Either that, or they imagine it's easier and/or pays better!
Who's more glamourous - movie or music stars?
Either that, or they imagine it's easier and/or pays better!
Michael Jackson was a lot of things. "Glamourous" was not one of them! Being rich and/or crazy isn't the same thing as glamourous, at least in my mind.
DnD_Dad
First Post
I don't know about that. Towards the end of his life yes, bat .... crazy is the only way I can describe him, but if you look back a what he was in the late 80s-early 90s he was treated like royalty around the world. Droves of fanatic fans, appearances with every big figurehead in the world, elaborate spending(remember never land ranch). The guy owned his own amusement park.
Yup; exactly. This is not behaviour I would describe as "glamourous". As I said, rich does not equal glamourous, to me -- glamour includes displaying a certain type of taste and style.
I'm fine with other peoples' definitions being different to that - that's just what the word says to me. Not just splurging money around in as much excess as possible.
That doesn't work for me because what are actors doing when they make public appearances outside of movies or tv shows? They act, they're playing a role. It's what they do. If musicians make a public appearance and don't perform their songs, they're doing something that's not part of their job desciption (disclaimer: yeah, I know, they also have to promote their music somehow, but how many musicians actually enjoy that part?).
My perception is different. Imho, this isn't plenty, it's exceptions to the rule. Daniel Day Lewis is actually a great example because he strikes me as glamorous precisely because he makes himself so uncharacteristically rare. His eccentricity is the secret for his popularity in celeb shows.
I agree and think it's why you disagree with me: I wouldn't call any of the musicians I appreciate (and hence worth the name) 'glamorous'. I consider the vast majority of the music-stars that typically hog the top of the charts as completely irrelevant. They're at best entertainers, not artists. So, my view of the performing profession is clearly skewed
And this is probably a second and maybe even more important source of disagreement between us: I cannot think of any context in which I wouldn't describe someone like Michael Jackson as glamourous. It's actually one of the first examples I'd think of!
I don't really understand what you're saying there. I agree that musicians don't walk around singing 24/7. But Robert Downey Jr. doesn't walk around pretending he's Tony Stark 24/7, either, and I'm sure Christian Bale doesn't wear the Batman costume out to the local supermarket.
Yup. That's exactly what I was saying.
Whether they like it or not is completely irrelevant. I'm pretty sure Steve Tyler's putting on a show any time there's a camera in front of him, just like an actor would.
I have to agree with Morrus. Jackson was many things, but glamorous was not one of them. Why not? Because glamor makes you want to be near the person in question. Michael, meanwhile, carried many of the stamps of the form, "This is Nature's way of telling you to STAY AWAY!" He was rich, exccentric, and excessive... but beyond glamor and into weird and of questionable judgement.
No, he has a point. Any public figure has a "public face", a role they play to market themselves. Robert Downey Jr. doesn't pretend he's Tony Stark 24/7, but don't expect that the man you see when he goes on an interview show is the same as the guy at home in his den when there's no camera on him.
To see the point, think Marylin Monroe, and how different her public face was from what we eventually learned her personal life was like...
