> Being a female musician who also happens to wear glases, I can't tell you
> how many times I've gotten the Loeb comparison simply based on my
> spectacles.  Our music is nothing alike. I'm also a friend of Kay's. Both
> she and I wear glasses because we need corrective lenses, not because we
> want to look like another person who wears glasses.

I don't think anyone in that thread was serious. Can't help what people tell 
you, though. I happen to like your music (and Kay's) regardless of your 
looks.


> And to the person who says he only buys Lia Loeb's records to look at her,
> not because he likes the music:

That's Gabe. Please don't take him at face value. I doubt he owns a Jessica 
Simpson record (and frankly, I doubt he owns a Liz Phair album). I'm equally 
surprised that Jah didn't work his way into the equation. He was just 
riffing. It's mid-week, he's late.



> This just proves that, still, women are not always taken seriously as
> musicians. Looks are still such an important factor, and it's really
> unfortunate. I wonder how many people heard "A Girl Called Eddy"'s album
> last year. Or Sam Philips'. These women don't market their looks. THey
> don't need to, they're both incredibly talented. The catch 22- perhaps
> because they chose not to market themselves as "hot babes" they're not as
> commercially succesful as they should be.

I don't disagree, but blame the marketing departments of record companies. 
Or movie companies. Or television shows. Or...

PEOPLE are marketed for their looks and looks sell. That won't change. But I 
know many of the people who responded to this thread, and I know they don't 
make their musical choices based on hottie quotient. (And apparently you 
missed the occasional estrogen threads on this list, although arguably they 
are less frequent and less participated in).

cheers
b