Lea Ann, I stand by my statement that being at one's own personal correct
weight, along with being fit, should be the only goal. I wasn't intimating
anyone should try to get "thin as a rail" if you aren't built that way.
Those who are very thin yet lacking good muscle tone are just as
"unattractive" as those carrying way too much extra fat.
The number on the scale really has nothing to do with this. As an example,
I had a friend who was built exactly like me and we were also exactly the
same height. We are both somewhat tall, naturally thin. But she weighed
nearly 30 pounds more, and she could wear clothes that were just a bit too
tight on me. Why? Doesn't seem to make sense, does it? The reason was
that she was a supremely fit athlete, carrying far more tightly-packed
muscle.
The truth of this is that when I started running, I noticed I never lost any
weight but my clothes sure fit better.
It's all about being the best you possible. Is it easy to do? No. Is it
worth the effort? Yes. For a million reasons besides just appearance.
PJ.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lea Ann [mailto:LeaAnn@k...]
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 10:14 AM
To: vocalist-temporary@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vocalist] image
But, bottom line is that TOO much weight is
just simply too much weight. Everyone should aim towards reaching and
maintaining what is really and truly healthy for them. And aim for a
modicum of fitness, besides. That is real beauty.
PJ.
PJ I am sure (unless you are naturally thin as a rail) you know this is
easier said than done. Weight and looks in general are such complicated and
passion inspiring topics we could probably discuss abortion and get less
heated comments. But as far as image and a singing career go....it is
easier to have a career if you have what current Hollywood standards deem a
"hot body" and that most likely has nothing to do with health or beauty,
didn't Lily Langtree weigh 250 pounds? The men of her time LOVED her!
Aside from weight....looks in general are important in artistic mediums in
which the public will be "viewing" the work.....as in music with the advent
of video and in visual performances like opera and any other forms of music
which are meant to be viewed while they are performed...like concerts (not
so 15 years ago) in art, and in theatre and film etc. What ever the
socially excepted "ideal" of the time period is....THAT is what will sell
the most tickets and the people who possess whatever quality is fashionable
will be sought after. And the fact that the image is so available to
everyone via TV, film, Video. computer etc...makes image that much more
important. It wasn't that long ago that few people owned a TV, and
computers and videos were science fiction. So as few as 50 years ago a
physical "ideal" was still something much more subjective than it is
now....your body and looks could still be pretty but perhaps very different
from my body and looks. However I think now...we have a more homogenous
idea of what "ideal" is It's more like "Mc-Ideal".
Lea Ann
|
