Lady Gaga, Love or Hate her?

[Shlockjock81]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Well, let's just say this. You're pretty much an idiot at this point if you think she's just gonna fade into nothingness. To honestly compare her to the Spice Girls and The Backstreet Boys? You have to be fucking kidding me. She definitely stands apart from other performers of her time (her performances are incredible).

I'm not gonna argue anything like "well her songs have hit number 1 on the Billboard charts" cuz that's a cheap argument in any perspective. But if you honestly think that at this point she's going to fade into nothingness I for one believe you're sorely mistaken. You don't like her? Tough shit, she's definitely gonna be around for years to come.

~Matt

Sorry, princess. I won't insult your precious diva anymore. I can see it really scuffs your tiara.

[maybrick]

ALL present day musicians are going to fade into nothingness. They simply do not produce enough material to make a lasting impression the way musicians did back in the heyday of the 60s and 70s when the average new album was produced every 10 months to a year, or even back in the 80s where the average was 1-2 years. Lately you're lucky to see a new record once every 3 years! Lady Gaga is popular now, but she should count herself lucky if in 25 years she has more than 1 song in rotation on classic radio (if such a thing still exists).

[baggio]

Originally Posted by maybrick

ALL present day musicians are going to fade into nothingness. They simply do not produce enough material to make a lasting impression the way musicians did back in the heyday of the 60s and 70s when the average new album was produced every 10 months to a year, or even back in the 80s where the average was 1-2 years. Lately you're lucky to see a new record once every 3 years! Lady Gaga is popular now, but she should count herself lucky if in 25 years she has more than 1 song in rotation on classic radio (if such a thing still exists).

True, it is rare the artists today put out albums quickly.

She will have her third album out within a year. Which will make it 3 albums out in 4 years. We'll see how that goes.

[Shlockjock81]

Originally Posted by maybrick

ALL present day musicians are going to fade into nothingness. They simply do not produce enough material to make a lasting impression the way musicians did back in the heyday of the 60s and 70s when the average new album was produced every 10 months to a year, or even back in the 80s where the average was 1-2 years. Lately you're lucky to see a new record once every 3 years! Lady Gaga is popular now, but she should count herself lucky if in 25 years she has more than 1 song in rotation on classic radio (if such a thing still exists).

Well said.

[scott71670]

I'm gonna have to say I hope she's gonna be around for awhile because I can't wait to see who she becomes next when this persona runs out. Frankly, I'm not gonna judge it great or not, but I do like it, and I think it's what music needs right now. A little less of the artists who are entrenched in their market shares, and more of the people who are willing to get weird for fun. Not to say that Gaga isn't into her market shares, but she strikes me as more like Sigue Sigue Sputnik in that regard that Mariah Carey. Besides, when everything goes into upheaval in the world this is the music that makes a comeback and gives escapism. Everytime I hear Black Eye Peas on the radio (I Gotta Feeling), I keep thinking sociologically this is what it was like to hear "Pennies from Heaven" during the thirties.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Shlockjock81

Well said.

No it wasn't well said. It was a generalized argument which actually proved almost nothing, since you can't generalize and say all artists of today will fade into nothingness. Even bands that came out in the '90s are still producing records. Look at someone like Matthew Good. Guy puts out an album roughly every 1-2 years. Let's see...Last of the Ghetto Astronauts was 1995, Raygun was 1997, Underdogs was 1998, Beautiful Midnight, 1999; Loser Anthems, 2001 (which ended up on the compilation album In a Coma in 2005); The Audio of Being, 2002; Avalance, 2003; White Light Rock and Roll Review, 2004; Hospital Music, 2007; Live at Massey Hall, 2008 and Vancouver in 2009. There you go, an album every 1-2 years (with the exception of the gap between White Light Rock and Roll Review and Hospital Music - the poor guy's wife left him and he had a nervous breakdown...oh wait, sorry. IN A COMA was released during this period. Yeah it was a compilation album, but it featured several unreleased tracks). His music isn't for everyone, but he's definitely a fucking brilliant lyricist.

