# Lady Gaga: Revolutionary or hack Madonna wanna-be?



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I've talked to a lot of people at my former schools that say that Lady Gaga is totally revolutionary to music. Now, I know for a fact that that's not the case from a classical music point of view, but I don't know the history of pop music nearly as well, and the people I talked to didn't know anything about music at all, so I thought I'd ask some intelligent people.

From a pop music stand point, is Lady Gaga's music revolutionary? I feel that some people get her innovative stage performance, which indeed could be considered quite shocking I suppose, confused with the actual quality of her music...which I feel is nothing more than a conservative rehash of what pop music has already seen.

So what do you say? Is her music revolutionary to pop music? or is the only revolutionary aspect of Lady Gaga her wardrobe?

Again, I'm asking because I don't know the history of pop music...the opinions above are just my uninformed, gut reaction.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

She's just the current cog in the pop diva cycle now that Britney Spears is an overweight man, but people don't notice because Gaga has a more "ironic" generation Y pandering image. In a few years she'll probably market herself in a more "serious" way and pretend that she was a deep, misunderstood artist noticed for her surface novelty all along, but her music will still be boring.

Her stage performance is dumbed down, tryhard dada. Her music is derivative, braindead pop with some Eurodance flavor. I can't see how she'd impress anyone but idiots.

In short, she's not even a hack. She is a marketing decision.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

A publicity-obsessed clothes-horse who is all image and no substance.


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

Generic ****** pop music, but this kind of superficial, production-line mediocrity passes for "high art" in the creatively desolate popular music scene, among people who wouldn't know what "high art" meant if it kicked them up the jacksy.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

My name is Philip, and I'm a Lady Gaga fan.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Philip said:


> My name is Philip, and I'm a Lady Gaga fan.


Don't worry, Philip. There are people who can help you.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

There is not even anything revolutionary about her wardrobe. People are just too young to remember.

You're not going to want to read this, but there was a time when Peter Gabriel (before he started making commercial music) dressed in outfits much weirder than Lady Gag. He shaved the middle part of his head in a kind of inverse mohawk and dressed up as bat winged aliens and carbuncle infested monsters, and even a fox wearing an evening dress when he was in the band Genesis (before they started making rather pedestrian commercial music too).




























So I insist there is nothing remotely revolutionary about her. Maybe she can sing well. Who knows in this day of pitch correction? The only thing I will grant her is that she writes some of her own material which is more than many cookie-cutter manufactured pop divas with exposed navels can do. That doesn't make her revolutionary.

Kate Bush _is_ revolutionary. Elizabeth Fraser _is_ revolutionary. Flora Purim _is_ revolutionary. There are probably many artists out there now who are revolutionary. We just don't hear about them.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm not an expert on pop, but I know a few people who've got her albums, and I've heard them. What she's doing doesn't come across as revolutionary or innovative to me, but neither is she a Madonna rehash. I think Lady Gaga is her own person, she's not like Madonna to my ears. BTW, she came here down under & showed up our politicians for being behind the times regarding gay rights, eg. gay marriage or civil unions, that stuff. She said our pollies should get with the times like her native New York. She got a fair amount of press for that here, and I think quite a thumbs up from many quarters, not just the gay community. Basically, this woman has commonsense, & you can't say that for many/all prominent people today, whether they're pop stars or not...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> She's just the current cog in the pop diva cycle now that Britney Spears is an overweight man, but people don't notice because Gaga has a more "ironic" generation Y pandering image. In a few years she'll probably market herself in a more "serious" way and pretend that she was a deep, misunderstood artist noticed for her surface novelty all along, but her music will still be boring.
> 
> Her stage performance is dumbed down, tryhard dada. Her music is derivative, braindead pop with some Eurodance flavor. I can't see how she'd impress anyone but idiots.
> 
> In short, she's not even a hack. She is a marketing decision.


You snarky *******! Never failing at it...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

She isn't good enough to be a wart on Joni Mitchell's ***.


----------



## Metalkitsune (Jul 11, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Don't worry, Philip. There are people who can help you.


This.

Modern music sucks. Going back the the 60's,70's,and 80's there was good music like ,The Beatles,Jefferson Airplane,the Rolling stones,Buffalo Springfield,Jethro Tull,Led Zeppelin,The Scorpions. Nowadays music is computerized or autotuned which disguises the singers voice. I'll take "Stairway to heaven" over "pokerface" anyday.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> She isn't good enough to be a wart on Joni Mitchell's ***.


