eye candy … cheryl cole

 

1. Fear not, she’s actually not all that bad. At least on par with most of the rest of today’s lady vocalists. Ok, she’s no Shakira or Christina, but she looks at least as good as they do. Often better.

   see
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMiy_UsrPDs
   for her 2009 hit ‘fight for this love’ ... not much of a video, it has her in some Janet Jackson-esque soldier girl outfit, along with ‘dance’ scenes from what could be a tae-bo aerobics class. But we get to watch her wiggle around and throw sexy glares at the camera, which is probably good enough. The song sounds like it’s a cover of someone else’s work, but I can’t place the original group.

   The whole Girls Aloud thing (Cheryl’s group) seems rather contrived. Turn the Boy Band/Girl Band crank and churn out another batch of amazingly attractive people with tons of sex appeal who miraculously have exceptional vocal and dance skills? Yeah right. Of course, I’ve had this “video killed the radio star” attitude a long long time ... look at the lyrical skill of Jim Croce, then (if you dare) look at his picture. Yikes. Not that once in a while a really beautiful person comes along who does have real song and dance talent. Just that a lot of them seem to be a bit contrived; we’re given the eye candy and told that the talent is there. OTOH, Hollywood level make up can make even the First Wookie good looking. So maybe I’m off base on this. WTH, Girls Aloud is making millions, and giving Brits a bit of nationalist boost.

   Posted by Drew458       09/10/2011  at  08:47 AM  



2. I’m with you re: the tats. However, she’s young, and when we’re young we all do foolish things that seem like good ideas at the time.

   I’m thinking in particular of my first ex-wife…

   Posted by CenTexTim       09/10/2011  at  09:45 AM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.