Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > General Music
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-22-2011, 01:27 PM   #61 (permalink)
_____________
 
Cenotaph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan View Post
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.
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.
Cenotaph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 01:33 PM   #62 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan View Post
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.
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
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 01:40 PM   #63 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,161
Default

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.
__________________
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
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 01:43 PM   #64 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaligojurah View Post
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?
James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 01:48 PM   #65 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James View Post
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.
__________________
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

Last edited by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra; 01-22-2011 at 01:54 PM.
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 01:52 PM   #66 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
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
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).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by P A N View Post
i'm not gonna spend my life on music banter trying to convince people the earth is flat.
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die


last.fm
Janszoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 01:54 PM   #67 (permalink)
.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by James View Post
How come? She's on her second album...how long did it take The Beatles to do something interesting?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaligojurah View Post
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.
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.
someonecompletelyrandom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 01:59 PM   #68 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,355
Default

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.
James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 02:01 PM   #69 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by P A N View Post
i'm not gonna spend my life on music banter trying to convince people the earth is flat.
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die


last.fm
Janszoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 02:02 PM   #70 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
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).
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan View Post
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.
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.
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.