Justin Bieber

You mean Justin Bieber sings? I thought he just fooled around. Same goes for the women I named, actually.

For the baby boom generation, here's our favorite exhibitionist (picture contains non-sexual nudity):
As Nasty as They Wanna Be: The 20 Dirtiest Album Covers

 

i was about 14 when she came out, and i was too old for her by then. besides, she still sings pop music i think, which is always aimed at preteens. by the time you're older you have usually discovered some form of actual music.

 

I just went through the list. Until now I had no idea Brain Salad Surgery was slang for a bow job. You do learn something new everyday.

 

Okay, first of all NO, pop music is not “always aimed at preteens”. Disney music is always aimed at preteens! Pop music is not a real genre, it’s simply “popular” music (of any genre) that’s played on top 40 radio. This notion that pop music consisting of mostly artists in their 20s-30s singing about love and sex is aimed at “preteens” is a popular stereotype perpetuated by mostly people in their 20s-30s (in fact, that whole concept was started by hipsters in your generation), but has no bearing on reality (or logic). Nobody in 1986 thought that Michael Jackson, Madonna, Prince, George Michael, Whitney Houston, and Cyndi Lauper (the most popular Pop stars of the time) were aimed at preteens!

Pop music is aimed at the demographic that listens to top 40 radio (which is mostly adults). There are certain pop artists whose image is artificially manufactured to appeal to teenyboppers (boy bands, girls bands, artists who look and sound younger than they are, etc), and you could argue that Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, and some others fall into that category (at first anyway). But they are hardly representative of “pop music” as a whole. Because Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Beyoncé, Bruno Mars, Drake, and The Weeknd appeal to fans who are significantly older than teenagers. Particularly when you consider wider demographics like the African-American, or LGBT communities.

In any case I’m older than you, and I still listen to pop music and so do most people I know, of every demographic (who are also older than you). It’s okay to say that Britney Spears is not your taste (and never has been), or that you’ve personally outgrown certain types of music. But to suggest that she is “for” preteens just because of your personal tastes is the height of arrogance, and frankly insulting to fans and the industry as a whole.

 

^^^...Nice Post......



Cheers Glen.

 

Agreed

 

Agreed

 

Will not have anyone dissing Rhianna BTW, she has been my favourite female artist, like ever

Definitely not preteen only

 

Its not an issue that fans and the pop industry feel insulted when critical music fans point out pop artists like Bieber and Britney Spears follow a formula to score high in the charts and among a certain demographic group that has proven to not yet have a developed music taste.

 

Of course it’s not an issue. In order for something to be an “issue”, it first has to be a FACT. And what you just said was not a fact, it was an opinion. An opinion which could in fact be taken apart when subjected to scrutiny and the test of logic.

For example, you singled out Spears and Bieber as following a formula. But aren’t Maroon 5 and Sia also following a different formula to accomplish the same goddamn thing? And how about Drake and Kendrick Lamar? They seem to be following another formula seemed designed to accomplish the same task. Oh, and then there’s Eminem and Macklemore following yet another formula, but still on the same fucking charts! So really the formula they are following is irrelevant when the same goals can be attained in different ways, doing different types of music to different fans.

More to the point, there is no evidence that either 36 year old Spears or 24 year old Bieber are targeting PRETEENS. There is overwhelming evidence that they are actually targeting young adults with their sexualized lyrics, dress (or lack there of), and public history. The fact that they both started as popular singers when they were teenagers is irrelevant! Because that is literally the ONLY reason to classify their music as “for preteens” compared to any of the other artists mentioned. The fact of the matter is, they are not teenagers anymore, and their music today is very different than it was when they first came out. And I’d even argue that despite her age at the time, Spears first major hit “Baby One More Time” was also not lyrically or visually meant to target preteens, but rather males in their early 20s with a taboo schoolgirl fetish (and young women who wanted to be that). But it for damn sure wasn’t for young girls to be watching or listening to. It was only her success at that age which made record execs start to market her to a young audience. But that was almost 20 years ago. Those same fans are now in their mid thirties (or older). Same with Backstreet Boys and *NSYNC fans.

In any case, I go back to my original point that no music or artist played on top 40 radio is targeted to preteens. NONE! That’s not a thing, because if it were you’d have preteen artists being played on top 40 stations, but you don’t.

