This is definitely “hey you get offa my lawn” territory, but I really don’t understand this. Granted I don’t listen to much, if any, of his songs, but with three pre-teen girls, it’s unavoidable. And I don’t see anything special whatsoever about him.
His songs are almost exclusively co-written, which is usually a big flag that he’s not seriously writing his own music. He’s autotuned and the lyrics are childish and dumb.
What he is talented at is being a performer and having a nice youtube backstory. I suppose that’s something.
There are thousands and thousands of people that, if given the songwriters, engineers, dance teams, and production money that he has, would do just as well. To me, he’s just another pretty face/celebrity for celebrity’s sake pop piece of garbage that lucks out.
Indeed. Rihanna has some great singles, but you’ll note her albums don’t sell nearly as well as Beyonce’s. Rihanna’s last album “Unapologetic” sold only 3mil units worldwide, though it had the massive singles “Diamonds” and “Stay”.
Because that was not the marketing strategy. She released her last album with no advanced notice as a surprise:
To compare her and Taylor Swift (also a megastar), is kinda disingenuous. Swift’s latest album 1989 was released on October 27, 2014. The lead single, “Shake It Off”, was released on August 18, 2014. That’s over two months of sales and promotion pre album release. The fact is different artists have different sales strategies and audiences.
Yes, but you are missing the point.
You may not, but tons of people do, including many critics. More importantly, Bieber is a fairly unique example of someone who got famous via one of the more democratic and meritocratic methods that exists today: he became a star almost solely based on youtube buzz.
Um, that means a lot. Performance is pretty much a prerequisite to being performer.
If that were true, these people would be creating more Justin Biebers. Do you honestly think the shortage is with songwriters, engineers, and dance teams rather than performers like Bieber? And even if you are right, having a valued skill only a few thousand people have is pretty great. There are over 2000 billionaires in the world. There are 200k people with over $30mm. Even so, I would still consider someone with $30mm rich and and fairly exceptional in the art of making money just as I would consider someone like Bieber very talented.
Seriously folks, comparing sales doesn’t seem to answer the question of the OP at all. All that does is measure the amount of mega-star the subject is.
Popular != good, not by any stretch of the imagination. Pat Boone came in just behind Elvis* in sales by 50’s “Rockers”, was critically acclaimed, and only a nincompoop would compare his talent favorably to the legion of performers from that period who are behind him in terms of record sales. He had a good voice, and he was marketable as a non-threatening performer to the parents. That was the secret to his broad appeal. Sure, he has musical talent. I probably have about as much talent, and a nice voice (others say so, at least) to boot. I’m not even a Pat Boone, much less a Bo Diddley. I know people infinitely more talented and attractive than I who have struggled to make ends meet, and should have been stars, IMHO. Musical talent seems to count for very little in relation to how big of a star you are.
Considering cases such as the above, I am of the opinion that the main difference between a star and a mega-star is the amount of marketing they can bring to bear, and a good helping of dumb luck. 90% of all stars suck**. So considering the feed stock and the distillation process, I can’t see how the percentage of mega stars is any less.
So, the question where your answer might convince me to understand what makes her a mega-star is: What is it that makes Beyonce special to you?
I can’t guarantee that your reasons will convince me. Art (and especially music) are so subjective that one usually has to experience them in a particular frame of mind to “get” it. But what makes a work of art special to you is the only really meaningful thing you can communicate to someone who doesn’t understand it. Whether you express it in formal terms or colloquial terms isn’t that important. I think being able to discuss art formally is what separates a critic from a layman, but the formal description doesn’t really hold more weight unless it actually ends up presenting a convincing viewpoint. Until then, it’s just an erudite description of the work.
TL;DR: Really, what makes Beyonce special to you? Because I’m not getting it.
And I don’t really think he was all that, either. His Sun records were good, but they made better ones in that studio.
** If 90% of most art doesn’t suck, then almost that percentage is at least half-baked, including a large amount of what I love.
Beyonce is special because her image and her voice are ubiquitous right now. I work with 50-year-old suburban white ladies who casually say “put a ring on it” and “say my name, say my name”. Maybe if everyone could elevate a string of words into a househould saying, Beyonce wouldn’t be all that special.
I’m not a fan of her music, overall. I mean, I like listening to a few her songs (“Drunk in Love” is pure entertainment to me) and there are a bunch that I like to dance to in the privacy of my bedroom. But I wouldn’t buy tickets to see her perform.
