tay120 25.12.2009 19:37 |
In an interview with Daily Reconrd, Lady Gaga named Freddie Mercury as her #1 influence of all time. She also discusses Freddie's influence upon her as a performer. Here is the article: link |
Unblinking Eye 25.12.2009 20:44 |
Right. I hate Lady Gaga but I have to say, what she said about Freddie was true |
GratefulFan 26.12.2009 12:10 |
Given that her father is not dead, I'm really not too sure about this "interview"... |
Unblinking Eye 26.12.2009 23:20 |
GratefulFan wrote: Given that her father is not dead, I'm really not too sure about this "interview"... Her father's not dead?? |
Pim Derks 27.12.2009 06:52 |
Bad Romance is a great track, and her hits so far were very well crafted popsongs. |
The Real Wizard 27.12.2009 12:45 |
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..? |
4 x Vision 27.12.2009 12:53 |
Yeah Bjork is certainly someone whom I've grown more fond of since she shook off the "pop" image from long time ago. Her recent work with Antony And The Johnsons was a nice treat for me. |
4 x Vision 27.12.2009 13:03 |
Unblinking Eye wrote: Right. I hate Lady Gaga but I have to say, what she said about Freddie was true I think what Roger said about Freddie in the recent Absolute Hits commentary has far deeper credibility for me. His comment on Heaven For Everyone.... "Originally, I had sung this and when you then get Freddie Mercury to sing something you've sung you just realise your limits and how much further he could take something vocally". Very humble I think, especially as It was Roger who wrote this masterpiece (imo). The way he spoke about him in this sense made me feel very happy and summed Freddie's genius up in one honest sentence. Bravo Roger. (... but don't knock you're version, it has it's own charms also). |
ILoveQueen20 27.12.2009 13:34 |
This is only my opinion but she says Freddie is her #1 inspiration but to me her music doesnt represent any influence to Freddie or Queen if anyone can find me an example of her influence please tell me as I'm confused with her statement (except her name) ....& the Bowie 'flash' isnt a reference it's just copying his original idea. Im am not Lady Gaga Fan but I also agree it's true what she said about Freddie even though he's more Rock than 'Pop' |
4 x Vision 27.12.2009 13:41 |
ILoveQueen20 wrote: he's more Rock than 'Pop' Not sure if I'd agree with you there... Freddie developed more and more of a pop nature as time went on. If anything, Brian kept the rock influence as his priority within the group. I don't see any of Freddie or Queen in her music, but the importance she puts on her image is very Freddie/Bowie like I suppose (to a degree). I'm very indifferent towards her. Not sure she'll have staying power to be honest. Still nice to hear new acts paying homage to Queen/Freddie though. |
GratefulFan 27.12.2009 14:45 |
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..? 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. |
QUEENexpert 27.12.2009 18:17 |
thats disgusting. how can she say that Freddie is her biggest influence when she makes him look so awful. i dont like her at all. |
The Real Wizard 27.12.2009 23:35 |
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. 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. |
mike hunt 28.12.2009 01:15 |
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..? norah jones? |
The Real Wizard 28.12.2009 01:40 |
Hell yeah. And Joss Stone. Hopefully they'll still be around in 10 years. |
dragon-fly 28.12.2009 04:05 |
She says that she is influenced by F. Mercury.... So what? Except the thing that she likes his music it says nothing about how good musician/singer she is. |
GratefulFan 29.12.2009 15:26 |
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. We definitely disagree about the 'Bad Romance' video. The female form as monster was for me a striking conceptual premise that was anything but bland. And the subtle visual homage to to pop's biggest female names then and now peppered throughout could be missed altogether if one was predisposed to dismiss her efforts as serial opportunities to appear in de facto underwear. And what does that all mean taken together- female monsters and pop queen doppelgangers? It's been a long time since a pop video prompted me to wonder anything. 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. One could argue that the modern pop scene is such a steaming pile of dung that excelling there is utterly meaningless, but I think that requires one to accept that it is an objective fact that the subtle artistry of Broken Social Scene et al is more important, somehow more valid than the brash and jarring sexually charged pop culture vision of one Stefani Germanotta. I reject that. You and I share a subjective preference for experiencing music as it is delivered by people like Emily Haines, but that says nothing about any dispassionate cosmic truth. Carole King at 20 was doing precisely what Lady Gaga was doing at 20 - writing hit songs on her piano for other people, moving toward massive and only seemingly instant solo success in a genre intimately tied to the times she lived in. I'd put a song like Speechless up against anything the brilliant Carole King wrote at 23 and expect it to measure up absolutely. Lady Gaga responds to questions about sexuality in her music here. The brief clip is notable for it's parallels to some of the interviews Freddie did. Aggressive, deliberately provocative, supremely confident and not willing to suffer fools who want to trip her up with nonsense tossed on the road she's walking. |
