/lit/ - Literature

>>14936747
Some leftypol fag already did a good analysis. Don't have the pic.

>>14936747
smelly puhssy

>>14936747
Billie, a girl with an incredible talent and personality, completely solipsized into niggerdom by the moSSad

>>14936782
>girl
>talent
pick one

academia will crash and burn, along with most culture, in the post corona virus world.
She's utterly irrelevant if you parents are dying a horrific death whilst you can't even buy toilet paper

Big milkers

>>14936753
Here.

Also, someone please Email a legit cultural theorist and ask them what they think about her.

Debord already went over it
"The celebrity, the spectacular representation of a living human being, embodies this banality by embodying the image of a possible role. Being a star means specializing in the seemingly lived; the star is the object of identification with the shallow seeming life that has to compensate for the fragmented productive specializations which are actually lived. Celebrities exist to act out various styles of living and viewing society unfettered, free to express themselves globally. They embody the inaccessible result of social labor by dramatizing its by-products magically projected above it as its goal: power and vacations, decision and consumption, which are the beginning and end of an undiscussed process. In one case state power personalizes itself as a pseudo-star; in another a star of consumption gets elected as a pseudo-power over the lived. But just as the activities of the star are not really global, they are not really varied."

Doesn't mean you can't enjoy her music though

Does anyone know where Joyce wrote that "Eilish" sounds like a drunk Irishman saying Irish. I could have sworn I read it somewhere but I can't find it anymore

>>14937020
Nah, her music is boring as hell. Yet for some reason is propped up by the media as something provocative and groundbreaking.

Why are zoomers so obsessed with 20-something female 'singers' whose portfolio consists entirely of mumbling incoherent things in the microphone while droning ambient noise bores into your ears?

>>14937011
why do people care about her? i legit had never heard of her

>>14937047
It has to do with the media hype surrounding her "organic" rise to fame and the notion that she's somehow "tearing down the entire pop establishment" or "deconstructing the entire essence of pop music" by only recording music in her bedroom with her brother or some shit.

>>14937011
Agree with a lot of this. It doesn't even mention the sheer multitude of A-list celebrity and musician endorsements she's received over a very short space of time, most of them seem to say the same thing: "My kids love her".

I actually think she's fairly talented and has a couple of good songs, but she is 100% a plant. She's like the west's answer to the heavily manufactured k-pop star.

>>14936747
Probably nothing.

>>14937057
Nobody seriously is falling for that are they? Like ok maybe 12 year old girls, but they always do

>>14937059
If you look at the date, that leftypol post was made around this time last year, so before all of Eyelash's connections with Apple Music were revealed.

>>14937078
You'd be surprised. A lot of mainstream media is pushing this narrative.

>>14936747
Probably nothing

>>14936747
>look, Kurt Cobain destroyed MTV forever on MTV

>>14937059
>She's like the west's answer to the heavily manufactured k-pop star.

It's like what Fisher said about Kurt Cobain: "[N]othing runs better on MTV than a protest against MTV."

>>14937100
>>14937106
This article from The Atlantic, of all things, has some decent insights:
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/01/why-billie-eilish-swept-grammys/605587/

>"Certainly, the music-industry establishment has a lot riding on her. The myth of her fame is that she blew up from a single slice of bedroom pop uploaded to SoundCloud; the truth is that managers and marketers affiliated with major labels and streaming services glommed on very early in her career and opened pathways that few others are able to access. If her songs and performance style weren’t arresting, such access would have been meaningless. But working with O’Connell, she made the most of early features on Apple’s Beats 1 and late-night TV. Her and her brother’s ease on camera and on mic was, on some level, honed by their upbringing as the homeschooled kids of two working actors in Los Angeles."

