Aside from taht, though, it occurs to me that when you're talking about "stars" in music these days, playing music is only part of the job description, no? Lady Gaga being a good example - there's a whole lot of showmanship to musical stardom these days beyond just playing music.
Would you want to be near Lady Gaga? I wouldn't!
Anyway, there are musicians that are known for their music and then there are musicians that are known for their shows. The question is: Which kind is more common?
The same can be said for actors, too, though, e.g. 'Brangelina' is (are?) typically don't make it into the headlines because of their acting prowess...
The message that the multitudinous music talent shows want to promote is exactly that: To become a music star you have to make a good show and good looks and dancing skills are at least as important as a good voice. How comes then that almost no one who's won one of these shows actually becomes a star?
To me, if someone doesn't write her own songs, she's not even a music star - she's just a performer.
The kind of music stars I'm thinking of are Radiohead or Pearl Jam or maybe Bruce Springsteen or Bob Dylan. I find the other kind of 'music' stars, say Rhianna or Ke$ha only tolerable if I turn off the sound ^^
Anyway, at least the discussion has shown me that the answer isn't as clear-cut as I thought and my idea what 'glamour' means might be wrong.
It's hard to describe but I always felt thar glamorous meant that someone is somehow 'larger than life'. It also has a component of superficiality and 'falsehood' to it: The Fey use glamour to make illusions seem real or to turn 'base' items into something precious. To them glamour _is_ real. Also, Fey are incapable of original thought or creation which is why they enjoy abducting humans with artistic talent.
To me, stars of the Show-Biz (be they actors or 'music stars') are the modern, real-world Fey.
