Also, for every 1°C increase of temperature, you see 1.8°F increase. Not only do they not share a zero point, they increase at different rates. The only point °F = °C is -40. At any other point, if you were to plot temperatures in celsius and Fahrenheit, they'd be two straight lines diverging from eachother, the further you got from -40.

I mean, she's 20. Carly Rae Jepsen was 27 when she released Call Me Maybe in 2012. It's been a decade since then. Her life has changed considerably. Billie Eilish has only been around for a hot minute, she's likely still establishing what kind of artist she wants to be. She may change, she may not. She's got literally decades to figure it out.

Artists will work on what interests them. If they want to go more down that route, they will. If they don't, they won't. Again, it does feel like more of those self-established expectations that you set on your initial assessment of Billie Eilish.

Music is a present art form. It's not describing who an artist was or will be (though those topics can be broached in the art form). It's music created by them now, for now, as they are now. Sometimes it's fine to take things at face value. You don't have to enjoy everything, you don't have to relate to everything and you don't have to even get everything (I still don't really get Enya). Things get popular with some people because they just happened to get popular with them. It was the right thing at the right time for the right people. Like Heaven is a Half-Pipe by OPM.

At the base level, her music is well-written, well-produced music, it's relatable and catchy. She sells her music as part of her "alternative" pop persona, her songs fit that same character and she's got an eye into what's popular with her target demographic. She's a good performer and she's got a strong style and image. She comes from a well-off background and has a strong financial and musical support network around her, which definitely helped catapult her into the music mainstream, but otherwise she's (and this is reductionary, but it's just to emphasise the point) another pop artist that's in the mainstream.

Does every artist need to be the sole creator in order to be appreciated? I personally don't think so. The Monkees were popular and famously didn't write their own music. Music is collaborative, and her brother worked on a lot of the music with her. She's also worked with other songwriters and producers, but it's still in an effort to produce a Billie Eilish song. A song for the artist. One that fits the persona, the style, the whole artist package she's presenting herself as.

Does an artist need to be unique in order to be appreciated? Again, I don't think so. It's hard to do - be truly unique - music is a derivative art form, and we all take something from somewhere. We all pull from inspiration, and pastiche has been a cornerstone of music for centuries.

I think what's key to realise is that you've set an expectation for an artist that Billie Eilish does not meet. An artist doesn't need to be a sole creator. An artist doesn't need to be unique. They don't need to be innovators in their field. If that were the case, we'd have maybe 2 or 3 artists per genre, and there'd be very little choice. That's the expectation you've set. And if that results in you not liking her music, that's fine. Everyone has things they like, and art is subjective. And because it is, any artist can come along and give it a go, putting their own spin on something done a million times before.

I think you're just bringing a bit of a doomer mindset to something that's just entertainment. Expecting it to be bigger than that, when it doesn't attempt to be is only going to leave you feeling disappointed in it. You've set an expectation that reality was never gonna meet.