[Z]

Sorry to piss on this parade and all, but I really can't see why they're so successful (other than parading around in what they might wear to bed on a very warm evening) because as far as I can see, only three of the [six?] are actually used for singing, one of whom is still a bit shaky on the vocal range. Basically, they are like the Spice Girls only the fact that some of them can't sing is blatantly obvious in this case. They come from a background of stripping. Does this not suggest to you what they are promoting subconsciously? Everything they stand for is what many women in the world today have to battle against; a stereotype. They dress like hookers, a couple of them look like they probably are hookers, they can dance well which is one thing I'll hand to them, but the lead singer is not an attractive woman, yet seems to be under the impression that she is. Mel B of the spice girls was arguably the lead singer, and she was alright looking, but not likely to be winning Miss World any time soon. But she didn't try to pretend otherwise.

What I find more ridiculous is that the lead singer, Nicole Kea? She won a talent competition with a band, just like Girls Aloud, yet people are going on about how trashy Girls Aloud are. So are The Pussycat Dolls. Nicole Kea was a member of a band (I forget the name) which became defunct, so she jumps on a bandwagon with very little clothes on. You simply can not say that The Pussycat Dolls are talented and SOOO much better than Girls Aloud, when they are identical in that they have been manufactured with very little input from the singers themselves (though I am sure the ugly lead singer is an accomplished musician and has tried to have a say, I doubt she was taken seriously) and they both have components of a reality TV show. The one difference is; Girls Aloud don't just parade around in underwear. The first impression I got from watching Don't Cha was that they were a bunch of hookers and Busta Rhymes was their pimp.


Just goes to show what first impressions can do.