Are you implying that Joni Mitchell has a warty ***??


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Metalkitsune said:


> This.
> 
> Modern music sucks. Going back the the 60's,70's,and 80's there was good music like...Nowadays music is computerized or autotuned which disguises the singers voice...


Same thing goes on with classical recordings - eg. the manipulation of reality that you're talking about, esp. in terms of studio recordings. Back in the days before digital, it was mainly a matter of "what you hear is what you get," nowadays, with all the playing around with levels and editing, I'd hazard a guess that a lot of what we hear is entirely different to what we'd hear if we were present in the recording studio during the session. I'm not a purist, I'm not one of those who think that the old analogue recordings were the be all & end all, I'm just saying that with digital recording technology, same as when applied to classical, is often just as much a case of "smoke and mirrors" that you're saying with regards to recordings of pop/rock music...


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Same thing goes on with classical recordings - eg. the manipulation of reality that you're talking about, esp. in terms of studio recordings. Back in the days before digital, it was mainly a matter of "what you hear is what you get," nowadays, with all the playing around with levels and editing, I'd hazard a guess that a lot of what we hear is entirely different to what we'd hear if we were present in the recording studio during the session. I'm not a purist, I'm not one of those who think that the old analogue recordings were the be all & end all, I'm just saying that with digital recording technology, same as when applied to classical, is often just as much a case of "smoke and mirrors" that you're saying with regards to recordings of pop/rock music...


I'm no fan of that practice in any sort of music, but in classical music it's more for correction (and by extension, for many, longevity) in a potentially long and exhausting performance; in a lot of modern pop and rock music, it seems like they're trying to "dehumanize" the performance as much as possible. It all sounds like it was recorded in a vacuum, and it's horrid. There's nothing organic or earthy or raw or real about that stuff, which isn't something that could be said about a classical recording with a few corrections.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*@ regressivetransophobe* - I don't know the exact extent to which classical recordings are manipulated/changed digitally, esp. in terms of purely acoustic or non-electronic musics. Of course, "classical" electronic music, or music with electronic/amplified elements, is a whole different ball game. But basically, if one thinks that what one hears on a modern digital recording made in a studio is like "the real thing" then I think that this would be risky to say. Eg. I actually like recordings made live & unedited, because sometimes they have a rawness & fire that studio recordings lack. Even with wrong notes being struck, a recording can be of a very high standard in terms of other things. There are classical listeners out there, same as pop or rock listeners, who like an artificial "plastic" sound, everything being "perfect" & fine and dandy, but in reality, is what they think perfection or manipulation? Is it really as natural as they think it is, or like to make out?...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Gaga often looks like a w.h.o.r.e on stage. Probably some Madonna wanna-be, and the same could be said of Madonna as a Mariyln Monroe wanna-be. Each "generation" has to have these "product" types to keep the industry going.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Not even worth commenting about...oh, darn, I just did!


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Stefani Germanotta (which is who 'Lady Gaga' is) is actually a talented singer/songwriter. She has a classical training (no guarantee of quality, I admit, but in this case it has served her well) and can really perform (she plays the piano well), unlike some hacks doing the rounds nowadays (ever heard Katy Perry trying to sing live? It's laughable?). She writes well-crafted pop songs that stand-up on their own without the visual gimmickry of her videos and stage shows.

Is she a revolutionary? No, not at all. Nothing about what she does is new (not even remotely). However, she does what she does far better than many of her direct contemporaries.


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Gaga often looks like a w.h.o.r.e on stage. Probably some Madonna wanna-be, and the same could be said of Madonna as a Mariyln Monroe wanna-be. Each "generation" has to have these "product" types to keep the industry going.


Gotta agree. I seriously find Gaga's vulgarity (constant crotch flashing etc) completely repulsive. Nothing wrong with a bit of suggestiveness here and there but her oversexualised performances are just gross and make her look like a total slapper.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Curiosity said:


> Gotta agree. I seriously find Gaga's vulgarity (constant crotch flashing etc) completely repulsive. Nothing wrong with a bit of suggestiveness here and there but her oversexualised performances are just gross and make her look like a total slapper.


And presumably leads 12 year-old wannabes to think it's acceptable seeing she's classed as a mainstream artist. Sorry to sound like an old fart but I think younger girls up to a certain age should be protected from that, not impressed to the point where they should want to emulate it.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> Sorry to sound like an old fart but I think younger girls up to a certain age should be protected from that,


Maybe, but that's the parents' job. Loin spawn = work, and it's about time people realized that.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Curiosity said:


> Gotta agree. I seriously find Gaga's vulgarity (constant crotch flashing etc) completely repulsive. Nothing wrong with a bit of suggestiveness here and there but her oversexualised performances are just gross and make her look like a total slapper.


