Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   General Music (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/)
-   -   The Unbearable Idiocy of Pop Music Elitism (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/53928-unbearable-idiocy-pop-music-elitism.html)

Janszoon 01-22-2011 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah (Post 989578)
Come on, Beatles had a few moments. What about "I am the Walrus"? Like or no, Would you classify that as generic pop?

I would put it in the same league as Lady Gaga. There are worse things in the world but it's nothing to write home about.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra 01-22-2011 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 989582)
I would put it in the same league as Lady Gaga.

You're just being difficult.

Screen13 01-22-2011 12:35 PM

As to this Beatles/Gaga debate...

Beatles - Hard working, slightly innovative musicians who caught the right sounds at the right time and won success through both great musicianship, good promotion, good showmanship ('62-'65), hard work, and in the end just being themselves even at their most surreal. Included a controversial leader (When John was at his most down to earth, he could be seriously thought provoking), master of Pop songwriting (when Paul was on the mark), a classy guitarist (when George was not getting too much into the mystical stuff), and a Drummer with good humour who knew how to provide the solid backbeat (Well...Ringo was always Ringo!).

Gaga - Attention seeking acts that show her to be like a wanna-Be Madonna with Disposable music. Includes highly promoted gimmicks and slick and empty sounds that wastes some talent. Sadly, an example of Pop today.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra 01-22-2011 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screen13 (Post 989588)
As to this Beatles/Gaga debate...

Beatles - Hard working, slightly innovative musicians who caught the right sounds at the right time and won success through both great musicianship, good promotion, good showmanship ('62-'65), hard work, and in the end just being themselves even at thier most surreal. Included a controversial leader (When John was at his most down to earth, he could be seriously thought provoking), a master of Pop songwriting (when Paul was on the mark which is most of the time), a classy guitarist (when George was not getting too much into the mystical stuff), and a Drummer with good humour who knew how to provide the solid backbeat (Well...Ringo was always Ringo!).

Gaga - Attention seeking acts that show her to be like a wanna-Be Madonna with Disposable music. Includes highly promoted gimmicks and slick and empty sounds that wastes some talent.

Well, according to the original article, you're an idiot. Which is why my passionate initial response.

Janszoon 01-22-2011 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah (Post 989586)
You're just being difficult.

Nope, just expressing my opinions regarding the Beatles.

Screen13 01-22-2011 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah (Post 988000)
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.


A good amount of that invention was helped out by their Producer (George Martin). If they were not in connection to someone who listened to their suggestions, things would have been more pedestrian.

RVCA 01-22-2011 12:55 PM

Okay, I understand that haters gonna hate and lovers gonna love, but tossing the Beatles in the same bin as Lady Gaga is just... no.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra 01-22-2011 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screen13 (Post 989603)
A good amount of that invention was helped out by their Producer (George Martin). If they were not in connection to someone who listened to their suggestions, things would have been more pedestrian.

Agreed.

Screen13 01-22-2011 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah (Post 989610)
Agreed.

Thanks.

By the way, a couple of posts ago, I was responding to someone putting The Beatles on the same line with Gaga (which I don't agree with), and I should have added that quote as it possibly read the wrong way without the reference.

someonecompletelyrandom 01-22-2011 01:21 PM

I don't like Lady GaGa as much as the Beatles, but why is the thought of them being in the same category instantly rejected? As if it's repulsive. Lady Gaga is about as popular as the Beatles were in the 60s, or Madonna was in the 80s. She, like them, is just a popular icon of our time. whether she will have any lasting impact years later remains to be seen.

Musically, I don't think GaGa pushes many boundries, but neither did the Beatles at first. Just wait until her popularity fades a bit. I expect big things from her.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:13 PM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.