But I can still manage to see how she’s special. Every generation has its diva megastars–Madonna was the one for my generation–who represent so much more than who and what they actually are. When I think of Beyonce, I think about the Behind the Music episode on “Destiny’s Child”–which showed how hard you have to work to get noticed in the Biz. And Beyonce has worked very very hard. Her work ethic alone makes her stand-out to me. For someone else, she’s special because she’s a symbol of female empowerment. For someone else, it’s something else.
You do realize that this comes across as arrogant, right? What are we supposed to be convincing you of? Beyonce doesn’t have to be special to you for her to be special to someone else.
I seriously don’t know why this is hard for some people to get.
Even at that, it seems weird. Perhaps even more weird, considering the ways that the music industry changed in the internet era (Napster, iTunes, etc…).
They certainly try. That’s what Star Search, American Idol, X Factor, The Voice, and many other shows have been about: using the power of mass media to serve up product (the shows) that are also commercials for another product (the acts). They are setting themselves up as gatekeepers and pop king/queenmakers. And the TV shows have been just one route to “Bieber creation.” (Yes, I know Bieber was more self-created, or at least nuclear-family-created. Kudos to him/them on that.)
So yeah, watch a season or two of that show, and you’ll see that “talent” is not really in short supply, but very few of them make it big. The main reason is that the market is always saturated with product. To break in, you in effect have to push away a bunch of other people whose only real disadvantage is that they are not as new and fresh and therefore interesting as you are. You need to get hooked up with the right songs (the real bottleneck, I think), producers, choreographers, PR people, etc. What you said, but there are even more ingredients.
Now, you can say that Bieber succeeded because he was more talented. I won’t 100% disagree with that. He had the looks and charisma to appeal to the tween market better than others. That’s obviously worth something in the market, but I doubt it’s the type of talent that most participants in this thread really respect. But he was not uniquely talented in this way. I will simply grant that he was (still is?) very good-looking and has stage presence. In terms of this ingredient, he’s in a very high percentile indeed.
But in terms of voice, dancing ability, ability to overcome stage fright and get in front of a crowd, etc., there are many, many people who have that combination. You can see them on the aforementioned shows. Plus, they often add songwriting ability into the mix. (I don’t think Bieber’s songs are good, plus it’s unknown how much he writes, so I’m not fain to give him much credit in that area.)
So why has Bieber succeeded? I think it’s the looks + charisma + LUCK, with the last of the three being the biggest factor. At the end of the day, unless an artist or band has dominating talent, luck will always be a huge factor. The music industry has to market someone, so they pick someone. That’s Luck Part 1: being chosen over the many other artists/bands that are as good or perhaps even better than you are and given good production so that your music can form a Good Product. Then Luck Part 2: you’re given good promotion and people buy it.
I’ve got a good example for you all: The Action. This was when the Beatles were at the height of their popularity, so if Parlophone signs them and George Martin works with them, they’re going to succeed, right? Especially if their music is frickin’ awesome, which a lot of people agree it is (some of the best of the 60s, IMHO. Even their demos kick ass):
They had Luck Part 1: A record contract, a great producer, great songs. They didn’t have Luck Part 2, however: apparently they were not promoted well, and in any case they didn’t sell. Wah wah waaaaah.
Bieber’s had both kinds of luck (even though I think his product is poor in the absolute sense, I guess it wasn’t poor with respect to his target market). It’s just as easy to imagine a world in which he wasn’t successful at all, at least beyond his YouTube fandom, since he isn’t a dominating talent. Once you catch fire in the marketplace, then you just attract more sales opportunities, and it snowballs (fire, snowball… mixed metaphor, sorry). Meanwhile, all the other young pretties who could be a Bieber get simply nothing.
Everyone seems to be using some idiosyncratic definition of “star.” To me, the definition of “star” is someone many people recognize and are interested in. So a “megastar” is someone more recognizable and garnering more interest than a “star.”
Beyonce gets a lot of attention, is very recognizable, and many people consider her interesting. She is therefore, by my definition, a “megastar.” (I wouldn’t normally use that word, but whatever.)
The OP appears to be attaching much more in the way of value judgments to whether someone is a “megastar.” And the value judgment appears to be “If I don’t like her, how can she be a megastar?” I find this odd, as many people are stars or megastars or ultrasupernovastars without being appealing to me whatsoever.
