Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
But she's so <i>flippant</i>.
But her brilliance was obvious from the start.
she steels her sounds, look and moves from more underground sources and repackages it for mass market chav mumblies who buy her illegally download her music for free. She is offensive.
she sells a lot of records.
While i can appreciate her ability to repackage and sell records I just think she's boring.
Now that Scandi-electropop has been beaten, nobody's entirely comfortable with the female-as-a-genre brigade and Cheryl has deliberately cast off Girls Aloud's hipness credentials, while the pop kids went for JLS instead, she's pretty much the only person capable of uniting record buyers and hip bloggers.
Bowie, Reed and Iggy were pushing boundaries of what popular MUSIC could be, not just the image. That is why they are fellated by music fans. Gaga is really just making the same rnb/electropop that Rihanna and Black Eyed Peas have been making popular for the past 3/4 years (as much as the article tries to say otherwise). If the music matched her image, then i'm sure i'd be fawning over her too. As it stands though, she's just an interesting popstar with a handful of average-decent pop tunes. I think she will be remembered in 30years time, but not for her music.
And why are they writing 'whitey' every second paragraph? Aren't blacks alowed to be pompous dicks too?
Her music is about as innovative as Katy Perry's. I'm not being sarcastic - it really is. She just does it wearing 'wacky' outfits instead of the 'girl next door' clobber typical of her genre.
And that's only because her face looks like a bag of hammered shit. She's totally unmarketable as a conventional sex symbol.
And I agree that the 'Whitey' thing is fucking lame. I don't see that as being relevant at all.
I didn't think the writer was serious in comparing GaGa to someone who practically invented the modern pop star like Bowie. Also, it's laughable when the article basically says that GAGA has taken years to get famous whereas the other three were right away. Heck, Lou Reed still isn't famous in that way. I like Lady GaGa but she'll never be "the next Madonna" or whomever that silly article wants to compare her to because the biggest most influential pop stars are never the next anyone, they are unique.The whitey thing is beyond annoying and sounds like a desperate ploy to be cool.
Maybe I will when she's been around for a decade, or even half a decade, but even then it's not that relevant. To me I mean. She's entirely relevant to a lot of other people, but not me, at this moment.
Her image and stage show is the only thing keeping her interesting, her music just doesn't stand up at all its super bland. Even Kylie and Beyonce have a badass image and stage show going on they just arnt as batshit as Gaga. But they have the one ingrediant that she misses CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONS!
it scared me so much i woke up and had to leave my radio on all night.
lady gaga is absolute dross though.
Still, this thread gives me another opportunity to voice how excited I am about seeing her on Friday. I'm looking forward to it more than I've looked forward to anything in a long, long while.
and he actually brought up the two things that stop me from liking her
a) 'only a fool would deny the bombastic fun... which, incidentally, is music’s raison d'être.'
'fun...fun....fucking fun...what?...not having fun?..do you not like fun?...what's wrong are you a depressive?'
...lady gaga is like new years eve, a work colleagues fancy dress party and the social of a uni rugby team all rolled into one fun package
'what do you mean you're not having fun....THIS IS FUN...START HAVING FUN.....FUN.....FUN....BE FUN NOW...WHY AREN'T YOU HAVING FUN AT THIS...IT'S OBVIOUSLY FUN.....LOOK HOW FUN IT IS....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..COME ON GANG...LET'S HAVE FUN AND MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS WATCHING'
it's fun for the thoughtless....it's an image for people who watch those smirnoff ice adverts about wearing fancy dress in the woods and think it look enchanting and FUN....and LIVING LIFES BY THE SECOND...
2) the mention of grace jones.
i might be wrong and it could all just be a hang up from her having stood up once during a chatshow or summit...but she seems genuinly and authenticly fey...i look at her and think that the woman dictates the clothes...she'd have an air of insidious cool if she was wearing jeans and a t-shirt....wheras with gaga, the clothes dictate the woman. take them away and she's just another topshopping identikit....to be gaga is to wear the clothes...anyone could take over that role...
and besides, i could deal with all that if her music wasn't well guff.
the emporer has no clothes, but he's wearing the fucking castle as a jumper.
mine was just that she's as horribly manipulated and manufactured as any popstar.
and on your other point; is she a massive gayhead then?
I agree, what Lady Gaga does is different to other popstars. But that difference is almost all down to her outfits/hairstyles, what she stands for and her general kooky personality (which i like). She is pushing the boundaries of what it is to be a pop star.
But i was talking about her music which (to me at least), sounds a lot like the kind of pop that has been dominating the charts for a while, even if i do like some of it. I was responding to the article questioning why 'indie kids/whiteys/whateverthefuck' weren't into lady gaga the same way they are with bowie etc. I think that's because her music isn't as innovative as their's was. You say "musically, she is closer to bowie", but that's not the point. David Bowie was making this sort of stuff 30-40 years ago and many others have followed since. Lady Gaga's music just isn't anything new (i admit to not knowing her non-singles btw) and so she won't be loved by the sort of music fan the article alluded to.
Take away the aesthetic and she'd have a tenth of her fanbase
That's what the tone of the article seems to suggest. I would never seriously suggest that a certain act should be universally loved because that is a stupid notion as is that article. I don't like her songs, her image or anything about her, I really don't care that there are rumours she is a man, get over it.
this idea that she is something, special or 'other' goes out the window. identikit popstar with interesting clothes and two great singles (poker face and bad romance). no more, no less
I got as far as 'Whitey' and got bored with the self-conscious contrariness of it all.
Bit like Gaga really, quite like 'Papparazzi' or whatever it's called, but it's all a bit try-hard, a bit too self-conscious. Somehow she's managed to become a parody of the parody she's trying to be.
There's more to being a pop star than just the music and I think that Lady GaGa is the epitome of that. I can kinda see the Bowie comparisons but as far as I'm concerned her music just doesn't match up at the moment.
It's not to my taste but I'm not going to begrudge her the success she's got.