Upon posting my article, "Justin Bieber.... 'sucks'?" someone on my Facebook thought he'd express his opinion.

I laughed. Really. You might too; his "offense" is in italics.

I happen to be intellectually superior to the masses in several aspects and have far more discerning taste than the average joe-blow that couldn't understand the difference between substance and shallow idiocy if it smacked him in the face.

Substance: the difference between a bumper sticker slogan and Plato. Substance: the difference between ... See MoreRadiohead and "Avril."

It doesn't make me unique, it makes me an intellectual with good taste. Big difference. There are so many horrifically flawed arguments in your post that seek to legitimize otherwise illegitimate "art-forms."

"People like me" think this kind of music is god-awful for good reason. It's shallow, contrived, recycled and serves only to take up space that an otherwise sincere and passionate artist rather than an entertainer could own and profit from. We don't follow it or go out of our way to despise it. Actually, the only time we find out about it is because of kids like you - no offense.

You're the kids that think this shit is worth talking about, you think GAGA is scandalous. I still remember Patti Smith, I still recall GG Allen, I remember Sid Vicious. Your latter-day chicken-shit pop stars are of no consequence beyond this facebook wall and never will be.

I know that sounds harsh but musician to musician you should understand passion.

I don't watch TV, listen to the radio, text or follow tweets. Call me old fashion but it keeps me from caring about the pointless and draining.

That got the blood boiling, the brain working. I began my rebuttal, which I posted that night. Is it too egotistical to say I won?

All sorts of people believe themselves to be "intellectuals" with superior taste, or who believe that because of what they like that they're better than any ordinary Joe. The belief alone doesn't make it so. In fact, this unwarranted self-importance is exactly the sort of thing I was against in the original article. I won't exclaim "how dare you?" ...but I will admit to being concerned over your insistence that you have "good taste" in comparison to others.

Why should your taste in music be considered "good"? Because you like older music? Because you refuse to listen to today's music? Is pop and rock today just not up to the standards set by middle-aged rock-n'-roll music?

Hey, get this... maybe it's personal preference, as opposed to "good taste." Maybe.

I say that because this talk of good taste and superior intellect is bullshit if ever I heard any. My apologies if this angers or offends you my good sir, but there are people exactly like you who refuse to conform to conformity. They are called "sheep" and they will usually do anything they can to avoid the popular, going as far as they can to refuse to conform even if most of the time it turns out they're still conforming -- towards non-conformity, which is still conformity.

Now, I've heard the argument you're making many times before -- it's all unoriginal, fake, shallow, contrived, recycled, blah blah blah . But I ask you, how is this music shallow? Contrived? In short, what makes today's music -- Justin's in particular -- lack "soul"?

Is it the fact that most people today don't write their own songs? That's not a valid argument -- classic artists like Elvis and Willie Nelson recorded and performed songs that they didn't write, and their performances had plenty of soul in them, or so critics would like to say.

Is it all the computers and production? The fact that you said his music was recycled makes sense, and I agree. It's been done before. But can a computer truly take away the "soul" in people's music? Perhaps it can -- maybe you have a substantial argument in this area. But I in turn ask another question: should "soul" influence what someone listens to?

Perhaps this is why you believe yourself the intellectual -- you believe today's music, with it's computer production and enhancement, has removed the soul you found in the music you grew up with. But then... what of Radiohead, whom you mentioned? When making "Kid A" they used computers (alongside other instruments) to help create their soundscapes -- and yet they're blessed with constant admiration from critics for the amount of effort they put into their recordings.

Shouldn't they be hated for the lack of substance in Thom's lyrics (literally pulled randomly out of a hat)?

Wouldn't their use of electronic elements in their music be comparable to any pop music being such (that's not really a serious question)?

What of... Thom's SOUL?

All that aside, while it could be said that soul may be hidden (read as: non-existent) in popular music, talent and passion still exist. Would Lady Gaga (who is not as much "scandalous" as she is... purposely weird) have been half as successful if she gave up during those 4 years when she was but a DJ? Do you think that Lenny Kravitz cared even once about the mediocre-to-negative comparisons with Jimi Hendrix, as long as he got to play his guitar? Justin Bieber has as much determination as any musician has -- the classic ones, the independent ones, the unknown ones. He just got lucky.

And your comment about "kids like [me]"? I am not offended, because I believe that there are no such kids... Of course, logically this makes me the same as everyone else who claims such (irony loves making me it's bitch anyway). Still, I prefer to listen to what I want to listen to, regardless of whether it's popular, independent, underground, or all of the above. It doesn't matter to me, and in reality it shouldn't matter to ANYONE as long as it's pleasing to one's ears. Why music has to be taken so seriously is beyond me.

So what if a million kids make one in particular (Justin) an idol? You said yourself that you try to ignore it (though I'm sure it's difficult, what with people like me and articles like this). If you're able to, though, others should be able to as well.

If only more people knew better. He has yet to respond.