plenty of actors shun publicity. How often do you see Robert de Niro rolling out of nightclubs or appearing on TV chat shows? Daniel Day Lewis? Gene Hackman?
I couldn't even hazard a guess at the numbers, but I would imagine that our view of the acting profession is very skewed by that percentage of it that embraces these things. Many, many more simply go abuot their job and you never really hear about them until they appear in a another film.