The Real Wizard 29.12.2009 20:18 |
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.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. I'd put a song like Speechless up against anything the brilliant Carole King wrote at 23 and expect it to measure up absolutely. 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. |
Karmablade 29.12.2009 21:56 |
it certainly doesnt show in her or his music, talentless garbage "artist" |
john bodega 30.12.2009 04:20 |
Vaguely sexual imagery being used in a Goddamn clever way ... see, if I want that, I'll watch Pink Floyd The Wall. That's art, regardless of whether or not you liked the album. It'd take some convincing for me to ever rate a Lady Gaga video as artistic. |
GratefulFan 01.01.2010 18:16 |
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. A couple of last thoughts on this, and then you can have the final word if you like. I understand your view completely, along with the many others here and everywhere who feel the same way. I understand how you arrived there. Somebody could turn my own arguments around on me with a band like KISS for instance, and I just couldn't care. There's too little there for me to grab onto. So I do understand your position and credit it as a completely valid one. However, I find your arguments supporting that position weak. 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. Her skill and instincts on a song like Speechless intrigue me, and based on that alone frankly I don't know how anyone writes her off in 2009. 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. She is absolutely unapologetic and absolutely honest about the way she uses sex in her art. It's that quality that makes me respect it completely. I think you miscast the reality of the present. Joss Stone brushing Cadbury chocolate flakes off her covered breasts, or crooning to slow motion ass shots in Gap ads, or pretending she walks around her house naked all the time, or submitting to an endless of array of come-fuck-me publicity shots is not a superior or less calculated embrace of sexuality for a young talented female artist, it's just a more preditable one. 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. And they'd most likely hear, as I did, the absurd spectable of that Norweigan interviewer asking her questions a male artist leveraging sex and the female body in countless ways would never have to endure. Her record sales do make it apparent that her artistic choices are not getting between her and a significant section of the public - a point she made with all the grace the line of questioning deserved. If he's disturbed by her use of her body in her art and by her open sexuality and her crap music, he can go buy a burqa and ball it up in his eyes and ears while she excels in a field he has apparently sought employment in. You characterized me as 'trying to be fair', and perhaps constructing an argument for argument's sake, but I mean every word I've said. 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. P.S. I won't comment on your same sentence as Freddie point. It's been a couple of days, and I trust he's already haunted you from the grave for it. [img=/images/smiley/msn/angel_smile.gif][/img] |
CGtteir 03.01.2010 12:13 |
I think she listened another Freddie Mercury. I don't think is the same with the one we all know. |
The Real Wizard 03.01.2010 13:54 |
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.Fair play. I'll give you that one. 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.In other words, she appeals to the sexuality of the lowest common denominator, which is no big artistic achievement. The record companies can sign anyone up to look good and do that. People who look like her and can sing like her are a dime a dozen. 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.I highly doubt that. Unlike Lady Gaga, Patti LaBelle had a voice to kill. The outfits were always secondary to her voice and the quality of music being put forth. They never defined her as an artist. She can sleep well at night knowing her talents made her who she is, not her body. What would Lady Gaga's music videos and shows be without the outfits and the over-the-top production? Would the songs themselves stand a chance of being interesting and entertaining enough? How many people walking out of a Lady Gaga concert talk about her voice and the quality of her songs? We should be asking this question about every artist currently experiencing mainstream success. The list of artists whose music can stand strongly on its own is a very small list. 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. Well put. But I feel that the world needs more quality songwriters, not another Madonna. However, since quality musicians and well-crafted songs generally aren't in the business plans of the bean-counters at the major labels, and sex sells courtesy of MTV, the state of mainstream music is what it is. As long as her record company is calling the shots (maybe they won't after her contract is up and she takes matters into her own hands), she'll get to have one Speechless for every 5 pop songs that sell sex. |