 

ok, apparently i was wrong about the target audience of pop music. i only know a small handful of adults who listen to it, and all kids seem to do so, so i assumed that was the main audience. apparently that is not the case.

 

According to Wikipedia, Rhianna comes in at 8th biggest selling band or musician of all time, at 240 million certified units

Now one might think the digital age skews those figures upwards, but Bieber comes in at 26th with 146 million

Eminem 9th at 211 million, so even he has sold 70 million more units than Bieber

Bieber gets more attention in the media, but dont think he ever was the biggest pop star in the world

RnB has a far bigger market share than us mostly whiteys here at HF like to imagine



List of best-selling music artists - Wikipedia

 

I can't find that those album covers are "dirty" I saw one unerect penis (lennon's), one graphic artistic depiction of a vulva, NOT an actual vulva, and why is that dirty... a whole bunch of tits and they're never dirty, but variously attractive to various viewers, a bikini that has a few curls of a woman's pubic hair over it... a few mostly naked or partially naked people on the covers, and no recent covers featuring nudity of any kind anywhere... which I find even odder... now to say the covers might be sexy is another thing...but for the most part they're more artistically done than overtly sexy... a few are teasingly sexy... the one with the vulva was too clinical to be sexy... almost like a cake with penis candles (drawn) would be a curiosity... you remove it from its actual context and it desexes it to a great extent... naked people, body parts aren't dirty... they're natural... most of us have them... and sometimes they're sexy, sometimes they're arty... sometimes neither...

 

I've read through most of this and have concluded that I don't care whether or not Justin Bieber is an exhibitionist or not. But, the argument stating that show business may possibly have dictated his actions seems like it may possibly have some merit. I don't know that exhibitionism is his primary motivation, but then I haven't seen the pictures (except for the towel one VG posted). If I had to judge by the towel one, I'd have to say that I am with the show-biz camp, and don't think it's exhibitionism, or any other kink or fetish.

 

I'm sort of thinking that his exhibitionist behaviour just might come from the industry's trying to create a particular persona for him.............. Like, it's his way of saying "fuck you" to the management, producers, and stuff. I know I'd take a similar approach if I were in a similar shoe myself.

 

Gotta say I could care less about bieber.... never thought he was attractive. His face doesn't make the cut for me... The bottom two guys are a little too overworked out. But that top guy has the most beautiful face!!! I'm thinking the rest of him makes the cut too.

 

I listened to a few of his songs. Very pop and bubblegum. They're professionally done. He hits all the notes right. Not lyrically thrilling. meh. There is good pop. He's average-ish. Male Britney.

 

I like the one that goes like, "I used to think we were burning on the edge of something beautiful".

 

No that just makes people like @bft4evr & myself uninterested in generic, badly written, & poorly performed music. Also pop music is a genre & has been since at least the mid 90's. There is a specific niche of musical sound that falls into the category of "pop" & nothing else, no matter how popular, matches that sound.

 

Pop music has been around forever... The Andrews Sisters were pop music in the 40s, Buddy Holly straddled rock and pop, the Beatles were pop and rock, then got a bit more serious, The Hollies started with Bus Stop and Carrie Ann, pop anthems, then drilled into Long Cool Woman in a Black Dress, solid rock and roll. The first two were pop rock, just like Beatles early stuff. Pop is a fluid genre that changes decade by decade and often overlaps other genres. The Jackson Five were completely pop. So were the Osmonds. They were different pop styles, but pop nonetheless. N Sync, Backstreet Boys boy bands were pop with dancing! Boyz II Men pop with R&B. But to say popular music only began in the '90s is wrong. Bing Crosby and Sinatra were pop. They were crooners, but pop music. Widely enjoyed and consumed. This does not mean their music is badly written or performed. Bieber doesn't perform badly. His lyrics leave me flat, but he is popular with his fans and he has millions of them. I don't like Crosby, but he had a HUGE following. Sinatra sang everybody from Cole Porter on. Some of the meanest musicians and lyricists ever alive. "hero of the day" is a fine pop song by Metallica circ '91...There is diversity among "pop" and talent too. Panic at the Disco is a great pop rock group I've loved for years... There's so much out there that fits pop and is very good.