>>14937125
>"Eilish’s shtick is a patchwork of influences, and the most important of them might be hip-hop. Rap culture informs her oversized track suits, her way of speaking, her rat-a-tat vocal delivery, and the trap percussion of her songs; she has been quick to praise hip-hop and work with emcees. Rap, however, doesn’t usually fare well at the Grammys. Hip-hop has generated only two Album of the Year winners ever, and some of the most ingenious black artists have been rewarded only in genre-specific categories rather than the general ones (for more details, here’s Tyler, the Creator, speaking ambivalently last night about his Best Rap Album win for an album that didn’t sound very much like rap). Eilish is able to swipe influences from America’s most popular genre without taking a prestige hit or getting pigeonholed.

>"That’s because her whiteness allows her to be perceived as belonging to genres more “respectable” to masses of Grammys voters. Though there are few guitars in her songs, Dave Grohl has called her the future of rock and roll, and at the American Music Awards, she was named Favorite Artist—Alternative Rock. The “rock” of her identity mostly comes down to a chain-laden and heavy-lidded image that recalls a lineage stretching through Sid Vicious and Garbage’s Shirley Manson. Race is clearly part of this image. The rappers Travis Scott and Lil Uzi Vert have a similar fashion sense to Eilish, and their music overtly interpolates rock. But they are culturally consumed, primarily, as hip-hop artists, with little chance of earning a top prize at the Grammys."

>>14937011

Somebody just analysed her through one Adorno & Horkheimer essay, albeit correctly.

>>14937138
I've never read Dialectic of Enlightenment. What do A&H argue in regards to pop culture?

>>14936747
>MUH SPECTACLE
>IT'S NOT REALY; IT'S ALL PHONY
Do you really need another sheltered academic to tell you this for the hundredth time and then vaguely connect it with marxism by mentioning "late capitalism" and so on and so on? Stop enabling these phonies. They're late capitalism. No YOU'RE late capitalism.

>>14936747

Nothing. They will say exactly as much about her as they will about Miley Cyrus or Arriana Grande. Nothing.

>>14937045
Never said you had to enjoy it. There is a ton of boring popular pop music

>>14937176
I'm guessing they'd have more to say, since Billie's image is predicated on the idea she's some kind of counter-power to standard pop music.

>>14937046
Billie is big with Boomers too. Not everyone has your exact taste.

>>14936747
What have we done

>"she's an industry plant"
Aside from the fact that this has never been demonstrated, so what? The Beatles, Beach Boys, David Bowie, and Kate Bush were all industry plants. Does that take anything away from their musical abilities or achievements?

>"she was only signed because her parents have industry connections"
Her parents are part-time actors whose biggest roles have been bit parts in films and TV shows. Any connections they have probably had no influence on why she was signed.

>"her brother writes and produces all her material"
Almost all pop stars have ghostwriters and barely any of them produce. The fact it's only Billie and her brother writing and producing together should indicate they're miles ahead of her contemporaries and very authentic.

>"her label planned her image change in order to pander to hip hop fans"
Billie is friends with several rappers and has said hip hop has a huge influence on her as an artist. Of course she's going to imitate the styles of artists she admires. Besides, it's not unusual for teens to take an interest in urban culture.

>"she's a terrible vocalist"
Anyone who tells you this simply doesn't understand the female voice. Billie's singing is excellent and her timbre is extremely pleasant to listen to. Just because she doesn't belt or sing very high or low doesn't mean she's a bad vocalist.

>"she's fake deep and fake woke"
Billie never claimed to be socially or politically conscious or "the voice of Gen Z." She's 18 for crying out loud. Since when do 18-year olds write about anything deeply profound or philosophical?

>"she has a Calvin Klein ad, that makes her a sellout"
Again, she never claimed to be counter-cultural or anti-system so how would product endorsement deals make her a "sellout?"

>"her music is boring"
If that's the case, why does she get universal acclaim as a singer-songwriter?

>>14937198
Which again, proves that all the media hype about her "tearing the pop system down" or whatever is really, really stupid. The same boomers to whom her success is supposed to be "threatening" are the same ones giving her loads of praise.

