Why Justin Bieber won't last... (speculation)

[Astoria]

He has the potiential to but I doubt it will happen. His label is just gonna suck as much money out of him as they possibly can and then dump him when he's not popular anymore. It'll be up to him where he wants to go from there but he'll propbably end up in a maccas job or he'll turn into the next Lindsey Lohan or something.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Reasons he will last:

1: because people keep making these stupid threads which keep him alive

 

[BonsaiK]

Ok, first off, i know that there is plenty of hate for Justin Bieber going around, but im not doing this because i hate him. I dont. I dont like his music but i dont dislike the person. With that out of the way, why does everyone (well all the people who like him anyway) think he will last? The Jonas brothers were popular as all hell, but when was the last time you heard anything about them? Hell every big star with teens (especially teen girls) seems to be popular as hell, but then dissapear without a trace not long after their popularity. Remember anything about Nsync aside from their name and maybe a single hit song?

Anyway, the way i figure its just a matter of a year (generously) until you stop hearing about him all together, but i think its funny how so many people think hes here to stay. Then again i think i may have answered my own question somewhere in there... Anyway, please feel free to post your own speculations. Good speculating Escapists!

Two words: Michael Jackson.

When he first appeared in the 60s everyone basically said the same things about him that they're saying about Justin now. That's not to say Justin will have that much longevity but if he makes the right career decisions there's no reason why it theoretically couldn't happen. And they're both more or less equally talented (fact).

 

[Azrael the Cat]

I have some speculations of my own.

The Beatles. They started out as "pop trash" too, right? I've only figured this out recently, mostly because I never like their earlier music when I listen to it. It's what they were. "Guitar bands are on their way out." So, they spend a few years like that, and get to unimaginable levels of pop stardom. Girls screamed over them like they scream over, hey, Justin Bieber. Then what happened? They started to make ART. Not POP.

Although, I will say the current batch of tweens has musical ADD, unable to concentrate on one band for more than eight seconds.

But, let's say they like Bieber enough to support him until even he starts to get bored of auto-tune. What then? If he does have any talent, he'll find a new label, new songwriter (Because we all know he sucks at it), new producer, and a new image. Maybe go on a soul-search in Nepal, I don't know. And then he comes back- BAM!

ART. Not POP. Hey, it happens with all sorts of classic rock bands. You just don't see all the criticism of their pop-ier songs, or at least, not the bad criticism. Criticism as bad as what we give to Bieber.

If that type of thing happens with any artist, my money's more on Lady Gaga. She actually had a little bit of singing talent in the first place. Maybe if she can revert herself back to piano-playing local-American Idol-auditioning former persona than she can start making some actual good music.

Some big differences, though. The Beatles wrote their own music, and the absence of self-songwriting (writing your own godawful lyrics on a couple of tracks doesn't count) is enough by itself to prevent the current teen idols from being taken seriously. Rock was much younger in the Beatles days as well, and the 'rock and roll can change the world' idea hadn't even really taken off yet, let along grown old and died. Thirdly - and VERY importantly - the British pop market always been a very very different beast to American pop. British pop has included numerous bands than in the American market would be classified as indie or alternative: Blur, The Cure (who invented the term Britpop), The Church, Queen, Oasis, Pulp amongst many others. The Beatles are squarely a part of that pop tradition - where pop music means songs that are short and catchy, but are also self-written and creative. Pop, in the British market, differentiates it from from the long guitar-solo-heavy music of bands in the Led Zepellin/Rolling Stones tradition. The Brits have their teen idols as well, but they don't own the pop market in the way that the US teen idols do. Part of that is that pop just has bad connotations in the US, causing talented artists who write their own work to avoid the genre/title, instead calling themselves 'indie'.

But don't confuse the pop tradition of the Beatles/Cure/Smiths/Blur/Oasis/Pulp with the pop tradition of New Kids on the Block/Boyzone/Boys2Men/Sclub7/Britney Spears/Agueillera/Beiber tradition and assume that they're part of the same genre. Same word, both talking about short songs of 3-4 minutes with emphasised choruses, but very very different musical traditions.

 

[Macgyvercas]

It always happens with these pop sensations. They get huge popularity, tons of money, lots of songs, then after some time they're gone, only to be heard of years later when they died of snorting of coke off of a car engine or something.

It's happened with many people, lots of which are one-hit wonders, namely bands.

Quoted for truth. Such is the nature of the music industry.

And holy crappin christ! You changed your avatar! What's the new one say?

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

Then what happened? They started to make ART. Not POP.

Hilariously enough, they started to make art after Bob Dylan introduced them to ganja.
If I may quote/paraphrase Bill Hicks, for my own amusement...
"Go home tonight and take all your albums, all your tapes, all your CD's and burn 'em, because the artists making all that music you love so much..? Reaaaaal fuckin' high on drugs."

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

And they're both more or less equally talented (fact).

Oh look, someone waxing objective about a relative issue!

 

[BonsaiK]

And they're both more or less equally talented (fact).

Oh look, someone waxing objective about a relative issue!

Relativity is objective. Just ask Einstein.

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

And they're both more or less equally talented (fact).

Oh look, someone waxing objective about a relative issue!

Relativity is objective. Just ask Einstein.

Are you really trying to tell me TALENT of all things can be measured objectively?

Edit: Perhaps I should've said "subjective" rather than "relative."

 

[BonsaiK]

And they're both more or less equally talented (fact).

Oh look, someone waxing objective about a relative issue!

Relativity is objective. Just ask Einstein.

Are you really trying to tell me TALENT of all things can be measured objectively?

Yes. Musical merit, no. Musical talent, yes. Don't confuse the two. Talent is just your ability to do a certain thing or group of things.

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

And they're both more or less equally talented (fact).

Oh look, someone waxing objective about a relative issue!

Relativity is objective. Just ask Einstein.

Are you really trying to tell me TALENT of all things can be measured objectively?

Yes. Musical merit, no. Musical talent, yes. Don't confuse the two. Talent is just your ability to do a certain thing or group of things.

In a technical sense, sure, but I see talent as going far deeper than that. Michael Jackson was someone special because he had real, true empathy that came through in his music.
The ability to really touch a person, on a deep, deep level with your music is where to me, talent really lies, regardless of technical skill.

 

[Theo Rob]

as someone to hate his "fame" is already fading out

the new teen hate magnet is Rebecca black as far as i know

 

[BonsaiK]

And they're both more or less equally talented (fact).

Oh look, someone waxing objective about a relative issue!

Relativity is objective. Just ask Einstein.

Are you really trying to tell me TALENT of all things can be measured objectively?

Yes. Musical merit, no. Musical talent, yes. Don't confuse the two. Talent is just your ability to do a certain thing or group of things.

In a technical sense, sure, but I see talent as going far deeper than that. Michael Jackson was someone special because he had real, true empathy that came through in his music.
The ability to really touch a person, on a deep, deep level with your music is where to me, talent really lies, regardless of technical skill.

That's still a technical skill. Singing a song in a way that makes people emotionally connect with it is not a magical gift from fairyland, it's an ability that can be taught. I work at a school that teaches that very ability, amongst other things, and I assure you that Justin has got about the same ability to do that as Michael when he was the same age. Justin may or may not have the same longevity (who can predict the whims of music fashion - nobody ever thought Madonna or Cher would last as long as they did) but he has comparable ability.

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

There is no further we can take this conversation without me getting very angry.

If you wish to believe you've won this one, feel free. >:{{{

 

[PinkiePyro]

i figure he will eather grow up and learn the bubblegum songs wont really cut it or he will fade like the boy bands or yesteryear