Whatever happened to the old days of beautiful, sexy pop stars with actual talent like Kylie Minogue and Bjork?

Fugly, yet featuring in fashion magazines... "Makes sense".

Marina is beautifull and makes good pop music

The "photoshopped to perfection" era of artificially good looking/sounding entertainers has finally come to an end. Which is why the current crop of successful rising stars are the ones who actually have marketable entertainer talents irl (eg - of the three you mention, Charlie XCX is irl extremely sexy, Lauren Mayberry is irl extremely beautiful, and Grimes is irl extremely musically talented.)

Marina is not even popular,she's irrelevant

>she's actually the successor of Bjork in terms of talent, personality and look
I like grimes but come on.

Those fashion pics of her are the worst, always airbrushed to death and shitty makeup

>Those fashion pics of her are the worst, always airbrushed to death and shitty makeup
Welcome, my friend user, to the wonderful wacky world of fashion magazine covers. Which is to say - they're pretty much all like that.

You know it's true. Who is the Bjork of this generation if not Grimes? And common things between Grimes & Bjork are actually true.

>inb4 that talentless hack FKA Twigs

damn OP youre right we were all born in the wrong generation

yikes

Everyone knows it's FKA Twigs.

>Who is the Bjork of this generation if not Grimes?
dj flugvél og geimskip

By everyone do you mean (You)? That FKA Twigs isn't even 1/10 as talented as Bjork and has a weak voice.

It's a common misconception perpetuated by people who are especially practiced in the habit of grouping things based on similarities and also aren't very familiar with both of their music. Technically speaking it's a false equivalence fallacy, and the logic goes something like this:

Björk makes music and is considered weird in the context of the mainstream. Grimes also makes music and is considered weird in the context of the mainstream. Therefore they must be equivalent.

The above statement is false because it is claiming that two things having one element in common (weirdness in the context of mainstream) are equivalent regardless of whether or not any of their other elements (in this case Grimes' music vs. Björk's music) bear any relation.

>dat transvestite face

does this look like a trap to you?

But did you see those other common elements ? Thoughts?

These are some of the most shallow commonalities you could come up with.

You could do a similar thing for Christopher Nolan and Stanley Kubrick. It doesn't at all mean they're alike.

They are all categorical similarities - they speak nothing as to whether or not the actual things being equated (such as their "weird voices") actually sound anything alike. Two people being classified as weird doesn't mean they're identical. It just means they're both not normal.

doesn't look like a trap but certainly not the most feminine woman i've seen either

The thing is - apart from being the Björk of her generation - Grimes is also the David Bowie of her generation:
baeblemusic.com/musicblog/1-19-2016/is-grimes-the-true-spiritual-successor-to-david-bowie.html

And the Prince of her generation:
nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/grimes-glastonbury-set-proved-bowie-and-prince-s-maverick-spirit-lives-on

And the Beethoven of her generation:
papermag.com/grimes-jimmy-fallon-flesh-without-blood-1778648997.html

And - perhaps most aptly imo - the Kurt Cobain of her generation:
undertheradarmag.com/interviews/2014_artist_survey_owen_pallett/

All of which is to say that, with so many apt comparisons to be made between Grimes and such a diverse list of musical luminaries, the only real conclusion you can make is that she must also share in the one thing that all these other people had in common - raw talent.