I can't help myself, I love her. I know she's a little "different" but I love in spite of/including those things. Discuss.
Printable View
I can't help myself, I love her. I know she's a little "different" but I love in spite of/including those things. Discuss.
She's hot and I totally want to do her. Plus poker face is one of my favorite songs (I first heard it while at this crazy club in Vang Vieng, Laos, where they serve magic mushroom shakes at the bar- you can imagine the fun, hehe)
i loooooove gaga!! dont care what anyone says!
gaga oooh lala! lol. cant wait til i can get me a blonde wig like hers.
I totally dig her. She's got some seriously catchy tunes (which the radio stations play a little bit too much..but that's okay). She does an amazing job at setting herself abart from other pop stars.
I looove Lady Gaga. She's doing so many things that are revolutionizing fashion, music, etc etc.
One of the things I love best about her is that straight men don't really like her. There's a reason: she's outspoken, she's not trying to be a sexpot 100% of the time, and she caters to the world of women instead of men. (generally)
Love!!
The alternative POV is that she's relatively light on musical talent, but expert at manipulating the media to her advantage.
I don't grudge her her success, but I don't think she's likely to go down in the annals of music as an original who created a great body of innovative work.
Phil.
^ Perhaps, but I think she's just getting started.
Right now, her fashion forward thinking seems to be more revolutionary than her music..for sure.
No other women in the mainstream industry have the balls/abilities to make videos like this.
http://www.mtv.com/videos/lady-gaga/...tml#id=1518072
I love the ending. So fabulous.
I think the music video altered the music business and not for the better. (I'm old enough to remember singles comimg out as 45 rpm vinyl).
1) The cost of producing a music video was far greater than the cost of studio time to record an album. So, when music videos became popular/essential, music companies cut back on risk - they only signed artists/bands that were 'sure things'.
Prior to that they would take on the odd long shot or two, because investing in the odd experimental album or two was not a huge financial risk.
2) Appearance/image became more important. When acts/bands were mainly heard on the radio, they were judged by the music - now image has come to predominate.
So - interesting question for you - would Lady Gaga have had a career in the pre-music video age?
Phil.
^ I actually think the question is pointless (I don't mean that in a rude way).
I hate it when people try to argue that different generations (and different movements) are better than one another. It doesn't matter if Gaga would've been a star in pre-music video times. Currently, image is hugely important (and not just in the music industry). There's nothing wrong with having a strong image that furthers an artist's career. If she uses it so well, then why don't others? They can, so why don't they?
However, to answer your question, I do think her music has merit. She has unique messages, a strong voice, and compelling opinions. She's just very good at cloaking them in equally strong images and contemporary music.
Respectfully, I have to disagree with your line of thinking Phil. Trying to compare different time periods of music is pointless IMO. We've come a long, long way from the days of Beethoven. Mozart was a genius in his time. Many considered Jimi Hendrix to be a musical genius. Yet it would be foolish to claim he was any less of an artist simply because he had the benefit of the electrical guitar, amplifiers, pedals, a recording studio, etc. One is not better than the other... it's just different. Technology changes. Trends change.
^ Exactly what I said.
:)
Besides that, if someone like Beethoven released music like that today, hardly anybody would listen to them. It was this amazing breakthrough way back then for someone to have that kind of talent. But today it's more about the whole picture. Why do you think big ugly fat guys who make good music don't get as famous as fit good looking guys who make mediocre music? Or at the very least, typically have more background roles.
Gaga is way too peculiar to be "here today, gone tomorrow" .. everything she's doing now is memorable, whether in a "oh man I want those shoes" way, or more "what the hell is she doing?" She's gone way above and beyond anyone's expectations.
Look at the big picture here, she writes her own songs, puts her own creative input into the music video production and live performances, as well as designs her own wardrobe for both. She performs her own songs... punts lip syncing right out the window by singing OVER the tracks :O , and her creative style is absolutely insane! Nobody could copy her without making it glaringly obvious!
As a DJ I can definitively state that Lady Gaga is successful for one reason, her songs get women out on the dancefloor. Regardless of the type of crowd I'm DJ'ing for everytime I drop a Lady Gaga song women run to the dancefloor, followed closely by men dancing with said women.
As far as would she make it in the pre-video age? I think she is a success in spite of her image, which is often ridiculed by snobby critics, and persistent rumors of her being a tranny. This rumor is especially ridiculous considering the quality of her vocals, and the fact that her skimpy clothing clearly shows she is in fact a woman.
I also think that she is ahead of the curve as far as style and trends go, much like Madonna in her early days, and she will be remembered years from now.
As long as she keeps making music that puts asses on the dancefloor, I will happily play and listen to her music until the club closes!
I think she's amazing and i looove pole-ing to her! hehe. Poker face and disco stick are faves! Bad romance is ace and so is 'fashion'. I love that she's so mental!
Interview with Lady Gaga in the UK's Times newspaper at this link....
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle6940885.ece
Phil.
^ Interviewer sounded like he was trying to find a way to make his readers dislike her.
Fail! I still love her. :)
^^^
Yeah, I didn't think he was a fan either.
But I did find the article an interesting read.
Phil.
Spoken like a true geezer. ;) Nothing personal, I own 45 rpms and full length albums, too.
I ask you a counter point, do you think the Rolling Stones would be able to have a career if they started making music this year? Maybe if they billed themselves as some kind of underground punk band, but certainly not as a mainstream music sensation.
I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Today, producing a video isn't nearly as expensive as it was back in the 80's and 90's when MTV ruled the planet. I could make a music video of equivelent quality to that Lady Gaga Paparatzi video on my iMac with creative suite 4 and a little talent and know how.
I offer you the video "Ok Go" as an example of an awesome video that cost almost nothing to make: Here it goes again
What is so amazing about Lady Gaga is that she writes all of her own music and directs all of her music videos. She is incredibly talented.
No - and for a very good reason. The old 'transit' circuit is gone for ever. Bands no longer slog round the circuit of pub, big clubs and the student union bars, learning their music and stage craft as they went. The Stones and the other bands of that era learned their music from having to work sometimes unforgiving audiences and they never lost the art of being great when playing live.
This is another band, Free, from the same era recorded at the Isle of Wight in 1970. The music might not be to your taste, but there's an intensity there that you rarely if ever see these days. Kossoff (the guitarist) is incredible - seldom looking at the frets and feeling every note he's playing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT1F0AN9-PE
I looked up a couple of quotes for you:
Alexis Korner, the great blues musician that nurtured Free in their early stages said of them: "They were a band that did not in fact rely on the record industry at any stage to keep them working. It could have worked without records. It was because they were totally alive on stage. They liked playing music, and if you love playing music it shows, and it showed in them".
And Chris Blackwell, who owned Island Records and signed them said: "The band's honesty kept them intact, and that's the way it was for every record they made. What you heard was what you got, no studio trickery, just the best of their stage set on any given night. That kind of raw drive and grinding beat was what filled the halls of the North East and is what carried them all across England with blinding conviction".
And that's what's gone from music - the anger and the intensity from live performance.
So would the Stones have had a career if they started now? They sure as hell would not have been the same band.....
[End threadjack]
Phil.