:lol: Gotta laugh at this, which is what critics of Elvis Presley basically said (esp. your reference to "crotch flashing"). Maybe Lady Gaga is an heir to "Elvis the Pelvis?"  ...


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Wouldn't give her much more credibility, since Elvis got famous ripping off black music and pretending it's his own.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, *regressivetransophobe*, then wouldn't you say the same thing about all rock n'roll musicians (at least those who were/are white)? In terms of them being derivative of black music?...


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Yeah, but I'm not really a rock fan in general. The majority of the kind of "rock" (a rather meaningless umbrella term these days) I like is fringe or deviates from those traditions.

Anyway, I'm not saying something has to be revolutionary to be enjoyable; early rock always just sounded like watered down white blues to me. Granted, I would take it over the subject of this thread...


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

Sid James said:


> :lol: Gotta laugh at this, which is what critics of Elvis Presley basically said (esp. your reference to "crotch flashing"). Maybe Lady Gaga is an heir to "Elvis the Pelvis?"  ...


Going a wee bit far by comparing Gaga to Elvis, I think. Elvis waved his hips around a little, but he was primarily selling that awesome voice. Gaga on the other hand flashes her crotch at every available opportunity and has this constant air of forced oversexuality. The "performance" clearly takes center-stage over the music. If the voice and the music were at the forefront she wouldn't be nearly the controversial (=successful) musician that she is.

I have to say, I really dislike this attitude that implies that you're backwards and a prude because you don't approve of some mediocre slapper flashing her genitals at the camera as much as possible. There's a world of difference between what Elvis did and what Gaga is doing. Increasing sexualisation of pop culture is not some kind of sign cultural progress, which seems to be the general implication in some circles. Hoes have been around for a long time.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*@ Curiosity *- Yes, of course Gaga is different to Elvis in many ways, what I'm saying is that entertainers of many eras, esp. post-1945, used quite a bit of "sex appeal" to sell their wares. So, what's new?

I disagree with your opinion that Gaga is "mediocre," in terms of the quality of her music I agree with the more measured opinons of member Delicious Manager above. You refer to prudery but use the word "h*e" which is clearly derogatory towards women. It's basically a label against any woman who expresses their sexuality in a certain way. I think this is not a good attitude, but if you think like that, go ahead...


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Sid James said:


> *@ Curiosity *- Yes, of course Gaga is different to Elvis in many ways, what I'm saying is that entertainers of many eras, esp. post-1945, used quite a bit of "sex appeal" to sell their wares. So, what's new?
> 
> I disagree with your opinion that Gaga is "mediocre," in terms of the quality of her music I agree with the more measured opinons of member Delicious Manager above. You refer to prudery but use the word "h*e" which is clearly derogatory towards women. It's basically a label against any woman who expresses their sexuality in a certain way. I think this is not a good attitude, but if you think like that, go ahead...


I see where you're coming from and don't really disagree, but keep in mind, there's a difference between a bit of sexually provocative imagery attached to an artist in the 60s (when it was subversive, as far as the mainstream was concerned) and selling sex in 2011, where it's a pop industry staple. I don't really think it's a matter of morality as much as it's a matter of being ****in' boring and having no original ideas.

As a counterexample, that lady in Throbbing Gristle literally worked in porn, but no one really calls her a wh_o_re because when she touched upon sexuality in her art, she made people think about it. It wasn't just like "check out my assless telephone robe!"


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Yes, I can see what you're saying, hyping up sex is now a cliche, whereas it was kind of new & exciting in Elvis' time. But the (by now) old adage "sex sells" is truer now more than ever, & yes, it has become the modus operandi of those in the pop/rock music industries. I suppose that Madonna was the "original" if there ever was one, Lady Gaga is kind of working off what she did, but listening to their music, they are not like eachother, imo. Unfortunately there has been a tendency to put sex appeal above other things in more recent times, others that come to mind are Beyonce & Lykke Li (love this song!). All of these pop divas dress skimpily, it's become de rigeur. & that's why they are so much like eachother when we see them on music videos, etc. It's just so "in your face" now & little subtlety. But calling their music "mediocre" as a result doesn't accord with what I personally think. In any case, doing a rehash of Madonna wouldn't go down well with the youth of today, it would seem to them to be "old hat"...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Well calling her a Madonna wanna be per se might have been ignorance on my part. I don't know much about popular music so I was kind of just taking a stab in the dark with that comparison just to get my point across.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, I don't blame people for comparing Lady Gaga (or Beyonce or Lykke Li, who I both mentioned above) for _looking_ & _acting_ (etc.) like Madonna, but in terms of their actual _music_, they are quite different, imho...


