Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
Lady Gaga has been putting out albums for about two years. When the Beatles were at that point in their career they were still releasing regular old insipid pop music that even their biggest defenders are unlikely to describe as pushing any kind of envelope. I really don't see a distinction between them and Lady Gaga.
|
Ah, that is true. Yet, until Gaga is to do anything more interesting than the bland pile of rehash she's doing, she's not really worthy of the same level of protection. Especially with the ridiculous insane amount of exposure she's getting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clutnuckle
Plenty of modern classical/avant-garde/early psych rock artists/bands from the 50s and 60s (and even earlier for the modern classical artists) did all of these things before them, in a much more interesting, shocking and paradigm-shifting way. Yes, The Beatles did some good work with it, but they did not invent this style of studio work. Just because nobody was paying attention to innovation when it happened, does not mean that The Beatles started it, nor does it mean they deserve credit for bringing it to the masses.
|
Look, I'm not saying the Beatles are Partch, AMM, Cage, or Varese here. I am saying that they dug deep to the absolute bottom of obscurity to present what they were doing. Whether it was original or not, they were drastically different than the mainstream pop acts 20-30 years from when they started in their post-Revolver. Where as Gaga at the moment is stunningly similar to mainstream pop acts 20-30 years before now. Therefore, in comparison, deserve some consideration.