I think she's just another pop icon who will go unknown in a year or so. The only long-lasting pop musicians that I can recall are The Beatles and Michael Jackson. Of course, I may be missing a few. Just look at pop musicians now... they're famous for a little while and then there comes a new one.

I think it's primarily because I hardly consider the Beatles as "pop", at least not in the same vein as Gaga's music. The definition of pop has changed drastically over the last 50 years, and while I guess both artists are considered "Top 40 pop", the sound of that "top 40 pop" has changed immensely since the Beatles were making music.

I mean, really...





Do you know what I mean? I'm having trouble articulating it

Gaga would literally have to throw away 90% of her fanbase to do something interesting, and I don't think she has the guts to really take a risk like that. I mean, if she did, she would have by now.

How come? She's on her second album...how long did it take The Beatles to do something interesting?

Unlike the Beatles, she can't guarantee the spotlight is going to be on her five years from now, and it especially won't if she's playing it safe.

I mean, how long do you really think she can skate off the shock value(the only thing keeping her up now)?

I honestly think all she's going to do when the popularity fades away is eliminate every aspect of what she does that appeals to fourteen year old girls, and aim solely for the gay audience. A transition she's already in the process of making. An audience she acquired through dishonest sentiment, and ludicrous stereotypical gimmicks. Therefore, I predict more dishonest sentiment, more ludicrous stereotypical gimmicks, and less care of the actual music end of things.

I don't think anyone is saying that the Beatles and Lady Gaga sound the same. But you're pretty hard pressed to tell me that "Paperback Writer" doesn't sound like pop music (and bad pop music at that, IMO).

James quote here is really the key to your post RV. While the Beatles later music was more experimental and genre blurring, their early music was just a well made version of the standard pop music of their time.

In the same vein, I sort of see Lady Gaga in that position. Right now her music is just a step-above the average radio pop of today. But in the future, the Juilliard grad may take our pop music today and blend it into something truly fantastic. That's why I'm keeping my eye on her. Her combination of fame and talent is rare, and I know she has it in her to make a truly influential album.

You seem to expect a lot of negative things. There is no way of knowing if her sentiment was dishonest to begin with, to assume such is negative, and to assume otherwise may be naive - just take it for what it is. She has an audience with gay people and I don't think that's such a bad thing. I also think you underestimate her fan base with the "fourteen year old girls" thing. I'm not a fourteen year old girl. In fact, most Gaga fans I know personally are not 14 year old girls. She has a very distinctive aesthetic that appeals to many people.

Lady Gaga has recently released a statement saying she has ditched the bizarre costumes and gimmicks for her next album and will be focusing on the music. She said something like "I have hogged the spotlight for long enough and I want to make space for others".

And Paperback Writer is by far the best Beatles song, so props.

Ew. Seriously? They have some songs that are okay but that's not one of them for me.

I agree that it sounds like pop, but I disagree that it sounds like pop circa 2008. They are two different genres as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah I'm not writing her off completely just yet, but I do seriously doubt anything influential, memorable, or especially good will come of her.