renaissance does not understand: the love for lady gaga

[skinfan133]

As a fellow musician, I can respect her level of personal musical talent, as evidenced by the video posted 2 or 3 posts above this one.

However, What she is producing commercially is just catchy drivel spit out of Fruity Loops 9 with her singing over it. I can do that (and do do that when I'm bored minus the singing), and so can the entire industry. Her pop music annoys me to no end. She is incredibly smart about marketing her product though, and making the product. I believe she intentionally writes her songs below her level of talent, but in such a way that she knows they will be catchy (music theory), and thus, they will be commercially popular. A large amount of music theory can go into ****ty music in order to make people like it without explicitly knowing why.

I think she's putting people on and getting rich doing it. If it were purely about the music for her, she would have continued down the "classically trained musician" road.

case in point, "Stefani Germanotta" is good music. Mozart is good music. Jazz is good music. Progressive rock is good music. "Poker face" is designer pop meant to make lots of money. "Poker face" is not good music.

[Drop]

Lady Gaga has talent. She can sing. She's creative. She's taboo.

Ke$ha is an ugly, talentless, assclown.

[skinfan133]

Lady Gaga has talent. She can sing. She's creative. She's taboo.

Ke$ha is an ugly, talentless, assclown.

[Sticksboi05]

Her music sucks but it's too bad because she's actually talented and the music she grew up on is great music.

[Jumbo]

I do sympathize, ren. When I first became aware of her I just thought "oh jeez, the latest ridiculous drivel that's wildly popular." But after awhile, learning about her background and then seeing/reading some interviews (like on Larry King not too long ago) I came to see her as very bright woman, talented and skilled, and someone who is brilliant at business and quite a craftsmen at her chosen endeavors. And I think Des makes good points.

I don't plan to buy any of her music or go out of way to watch her, but she has my respect and appreciation now. She ought to be a guest speaker at Harvard business school. Her success appears calculated and carefully crafted, not just a product of "accidentally" taking advantage of pop-cultural fads by "happening" to have the right act for the moment.

[Destino]

Her music sucks but it's too bad because she's actually talented and the music she grew up on is great music.

too bad? She took the money road. She can make all the music she wants over a lifetime... making millions however is a window of opportunity. People can hate all they like but she did what any capitalist would do. Get paid while you can.

[Predicto]

case in point, "Stefani Germanotta" is good music. Mozart is good music. Jazz is good music. Progressive rock is good music. "Poker face" is designer pop meant to make lots of money. "Poker face" is not good music.

Meh, it's all just music. Mozart was the pop music of his day. Plenty of Jazz is horrible. There is nothing particularly special about progressive rock unless you are stoned.

Ultimately, a good tune is a good tune, wherever it comes from. Poker Face is a good tune (albeit one that got overplayed).

[ArmchairRedskin]

I think she's highly talented. She most definitely can sing and I've seen a few of her performances which are not canned versions of her radio hits. She brings it with her piano and her voice. It's not exactly music that I would go out and buy, but she reminds me a lot of Madonna, who is also a highly talented pop artist. Madonna made songs that you instantly recognize and she switched up her look and sound constantly. I see GaGa having the same type of career trajectory. I think she's a breath of fresh air in pop music.

[Jumbo]

Meh, it's all just music. Mozart was the pop music of his day. Plenty of Jazz is horrible. There is nothing particularly special about progressive rock unless you are stoned.

Ultimately, a good tune is a good tune, wherever it comes from. Poker Face is a good tune (albeit one that got overplayed).

Whenever I catch myself ****ing about "pop music crap" like it's somehow "different" today, I just remember back to when I was reveling in the "good stuff" as a teenager with everything from Beatles/Stones to Hendrix/Joplin to Floyd/Zeppelin to Fleetwood Mac etc etc and yet "bubble gum music" was huge too, with stunningly vapid "stars."

