Another day, another scantily-clad female musician on the cover of the Rolling Stone. Just as we’ve finished debating Lady Gaga’s latest nudie pics for Vanity Fair, here comes Katy Perry posing for Mark Seliger in an array of bikinis and bras and birthday suits. While her pink lingerie is no whipped-cream-gun boobie apparatus, it’s not exactly Amish, either.
Perry’s never shied away from the provocative pin-up imagery, but it was pretty apparent to me during our sit-down for this year’s Summer Music Preview that she’s a tomboy at heart, and she’s got a lot more going on upstairs than a couple nice pieces of fruit. In her RS interview, she discusses her tendency to egosurf – ”Any artist who says they don’t Google their name is a big fat liar,” she tells the mag — so you can’t say there’s a lack of self-awareness at fault. I guess it’s all part of the master branding plan. But she’s a savvy songwriter with a good handle on marketing and promotion, so why always with the sexyface instead of the smartface?
What do you think about the pictures, Mixers? Lovely and intriguing, or have your eyes started to glaze over from all the famous skin out there?
(Follow the Music Mix on Twitter: @EWMusicMix.)
More from EW.com’s Music Mix:
MTV’s VMA nominations: Five surprise winners and losers
Ke$ha and friends have a psychedelic party in her new ‘Take It Off’ video: Watch here
Mitch Miller RIP: Legendary record executive and orchestra leader dies at age 99
Lady Gaga’s naked ‘Vanity Fair’ cover
Lady Gaga rallies fans in Arizona: ‘If it wasn’t for all you immigrants, this country wouldn’t have s—.
Linkin Park release new single, video for ‘Medal of Honor’ video game; watch it here
How pathetic… and to come out right after GaGa’s equally pathetic claim to shocking nude cover! And this is what’s wrong with today’s music industry… no wonder we all steal music.
I agree. Katy Perry might be a nice girl in real life but her stage persona is as fake as her eyes (or else) are big (i have frog eyes too btw).
Not one to bring up the double-standard but I have to write this:
*HOW COME Rihanna – who had one of the best album in 2007 and who set a record of 7 #1 singles – has NEVER graced a RS cover?
**How come Alicia Keys- 12-time grammy winner- has graced the cover only once (during her rookie year)?
***How come Beyoncé – who had one of the best videos of all time and who set up the record of the most grammy awarded female artist ever -never graced the cover again since her debut solo album?
What’s up with that? All those three women deserved a RS cover these last couple of years more than a so-so singer pretending she kissed a girl, pretending she sang an ode to California while it’s actually an ode to a sugar factory and so on.
Double Standard, Rolling Stone, double standard.
Wow, I am shocked Rhianna has never been on the cover! I never noticed that til you pointed it out. At least this cover is prettier than that ugly Lady Gaga cover. Lately, all the RS covers are plain with the with the artist standing there – nothing like the covers used to be…
actually Beyonce has been on the RS cover about 3 times, and I think they’re all after her 1st solo album, but you’re right she should’ve been on more. and Alicia was on 2x — once by herself and again with Missy Elliot and Eve. But she should’ve been on more. you bring up some good point.
WOW Rihanna never being on the cover actually is pretty shocking.
Very well said. I can’t believe Rhianna has never been on the cover; that’s a crime. She embodies strength, sexiness and perseverance. I really admire her and love her music. She definitely should be on the cover.
Ah, I hope this isn’t about race and not just about who has had a better career because conveniently enough you mentioned 3 african american females the should grace the cover instead of one cauc. female. I understand your point if it’s not though.
she’s incredibly hot, but.. whatever. there’s a billion of these covers.
Hot? But no comment on talent — interesting!!
She’s not that good and that’s the real topic here…another mediocre performer with good looks and R.S. falls for it. Again!!
I posted earlier…”I have two issues left on my subscription and that will be the last for me”. That’s about the best message I can send these idiots at R.S. It’s like “grow up” and get back to your roots…MUSIC ROOTS!!