>>14937233
I'm a fan of her yet Ive never heard anything about her "tearing the pop system down". Its just pop music, none of this shit is new

>>14937219
lmfao, niggerlover

>>14937132
>NOOOOO LIL UZI DIDNT WIN BECAUSE HES BALCK
>HES GOT SO MUCH TALENTRINO NOOOOO THE HECKIN MUSIC INDUSTRY HOLDING HIM BACK NOOOO

lol shut the fuck up

>>14937157

Only the culture industry directly deals with the issue. Read the wikipedia article and then download the pdf file and read it. Whilst the writing style may seem a bit odd at first, it's not too hard to understand even with a very rudimentary knowledge of critical theory.

>>>>>>>>>>/mu/

>>14937196

Yet that image is entirely as fabricated and fake as standard pop music. She is the direct result of marketing research and focus group testing. I don't expect the world to fall for that "counter-power" shtick for very long, and once the audience gets bored with it, it stops. I really doubt she will turn out to be memorable in any way.

>>14937219

cringe

>>14937219
>Since when do 18-year olds write about anything deeply profound or philosophical?

>>14937347

>listening to, caring about, and discussing "music" composed after 1750
Plebs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixGv5CQky8s

>>14937366
I will match you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTe3C_RoDo

>>14937244
It's actually been a very common trope in the publications which write about her. This one comes to mind:

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/billie-eilish-is-the-ultimate-gen-z-role-model

>>14936747
Nothing.

>>14937366
>that one autistic who strictly listens to classical

>>14937401
Why do you care if some random webzine calls her important. Hyperbole in journalism is nothing new

>>14937219
Get the fuck out, shill.

>>14937219
Plz plz plz gtfo my board

>>14937427
That's not a "random website" though, that's Vogue, the epitome of bourgeois journalism.

>>14937334
She's had a professional team of almost 20 people since age 14.

"Anarchy for sale"

>>14937106
Fisher really was an inspired, prophetic figure. It always makes me sad when people bring him up in conversation, its like he knew our precise trajectory before we had even started steering the ship into the iceburg.

>>14937219
Seriously, how much are they paying you to write this trash? I have 100% seen this post multiple times on /mu/ before. It's like they've given you a fucking script.

>>14937493
It's stale pasta.

>>14937219
>The Beatles, Beach Boys, David Bowie, and Kate Bush were all industry plants.
But... that's entirely wrong? The Beatles were performing shows on their own for years before they were signed. The Beach Boys already had a charting Billboard hit before being signed, also papa Wilson didn't have any major label connections the way Billie's brother did. Kate Bush recorded over 50 demos and was rejected by a few labels before she hooked up with Gilmour and he got her signed (she also had huge issues with EMI very early on). None of these scenarios are equivalent to Billie walking into her brother's bedroom, recording some vocals, posting it to SoundCloud, the brother's manager sending the recording to an Interscope intern, and the intern sending it to label higher-ups.

>>14937493
Id bet money that post originated on Reddit

>>14936747
The acclaim for Justin Bieber was actually somewhat deserved and his rise to fame was considerably more organic. I regret being one of those petty kids calling him bad. This shit, on the other hand, is just such a focus-grouped, data-driven lobotomy it boggles my mind that people either can't see through the bullshit, or even worse, they don't even care about the brain rot they're subjecting themselves to.

>>14937521
Pretty much.

>>14937514
Beatles - propped up by Epstein
Beach Boys - organized by their dad
Kate Bush - Parents mailed out their demos to everyone until a huge artist propped her up
Sound like plants to me

Meanwhile Billys brother just new someone who owned a small label? What makes that a plant

>>14937219
>Billie's singing is excellent
It's not. That whisper shit she does will damage her vocal cords very soon.

>>14937627
What makes Billie a plant in the traditional scene is how she LARPs like her rise to fame was something which happened outside the standard industry game when she was actually being pushed by the industry (including streaming services) from Day 1. That's the reason she garners so much skepticism: it has everything to do with what people perceive as deception on her end.

