Well, she has 20 years of history advantage. I mean, with the several millions of dollars she has, the modern digital technology, and the ****ing army of producers at her disposal. It's not hard for her to sound superior.

Problem is, she's still a rather shallow clone. So comparing the two is completely unfair, really. Madonna sucked, truly, but at least she wasn't a direct carbon copy clone of something 20 years before her.

It's like tracing over a blue print, and then straightening out the lines. It may be more solid than the original, but, in the end, it's just a copy.

whaaaa
 

It means that their music isn't enjoyable but in small portions at a time for the average person.

Their fan bases (buy her albums) consists of less than 0.5% of the world's population. It seems as if many more people enjoy their music because of the constant shoving in our face.

They have some good songs I like but as a whole their albums aren't of high quality.

Madonna herself was sued plenty of times for plagiarism (I heard).

That's not impossible. But is 90% of it from a single source? I mean obviously she borrows a lot from new wave. Waters it down a ton, truly. At least, for what little this means, it's not a carbon copy of a singular source.

I now see what you mean by "isn't thoroughly enjoyable" and therefore the hype is unmerited, but I still don't see where the idea of the "average person" not enjoying them except in small portions. The average person doesn't love Led Zeppelin or Bob Dylan 100% of the time, but there is still considerable love for them in the world. I don't see why they should be treated as separate.
This is a different issue completely. And I can't find any evidence to back that up. I've never encountered a "monster" who is desperate to force their taste on me. They may be unbelievably weird, but no more assertive about personal taste than any other fan in general.

hey
 

I see what you're saying.

Type in "Madonna plagiarism" on Google and you'll see just how much she stole. From songs, lyrics etc.

Yes, but not from a singular source.

Besides, I'm not complimenting Madonna, far from it. I've always felt her formula was very childish, and her output is boring. Furthermore, I think the shock value of her videos is responsible for 99.9% of her success. I'm just saying that I kind of get tired of people sympathizing with Gaga and using the 'what if' of her inflated backstory to defend her.

In the end, her decision to become a flat clone of Madonna came from her lack success in attempts to be a more legit musician. If she never took that step, she'd fade into obscurity, and doesn't deserve any sympathy really since there's a lot of people who stuck to their guns, bit the bullet of commercial obscurity, and have more talent that don't get the same 'respect' for it.

Back to the topic of Madonna. I find it weird people are trying to argue she was a really talented musician. Maybe she associated herself with really talented producers. Maybe she knew how to dance(Which really, you can take dance lessons at any gym ever to exist, so I don't know why that's a distinct skill). But it was really just time, and place. She's not a very good singer, and not very attractive. However, at the time, she was a true taboo breaker for mainstream culture.

I agree alot with this post.

Lady Gaga isn't an exact clone of Madonna. I see more Bowie (her idol) in her to be honest.

No, but if anyone is going to obsess over an artist, presumably it's going to be her fans.

Why obsess in the first place?

I agree with that bit. If you think about it, her piano skills aren't particularly exceptional. There are kids in every school in the UK who could play to the same standard. She isn't creative when it comes to writing melodies, so I can't agree with anyone who's arguing in favour of her artistry.

Eh, I can see that visually. Not so much musically, though. I mean, maybe Bowie's most watered down material.

I'm glad somebody else sees this point. Seriously, doing that sort of very slow spaced out 'emotional' pop/rock style isn't the hardest thing in the world, either. I mean, if you want a phenomenal pianist search the words 'Martha Argerich'.

Why be obsessed with anything? People obviously like the fun and the outrageousness of her music.


It is incredibly easy to make yourself sound good on the piano. Almost all of my friends are at least grade 6. It's just something we all learn!

Every try Busoni?

Seriously, though. Faking 'emotional' sounding piano work is the easiest thing to do on piano. You literally can hit any chord in any order, you just have to sustain them for a half note to a whole note, and dispense quarter note rests between them.

He was incredible. I've never encountered someone who put so much power into his performance (for a pianist, that is). I'm also amazed at how good the recordings are from 1920's.

Here's the one I feel to be the most powerful. It's incredible on an organ, but he makes it nearly as good on the piano!

Because people over-identify with musicians, they do it just as much with 'rock' stars too. I find it annnoying on message boards but I suppose you have to put up with it.

As for plagiarism, another word for it is influence. Everyone has influences, nothing is really completely original. What matters is whether what is done is done well or not.

I'm surprised that she can even play any instrument.

She sure knows how to play a chromatic scale and do arpeggios, but I sense that her musical prowess has been greatly overblown.



If you just stop for a while and listen, you can probably, from where you are, hear someone playing to the same standard.

You're telling me everyone in england plays the piano?

To Lady Gaga's level? Plausible.

I'm wondering about how the logistics of that are executed. Does everyone get a piano? how do they learn to put knowledge into practice without pianos?

People in America don't...?

No. Most people have never taken a music lesson in their lives, and the msot we get is 30 mins of Music class a week where you learn to read music, learn definitions like harmony and thats it.

its very abstract. We get these ****ty 3rd-hand instruments no one ever learns how to play, we just learn smash them together in unison for 3 minutes and go from there.

In 4th grade you can pay to join a recorder program if your parents will let you. Most kids learn hot cross buns and quit. I'm guessing also that this is the top of the public-school education because I'm living in a state (and grew up in a state) that routinely lands in the first or second spot of public education. And gym/art/music is usually the first program to be cut in a budget crunch.

Its entierly possible much of the nation doesn't get even what I've mentioned.

One piano, and you wheel it around. If somebody can play more than 4 descending notes, they've already played a song more technically challenging than 99% of her output.

Well, just listen to her again. She plays a few arpeggios, and then some chromatic scales which end with a dischord. Playing notes a semitone apart is a very easy thing to do. I'll wager most people in England could do the equivalent, and you'll definitely always be within earshot of someone who can.

Who cares if it is challenging anyway? Is it good to listen too? I think most of her stuff is good mainstream pop.

True. There's no connection between "challenging" playing and "good" music.

We're just trying to deflate claims that she's a good musician.

See, that's the thing. I wouldn't care if it isn't brought up every single time she's mentioned. It's identical to everything else in pop, but she's given a special respect, and distinction hinging on the concept she's secretly an amazing pianist.

She's pretty good. Nobody who likes Lady Gaga cares about pianists anyway.

That's the thing that Salami is trying to say, though. She's not that good, IE. she isn't notably good.

By who's standards? Gaga fans compare her to Katy Perry, not a concert pianist.

By standards of 90% of the people who defend her when I criticize her. You do make a good point, though, her appeal is not as a pianist but as a 'pop diva'.

I wonder if there is a confusion here between overrated and overhyped. Just about every rock or pop musician with any fame is overhyped, it's how the business of it works. But I doubt many say Lady Gaga is a particularly great musician.

I personally don't see her music or career as being so much overrated. Just "80s vibe" (danceable) pop music.

Into The Groove, Open Your Heart, Lucky Star, and Borderline are few personal favorites to mention.

Live To Tell was always my favorite song by her.

I thought you meant Lady Gaga for a moment!

Yes, that's the kind of slow, dramatic song that appealed to people so much in the 80's.

I'm not intending for this thing to go off the rails, but Katy Perrys output is much better than Gaga. She isn't a ****ing shill that panders to the homosexual community.

I'm serious. If I were trolling you, you'd already have made an ass of yourself.