Yawn. Girls are sexier and more interesting when they keep their clothes on. As a girl, I’m less likely to buy something from/about a girl who thinks they have to take their clothes off to sell their (in this case, so-called) talent. Tell me something interesting about her instead. Show me brains and heart. (And if you’re thinking this is aimed at guys, not girls, who do you really think comprises her fanbase?)
I assure you more men will buy this Rolling Stone magazine based on the cover than feminists who are fans of Katy Perry, but choose not to because of the cover’s lack of clothing. Flesh is flesh to men… We don’t have to like her music to enjoy her half naked body. More money is generated when clothing is removed. Men compose the majority of the demograph for this magazine so marketing will be geared towards them. It’s simply smart marketing.
I’d love to honor her.
I think she has a right to do whatever she wants with her body, and if she wants to show it off — well, good for her. It’s certainly an attractive body. But I don’t get why actresses and singers — or pretty much anyone famous and good-looking — allows magazines to essentially exploit them and reduce them to their physical assets. I just don’t understand why being famous has to equal getting naked. It always leaves them as masturbatory male fantasies instead of the talented people they are.
But katy Perry isn’t talented, Jon. She’s just a big set of jugs.
I meant female celebrities in general. Not just her, whose music, I admit, I know nothing about.
Seriously. I was just wondering why more of these so-called shocking and outrageous and presumably feminist female artists don’t put their foot down when they do these covers and insist instead on being photographed making sexyface on a beach…swathed in a billowing cloak that covers everything from the neck down. I get that sex sells and blah blah blah, but I really wish more of these pop stars who claim to be “artists” would maybe stop playing the game and do their own thing.
I completely agree with you. To be honest, the only thing a pop star could do to genuinely shock or tantalize the public these days is to actually keep her clothes on.
Sex only sells when someone buys it.
Sex is good…but brains are more impressive that Katy’s “checmical globes” as one poster mentioned.
She’s showing you her talent. She can’t sing worth sh*t, so she has to get her big jugs out and talk about Lady Gaga and God to stay relevant.
She’s not that good and that’s the real topic here…another mediocre performer with good looks and R.S. falls for it. Again!!
.
I posted earlier…”I have two issues left on my subscription and that will be the last for me”. That’s about the best message I can send these idiots at R.S. It’s like “grow up” and get back to your roots…MUSIC ROOTS!!
She’s a slag and hypocrite. She bashes Gaga for being blasphemous (not saying I disagree) and makes a point about her Christianity, but then she does this nonsense… if she were as talented as she thinks she is, maybe I’d care… then again, I AM posting a response…
Not to go crazy feminine-mystique/beauty myth on you but I think that girls in show business have to be able to sell themselves as sexy. it’s not enough to write great songs (not saying she does)you have to be extremely attractive. You don’t see as many guys who write music trying to be sex symbols (Bono? Mick Jagger? Bowie?)
Caveat-Springsteen’s butt on his album cover
she is really good-looking, and unfortunately sex sells better than smarts these days.
zzzzzzz.
bring me songs, not T&A.
Ok, stop calling these types of photo shoots topless. Unless they are showing their nips, I don’t consider them topless.
She’s trying too hard. I feel like Gaga has a lot of her peers running scared and trying desperately to stay interesting and relevant. Before Gaga Katy was considered slightly daring with her whole I Kissed a Girl shtick. Now it just seems pedestrian. As does this Rolling Stone cover. I like her but she needs to focus on doing something interesting instead of going for shock value. Because this isn’t shocking- its boring. It would be nice to see one of these pop girls keep their clothes ON. That would be a nice change.
And Gaga will eventually become her own victim by trying to maintain the public’s interest once her shock tactics grow old. Her music isn’t that great either, and she could benefit from slipping out of the public eye and improving her music, rather than just trying to shock people. The same goes for her counterparts.
amen.
I doubt this. Look at how long Madonna has lasted.
”Any artist who says they don’t Google their name is a big fat liar”
She thinks she’s an artist?! That’s funny.
@true LMAO !!! Your comment made my day !
Seriously, when was the last time a girl had her clothes on on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine??
yawn, she is really over exposed and I can’t believe I ‘m actually tired of seeing her bod.
I’m a straight girl, and I could never get tired of seeing her body, YUM!
Agree!!