>>14937634
Whispering isn't bad for your vocal chords. She's had professionals teach her

>>14937653
Also: there's the whataboutism "BUT THEY'RE ALL PLANTS" and while that may be true, other pop stars don't pretend like their success was something which happened counter to what industry professionals decided.

>>14937653
Ocean Eye is from 2015 and she was a literal who to most people until 2019. How do you think the industry is organized? There aren't shadowy figures behind curtains deciding who and who doesn't get famous. Mostly labels at most just help with promotion but the popularity comes from people who listen to her music on stuff like youtube and spotify

>>14937693
>There aren't shadowy figures behind curtains deciding who and who doesn't get famous
Feel free not to believe me but I have a friend who works for a record label, and it absolutely is like this most of the time. There is a huge co-ordinated push for certain artists, while others get literally nothing. You say they "just help with promotion" like that is just a tiny part of it, when in reality its incredibly fucking important, probably even more important than the music itself.

>>14937693
I heard Ocean Eyes in 2016 when it had like no views because Youtube randomly put it on my autoplay that was just going through very popular pop music. incidentally that's the only Eilish song I like

>>14937693
The thing is, labels aren't exactly the top players in the music industry anymore. If you followed Billie's rise you'd realize her biggest supporters were Apple Music and Spotify. She didn't become a superstar due to Ocean Eyes going viral on SoundCloud. She only got as big as she is now due to an endless amount of promotion (mainly on Spotify and YouTube) all throughout 2018. Just check her discography page on wikipedia and you'll see how she released several singles between 2016-2018 which didn't go anywhere. The first time she charted on Billboard was in 2018 with her song Lovely which featured Khalid (who was huge at that time). Plus, why do you think her label demanded her name be taken off the song she did with Denzel Curry?

What Apple and Spotify did with her was use her as counter-propaganda to all the complaints other artists had with music streaming. Artists have been complaining for ten years that 1. they're not getting paid enough for streams, and 2. streaming destroys the worth of the album. That's exactly why Billie made it a "thing" to ensure everyone during all her 2018 promotion campaigns that this was all for her album. Not to mention her album was supposed to be some kind of "listening experience".

It's literally all a game.

>>14937693

>>14937219
this reads very much like it was written by a shill

>>14937718
>>14937762
Even if this is true so what, is she just going to be called "inauthentic" by some 4chan posters. It hardly matter how a band gets famous. People are going to continue listening to her regardless of what you think

>>14937627
>Kate Bush - Parents mailed out their demos to everyone until a huge artist propped her up
Not the same thing as your brother's manager giving the first song you ever recorded professionally to a major label and the label signing you a few months later.

>>14937807
>People are going to continue listening to her regardless of what you think
That is literally his point lol. That the public will just listen to whatever theyre shilled

>>14937427

>calling Vogue a random webzine

>>14937785
Wow some random post by an anonymous poster on 4chan. Sources don't get more credible than this

>>14937807
Because the point of contention isn't about her being famous, it's about the lack of transparency in the music industry and how capitalism continues to market "authenticity" and "counter culture". The discussion around Eyelash is really no different than something Marcuse or Debord would write about.

>>14937816
And?

>>14937812
How is that different? Both got scouted by the industry

>>14937834
Well if only a few commies care then whatever. The world goes on no matter how much they disagree with what is happening.

>>14937835
what do you mean 'and?' you faggot, that was the point being discussed in the thread
ill 'and?' your mother

>>14937846
What am I supposed to do with this information? It doesn't change anything

>>14937845
But it's still a worthwhile discussion to have. If we're going to talk about how pop culture deceives the masses and reproduces capitalist ideology, why NOT talk about "anti-establishment" pop stars who have been promoted by the establishment the entire time?