And "pop" included multi-gold strings of hits for everyone from the Grass Roots to Gary Puckett to Tommy James (and I liked a lot of it). Just remembering things like Tommy Roe and 1910 Fruitgum Company and The Archies (who had one of the biggest single records of all time and they weren't even a "real" group) and I regain humble perspective.

And you're right, it goes all the way back in time to classical becoming the first international "popular" form of music.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You know, if this board existed in 1985, there would be arguments about how Madonna is a flash in the pan.

I thought Gaga was an elaborate joke at first. Now, I think he may be around for 20 years. Her music is pretty much as good as it gets in her particular genre. She seems incredibly driven. She is not some 16 year old creation so I think she will be willing to do the work to stay famous.

Here is the most important thing. Like Madonna, she is legitimately tied into the New York art scene. And that means that she will always be one step ahead of the mainstream in terms of what is popular at least for the next few years.

Someone like Ke$ha is a total creation. Her entire career is pretty much reliant on someone like Dr. Luke a) being interested in her and staying connected to the trends in music. Gaga (I suspect) will be the type to create the trends.

I hate to keep coming back to it, but it's the difference between Madonna and Stacy Q.

Plus it would not shock me at all if she ended up doing some kind of Springsteen tribute album in the next five years which might make me wet myself.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Jazz is good music. Progressive rock is good music. Poker face is designer pop meant to make lots of money. Poker face is not good music.

What jazz are you talking about? Coltrane? Brubeck? Marsalis? Kenny G? Some jazz is great. Some jazz is just brutally awful. Progressive rock, I think, is the worst form of popular music of the past century. I would rather listen to three hours of John Phillip Sousa marches than one Emerson, Lake, and Palmer record. So, your taste varies. Poker Face may not be your taste. But - I think - that it's pretty spectacular for what it is. Though I suspect that Bad Romance will be the song played at weddings in 30 years. That's really the only question concerning pop music. Will high schoolers know it 30 years? Everyone knows "Dancing Queen." No one knows "Me and You and a Dog Named Boo."

[Spartacus87]

Meh, it's all just music. Mozart was the pop music of his day. Plenty of Jazz is horrible. There is nothing particularly special about progressive rock unless you are stoned.

Ultimately, a good tune is a good tune, wherever it comes from. Poker Face is a good tune (albeit one that got overplayed).

What jazz are you talking about? Coltrane? Brubeck? Marsalis? Kenny G? Some jazz is great. Some jazz is just brutally awful. Progressive rock' date=' I think, is the worst form of popular music of the past century. I would rather listen to three hours of John Phillip Sousa marches than one Emerson, Lake, and Palmer record. So, your taste varies. Poker Face may not be your taste. But - I think - that it's pretty spectacular for what it is. Though I suspect that Bad Romance will be the song played at weddings in 30 years. That's really the only question concerning pop music. Will high schoolers know it 30 years? Everyone knows "Dancing Queen." No one knows "Me and You and a Dog Named Boo."[/quote']

Thank you both.

It's annoying whenever someone dismisses an artist, song, or album, automatically because it's "pop." "Pop" has changed dramatically from generation to generation. On its own, it's not some kind of evil stain on the music industry.

And that argument is made more annoying if somebody then claims that "jazz" or "rock" are real music genres. There are plenty of terrible jazz, rock, country, classical, etc. musicians and acts out there. Playing music in one genre doesn't automatically qualify you as a legitimate act compared to making music in another genre.

(the sub topic of this discussion is when someone inevitably dismisses hip-hop/rap as not "real music," but I guess that's for another time.)

And really, not enough people can appreciate a "pop" song for what it simply is.

[Bubble Screen]

redskins59, You're nuts, dude. I think Katy Perry blows her out of the water, singing-wise, and definitely on the looks side.

And to the dude cracking on Taylor Swift. Man, you're REALLY out to lunch. She's one of the more talented singers out there.

[Bubble Screen]

Did someone seriously just compare Lady Gaga to Madonna?