As for why she’s popular? She has a lot of songs that people like, she’s beautiful, and she seems like an okay person. That last part is almost certainly not necessary.
It’s obvious, but Michael Jackson. Compare him to Bieber in any category, and Michael blows him away. It’s an especially apt comparison since both got their starts young.
Dancing? Michael was absolutely top notch. Bieber is competent. Voice? Michael had one of the best of the 20th century. Bieber is competent. Songwriting? Michael was outstanding. Bieber, even if wrote the best of his songs all by himself (which he didn’t), isn’t very good. Overall stage presence? Michael trounces Bieber, even though Bieber is still an A+ talent in that area.
Michael Jackson was going to be famous pretty much no matter what. Thriller would have been Platinum even without some of the greatest production of all time (Quincy Jones simply in world-beating genius mode) and the masterpiece-level songs that Michael didn’t write (such as “Thriller” itself [Rod Temperton]). For Michael, all the ingredients coming together meant one of the greatest albums of all time. For Bieber, all the ingredients coming together means standard 21st century pop stardom and no work of lasting value.
No. I recognized that she was extremely popular in my OP. I just didn’t get why she was as big as she is when people don’t seem all that excited about individual songs. And some people have provided insights into that.
Notice performer does not equal musician or songwriter or singer. It does, to my mind, include hiring good people to write your music, choreograph your dances, play the instruments, and, most importantly, feed the celebrity hype beast.
No ONE including me or the OP are disputing that Beyoncé is a big name in music. What I am talking about is she is not the biggest thing right now. Nothing wrong with that, each artist has a peak time, and down time. Right now it’s not Beyoncé’s biggest peak, her peak was 2003-2009. Sure her album is big, but she is not the biggest thing right now.
You mention Rihanna, even she is not now the as dominant on radio as just a few years ago. Her lastest single, which is terrible and with Kanye West and Paul McCartney, is a top ten hit. But she has not had a #1 single in nearly two years. Rihanna is a singles artist, her albums are never big. But Beyoncé was a singles artist also, and maybe still is. But her singles are not dominating radio airplay, not charting high enough.
Maybe Taylor Swift won’t be big in 2018. You mention her Superbowl performance, and I get it. You mentioned Prince, in 1984 he was among the biggest dominant acts on radio. Today, not so much. Does not take away from his past. Same with Beyoncé.
And yet, NONE of those people have been as successful as Bieber. In recent memory, I can only recall five or so people from AI that have even become legit stars.
Which is a bit of a contradiction, no? I am not saying you can’t find people who are as good a vocalists or technical musicians as he is, just that you cannot find too many people with that much overall talent and marketable skill.
And yet Bieber did it on youtube, probably the most saturated market there is.
If it just took charisma and looks, TPTB could be produce a Bieber every week.
And the wisdom of that pick is reflected in sales, staying power, and achievements. Of course luck and the talents of others are involved, but if Bieber’s level of talent was a common as you allege, we’d see far more stars of his stature, and they would get paid much less.
The OP doesn’t feel that Beyoncé is a megastar - she is a “fake” megastar. To me, a “megastar” is someone who, given their current body of work, will be lauded for their contributions / career arc for the rest of their days, i.e., get a Kennedy Center Honor medal when they are 70 or something
Beyoncé is in that category.
She is not a “fake” megastar. If you or the OP want to state that she is no longer contributing to her legacy, that is your call. Others have posted data and POV’s that would strongly argue against that, but cool; your call - she’s lost her edge and is barely keeping up, just like Madonna. But that doesn’t change what she (or Madonna for that matter) has already locked in.
Whether he is talented or not is besides the point, Justin Bieber’s name recognition was always far higher than his music career alone. Hits wise he has declined long time ago, that is why he does stupid things to stay in the limelight. How and because we in America love giving celebs attention. If we ignored him and did not give him a show or anything, Beiber would have vanished.
But hits wise he has not been a dominant force for a few years, and NEVER was THE MOST dominant force either.
So what? I grant that MJ was probably more talented than Bieber in many aspects, but that doesn’t speak to Bieber supposedly not having talent. Is there a limited number of megastars or people who are talented in your opinion?
How is this even a valid comparison? It’s not as if they had the same producers and writers.
Please point out someone saying Bieber was a world class song writer or singer? The claim iss that he is very talented.
But no one said she was the BIGGEST thing right now. This is a straw man that you keep trotting out for some odd reason.
She’s not a singles artist, and yet her songs still chart really well.