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

She means nothing to me, but her stuff seems to give a lot of people a good time, so I'm not going to put my nose up into the air and say that it's rubbish. I seriously doubt that many 'serious' composers are capable of writing a simple catchy pop tune, so there's no need to feel superior. IF it's rubbish, then at least some of it is well crafted rubbish. No harm in that.


----------



## Curiosity (Jul 10, 2011)

Sid James said:


> *@ Curiosity *- Yes, of course Gaga is different to Elvis in many ways, what I'm saying is that entertainers of many eras, esp. post-1945, used quite a bit of "sex appeal" to sell their wares. So, what's new?


Regressivetransphobe basically conveyed my thoughts on this. In the the 50's and 60's the sexualisation of pop culture was symptomatic of the societal changes taking place at that time. Gaga's sexualised performances, on the other hand, represent nothing other than mindless commercialism. The "sex appeal" is used as a cheap marketing ploy.



> I disagree with your opinion that Gaga is "mediocre," in terms of the quality of her music I agree with the more measured opinons of member Delicious Manager above. You refer to prudery but use the word "h*e" which is clearly derogatory towards women. It's basically a label against any woman who expresses their sexuality in a certain way. I think this is not a good attitude, but if you think like that, go ahead...


Mediocre seems like a most appropriate term to describe Lady Gaga's output. It's all well-produced and superficially polished, but it's terribly generic stuff. She does nothing particularly creative musically or lyrically. Her entire persona is positively banal. As far as I'm concerned, Gaga's only real talent is managing to convince the great unwashed that she HAS any talent...

*** isn't a derogatory term for women, that's absurd. It's a derogatory term for women like Lady Gaga. Men can be hoes too.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Gotta agree with Curiosity for once.

Dressing up the old as the new is the most fundamental trick of the industry. Emphasis on industry.


----------



## kzhen (Sep 6, 2011)

I enjoy watching Lady Gaga, she can't really be compared to anyone. She's her own self and empowers others through her music. Can't wait I'm a fan or hers, but can't say I hate her either.


----------



## goingunder (Sep 18, 2011)

I think some the overtly sexual stuff is meant to be ironic; I love the randomness she makes. It's not like what she's wearing etc. hasn't been done before, but the quality here is really good. I haven't seen many music videos where the singer is both male, female and a mermaid. & I think the music (that she writes, at least initial melodies) is catchy, and I enjoy her live performances on the piano, especially when she plays it with her feet xD and I like her voice. She has enough talent to be a pop star, as she's a good singer-songwriter, but she chose to be more. All with consequences.

Oh and whenever I say "good" I mean for pop music standard. I really lost interest in most pop music; heck, even Kelly Clarkson sold out or got tired.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Curiosity said:


> Regressivetransphobe basically conveyed my thoughts on this. In the the 50's and 60's the sexualisation of pop culture was symptomatic of the societal changes taking place at that time. Gaga's sexualised performances, on the other hand, represent nothing other than mindless commercialism. The "sex appeal" is used as a cheap marketing ploy.
> 
> Mediocre seems like a most appropriate term to describe Lady Gaga's output. It's all well-produced and superficially polished, but it's terribly generic stuff. She does nothing particularly creative musically or lyrically. Her entire persona is positively banal. As far as I'm concerned, Gaga's only real talent is managing to convince the great unwashed that she HAS any talent...
> 
> *** isn't a derogatory term for women, that's absurd. It's a derogatory term for women like Lady Gaga. Men can be hoes too.


Oh, Curiosity, thank you! I really couldn't get into this as I've, unfortunately, seen just about each one of this person's performances since the very moment she was introduced into the scene; even before mainstream. I was in utter disbelief that they were actually trying to push something like this...I was in sheer pain at the output I was hearing and it was so fake and staged that it made me sick. I like someone like Cee Lo...that guy can write, sing, play and is true to the bone! Anyway,...don't wanna get into that right now.

As far as the 'sexuality'?...it's baffling to think of how anyone could consider that thing,...sexy.

She/it looked best in one of her/its most recent performances:









Anyway,...that's is for me and this thread. 'sick, man...sick'


----------

