Sunday, February 5, 2012

Great Look, No Talent

How are producers and music record companies so oblivious to realize there are talented artists in the world. Except, these producers would rather choose the "beautiful, sexual, promiscuous" looking females that are somewhat already exposed to the media. Such as the famous Kim Kardashian,
who was introduced to the media in 2007 with the release of her sex video scandal. Years went, and Kim Kardashian was still included in new magazine articles, but to flaunt her bodacious body, and her "famous" butt. Kardashian became the spot light of every magazine cover such as Playboy Magazine and Glamour,

 and landed a reality show on TLC, "Keeping Up With the Kardashians," following "Kim and Kourtney Take New York" which are television series filled with dramatic life problems that people find "entertaining." 

Kardashian is considered a well known face in Los Angeles, New York, Miami, etc. Producers found her to be eye candy to the male population in urban cities across the United States. Being so, Kim Kardashian was contracted to a record label with her first released single "Jam (Turn It Up)" in early 2011.
Kim Kardashian makes money with her face, "curves", and specifically her butt. But in honesty, according to the ratings from TMZ.com, where real fans comment about their opinions, seems to lean toward the "dislike" category. Just because a famous female has the physical features of a "goddess" and exposes her skin to the media in almost every photograph, doesn't mean she's talented in everything. 

Maybe the producers had the intention of selling millions because she's so well known, and auto tune can correct every little flaw in Kardashian's voice, but this single backfire, and Kardashian hasn't released another single since. Who would have ever considered Kim Kardashian to be a singer? Apparently, the ones that are focused more on physical aspects of the artist instead of the actual talent. 
SEX SELLS! 

Kim, stick to the cameras.

6 comments:

  1. Musical talent is obviously not considered when counting towards Kim Kardashian’s mainstream success. What I personally consider Kim Kardashian to be is an entertainer; a singer would require more discipline yet Kardashian steps up to the plate into category of being labeled as a “singer” from her audience. Its obvious that the stream of her success is driven by her scandalous nature. This would give an impression to many, preyful males in how they should portray all women. For that, you need to be like a Kardashian to be considered “beautiful” and such. Having mainstream success and being given millions of dollars by just having “good looks” certainly does not imply that a person is entirely successful. One can say that she was handed everything down to her without displaying much musical skill, or any skill at all. The only great actions she pertains to could be pertaining as a drama queen and nothing else. Sadly, people like these are paid millions of dollars for complaining about the smallest of problems and milking them out to become the biggest deal of them all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with what you're trying to say. When you mention how Kim Kardashian is seen as an entertainer rather than a musician/artist, since my sole purpose of this blog post was to point out the only reason why Kim Kardashian landed this record label was because of her media spotlight.

    It just shows that producers are looking for talent anymore, they're looking for good looking people, with POTENTIAL future in the music industry. It's sad how music today is not the same music a decade ago.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The way I see it also, is that if Kim Kardashian didn't have that face or body of hers, she wouldn't be as far in media as she is now. I agree with what Josh is saying because people nowadays could gain popularity with their looks and body type rather than talent like being a singer as what others accomplished back in the days. It's true, music today is not the same as a decade ago, also including the lyrics and what music refers to now. There's more to talent than just looks for having a "famous butt" like Kardashian.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kim Kardashian is just another one of those cases where you have a very attractive model that does the music thing. Like Paris Hilton, another talentless diva. I wonder what Kim will try next... Acting in films maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kim Kardashian is nothing but a women for guys to look at. I agree with the fact that she has no talent at all and the only think she's good for is her body. I don't know why people pay so much attention to her when there plenty of other people out there who have much more talent worth noticing that her. I just hate the fact that our society is full of people like her are given so much attention over nothing. What has happened to true talent in this world?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I disagree with Cameron because everyone is saying how Kim has no talent and how everyone only loves her for her body. What many fail to mention is the fact that she is always on the run, she is never home runs her own fashion store, clothing and fragrance line, and is also the spokesperson for Quick Trim the dietary supplement pill for quick weight loss. Sure she isn't a great actress, singer, or wife but she is talented in the fact that she does all those things and still maintains a healthy relationship with her family.

    ReplyDelete