QueenZone discussion #1212913

GratefulFan wrote: Given that her father is not dead, I'm really not too sure about this "interview"...

Unblinking Eye wrote: Right. I hate Lady Gaga but I have to say, what she said about Freddie was true

ILoveQueen20 wrote: he's more Rock than 'Pop'

Sir GH wrote: Speechless is an excellent song as well.  Everyone should check this out.. link If she'd focus on her musical talent instead of her image, she might be taken seriously by people who prefer musical quality over selling sex.  But since image has become more important than music to popular culture (thanks, MTV), it's clear that the masses who buy into sex are far greater in number to people who like to sit down and listen to the great album with headphones. Sure, she may end up being the next Madonna, but what are we as a society when we applaud artists who make showing off their body the primary goal?  Can we even name one female artist to have come out in the last 25 years who has endured in the mainstream without showing off her body?  Maybe Bjork..?

GratefulFan wrote: I really don't think this is mostly that.  She seems to me to use her physical person more as canvas and clay for an artistic vision than she does for displays of skin that are merely gratuitious. The brilliant Bad Romance video is a near perfect example.

Sir GH wrote: Speechless is an excellent song as well.  Everyone should check this out.. link If she'd focus on her musical talent instead of her image, she might be taken seriously by people who prefer musical quality over selling sex.  But since image has become more important than music to popular culture (thanks, MTV), it's clear that the masses who buy into sex are far greater in number to people who like to sit down and listen to the great album with headphones. Sure, she may end up being the next Madonna, but what are we as a society when we applaud artists who make showing off their body the primary goal?  Can we even name one female artist to have come out in the last 25 years who has endured in the mainstream without showing off her body?  Maybe Bjork..?

  Sir GH wrote: Well, then I guess we disagree.  I think you're being far too generous.  I watched the video, and saw 5% computerized music and 95% sex blandly disguised as artistry.  The song is catchy, but ultimately throwaway pop that'll be irrelevant in a few years.  She has contributed nothing to the evolution of music, and she probably never will if she stays on the fad bandwagon.  Image is not music, and never will be. Emily Haines is a real artist that people should be listening to, not this garbage that's manufactured by computers, with accompanying videos that are half way to being softcore porn.  Carole King and Patti Labelle must be disgusted and deeply saddened when they see what the bulk of these mainstream female artists have become. But in the end it's not the artists' fault, of course.  The bean-counters at the record labels are the ones who ultimately decide what the average person is going to be listening to.

GratefulFan wrote: One need only watch the videos in the number two and number three spots on the pop charts to see how vastly more interesting and substantial her work is.

I'd put a song like Speechless up against anything the brilliant Carole King wrote at 23 and expect it to measure up absolutely.

  Sir GH wrote: If we judged something only by comparing it to something else, then the Cold War was a fantastic war because it didn't claim as many lives as World Wars I or II. Sure, I'll give you that.  But from day one, Carole King was seen as a great songwriter, and 30+ years later we continue to see Carole King as a great songwriter.  Lady Gaga, on the other hand, will either be forgotten 30 years from now, or seen as a sex symbol of the past, most of whose songs dated badly.  Good on Carole King for keeping her clothes on and connecting with people on less superficial levels at all times without exception. I realize you're trying to be fair, but I'm just not buying into it.  Music is meant to be heard, not to be seen with skimpy clothing.  Image can augment the music, but the music should have the final say in the end.  In that interview video you linked to, the interviewer suggests the idea of separating sex from her music, and she replies by boasting about her record sales.  That tells me everything I need to know about her. "Fools who want to trip her up with nonsense," you say?  The interviewer certainly was no fool, and that question was the furthest thing from nonsense.  She basically confirmed that sex was the crutch for her mainstream success, and he didn't need to spend another moment on the topic.  Score an A+ for his integrity there. And finally, comparing her to Freddie Mercury in any way is just a disgrace.  Freddie Mercury was a brilliant musician who always made the artistic choice to put the music first.  For that reason alone, Lady Gaga has no business being mentioned in the same sentence as him.

GratefulFan wrote: Making declarations about how an as yet unfinished body of work is going to be received in the future would be viewed as presumptuous by most and is certainly unsupportable.

And her more typical songs are good pop songs, whether one likes pop music or not.  They are written for a millieu (the sexually charged club scene) and a demographic (people in their heady sexual youth) where her frank and open sexuality works.

And I think you miscast the reality of the past too. Despite your previous assertion, I think artists like Patti LaBelle would understand artists like Lady Gaga completely.

There was a time in my life when I would have rejected Gaga out of hand.  I feel lucky to have been exposed to many ideas over time that have changed my thinking about thinking.  This is the right stance for me.

buffypython wrote: Particularly in concert, it wasn't odd to see him using a metal support beam on the stage as a stripper pole or humping it out-right.

The Real Wizard wrote: Speechless is an excellent song as well.  Everyone should check this out.. link If she'd focus on her musical talent instead of her image, she might be taken seriously by people who prefer musical quality over selling sex.  But since image has become more important than music to popular culture (thanks, MTV), it's clear that the masses who buy into sex are far greater in number to people who like to sit down and listen to the great album with headphones. Sure, she may end up being the next Madonna, but what are we as a society when we applaud artists who make showing off their body the primary goal?  Can we even name one female artist to have come out in the last 25 years who has endured in the mainstream without showing off her body?  Maybe Bjork..?

waunakonor wrote: Seriously, Gaabiizz?

tomchristie22 wrote: I must say, the third 'great' had me off my seat in excitement. What a brilliant change of pace in his universally beloved contributions to this forum.

Amazon wrote: Holly2003 wrote: "In all seriousness, I hadn't realised Lady gaga was selling herself as a sex symbol. She's clearly over charging -- there's nothing sexy about her. Comparisons with early Madonna are way off: Madonna wasn't that pretty but she could be sexy. However, Lady Ga Ga can sing and Madonna can't." I don't agree. I think that Madonna can definitely sing. I thought she did a great job on Evita, and much of her other work is also really good. I think she's a fine singer, however she has never been noted for it. As for Gaga: great singer, fantastic dancer and performer, however I certainly agree that she's not particularly sexy. Not that it matters.

Zebonka12 wrote: She's a piece of shit and a horrible person.