Matthew Good is another person who I can't honestly see fading into nothingness. And just because a band produces an album every 3 years doesn't mean they're gonna fade into oblivion, what kindof a claim is that? Coldplay will be around for years, and while they're heavily criticized now by fans, Green Day I don't think is gonna go anywhere either. Look at Coldplay's album A Rush of Blood to the Head. You're telling me an album like that, which had such an impact on alternative rock, will be forgotten in years to come? I seriously doubt that. Or whatabout Radiohead? Since 1993, they've put out an album every 1-2 years.

All I'm saying is that you can't make such a generalization. James Dean's Hollywood career lasted less than 18 months and was he forgotten? Maya Deren made only a handful of experimental films (about 5, from 1943-1952), but will her impact on the American avant-garde cinema ever be forgotten? Hell no. Or whatabout Kenneth Anger? The guy only made like 15 experimental films over the span of like 35 years, but will his impact on the mythopoeic and trance films ever be forgotten? NOPE.

Lady Gaga is off to a great start and has shown nothing but promise and potential, so I don't know why people are making these ridiculous claims. If you'd maybe take the time to listen to her music, you'd see that her album The Fame mocks the music industry, the tabloids, the digital age. Her music is a stab at the kindof pop music that is made today, the press, fame and fortune and she actually has the intelligence to pull it all off. She wallows in it. The songs on that album all function within a meta-text of pop trash and through the lyrics of her songs, her album is a parody of that: Fame and the desire to obtain that, is itself reflective of a modern-day monstrosity. It's brilliant.

~Matt

[Matt89]

Oh, and not to mention the intertextuality in her videos as of lately...

Just saying...

~Matt

[baggio]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Lady Gaga is off to a great start and has shown nothing but promise and potential, so I don't know why people are making these ridiculous claims. If you'd maybe take the time to listen to her music, you'd see that her album The Fame mocks the music industry, the tabloids, the digital age. Her music is a stab at the kindof pop music that is made today, the press, fame and fortune and she actually has the intelligence to pull it all off. She wallows in it. The songs on that album all function within a meta-text of pop trash and through the lyrics of her songs, her album is a parody of that: Fame and the desire to obtain that, is itself reflective of a modern-day monstrosity. It's brilliant.

~Matt

You forgot that with her next album it will be 3 in total for her in 4 years.

[maybrick]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Matthew Good is another person who I can't honestly see fading into nothingness.

Who? It should be pretty easy since I've never heard of him, and I daresay I know a little more about music than the average consumer.

Coldplay will be around for years, and while they're heavily criticized now by fans, Green Day I don't think is gonna go anywhere either. Look at Coldplay's album A Rush of Blood to the Head. You're telling me an album like that, which had such an impact on alternative rock, will be forgotten in years to come?

Yes, because all they are is U2 lite with just a pinch of Radiohead thrown in for flavor. They are what Collective Soul was to The Smashing Pumpkins back in 1995.

Or whatabout Radiohead? Since 1993, they've put out an album every 1-2 years.

They've put 7 albums out in 17 years. Imagine how much BIGGER they would've been had they produced that many in half that time as was typical in the 60s and 70s.

All I'm saying is that you can't make such a generalization.

Yes, there are always exceptions. Most bands aren't like Radiohead or Green Day, though. Most bands that make it into the top 40 only make it to their second or third album before they break up.

James Dean's Hollywood career lasted less than 18 months and was he forgotten?

That's because he died at his peak, but regardless, this kind of supports my point about things being different now. The Yardbirds were together for about the same length of time, had a boatload of singles then morphed into Led Zeppelin. Nowadays, 99% of bands who last that long only put out a single album in that time and then more often than not breaking up before their second album streets, or shortly thereafter. The pace is a bit quicker when an artist is still independent, but once they sign to a major label they're forced to slow down their releases because they've concocted some sort of mathematical equation that tells them at what rate is best to maximize profits. Of course, when they do that most oftens stifles the band at their peak creativity.

Maya Deren made only a handful of experimental films (about 5, from 1943-1952), but will her impact on the American avant-garde cinema ever be forgotten? Hell no. Or whatabout Kenneth Anger? The guy only made like 15 experimental films over the span of like 35 years, but will his impact on the mythopoeic and trance films ever be forgotten? NOPE.

