*Justin Bieber breaks both The Beatles and Drake chart records

If you don't like him, lovely. However, he does have talent. He plays instruments and evidence of that is on YouTube. You'll likely think he sucks. That's fine too. You've likely decided that he has no talent because you don't care for what he does. You've said you think he "sucks". Cool. One does not equal the other. I'm hardly a huge fan myself. Maybe not a gigantic amount of it, but he does have some talent.

Ed

 

Your weak attempt at a backhanded insult is full of holes.
Some corrections:
I have never said I was a "star". I have really never revealed what my true function or level of function in music is, quite intentionally.
I also play a variety of styles of music, not only rock era.
Protecting ones identity is part of todays society and is a very pragmatic thing to do.
And I am not playing any kind of game.

 

Who are the Beatles/Drake/bieber?Oh well I will keep listening to Ash Ra Temple and Pharoah Sanders and not worry one bit.Happy.

 

This.
He no doubt has some talent.
To compare a modern pop singer to the most well known and arguably greatest rock band in the world based on very disproportionate sales statistics is a bit absurd .
To imply that he has no talent is equally absurd.
But he can sing, apparently has some charisma, and is obviously quite easy for the music industry to turn a huge buck on.
There is a value in that.

 

Yes, Justin Beiber has talent. There can be no denying that. Period. And yes, he can drum and pick a bit. Cool.

However, as stated, the big disparity between Justin Beiber, Adele, Lady GaGa, et al, is not their value as entertainers, but their value as creators.

The Beatles we're really the first band to come out and say, look we write all of our own material. This is the total opposite of the aforementioned "artists" of today. They do virtually nothing to create what they put their name to. I have much more respect for the actual songwriters, but even at that the songs are such a hodge-podge of writers that it's ridiculous.

Today, you'll have one guy who is a specialist at beats, only, and another who does arrangements, only, and yet another who does vocal melodies, only. Yes, this is art, but it's not what the Beatles taught the musical world...or Pink Floyd, or The Shins, or Radiohead, or Prince, Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Traffic, Jimi Hendrix, Coldplay, and on and on, that I am a self-contained artist, and this is my music, unlike any other, it is an art unto myself, because it came from only me, and it represents a unique musical vision.

Those days are far from over in today's music. But these prefab, canned products better be good and popular, because if not then you have a bunch of monkies screwing a football for nothing.

 

So Tony Bennett, Frank Sinatra, and Sammy Davis, Jr. had nothing to offer at all? How about Barbra Streisand? Ella? Sarah Vaughan? This "if you don't write, you aren't an artist" schtick is what's ridiculous, actually...

As for what Justin writes, we don't know. He could do more than we realize. We aren't with him when he does it.

Ed

 

You're missing a big one here. Elvis Presley. Let's get that straight, or we don't have a conversation.

There have been certain vocalists, over time, who have used their voice on such a unique level that their greatness, at least as entertainers, cannot be denied. Vocal inflection, tonality, sonority, range and articulation all come into play. Many of those that you mentioned fall into that class: those vocalists whom you immediately know who's singing, whether the performance defined an older standard, or a genre, or whatever.

Yes, still, even as much as love to hear Billie Holiday sing, or Elvis, or Sinatra, and even though certain performances by all of these artists (and more) have become definitive performances, classics, timeless recordings, without the music and melodies to play with, the singer has nothing.

Zip. Zero. Nada. Ziltch.

It has, and always will be a composers/songwriter's world. Go back to the earliest known written music and prestige followed. Mozart even wrote a musical comedy, lambasting those who thought they could write, but weren't.

As to what Beiber writes, with over 24 songwriters on his latest album, it can't be much. There's no possible way it can be as singular and unique as "Maybe I'm Amazed" or "Imagine." The numbers just don't add up.

So, answer this question for me. I've worked in the music business for quite some time. Over 20 years. Why does it take 24 producers and even more songwriters to make a "Justin Beiber" album?

 

In ten years time I doubt folks will discuss Justin Beiber, Drake, etc., except as popular flavors of the moment. Conversely, historians, musicians (old & young) and fans of all ages will still be studying, interpreting and reveling in music written by the Beatles and other artists from the 60's 70's, 80's & 90's. I'm not saying that as a fan with an agenda, but as an objective observer of trends who recognizes the difference between musical genius and good PR.

