[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Story goes, it was a record company that she had a friend in that set her up with some "underground" showsin the East Village to generate a buzz. She was built from the top down. Her record label and publicists MADE her. So far, the only thing I know of that's legitimately artistic about her is that she writes/wrote her own lyrics.

THIS JUST IN! GETTING BIG REQUIRES ONE TO KNOW THE RIGHT PEOPLE!

That's how the machine functions, and the business has been pulling tricks like that with artists since music became a business. Even so-called "bottom up" artists worked out like that. One band that springs to mind is the Beatles.

Also, don't you think it's a bit funny how David Bowie became one of the biggest stars in Britain by suddenly switching from a shy folky with one hit novelty song to a glam rocker, just as glam rock began to rise as a commercial force in Britain? Than he rekindled his flame again in the 80's on the strength of dance pop? Than in the 90's it was pop-industrial, just as the likes of Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson were getting popular?

It's kind of obvious isn't it? When the motivation is to churn out a piece of art that will maximize profits instead of making art for art's sake, you basically get something that panders to tried and true tropes instead of being genuine. Gaga and Britney Spears are pretty much interchangeable.

And yet, while this is often the case, it often isn't as well. Malcolm McLaren, the Anti-Pop Svengali, created the Sex Pistols strictly because they would sell, and all the Pistols, except, perhaps, for Johnny, wanted only to become famous and make a lot of money, yet they became one of the most influential and enduring artists in the world. The Ramones also wanted to be pop stars, and ripped off a lot of 60's bubblegum, yet they became just as (if not more) important to popular music. Almost every early Led Zeppelin song (and a good deal of their later ones) ripped off an old blues artist. In fact, almost all of rock, underground and mainstream, relies on tried and true tropes because so much of it is lifted from a lot of stuff that has come before.

Even in the case of completely manufactured artists like the Monkees or Justin Bieber, there is talent that goes into making them stars. Whoever writes their material has an ear for melody, hooks, and production that can match and even rival other "serious" musicians.

It's not just about pandering and relying on tropes, otherwise there would be a whole lot more famous people out there.

Man... some people's moms need to learn how to fucking swallow, I swear.

When you run out of points, the next logical step is to resort to ad hominem. I see you've studied Bill O' Reilly's debate tactics well.

Look, man. The point here is this: Desp and I tend to be a kind of musical listener that loses interest in an artistic act once we find out it was made more for profit than for art. To listeners like us, knowing that it's more of a product for maximum profits gives credence to the feeling that the art in question isn't genuine or an honest depiction of the artist in question.

This is the most valid point that you consistently make. "Dishonesty ruins music for me". That's a personal taste thing, and it's something I can't object to, however, your personal feelings about it doesn't devalue pop music or those who listen to it, so stop pretending it does.

This chick rips off Bowie, Madonna, Manson, and whatever the fuck else. Is there anything about her that's actually HER beyond her lyrics?

As I've stated before, "ripping off" is something a lot of musicians from all walks of life do very well.