>>14937693
>There aren't shadowy figures behind curtains deciding who and who doesn't get famou

Yes there are you idiot, except they're not shadowy. They are only "shadowy" to ignorant idiots like you. People listen to it because they are told to listen to it. People like Billie Eilish or Ariana Grande are completely interchangeable with a dozen other girls who could become the same product if the label wanted it to be so.

>>14937835
So let's flip the question: what makes Billie less of a plant than Kate Bush or the Beach Boys?

>>14937807

>I don't care that I'm literally a "he does it for free" marketing shill for the record company's latest product

>>14936747
That she was the smoke to fill the heads of the Shudras and untouchables.

The same thing they're saying about Britney Spears right now; or Cindy Lauper; or whatever past Pop icon existed beyond your memory.

>>14937873
You'd be shocked as to how many leftists still support Eyelash despite everything we're discussing now.

Back in 2018 comrades were literally believing the hype about her being "anti-industry" and proclaimed her to be a little Emma Goldman-type figure. I'm not kidding. Billie's biggest fans two years ago were Marxists and feminists.

>>14937869
I don't believe in the "industry plant" conspiracy theory. Wikipedia doesn't even have a page on it. Its almost as retarded as calling football players plants because they signed to a team or an actor who got a major role

"woah that actor got signed into a major movie all of a sudden despite only having some small roles in the past? Something suspicious is going on here"- said no one ever

>>14937894
"Industry plant" has to do with astroturfing. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a few businesspeople talking to each other.

>>14937886
You can disagree with how they got famous and still enjoy their music.

>>14937845
Because pointing this shit out makes normies more aware of the bullshit mass media feeds them day-to-day.

>>14937903
Still don't see whats wrong with a musician having a sponsor

>>14937904
Very little about this entire discussion has anything to do with Billie's music, because that's not the significant factor here. Like when bell hooks critiques pop stars the content of the music is only one thing she looks at.

>>14937894
Comparing it football players is absurd, there is hardly an ounce of subjectivity in football. As for actors just lmao upon lmao if you think the industry isn't completely nepotism and connections.

the best part of your post though has to be
>and wikipedia doesn't even have a page on it

>>14937919
As long as you live under capitalism nothing about this will change. There is no point in singling out a single artist when its literally every popular artist

>>14937904
Marxists and feminists didn't care about Billie's music. What they cared about was her allegedly being someone leading a kind of silent revolution against major label control. "She records in her bedroom with only her brother as producer" was supposed to be a "threat" to the major labels.

>>14937932
Moving the goalposts, I see.

>>14937936
No one has claimed she is against major label control. Isn't she partnered with Apple? You can make music in your bedroom and still be part of a big label

>>14936747
This isn't /mu/ you stupid faggot. Mods!

>>14937942
I just don't know what is being argued anymore. I don't disagree with everything people are saying but I just don't see the point or how it changes anything. You just want people to see her as more 'inauthentic'? Doesn't really matter to me

>>14937762
>What Apple and Spotify did with her was use her as counter-propaganda to all the complaints other artists had with music streaming.
Never thought about it that way but it actually makes a lot of sense.

>>14937943
It's not her words but her actions which made lefties gravitate towards her, i.e. "she refuses to let the label control her". Which of course ignores the fact (as you've stated) she had agreements with Apple and Spotify early on.

>>14937972
The actual music and her fashion sense doesn't have much to do with the label

>>14937932
>NOO NOT MY DOPE EYED WAIFU EVERYONE’S JUST AS BAD ITS CAPITALISMS FAULT

cringe

>>14937987
"She doesn't have a gang of songwriters and producers behind her, it's just her brother and that makes her anti-industry."

>>14937987
>her fashion sense
im an out of touch 25 year old boomer but her fashion sense perplexes me. She dresses like a rapper from 2001

>/mu/ loves billie
>/lit/ gets triggered by her

>>14938005
Never claimed she is anti-industry and what is so unbelievable about her brother making music? If her brother got a job at the "industry" would you believe it?