Justin Beiber is no doubt a teen idol and a talented artist who enjoys wide popularity (much like Peter Frampton in 1979 & 80), but it's doubtful that Justin's songwriting skills will ever match those of legendary artists like Lennon/McCartney, Zevon, Dylan or Nilsson, any more than his performances will be discussed with as much passion as those of The Stones, Hendrix or Zeppelin. Don't take my word for it, ...just dig this thread up periodically and compare what's popular at the moment with long term musical legacy.

The biggest problem with statistics is that they can be manipulated to fit whatever facts are desired by the news provider. Accurate surveys have to take into account a broad spectrum of variables, adjusting for population growth, pricing, digital content (vs vinyl), how music is listened to, etc. It's worth noting that Baseball fans still worship legendary players long after their records were broken by those less revered (pre/post juicing notwithstanding). In both music and sports, as the game changes so do the expectations of fans.


Cat

 

I don't consider those who sing and perform songs to necessarily be artists.
The artists are those who create the songs and create the recordings, which is to say the writers and producers.
Those who merely perform the songs are entertainers, not artists.
The guy that puts a nail in the wall and hangs up a Picasso is not an artist. Picasso is.

 

I disagree. Those I mentioned didn't just "perform songs"; they made them over in their own image. Songwriters used to clamor to get their tunes into the hands of these people because they knew these singers would do right by them. Of course, the income generated made it attractive too. The songwriters appreciated the artistry they brought to the table. I can't get with the suggestion that there's no artistry in interpretation.

Ed

 

Since yesterday I checked out some of Bieber's videos and I will admit his voice is fine if not sort of breathy and soulful, though by this point I'm not even sure it's 100% natural (given the age of auto-tone we're currently in). Furthermore, there's a song I found called "Nothing Like Us" that he gets sole writing credit on that's not bad by any means. His aforementioned "talent" is more apparent if/when you actually give his music a chance, but all this said I can still picture a small board room of executives and producers and writers and PR agents and managers virtually dictating Bieber's every artistic move. As a result he simply comes off as inauthentic to traditional music-lovers who at the very least look for some degree of distinction and personality in their product. In a way, Bieber almost feels like a parody of what "teenage girls want to hear" because the music is so hammy when compared to what we know about his lifestyle and yet his fans are devoted to him on an almost religious level. Beyond that I also sort of admire his "I don't give a crap" public persona and rebellious charm--it's comedic in a sense because of how frequently his headline-grabbing antics are followed by some sort of half-baked apology. It will be less comedic if and when he goes into full blown meltdown mode due to the constant demands of his epic corporate-sponsored fame paired with the fact that he's a young male having every single desire catered to every single day.

Bieber reminds me of Britney Spears in a lot of ways in that their both basically corporate puppets who struck gold for the music industry and could do no wrong no matter how idiotic or passionless they seemed. Spears might have had a little more discernible personality to her style and voice when she emerged on the scene. That sort of faintly sexual sneer that ran beneath her delivery became a trademark of hers. Bieber's trademark as far as I can tell is a sort of over-emphasized cooing paired with dramatically insincere lyrics and a manufactured vibe of authenticity, which I guess doesn't make him much different than Spears.

Talent or no talent, it's still too easy for me to picture Bieber showing up in the studio for an hour at a time (with the majority of the work having been done for him in advance) and laying down some vocals which are later tweaked by the world's best editors and producers, and then leaving for the day to get high and go jet-skiing or something. I don't see Streisand or Sammy Davis Jr (two lesser examples) doing the same thing. So while I do agree that there is indeed "artistry in interpretation", I'm still not necessarily convinced that Bieber's "artistry" isn't primarily interpreted for him.

 

I've heard this argument upwards of umpteen times, but I've never understood why it matters. Why "X writes songs for Y" has any effect on you as a consumer of the music. If you found out that every single song on Sgt Pepper's was written by 100 anonymous mouths, would that change how much you like the album? It shouldn't. Who cares if a thousand people helped write a piece of music; if it's good, it's good.

 

Bonus points for checking him out. Most haven't done that and likely won't either.

You say "his aforementioned talent is more apparent when you give it a chance". That's my whole point. Is he Tony Bennett? No. He does, however, have talent and that's all I was saying.

