See I see it the other way around. Cher and Katie both seem the most fragile what with already having numerous breakdowns already.
Katie, hasn't had any breakdowns. She comes across as drama queen though. She attempts to spin everything about herself, into something which relates to being on the show.
Cher had a moment of weakness when she was in Cheryl's bootcamp. But since then, she has been rock solid. At the time she was 16 yrs old, so she can be forgiven. Most 16 yr olds would've cracked. At 16, for comparison, I was studying for GCSEs. Cher was going onto the biggest show in the UK.
The rebecca being emotionally fragile is a bit of a cop out as shes done nothing to suggest this apart from not being completely arrogant about herself.
Until now, nothing negative has been said/written about her. Initially, when she first auditioned, she was in tears pretty much everytime we saw her. This is what pressure does. There is no doubt in my mind that she is emotionally weak and that once the negative press comments start rolling in, there will be many many (real) tears. The tears we have seen from Cher and Katie, have been fake - these 2 are mentally, VERY tough. Don't be fooled by the crocodile tears.
Also the mention of them posing for magazines.... please tell me you are kidding? Hobbit like manchild and a chavvy pizza faced gurner, I cant imagine any amount of airbrushing will save that.
Good lighting, good photography, good photo-shopping. Combine these together and Katie/Cher can be made to attractive. As long as they don't get fat, they will be able to feature in Lads Mags.
...they are not attractive by any measure with very average 'talent' and only one vocal range each yet they are being given a free ride because they are happy to whore out whatever their 'mentor' tells them too.
Vocal range has absolutely nothing to do with concert/cd/album sales. People will buy what media/advertising tells people to buy. I think you completely misunderstand the power of the media.
Your marketing team are the people who "make" you. In the 90s, Britney Spears was tops, even though she wasn't the greatest singer in the World or the best looking. However, her team pushed her and made people believe that she was "all that"...and so the public believed, she was "all that".
Lady Gaga has taken the mantle from Spears, in that although she is not the greatest singer, she is able to outsell any other singer/group on the face of the planet, simply because she is prepared to work hard and has a fantastic (arguably the best) marketing team around her.
For me the point about them being liked by the execs is down to them purely being media whores and having no morales, ...
Yep. Nothing wrong with that.
If you want to reach the top of your profession, you must make sacrifices. These 2 girls will make sacrifices...you can bet on that.
The year off they make them take really hurts them as the next series has started so unless you are something special then you are already forgotten.
100% agree on this point. But it is up to the artist to push their team to get them on tv as much as possible. The idea is that the team must attempt to expose their client to a point where the public are sick and tired of seeing their client on their tv screens. Of course, getting to this point is nigh on impossible.
A great example of advertising and working hard was when Victoria Beckham released, "out of your mind". She scored a No.2 single from that. She wanted No.1. But she worked so hard, it is untrue. She was appearing in mags, on the telly...everywhere. It was almost impossible for a member of the public to have not heard her song. VB left no stone unturned...even her video was slick and polished. Everything that could be done, was done.