GratefulFan 03.01.2010 16:06 |
Thanks for your thoughts Sir GH. Speaking of the clash between quality and talent and bean counters and the modern music scene, W5 did a piece on Justin Bieber last night. A rocket ride from YouTube to world teen sensation via some of the biggest names in pop. I don't get it, but apparently a gazillion teenagers and industry folks with an eye for the next big thing do. The piece is online, should anybody be interested in watching a rich, slightly parasitic music producer at work: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/w5_bieber_100102/20100102?s_name=W5 |
Sheer Brass Neck 03.01.2010 20:37 |
Wow, 3 Canadian posts in a row, we're taking over here. Whether it's music or art or film, there is always going to be the sexual element for women. I don't know if Liona Boyd or Shania Twain are the best classical guitarists or country singers of the past generation, but certainly they are arguably the best known. Liona Boyd may have been playing coffee houses married to a plumber instead of performing on Adnan Khashoggi's yacht and dating a prime minister if she didn't use her looks to sell her music. Sharon Stone's career was solid until she opened her legs in Basic Instinct then she became a megastar. I think it's different for women. They have a time (not in my eyes, in the eyes of Hollywood and the entertainment industry) when they're hot physically and sexually. They have to make their money then. Freakin' Jack Nicholson is still called sexy at 70 and he's the male equivalent of Bea Arthur. Double standard for sure. |
buffypython 04.01.2010 13:10 |
While I'm not a fan of most pop or hip-hop music today, I do like most of Lady Gaga's songs and not just because she cites Queen as an influence. At first, I too didn't get the connection between her and Queen, but I'm starting to. 1) The importance of fashion to her: Gaga's very much into style and not all of her wardrobe is devoted to overtly sexual pieces. I've seen her wear completely modest dresses before. Freddie was also into fashion, though perhaps not as much as Gaga. 2) Sexuality: Obviously, Freddie wasn't very open about his sexuality. However, it seems to me (and this certainly can't be proven) that if homosexuality had been a socially-acceptable lifestyle back then, he would've sung about it in his music. Gaga definitely does. Is this a similarity? Technically yes, but most musicians have a love song at some point. In terms of overt sexuality, Freddie was a powerhouse like Gaga. 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. I think the 2 artists are equally sexual. 3) Musically: Again, I didn't see a similarity between Freddie and Gaga at first, but now I do. I'll admit her hits don't bare much resemblance to Queen, but 1 song off of her newest album has a Queeny flavor to it: link This live song shows a strong connection to Freddie's live piano performances: link |
CGtteir 04.01.2010 14:31 |
I only see one influence - men. Both like men. |
GratefulFan 05.01.2010 18:51 |
|
GratefulFan 05.01.2010 18:57 |
Thanks for those thought and the links. Paparazzi is another song I've mentioned on the boards here that I think has some strength. It's not melodically complex, but it's compelling. Interesting to compare two stripped down versions: an acoustic romp by Gaga herself full of wild dynamics and theatricality, and a simple guitar accompanied cover by a YouTuber with a very pretty voice: Gaga YouTuber |
The Real Wizard 05.01.2010 22:25 |
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. Right... but without it, it still would have been a great performance and the songs would have been just as powerful. Again, sex was never the primary thing with Freddie's music and stage personality. The occasional hint was all there ever was. It wasn't ever a major selling point to make it or break it. That said, those links of Lady Gaga alone at the piano have their moments. In fact, I was thoroughly enjoying the piano version of Poker Face until they showed her bottom half, and I was no longer impressed. Is the outfit supposed to make her music sound better? But she and her record label know that people like me are in the minority. They don't care that I won't buy her latest record. They know that for every person like me, there are a thousand people who bought into it because sex sells. Two disappointed thumbs down. |
RyanInLA11 06.01.2010 05:25 |
I don't think Lady Ga Ga has proven herself just yet but she has a ton of potential. She writes her own songs and she has a flair for theatrics and she comes up with cool Bowie-type stage outfits... I hope she keeps the hits coming because I like her approach to music. |