>>14938023
incels get mad at any successful woman :^)

>>14938014
/mu/ is a bunch of corporate bootlickers that will forgo any shred of integrity w/r/t their apparent elitism if an artist is CUTE or has big tiddies

just look at chvrches, grimes, Angel Olson, etc...

>>14938043
>just look at chvrches, grimes, Angel Olson
confirmed for not browsing /mu/ since 2016

>>14938043
Better than being a misogynist who will call an artist a plant simply for being a woman

>>14938013
Or rather, she dresses the way R&B singers dressed in the early-to-mid 90s. Just look at images of TLC from 1993 or Aaliyah from 1996.

>>14938014
Because /lit/ has done their research and are a lot harder to fool.

>>14938054
Nobody cares about Billie being a woman. What they care about is her dishonesty.

>>14937762
>Plus, why do you think her label demanded her name be taken off the song she did with Denzel Curry?
The song contains the line "Donald Trump, Donald Duck." I wouldn't want my star plant being featured on a song with lyrics that corny.

>>14938046
I don't remember the last time I was on there but surely they still have regular threads about wanting to be Lauren Mayberry's tampon?

>>14938054
Just shut the fuck up. My favourite musical artist is a tranny that makes femme fatal noise music. I'm more feminist than you will ever know.

>>14938043
Grimes is exactly like Billie but arguably worse since she's "indie". A lot of old hipsters in Montreal hate her guts because they know she lied about being a poor, struggling artist when in reality she was a student at McGill (which is Canada's Harvard/Oxford), both her parents are incredibly wealthy, and her brother has industry ties just like Billie's. There's also rumours she slept with indie music journalists for publicity.

>>14938071
There is literally nothing wrong with being dishonest. Why are you trying to LARP as some kind of upholder of morality

>>14938092
it's not hard to get into McGill undergrad at all, it's not remotely comparable to Harvard or Oxford

>>14938092
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/03/11/elon-musk-is-acting-like-a-neo-conquistador-for-south-americas-lithium/

Grimes' bf has a fuckton of blood on his hands too.

>>14936747
Billie Eilish is already a fertility goddess among zoomers who worship her and associate her with milk, both as breasts milk and seminal milk. Those are their oblations

Are we going to ignore all the pampered writers who had ties to publishing companies. I feel like we should call out their dishonesty as well.

Joyce LARPed as some kind of poor struggling artist yet he had people in the industry like Ezra Pound recommend his work to a publisher

>>14938092
I'm in two minds about Grimes. I've never been a big fan of her (her voice always put me off) but I did enjoy her latest record. On the other hand, she threw a band I did really like, Viet Cong, under a bus/twitter shitstorm and got all their shows boycotted because of their name. I don't know whether it had anything to do with the name change, but their music sucks now, literally tedious joy division knock-off music.

>There's also rumours she slept with indie music journalists for publicity.
that would be ironic, considering she's heralded as being this staunchly independent artist who does everything for herself. Would be pretty bad form if it turned out she sucked dick for it all.

>>14938119
Having connections isn't the same as being hailed as someone "tearing down the industry" all while being propped up by the industry. I see where you're coming from, but it's not necessarily an accurate analogy.

>>14938142
>Having connections isn't the same as being hailed as someone "tearing down the industry" all while being propped up by the industry.
Wait until you hear about French philosophy of the 20th century

>>14937219
Based

>>14938150
Oh, I'm very much aware. Postmodernism was propped up by the academy in order to offset Marxism.

>>14938119
??????
Proust got turned down a lot because he had the first 80 pages of his manuscript talking about a kid with insomnia. The people who turned him down then said it was the worst mistake in their career.
LMFAO

>>14938023
Her brother was already a professional musician by the time he wrote Ocean Eyes and had Billie record it. That's why a manager was involved.

>>14938005
>She doesn't have a gang of songwriters and producers behind her
And what's so revolutionary about this? There are plenty of singer-songwriters who write all their material and self-produce. How many of them are seen as "anti-industry" if we're using this as criteria?

