Pop Stars vs Critics' Pets: Women Still Lose

Yesterday, as I linked to that Monitor Mix article about Lilith Fair, this quote stuck out:

"women accounted for nearly half of the 20 music stars with the best performance on the Billboard 200 albums chart and the Hot 100 over the last 10 years. Beyonce, Alicia Keys, Destiny's Child, Britney Spears, Pink, Rihanna, Kelly Clarkson, Christina Aguilera and Mariah Carey."

Women = pop stars.

Pop stars = trite and insipid. Pablum for the unwashed masses. Not art.

If you believe every "serious" music geek I've every encountered. I don't. I'm not necessarily of the belief that all indie is good and all commercially made music is bad,  but for argument's sake, let's say this is true.

A few years ago, Paste magazine featured the 100 Best Living Songwriters -- as picked by their critics and readers. The critics picked a mere 13 women, the fans 18. A small difference, but if you take in consideration that the fans included people like Madonna, Tori Amos, Bjork and Lauryn Hill, it sways the "unwashed masses" list to the pop side. (Yes, each one has had her share of critical acclaim, but none  is unheralded.) The women the critics' picked were -- overwhelmingly -- over 40 and deeply rooted in the singer-songwriter genre. Serious artists. (The top three overall, a trifecta of Bruce, Bob and Neil, should shock no one.)

Serious artists = not pop stars.

Ergo, women = not serious artists.

And sadly, that is what a lot of people think. Granted, I'm only going on anecdotal evidence, but when I've asked people (read: fanboys) to name their favorite singer-songwriters, women rarely come up. When prompted, most male music fans will name a handful (an Aimee Mann or a Lucinda Williams), but let's face it. In their world Bruce, Bob and Neil rule.