Actually, I meant what I said about punk music in all seriousness.
Now don't get me wrong. I fucking love punk. I could listen to Dead Kennedys and the Clash and Spiderbait and the Living End (their earlier stuff was punky, their later stuff has mellowed a bit) all day.
BUT.
The thing about a lot of the earlier examples of punk, especially the Sex Pistols (though Pretty Vacant is a fun song) is that it didn't necessarily require any actual skill with the instruments or singing to be a success. It was sold on performance and attitude, not musical skill.
Unfortunately the lesson learned here by producers was that you didn't need someone with actual skill, just "X factor" or "Star quality" or "Je ne sais qua" (or however you spell it) in order to make a LOT of money.
The problem with that argument is record producers learned that lesson long before punk was a thing. Look up the history of blues and jazz sometime, particularly the part where music labels would hire less talented white musicians to cover the work of black artists in order to make the songs they wrote sell better in a racially segregated America. Hell, if you want a good example of a famous "singer" whose success was more about charisma and marketability than musical skill, one need look no further than Frank Sinatra. Seriously, go back and actually listen to Frank's voice and explain to me why he's considered the face of Jazz even today. The man can't sing. His tracks sound more like a dedicated amateur on karaoke night. Not terrible, but arguably worse, on a technical level, than any of his contemporaries who nonetheless languish in relative obscurity--even members of his own "Rat Pack."
Ol' Blue Eyes was the spiritual precursor to acts like Bieber, where record labels picked an unskilled but marketable "face" to sell music he hadn't created and could only perform passably at best--more a mascot in an ad campaign than an artist. Though I will say the standards have declined considerably from Sinatra's day. He may have been a hack singer, but the lyrics were significantly better and at least he wasn't actually painful to listen to.
Nah, I think we have to blame Youtube for Bieber. Also pre-teen girls.
It's the record labels. Without their marketing and distribution networks Bieber wouldn't have a glimmer of the popularity he has. In fact, he didn't when he was just one more of five billion kids on youtube who's mother thought they were talented. He is quite literally a substandard product being pushed on his "target demographic" with all the subtlety of a saturation bombing. You don't blame the victims of an assault like that for not being able to withstand it, you blame the guys who planned the mission and dropped the napalm.