Susan Boyle's Success is Not In Spite of Her Looks
Let's be clear on this one. Let's be really clear for one second. Susan Boyle is not a bad singer. She's got pitch, she ain't bad. She's pretty good, for a person with absolutely no training, but she's also not transcendent. And let's now think about this for one second, let's really be clear on this one. If she was ten years younger, and instead of homely looking, just was sort of plain? You'd never have noticed her.
Susan Boyle does not succeed in spite of her looks, as the Hollywood story we all want to make her out of would suggest, but because of them. We are not so special and good and sensitive for making her into a star. We are not fantastic people who can look past her appearance. The fact is, if you heard her on the radio, you'd probably say, "Huh, that's not exactly what I was looking for" and change the channel.
She's just not a pop singer. She doesn't sing the kind of music that most of us actually enjoy, this sort of operatic stuff is just not what we buy. She's not Ella. She's not Aretha. She isn't Joan Osborne. Make fun of the "What if God Was One Of Us" song as much as you like, go back, take a listen to one of her albums, that woman's got pipes. Check out her album "How Sweet It Is", where she takes a bunch of songs from the sixties and seventies, rearranges them and does her own take on songs like "War", "Axis Bold as Love", and "How Sweet It Is"? It's a really terrific album. Most folks? They're not really going to know her work. You know why? Because she's not great looking. She's not bad looking, not at all. But she's not this fantastic face. She looks pretty much like a normal human being. So she has some fans, a small grouping out there like me who actually like her voice and her compositions, but she's not getting the hits of Susan Boyle.
Susan Boyle is the other side of the coin in our appearance obsessed culture. She's the negative of all that youth and sex obsessed culture of ours, but that doesn't mean that she's not reliant on it. Quite the opposite. The reason that we are interested in Susan Boyle is because she's a foil of a pop star.
Hey look, all the best to her, and if she does well, great. I'm not going to buy her album, because I'm actually not interested in her music, but that may just be me. All I'm trying to say is this: anyone who's upset about Susan Boyle's looks becoming the story? They always have been. There's this huge spectrum from condescending pity/joy of her success through bad jokes on late night TV, and I'm pretty sure that 90% of us are on it. And that entire spectrum has not been the struggle she's overcome, but her road to success.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Kate Smith had no talent. Couldn't sing a note.
People all over America just felt sorry for her, or were a little surprised when she blew a roof off when singing about a flag, but otherwise, she really wasn't very talented, and what everyone really noticed was that she was fat, but it was kind rude in those days, I guess, to kick someone off of a stage just because they were, well... let's just say it... ugly.
Oh, WAIT! Kate Smith wasn't ugly or ridiculed as a mediocre talent that was overblown because... because... oh yeah...
Kate Smith wore makeup.
Yeah, that's it. At least she wore makeup.
But Susan Boyle, yeah, I would not think that she has absolutely, POSITIVELY one of the most remarkably pleasing, plaintive, rich and joyous singing voices I've ever heard, including her rendition of "KILLING ME SOFTLY," (open another window, Google it, listen, I'll wait here) if she didn't have the most atrocious sense of fashion and have uncolored, kinky hair and no makeup.
I applaud Susan and all who feel her performance is worth commenting on. Whatever our thoughts, the tsunami of response is evidence that music is important to us as humans. Even as suicide bombers make headlines, we're touched deeply by the power of song (many, at least). And for those who feel the need to reduce the phenomenon to simple marketing or media hype....."
I'm no expert, but I've listened to a great deal of vocal music in my life. And I've programmed all genres of music on my local NPR affiliate for the last 15 years - from opera to jazz and blues to world music and more. Over time, you get a good feel for what works and what doesn't. And why.
Susan Boyle's voice works for one simple reason - she sings the song. She listens to the words, not the sound of her own voice. That's what works for some of the 'odd' but famous voices that have been mentioned here like Dylan and Cohen or Rickie Lee, for that matter. That Susan combines apparent sincerity with decent technique makes her presentation interesting and enjoyable. Not great. Interesting and enjoyable.
The rest is up to us. Do we want to listen? Apparently we do. Millions do. That means that somebody has to write about it. The more who listen, the more somebodies who write. Dickerman is a writing somebody who will get a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, hits on this article and then a quick fade. Susan will probably fade fairly quickly, too. Our memory of her will be a pleasant one. Same for Dickerman? I doubt it.
If this were the music era of Kate Smith and radio, Susan would be just another fine voice. In the '50s Toni Arden, not unlike Kate, was also popular and possessed an extraordinary voice--sadly rather hard to look at, but no one cared because music was for listening, not for visuals and fireworks.
Two songs sans training and the public is already smitten; not yet time to writer her off IMHO!
Y'all can like or dislike whomever you choose, but as my mama used to say, "Well, they have to have something to write about." It is natural there will be a wide range of opinions on Susan Boyle, or any artist, when there are over six billion of us. Such is the luck of the draw, and it would be unsufferably boring if we all thought alike. There is no dispute, however, on the impact this woman has made in the industrialized world, thanks to the Internet. Everyone seems to be caught up in the quality of her voice versus her appearance which is characterized by "we love her because we hate her she is ugly and should not be able to sing, and boy, should we be ashamed, etc.etc." What I saw and heard a few bars into the song was something we experience rarely in our lives and that was a visceral recognition of a true momemt, a sensation, a word much used, but seldom experienced. Mr. Dickerman and sundry others were not moved; well over 100 million apparently were. At any rate, Pebbles the cat is set for life and Susan gets to sing in front of large audiences.
Even the Met singers aren't as good as they used to be. It e seems to be more about who you know than how you sing.
