Line Out Music & Nightlife

Slog

News & Arts

« Tomorrow Night: Portland Burns | Or is this Burning an Eternal ... »

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Point:Counterpoint-Boys Are Hotter When They Play Music (even if the music sux)

posted by on March 15 at 14:18 PM

ok go.jpg
OK Go: A band I hate, but a boy I like.

Boys are hotter when they play an instrument. This is fact, and the reason men ever pick up instruments at all. But, beyond this fact, a difference of opinion exists: Does the music actually matter? Megan and I will debate this for you today. (Here’s Megan’s argument.)

I contend that it doesn’t. Boys are pretty, no matter what kind of music they play, whether it sucks or is totally amazing. For instance, the boy above is in OK Go, and with all their kitschy nonsense treadmill business or whatever, he is still amazing looking. His band sucks (YouTube is their creator), but I would tell him that I thought they were good if it would make him get naked for me.

Am I the one of low morals in this debate? I think not, even though I consider lying an option. If you like the music a man is playing, and therefore find him attractive, that is more of a lie. He is not attractive; his art is attractive, and you are sexually attracted to his art. I look for a personality–-a personality and a guitar (or keyboard, or drums, but maybe not slap bass). I look for the man to be having fun, instead of dying for his art.

It doesn’t matter that he’s playing some bullshit, as long as he looks hot doing it.

RSS icon Comments

1

Megan says that a hot boy in a shitty band is less hot than if he wasn't in any band (the All American Rejects example). I say any boy is hotter if he is in a band. The better the band the hotter he becomes. Being in a shitty band doesn't decrease existing hotness.

Posted by stizl | March 15, 2007 3:27 PM
2

if the quality of the music matters, and since there are more bad bands out there than good bands, megan would effively be saying that being in a band is more likely to make a boy less hot.

Posted by infrequent | March 15, 2007 3:52 PM
3

as long as the music is not racist/sexist/homophobic, then i agree, the music doesn't matter.

Posted by josh | March 15, 2007 4:02 PM
4

I'd agree Ari.

But this boy lacks personality, as he was the biggest jerk I have ever seen (and his band is totally whipped by their label).

my crush definitely disappeared when I saw him perform.

Posted by Paula | March 15, 2007 4:05 PM
5

Re: #3- Well, duh. Those attitudes are unattractive no matter where they lie.

Posted by Ari Spool | March 15, 2007 4:53 PM
6

Score one for Ari.

Posted by Vivian` | March 15, 2007 7:38 PM
7

What if the boy sucks at playing the instrument?

I mean, can a fella gain sex appeal just by strumming some random chord on a guitar? (If so, Guitar Center's about to be cleaned out.)

And how does this bode for electronic artists?

Posted by dudeiminyourband | March 16, 2007 9:07 AM
8

@7: No, he has to actually have some skill with the instrument. Looking pathetic and incompetent is never hot. Ari is claiming (correctly, in my opinion) that the simple fact of being a musician and hot is enough to have something over boys that are only hot, and that the quality of the music produced doesn't affect that. Theoretically, a boy who is skilled but in a shitty band could play you a song that doesn't suck, preferably immediately before and after intercourse. A boy who can't play an instrument couldn't do that. Electronic artists also don't work in this argument, because hitting a button on a computer isn't sexy. Any connection between the sex appeal of the music and that of the artist would be intellectual.

Posted by Aislinn | March 16, 2007 10:56 AM
9

I think Hookers On Stilts has covered this topic much more thoroughly and entertainingly.

Posted by KEN | March 20, 2007 3:52 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).