Gaabiizz 30.05.2012 12:00 |
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..? Great , Great , Great! |
waunakonor 30.05.2012 18:41 |
Seriously, Gaabiizz? |
Djdownsy 30.05.2012 20:46 |
waunakonor wrote: Seriously, Gaabiizz?Hahaha, agree completely! :P |
tomchristie22 31.05.2012 04:14 |
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. |
matt z 31.05.2012 06:34 |
Last 25 years??? Well I was initially gonna cite the best of em.... ANNIE LENNOX... Until I realized I'm becoming old and Annie basically hit after 1980 after the band THE TOURISTS folded. There's less hope for Alicia Keys, who started strong and sentimental, but turned out to be a Cmajor weak pop songstress... Emma from Sick Puppies is a butch-er...and has songwriters clinching the stuff, even if she ever had a good breakthrough lead. Joss Stone is a complete wannabe BLACK Soul Singer from 52'- 78' so she's a cheap gimmick and out Christina Aguilera admired all the right artists (esp. Etta James - who took her singing style from innovator Johnny Guitar Watson) All the females I know who like/have liked Bjork...are as crazy as that bitch is. Jewel had some songcraft going, then she went pop (could be another case of co-writers for a hot/cute girl) And I worked along with Colbie Caillat at her beginnings... Her father is largely responsible...and her singing isn't on par with anybody..its the hush close-proximity kind So... The only females that come up in the past 25 years worth a damn (excluding dear Annie... Who is fucking phenomenal) Are: 1) Norah Jones 2) Sheryl Crow (alright...she was a bg singer for MJ, but her solo stuff didn't kick till the 90's) 3) Esperanza Spalding (her self titled will go down as an incredible album, regardless of her weird forays into other fields) 4) Ani DiFranco.... A hell of a songstress, even if you're not a gay woman 5).... Who the hell knows.. I would love to hear a suggested listening list of ppl to come. PS: I had my eyes and ears hipped to ADELE when she was fat and did something with Pet Townshend.... I kinda think she's another studio creation (ghost writers + songs bought dirt cheap from starving musicians) Missy Elliot seemed like she'd be an up and comer... Even though I didn't like much of her stuff.... She was just all over the place... But I'm guessing she's been too busy munching carpet. |
matt z 31.05.2012 06:50 |
Ps: thanks for the Joss Stone link... Cheap black soul impersonator or not (like 1/2 of the Stones' early songs [thank god they had actual talent]) I really appreciate that... If only there were ahem... Photo *spreads. She's an attractive woman. *ahem... Anyways. Yeah, I've tried this angle with women but they don't get it; life still maintains a double standard...and you seldom have a woman who writes songs of excellent caliber ala Joni Mitchell, Carol King....they just don't happen often... Life makes things easier for women...and if there's been an "ugly" woman who didn't make the public grade...why haven't I heard her songs performed by cuties yet? I know there are double standards for public consumerism. Anyways, thank you. And thank you QZ for not suggesting Amy Winehouse... She's a studio retro experiment. Whitney Houston now...she had it all without selling/shilling her body... |
croatiafan 31.05.2012 08:26 |
I tune in to whatever talk show she's on just to see what sort of outlandish outfit she's wearing. Other than that, I'm not a big fan of Lady Gaga's music. |
Holly2003 31.05.2012 09:05 |
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. |
Amazon 31.05.2012 11:27 |
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. |
waunakonor 31.05.2012 12:01 |
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.It's not just the comment itself, it's the fact that he/she felt the need to resurrect this thread just to write it over two years after the last post had been made. Now it seems to be getting some traction, and I guess that's my fault since everyone started commenting after I posted that. As for the actual topic, the only Lady GaGa song I own is You and I. It's a pretty good song, though she says "Nebraska!" too much toward the end of it for some reason. Lady GaGa just strikes me as being a strong singer, and since I don't really pay attention at all to the music videos or various performances, the music all that really matters to me, and to my ears it's decent music. |
Amazon 31.05.2012 12:13 |
waunakonor wrote: "Now it seems to be getting some traction, and I guess that's my fault since everyone started commenting after I posted that." It's an interesting thread. There's no reason why threads can't be resurrected, even if they've been dormant for two years. The comment that resurrected the thread wasn't particularly impressive, but I don't see why you would blame yourself for a thread becoming popular again, when there's nothing wrong with that. |
Holly2003 31.05.2012 14:11 |