But I Do have a friend with a magnificent voice ( fully trained!) operatic, not musical or pop.......
Maybe they were never that good.
Susan has a very good voice, but the score for the song she sang calls for moving from the key of E-flat up a step to F for the last verse. I was disappointed when she shortened the song and skipped the step to a higher key. To me it indicated that she wasn't quite at the "great" or "professional" level needed to sing that song in a production of "Les Mis..". Still, this was supposed to be a competition among amateurs, and as such, she was very, very good. I think if these shows were really talent searches limited to non-professionals, Susan would deserve all of the credit given no matter her looks. Unfortunately, the shows are, however, scams, with professionals often allowed to compete. In competition with (even unknown) professionals, she probably can't hold her own without the element of "surprise" due to her frumpiness. I think Susan is great and would love to hear her sing karioke at her local pub, but she's not ready for a professional career (and I would hate to see her exploited). I hope she has a good agent so she comes out of this with with a little money and her self-image intact.
The point is ,Susan Boyles is NOT a professional.
According to the rules for the audition portion of that show, they are supposed to have one minute to impress the judges. Even the abridged version Susan sang was longer than that, so it's no wonder she shortened the song.
Well, duh. It''s pretty obvious that Susan's looks make her voice sound all the more beautiful. I don't know why so many people have a problem admitting that. Maybe it's because western culture is so beauty- and youth-obsessed that when we hear a better-than-average voice coming from a homely, middle-aged, fat woman, we fall all over ourselves with overblown praise and our need to defend her right to achieve show biz success despite her lack of physical beauty.
I think it's less that we're beauty-obsessed and more that we're in denial. Me? I don't see what's wrong with liking beauty.
What passes for "great" singing talent on "American Idol" - and other such reality shows - is often
just pretty good. Most of the public wouldn't know exceptional talent if they saw it - and these days, the bar
is awfully low.
Susan is a very good singer, but not a great one. Her appeal is her unexpected, "underdog" charm
and genuine, un-Hollywood demeanor. That's what gives her performances their emotional power.
But let's not pretend she's the Next Great Singer.
The hubub around Susan Boyle is huge, so I'm not certain anyone has their finger exactly on what it's about, but yes, I agree with this post. But I would add that there are other things going on, here. It was more than her looks or any "trancendent" singing ability (alone) that turned a good performance into a phenomenon. If it weren't for her striking expressiveness and the comfortable stage skills of a seasoned entertainer, there wouldn't have been the jaw-dropping "superman-
Her voice is like an angel's.
Her looks are not.
Her name is Susan Boyle.
Boyle stands for hot.
I hope she makes it in the business. It does my heart good to see raw talent win over untalented good looks.
'She doesn't sing the kind of music that most of us actually enjoy, this sort of operatic stuff....' That seems to just about sum up your perspective here.
Les Miserables ain't opera. It's a musical, and it's songs are easily classified as popular. You really don't know what you are talking about do you? I wonder to whom you refer when you say 'most of us.' Actually, It's going to be interesting to see what this woman does, now that she is going to be promoted, as undoubtedly she will. I've heard two songs, 'I dreamed a dream' and ' and she sounded damn fine to me, if a little conventional for my taste.
Hey, i love Joan Osborne, and she IS a good lookin' woman. Actually, it was her work on Standing in the Shadows of Motown that introduced me to Joan, and i got the whole package there. Really don't get your point here. Seems to me that beauty is in the eye AND the ear of the beholder, and you've got the two mixed up.
Nice poste. Who is Joan Osborne (I have never heard of her)(seriously).
What if God was one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
What if pop songs were full of pus
And I restrained my desire to cuss...
"You really don't know what you are talking about do you? I wonder to whom you refer when you say 'most of us.' "
You have that right!
I don't know who Joan Osbourne is, because I wouldn't go looking for a "pop" singer!
Most of them are GHASTLY! It should be a requirement to have perfect pitch before you are allowed on stage! I just cringe when I hear an off key, throat singing "diva".
That the discussion of whether a singer is worthy of note even touches upon physical appearance is shameful. It comes very close to voiding the question (and any response) ab initio.
No one ever particularly lauded Bob Dylan's pure vocal abilities, nor ever denied his genius as the perfect voice to style the songs he wrote.
No one ever questioned Pavarotti's vocal talent, or held it against him that he did not compose a single opera.
I'm not sure whether the author of this insulting entry intends to attack or defend either the vocalist or the sort of society that weighs vocal ability in tangent with physical attractiveness / lack thereof.
One supposes that the pundit so presented possesses an opinion and yet would immediately agree that beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.
I have only this to say: Janis Joplin. Neil Young. Leonard Cohen. Who in the name of sweet Jesus on skis do you think YOU are?
oh come on - if you've listened to her sing 'cry me a river', you have to admit she can sell a song - and, in fact, a lot of us listen to blues, cabaret, jazz, and opera - we aren't all pop music/rap fans - her looks are irrelevant - sure it's fun to see the surprised looks on the faces of the audience and judges - but, she did deliver a terrific dramatic reading of a tricky song - lot of dynamics, range, nuance for any singer - trained or otherwise - so, don't rain on her parade - go write about something else kid -
Well stated!
I loved both "I Dreamed a Dream" and "Cry Me a River." The latter shows she does more than just "belt" them out. It was fabulous. Apparently she might be singing "Whistle Down the Wind" for her next song. I found this link on youtube of another performance - at first I didn't care too much for it - now I can't get it out of my head....St
http://www
So . . .with that rationale . . . Ethel Merman, Kate Smith, Patti Lupone, and hundreds of other Broadway babes "like them" were not successful because they could belt out a song like Ms. Boyle. They were successful because they were plain. Okay. Whatever.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