[Burgold]

I wonder if she's this generation's Elton John... certainly has the flamboyant aspect

[Spartacus87]

Did someone seriously just compare Lady Gaga to Madonna?

What's the real difference between Lady Gaga so far, and Madonna around 1985?

[Sandman69]

Am I the only one who thinks she just makes run of the mill pop music ala 1995?

I am with you. I have no clue how the hell she got out and made it. I mean, come on... Really?

[Sandman69]

What's the real difference between Lady Gaga so far, and Madonna around 1985?

Madonna wasn't at a Yankees game, drunk in front of the camera and embarrassing the team.

[Bubble Screen]

What's the real difference between Lady Gaga so far, and Madonna around 1985?

I don't remember there being a question of whether or not Madonna was a man.

[Spartacus87]

Madonna wasn't at a Yankees game, drunk in front of the camera and embarrassing the team.

You're right, Madonna was busy being trapped in a high profile abusive marriage with Sean Penn.

And when she wasn't stuck in that, she was stirring up controversy with her performances of Like A Virgin.

This is 2010. If Madonna was under the internet/TMZ tabloid scrutiny in 1985 that Lady Gaga and other celebrities are currently under, Lord knows what would have happened.

[NewCliche21]

Madonna wasn't at a Yankees game, drunk in front of the camera and embarrassing the team.

I don't remember there being a question of whether or not Madonna was a man.

Fail x2.

Lady Gaga is the best pure pop singer to come out since Madonna, and anyone who's followed the industry more than pressing "seek" on their radios would tell you the same.

The woman is ridiculously talented. Ridiculously so. Her background, her ability to write (who else writes their songs today?), to produce, to orchestrate, and just BE is extremely difficult to top. I *HATED* her stuff and thought that she was crap at first, mostly because I'm an early 90's (Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, etc.) kind of guy, but when you look at the talent behind it, damn, she's one of my favorite artists today.

So she has an image, big deal. She's still a businesswoman and is trying to make a dollar. You're talking about her, aren't you? She wins, you lose.

Ke$ha, on the other hand, is a horrible fart in the pan that will be nothing. Do you see how long Lady Gaga's songs last on the radio? "Just Dance" still gets play nearly two years later. Same with "Pokerface" and to a small degree "Lovegame". Try going from early November to February without hearing "Bad Romance" on the radio, and "Telephone" might be the best pop song in 20 years, let alone the video.

For those of you criticizing her, I guess the whole "Don't case pearls before swine" maxim holds true. She's one of the very few artists around today.

[Spartacus87]

I don't remember there being a question of whether or not Madonna was a man.

That's just Lady Gaga playing up another angle for her massive gay/lesbian following, even though she's said there's no truth to that rumor (which should be obvious).

People have said the same thing about Megan Fox and Ciara.

[Sandman69]

You're right, Madonna was busy being trapped in a high profile abusive marriage with Sean Penn.

And when she wasn't stuck in that, she was stirring up controversy with her performances of Like A Virgin.

This is 2010. If Madonna was under the internet/TMZ tabloid scrutiny in 1985 that Lady Gaga and other celebrities are currently under, Lord knows what would have happened.

Lady Gaga cannot hold a Candle to Madonna. FOr the record I don't care for Madonna.

[Spartacus87]

Lady Gaga cannot hold a Candle to Madonna. FOr the record I don't care for Madonna.

I don't really care for either of them myself, I'm just curious as to why you'd act like Madonna, around 1985, is so much better than what Lady Gaga's done so far.

To this point, they have extremely similar career paths.

[Sandman69]

I don't really care for either of them myself, I'm just curious as to why you'd act like Madonna, around 1985, is so much better than what Lady Gaga's done so far.

To this point, they have extremely similar career paths.

Because that is my opinion.

Madonna was fresh, new, shocked the industry, raised the bar.

Lady Gaga, is a cookie cutter of the industry to be "shockful". IMO, she is very unoriginal and doesn't really deserve the press she gets.