Most every artist who has ever published anything has a cult following, but most people outside of film school have never heard of those two. They're hardly relevant when talking about mainstream pop culture.

Lady Gaga is off to a great start and has shown nothing but promise and potential, so I don't know why people are making these ridiculous claims. If you'd maybe take the time to listen to her music, you'd see that her album The Fame mocks the music industry, the tabloids, the digital age. Her music is a stab at the kindof pop music that is made today, the press, fame and fortune and she actually has the intelligence to pull it all off. She wallows in it. The songs on that album all function within a meta-text of pop trash and through the lyrics of her songs, her album is a parody of that: Fame and the desire to obtain that, is itself reflective of a modern-day monstrosity. It's brilliant.

I'm sure plenty of people had similar things to say about The Knack and Men At Work once upon a time. We'll just have to wait and see.

[maybrick]

Originally Posted by baggio

You forgot that with her next album it will be 3 in total for her in 4 years.

I was under the impression that her second album was more or less made up of outtakes originally meant to be added to the re-release of her first LP.

[BrokeNads]

I dont like very much lady gaga and I dont hate. I dont listen very much and sometimes I heard in the radio. I think is maybe like marilyn manson but is the woman edition. I think is some similar to the music in the style. She is ok because sometimes I see lady gaga and she is dress almost naked so she is sexy sometimes from the legs. Maybe the face is not.
I dont like nothing is justin bieber. Hate so much this music boy. I see in the tv jump and sing and I want to take out and put my eyes in my ass.

[_pi_]

Wow, can't you guys just agree to disagree?

I mean, both of you have valid points. The truth of the matter is no one knows how long Gaga is going to last. She came out of nowhere and could just as easily disappear without a fuzz. Let's see how her next album does.

Then again, seeing as she is both critically acclaimed and extremely popular, and seems to get bigger and better with time, there is nothing that indicates she will fade away. But we'll see.

I think it's an interesting argument. Both sides need to put this into perspective, though. Another young singer starlet with +30 million sales on her back and three albums out, also originally touted for her 'individuality', is Avril Lavigne. Sigh and cringe all you will, but it's true.

She's been around since 2002 and her last album was one of the biggest selling albums of 2007 - and still, I don't think anyone but her die-hard fans will argue the fact that she might fade away into obscurity after a while.

Maybe Gaga's fanbase is just louder and more aggressive? I don't know.

For the record, I'm a fan of both, but honestly - as long as Girls Aloud don't break up, I couldn't care less if Gaga or Lavigne have staying power. (as long as GA don't break up, I don't really care much about anything.) My allegiance is tied to the quality of their music. If they keep on recording good stuff, I honestly couldn't care less if they are still popular or well known in 10 years.

[maybrick]

Originally Posted by _pi_

Wow, can't you guys just agree to disagree?

Sure. You don't think we're really fighting, do you? We save that kind of BS strictly for DVD-fanatic.

[_pi_]

You never know in this place

[Anaestheus]

Some thoughts:

1. I am curious to know what you guys consider longevity. I keep seeing mention of this disposable pop like Britney Spears and Beyonce. And, while I would say that they make crap, they both have been around for over a decade now and that's a serious career. Hell, that's longer than the Beatles, right now. So, while I can't stand their music, I do have to give them props for being able to keep in the mainstream for as long as they have. And, while pop music or dance music on a whole may be rather shallow and fad based, it is possible to be quite artistic and relevant over a long period of time even outside of mainstream radio. Just look at New Order and Pet Shop Boys, both of whom have managed to continue to make music for over 25 years and still to continue to have club hits. And, I honestly don't understand the argument about how many albums they put out. It seems like saying, "Yeah, they make crap and not enough of it." Hell, Michael Jackson, starting in the 70s, took three years (at least) between albums, so I am not quite sure why the amount of output seems to matter.

2. And compared to Britney, I'd say Gaga has significantly more talent and originality. I don't think she's gonna give Bob Dylan or Leonard Cohen any threat for lyrical depth. But, in all honesty at this point in her career, she does remind me a lot of Bowie in the early 70s and he managed to do all right for himself. Again, she's not exactly my cup of sonic tea, but I gotta recognize talent when it's there.

3. But, she's still an overweight man. Or something like that.