>>14938150
There's a reason why your humanities professor prefers Foucault over Gramsci.

>>14938071
>harder to fool
To fool about what? Jesus, take life easy

Wake me up when she does porn

>>14938168
Because the novel was a success. You're a stupid uncultured pig

>>14938142
What are pop stars supposed to do, not try speak out against the system? There are a ton of leftist pop artists but its not like they should just retire just to stick it up to the man or whatever

>>14937969
It's very obvious once you think about it. Look at how Taylor Swift tried to take all her music off of Spotify back in 2014. If musicians unionized they could shut down Spotify in no time until the streaming services pays up. That's why they love Billie so much: they can use her to show how a "real" artist can become super successful based on streaming, and how the fears of all the artists complaining about the platform are unfounded.

>>14938226
you are a literal 18 year old and you need to leave. It's not 'speaking up against the system', it's 'the system manufacturing the illusion of rebellion'.

Not that I give a shit about whether some pop singer is taking on the system, the entire notion is fucking ridiculous, im sure she just writes songs about boys and her feelings and drugs like every other pop singer, and there is nothing wrong with it.

I'm archiving this thread and plan on Emailing it to a critical theorist. Which one should I chose? I'm thinking Jameson.

>>14938245
How is Ariana Grande rebellion? Not even Billie claims to be trying to shake up the system or whatever. That argument just works with like Nirvana or System of a down

>>14938217
No, because they got filtered, just like you did by my post.
LMFAO
thanks for the profound observation!

>>14937011
As someone who has had a small amount of success in the music industry and 'knows' a bit, I can confirm that all of it is a facade, very far down even into what is considered to be 'independent' music. I've been tapped for joining the fray myself a few times, but I bailed and quit because the whole thing is perverse and they prey on idealistic retarded kids who don't know how to manage themselves, so they can keep most of the money.

But generally, major labels will tap young stars that they thing look good then create a fake 'rise from the underground' narrative by working with 'indie' labels to put out their first releases by throwing them a few bucks in return. Music is all about the story and has almost nothing to do with music. It's about sell a certain image and culture to teenagers, which they can market and milk for as long as it lasts. None of it is organic, really. This practice isn't something new, but has been going on for most of the 20th century. It's just easier to see it now because of the internet. The funny thing about it all is that there's hardly any money in music anymore.

This post is kind of funny though, because it's pretty obvious if you bother doing some research for half a day, it's not some grand conspiracy he has uncovered. At the end of the day, the music industry just push whatever they can sell, which in music tends to be the lowest common denominator, hence the gradual decline of quality over time, as the new LCD becomes whatever the next layer of shit is. The case with Billie Eilish is just a rich kid who caught on because she has a lot of money behind her rise and a natural charisma and look that pays off. It's not a very big deal.

>>14938226
Interestingly enough, Billie's brother/songwriter is a huge Biden supporter.

>>14938265
How do you explain someone like XXXTentacion, who became a huge star online up until his death despite no major label willing to touch him due to his domestic abuse charges?

>>14938260
>How is Ariana Grande rebellion?
Not that anon but she is rebelling against the expectation that white women shouldn't be allowed to do brown face. She's breaking down cultural barriers and rebelling against the system that tells her she can't appropriate the latina aesthetic for her own material gain. Fight the (white) power!

>>14938097
>There is literally nothing wrong with being dishonest. Why are you trying to LARP as some kind of upholder of morality

The absolute state of /mu/ tards

This is next level COPE

>>14938279
Her name is Ariana Grande dude. A bit of sun and Mediterraneans turn dark

>>14938276
Not him, but X had industry ties as well through Ronny J.

>>14938276
Fake narrative to create a cool 'outsider' star. Look who owns the publishing rights to his albums.

>>14938134
>On the other hand, she threw a band I did really like, Viet Cong, under a bus/twitter shitstorm and got all their shows boycotted because of their name.

Fucking based. Commucucks btfo. White larping bitches.