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.I've always thought Madonna has a thin and weak voice. Didn't the musical director of Evita say something similar about her voice? To some extent she can cover that up in the studio, which is fine by me -- some of her stuff was very catchy. But she was a triumph of style & self promotion over substance, whereas Lady GaGa is imo more talented. Not that I would buy any of her stuff mind: my latest music purchase was 3 Deep Purple cds ;) |
Gaabiizz 31.05.2012 17:19 |
Lady GaGa is a great person and a great artist , is the new Queen of music |
john bodega 01.06.2012 05:11 |
She's a piece of shit and a horrible person. |
matt z 01.06.2012 13:00 |
Zebonka12 wrote: She's a piece of shit and a horrible person.ZING!! Lol Though I don't know her personally, I've kinda got the feeling she would be. In either event; catering to a gay audience seems to insure longevity... How else could Cher, Elton John and Robbie Williams be relevant? |
Amazon 01.06.2012 13:55 |
matt z wrote: "Though I don't know her personally, I've kinda got the feeling she would be." You can't be serious, that's just ridiculous. Zeb almost certainly wasn't serious. If you are, well, I find that extraordinary. "How else could Cher, Elton John and Robbie Williams be relevant?" Cher aside, Elton John is extremely talented, and Robbie Williams is great at what he does. Elton and Williams also don't cater to gay audiences, so I don't see why you would bring them up. |
Amazon 01.06.2012 14:19 |
This site is so annoying! |
Amazon 01.06.2012 14:20 |
So annoying! |
Amazon 01.06.2012 14:21 |
Holly2003 wrote: "I've always thought Madonna has a thin and weak voice. Didn't the musical director of Evita say something similar about her voice?" Probably. Her voice isn't amazing, that's for sure, and certainly it does come across sometimes as quite thin. However, I don't think it lessens her as a singer. I mean, I don't listen to her and think 'wow, what a great voice'. I just think she's a fantastic pop singer, and I've listened to some of her Evita songs countless times. :D "To some extent she can cover that up in the studio, which is fine by me -- some of her stuff was very catchy." I should probably admit that I've only ever heard her studio stuff. I've never heard her live. But then again, consider her lip-syncing, nobody has heard her live! :D "But she was a triumph of style & self promotion over substance, whereas Lady GaGa is imo more talented." To some degree I agree with you. I do think that Gaga is more talented (she was brilliant on The Fame, and on a few songs post-The Fame), and Madonna's use of self-promotion and style were amazing, however the reason why songs like Like a Prayer, Like a Virgin, and Beautiful Stranger, among others, are so memorable is IMO due in large part to Madonna. "Not that I would buy any of her stuff mind: my latest music purchase was 3 Deep Purple cds ;)" I LOVE Deep Purple. The biggest crime against the musical gods is that Purple isn't in the Rock Hall of Fame. Which cds did you get? :D |
Holly2003 01.06.2012 15:23 |
Fireball, Machine Head and In Rock. They're all anniversary edition cds or double cds with extra tracks. I've never been a fan because I've only ever heard one live album by them and I wasn't hugely impressed. I have a number of Rainbow LPs and CDs though, and I've always meant to check out some original Deep Purple stuff but never got around to it. The immediate catalyst was hearing Fireball on Youtube a few days ago. Outstanding! 3 cds + delivery from Amazon for less than £12. CDs are an absoulte steal these days. |
tomchristie22 02.06.2012 02:34 |
Haha, I didn't even realize it was an old thread till Waunakonor pointed it out.. And if Lady Gaga is today's equivalent of Queen as Gabiz suggests, then I'd rather not have anything to do with today's pop music. |
john bodega 02.06.2012 10:50 |
"Zeb almost certainly wasn't serious" Yes and no. Measured against the whole of humanity as a basis for comparison, she's probably not all that bad. She does not meet my standards though on any personal level. Everything that comes out of her mouth is the same vapid trash as last time. I did have a good laugh when she recently made jokes about buying counterfeit goods in a South East Asian country, but that was *genuinely* amusing. I'm not one to begrudge someone for who they are - if they come out with a funny, then they've earned praise. She can sure run her mouth a lot but the sales pitch and the music are a total mismatch. All of this 'be yourself' tripe when her music is an absolute contrivance. She's not the pits, she's not the worst out there, and she's not really deserving of extra scorn, but she's just not very good. I'd have more respect for her if she simply titled her next album "I Am Ripping You Off". But anyway, as you said - I wasn't being serious. She's decidedly boring and I don't have enough ill-will to waste it on someone so average. I'd rather watch something like this link and enjoy some actual talent on display. |
john bodega 02.06.2012 10:50 |
"The biggest crime against the musical gods is that Purple isn't in the Rock Hall of Fame" Eh, fuck the Hall of Fame. It's an actual joke. I can't picture the guys losing sleep over their omission. |