Quote:
Originally Posted by matious
Slowed down the natural progression of music? Who the **** do you think you are?
|
An observer, and a self educated theorist. Just like any hobbyist.
Quote:
|
I'm trying to understand your point, but how is lady gaga or any other modern pop artist a bigger negative influence then any other icon throughout time?
|
Because she's poor, outdated, and unambitious musically. Feels like a 20 year relapse into the late 80s. When people like Madonna, and Michael Jackson were big, they were like a relapse into the late 70s when disco was big. Or maybe even to the 50s when Elvis exploded to the scene with his bastardized rendition of American Black traditional music which was even behind the times of what Blacks were doing at the time.
Really, feels like music is building itself up, then crumbling down over, and over. Like we've reverted back to step one. Cut down to the simplest rhythms, grasp on the illusion of technology, and try to go back up from that.
My gripe with Gaga is not moral. I'm not a moralist. My gripe is that her music is rather primal, and unevolved. That's it's impulsive, and instant. It's repetitive, and shallow. It's not deeply thought out. Furthermore, there is no well exposed alternative to it.
Is this a bad thing? Yes, entirely. Music, as a medium, like film should be advancing in terms of complexity. Each generation making a significant contribution, and the next molding the formula, and should exceed the bounds of genre. We should be raising the bar further than previous generations, rather than 'protesting' previous generations by ignoring them, and being duped into buying the same ****ing thing they did.
IE. People will say "I hate so and so music because it's not of my generation, and it's of the genre I don't like. But they wouldn't say the same for the Godfather. Maybe few wouldn't like it because it's a gangster film, but not dislike it because it's not a horror film which matches modern standards of special effects, and gore.
The reason why Gaga is important is because she's the here, and now, and frankly... The worst case scenario. Gaga isn't about the music, at all. It's about those funny dresses, and some of her fans do seriously mold their entire lives around her. In fact, in some cases that's the point of being a 'Monster', and the reason I brought up Nirvana is what I said earlier. It's not any more damaging that a popular figure, but it doesn't mean it's not damaging. If she were to die, or something, it would shake them up pretty badly. Devastating these hardcores, and leaving nothing left for a few who rejected the world outside Gaga-ville.
Gaga is stunting the cultural growth of music since she proves to the industry, which is always looking for the next money making formula, that the money making formula is to retread, to stick what you know is safe, and never stray. I could criticise Michael Jackson, Nirvana, the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc. for the exact same thing. But, it'd be pointless. They are not the 'here and now'. Gaga is a new myth for generations to escape into at the risk of those who are actually moving music forward, or who actually care about the musical end of things, and are going completely unheard of.
Essentially, Gaga has set the game back to 0, and it's a shot to the heart of optimists. Sure, she's doing little like promoting David Bowie, but lacks the essential elements to brace her audience to properly understand Bowie since she tends to exemplify the worst aspects of his work.
Maybe nothing has changed for a half century, and it indeed hasn't. Yet, I feel it's only enlightening to really examine, and 'debunk' figures like Gaga, because it allows the world to hopefully get a broader perspective on music from a historical perspective. Which, in turn, allows at least American culture, to allow music to become an ever evolving form, like film, but without the aid of film.
Linear Mode
