anybody want to discuss this?

figured i'd just ask before writing some big, long-winded dissertation nobody would respond to...

but attractive as in ppl that remind potential fans
about what you as an artist want ppl to associate with you.

for instance,
if you are trying to come across as a rebel, an outsider,
somebody going against the grain,
you don't want to have a bunch of 12 yr old girls screaming at you concert.

that's not cool.
it goes against your image.



so yeah, artists can get in hot water
if the wrong types of fans start filling their concerts.

in fact, sometimes artists will INTENTIONALLY try to lose fans for that very reason.
prince tried to do it with ATWIAD.

nirvana tried to do it with in utero.



but I don't know how important it is to have
"good looking" fans.
you just want to play up the fact that your fans
have characteristics that you want potential fans to
associate with you, as an artist.



>anybody want to discuss this?
>
>figured i'd just ask before writing some big, long-winded
>dissertation nobody would respond to...

"attractive" as enticing to prospective fans.

"attractive" as sexually/genetically appealing.

in fact, perhaps the later even precipitates the occurrence of the former.

that's my issue.

well, let me think.
i remember being at a John Mayer concert thinking everybody
was pretty good looking. and i've seen him in concert 4 times.
everybody was always attractive, it seemed.

and maybe everybody was good looking when i saw phish,
but i was very high, so i dunno.


anyway, i've not seen any other concerts
that had super attractive fans that i can recall.

but when the genetic top-tier are fans, the word spreads...
other fall in line.

people with the best genes are typically society's elite and in tern, trendsetters for most around them.

some acts are doomed to never break above a certain audience because attractive people will never be attracted to them/their music despite their level of talent.

hence, the "style" element in the t/s/e theory.