Ed

 

That is true. But the problem with your analogy is that you are equating the guy with the hammer and nail to be equal to those that are interpreters of songs. To say that Frank Sinatra, just one example, was not an artist and no more than just a guy with a hammer and nail is wrong. That's simply not true.

 

On one level, yes; on another level, no. The experience of music occurs on more than one level (for some people, at least).

Yes, except that some people's experience of certain music involves more than just what is purely/solely musical.

 

Which is what exactly? I understand learning about artists and their backgrounds and whatnot, but that has nothing to do with creating arbitrary rules about the artistic integrity/quality behind the number of artists working on a single piece of music.

 

Not enough time, at the moment, to explain my thinking, but I will say that there is a relationship between the meaning/effect of certain pieces of art and our knowledge of the way in which that art was created.

 

He's a prouduct of the YouTube/TMZ culture. Treating him like a musician is silly.

 

Not to take anything away from Justin Bieber, but I think it's saying more about The Beatles that they were able to have 14 songs on the chart at once over 50 years ago than Bieber's record now. As has been pointed out before, it's a different world now and the charts are compiled differently than half a century ago. They were able to accomplish this kind of feat at a time when you actually had to go out and buy physical copies of product. Not to mention that a song was actually required to be physically available to make the chart in the first place. Neither one applies today. I don't doubt that most or every song from their albums would've charted had digital downloads been available then.

 

Despite being a big Beatles fan and never having heard a squeak from Bieber to judge his talent or lack of it, I'm really glad this chart record has been smashed.

The Beatles remasters and their monos and the US albums and their iTunes versions and their forthcoming (no doubt) streaming versions and the awards shows, TV specials, DVD reissues, cinema reissues etc etc have all been great but alongside McCartney's presence which has had all of the same abundance of components, and although it's all been rather force-fed, there's not been much of a backlash.

Deep-walleted boomer support has been heavy but also heavy-handed and starting with the original (and genuine) 'Who is Paul McCartney?' grammy tweets from a few years ago (revived for the lulz earlier this year by kids baiting the boomers), it's now very clear that an undercurrent of bad feeling is brewing among the youth whose tastes are being daily vilified in the highest echelons of critical media, just as they have always been. Remember, Ed Sullivan kids?

The charts is where they get to tell the 'authorities' to GO F THEMSELVES. And as much as I would have revelled in The Beatles' overcoming of that same response from 1964's authorities (as they did), I relish the kids' now.

You can read it in the comments and the vibe is not even the majority just now as The Beatles have a lot of young supporters but there's definitely a moment of triumph that should be 'allowed' for youth tastes no matter what your opinion. The young aren't getting a cut on opportunities these days because all of the power and glory and certainly the money is in elderly hands, whether those of bankers, realtors, governors or musicians.

I celebrate youth's statistical overcoming, as the least they deserve.

 

Yes, it would change how much I liked the album. Very much so. Even as a child of 6 I was reading liner notes. I don't know why. I quickly realized that the little names in paretheses below the song was the songwriting credit. I would then match the name with the face on the album (if applicable) and rumminate on the brain that song came from. What was that person thinking? Feeling? Imagining? Which eventually lead me to read many books on music and musicians, the backstory, the times in which the songs we're written. Context greatly enhanced the listening experience.

I was going to write more, but this thread has gotten boring.

Let it be to each their own, because I don't care to convince anybody of anything.

 

This is also a world with way more choices and a world where one can download an exact duplicate of an entire CD for free. It speaks larger volumes when someone can break chart records in such a time.

 

Be careful though. It has gone into common wisdom that The Beatles had fourteen physical singles on the Hot 100 which is false.
The fourteen hits were from eight physical singles, six of which had both sides charting.
And of course, the Hot 100 has never been charting just sales but broadcasts (which you could call streams even in 1964)

What it IS charting besides sales may have changed technologically since 1964 but statistically, Bieber's achievement is quite as sound as that of The Beatles. There's no wiggle room on that.

Were we to retro-apply to The Beatles' achievement some of the qualifications being outlined as applicable to Bieber's, we might say that The Beatles had only eight simultaneous records on the charts in 1964.

Since we don't want to do that (do we?) The Beatles record is fair and square smashed, any which way you like.

 

...except for the fact that he is.

Ed

 

Bieber and Drake, are they a comedy duo or something?