Here is the difference between Beatles and Gaga in a nutshell:
A) Beatles were accepting a new, and popular form of music. Psychedelic might have been the trend but at the time when it was popular, and Beatles did their own version it was the new thing. Sure, they were just cashing in, but they were cashing in a NEW trend that didn't exist two decades before.
Not only that the Beatles INVENTED new studio technique. Backmasking, usage of feedback(well, this is a tad questionable), and subtle things like that. Beatles were an entirely new studio landscape, one of which was nothing like anything before. Structurally, they are far inferior to classical composers. I mean, I as a massive fan of Bela Bartok say that none of The Beatles even remotely touch him as songwriters. However, they were extremely inventive in the studio. I mean, I've heard things like some of the earliest, if not earliest, self recording digital pianos were custom built for John Lennon.
The Beatles were at least exploring cutting edge technique, and trying in their own way to expand it.
B) Lady Gaga is a professionally trained musician who has worked many years in the studio. From what I hear, she was already a seasoned veteran musician around the time when she, and her producer, 'invented' the Gaga character. With her education, etc. she has a massive access to popular formula.
With that she can write songs off of what she knows is popular. It is very VERY obvious that Lady Gaga has some sort of twisted obsession with the 80s (which makes absolutely no sense to me since she is the same age as me, and I don't ****ing remember the 80s). In fact, if you look closely at anything and EVERYTHING she does it seems almost like a homage, a collection of 80s relics in which the modern teenie bopper audience just doesn't know the existence of.
Unlike the Beatles, Lady Gaga is not taking big risks in order to move 'pop' music forward. She is simply taking these long forgotten formulas, and mashing them together. She is basically taking low intellect Madonna music, and then slapping an aesthetic sheen of 80s art rock randomly onto it.
If that's not deluding the concept enough(Art rock standards? Seriously... Art Rock having standards kind of ruins the point). Gaga isn't creating new art she's simply bastardizing, and oversimplying extremely outdated art. What makes it worst is the further bastardization with the little GWAR publicity stunts she does.
With that said, they're both massively overrated. Unlike the Beatles, however, Gaga is doing nothing but moving us into the past. Beatles at least were trying - in their own way - to actually change things for the future. Gaga is just basically a disgruntled studio musician who gets her giddy thrills off of the fact she's the slightly more intelligent alternative to Katy Perry, and Justin Biebar(and wow... what an accomplishment).
----
Now, as for the argument of pop and classical being a different thing. Of course it is - HOWEVER - that's another reason why I've heavily criticized both acts. There are forms of music which are integrating the best elements of both what the Beatles helped pioneer, and what made more structurally sound classical musicians were helping build. They just go relatively unknown because of their lacking exposure.
Another reason to dislike Gaga who capitalizes of silly shock value, and the aggressive soulless exploitation of gays in place of more creative, ambitious, and interesting music.
__________________
Quote:
|
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
|
Al Pacino = God
|