Well, yes. At some point most pop artists fade into obscurity sooner or later.:rolleyes:
Again, how long she lasts as an artist depends on her ability to come up with new and fresh ideas and how well she adapts her style as she gets older.
As a comparison, I don’t think Ke$ha will be around in a year or so. She’s pretty much a one hit wonder. At best she will be another Kate Ryan or Cascada. IOW, a relatively anonymous generic pop princess appearing on random Ultimate Trance Party 20XX mix cds.
I for one like her music and some of her acts, even though it touches on the fine line between ripping off and paying homage to some of what David Bowie did.
Why couldn’t she be the new Madonna? It’s not like most of Madonna’s stuff had any real depth, either. They both go to extremes in appearance/image, put on sexy or risqué performances, and make catchy tunes. I haven’t yet met a Lady Gaga song I like, but I can’t deny that she has the marketing savvy to possibly make it big in a Madonna-esque way.
Madonna? Maybe in wardrobe. But in musical style, she reminds me a lot more of ABBA. Highly danceable power pop with soaring harmonies.
You do realize that Lady Gaga’s look really can’t be copied in everyday fashion (c’mon - meat dresses!)? It’s really more suited for Halloween costumes and I bet there will be lots of LG’s this Halloween.
You need coolin’, baby, I’m not foolin’,
I’m gonna send you back to schoolin’,
Way down inside honey, you need it,
I’m gonna give you my love,
I’m gonna give you my love.
[Chorus]
Wanna Whole Lotta Love
Wanna Whole Lotta Love
Wanna Whole Lotta Love
Wanna Whole Lotta Love
Just the first verse and chorus, but the rest is pretty much the same shit over and over, including the music. Except for the part in the middle where Plant brilliantly changes things up and starts going “Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, aaaah…”
You, Sir, are my hero.
Madonna was a craven attention whole, but at least she wasn’t so lamely derivative. It seems like Lady Gaga (even the stage name is derivative) dug up Madonna’s first publicity agent (found him wallowing in a corner bar regaling the locals with his former glory), and waved a few twenties to get a rehash with a cheap veneer of “new.”
Lady Gaga’s recordings are pretty lackluster and pedestrian, too. They just sound good next to the alternatives.
Once you equate popularity with talent, you’ve lost all credibility as far as I’m concerned.
mmm
If your point is that anybody can put out a pop song with bad lyrics, then point taken.
But if your point is that Lady Gaga is anywhere near as good and legitimate an act as Led Zeppelin, then you need to put the goofballs down.
They generally weren’t lyrical giants, correct (though one could argue that this comes from their strong blues-influence-- a style of music characterized by simple lyrics and “call and response”). But they had one of the greatest drummers of all time, one of the greatest guitar players of all time, period, and Robert Plant was - at the very barest of bare minimums - a better singer than Lady Gaga (listen to “Dazed and Confused” first if your first reaction is to want to argue this point). Not to mention that they made several more albums than LG has, and their music has already stood the test of time. They have endured for decades longer than most Lady Gaga fans have been alive. Talk to me when 7th graders are still discovering The Fame on their own in the year 2048.
Oddly, I could picture her adopting a new stage name, & starting a second singing career, in another field.
She’s not very recognizable, with no makeup on.
Kinda like KISS used to be.
Best thing I’ve read all day.
That was my primary point, yes. Inspired by a post in a Rush discussion list entitled “Lyrics to make Neil Peart tear his hair out”, in which the OP shared some particularly inane lyrics from some '70s hit pop ballad. Another poster responded by posting some of Geddy Lee’s equally inane lyrics from Rush’s first album (pre-Peart). And point out that there are good examples of legendary acts that have stood the test of time but were just as “capable” of inanity as anybody else but without anybody thinking less of them for it.
The only point I would make there is that the legitimacy of a musical acts should be judged within their own context. In this case, that context is “contemporary pop music”. While I don’t like Lady Gaga enough to purchase her music, I’ve heard enough of it and listened to enough of her pre-Gaga stuff that, IMHO, once you get past the “image” and the “show”, she is leaps and bounds better than 90% of the current pop artists out there today.
I admit to not being a huge fan of the blues in general. Too many blues songs sound to me like little more than excuses for guitar solos, with the lyrics there simply to bookend the solo. I do rather enjoy the blues style of artists like Robert Cray, however, where the guitar solo is simply a part of an otherwise well-crafted song. But, as I stated in my initial post in this thread, I can dislike an artist’s music/genre and still respect their musicianship and skill if they have it.
I’m familiar with the bulk of Zep’s more well-known material and greatly respect the musical skills of Page and Bonham, even though they’re not to my taste. I would personally argue that John Paul Jones was actually the most accomplished, talented musician in the band, though. Plant’s singing … I’ll just say he has the same effect on me that Geddy Lee’s '70s singing has on most people who aren’t Rush fans. Do. Not. Like.
Lady Gaga has a trained voice that I find pleasing, and again, look past the outfits and the showmanship and you’ll find she really does know how to play that piano.
This proves you don’t get it. I don’t know what else to say beyond that.
And it shows that he hasn’t seen a lot of Gaga’s most famous outfits. There are plenty of times when she doesn’t show much skin, when she actually covers up more than the average pop tart.
I’d much rather see young fans falling for whatever model of female empowerment Gaga offers (if she offers any, which is debatable) than lapsing back into tedious Lilith Fair stuff.
This is irrelevant. It’s pop music, not poetry, and I’d much rather hear any of Gaga’s hits than well-written but musically soporific pseudo-poetic twaddle. There are many more dimensions to music than the words a singer is speaking.
No kidding. At her concert, she literally came out in an outfit made out of dinosaur bones. Sexy, my ass. She does everything a pop star traditionally shouldn’t-- she covers herself in fake blood and “commits suicide” on stage (real sexy), etc etc. Most often, if she IS showing a lot of skin, there’s usually some awkward, gruesome element to go along with it. For instance, if she is wearing next to nothing, she often has downright weird, unflattering, and unattractive hair and makeup. When she looks “pretty” (hair and makeup wise), she usually is also covered up. It’s a contradiction thing.
Don’t get me wrong: at the show, I was stunned by how beautiful she is (and tiny!). That said, there were a lot of, “What the fuck is this bitch doing???” moments. It was a weird thing, because what she wore was NOT stuff that is normally sexy, but she made it sexy (hello? Dinosaur bones!). That was the interesting aspect.
If she has a message for her young fans, it’s to be true to yourself. You can be confident in anything, even a fucking outfit with glow in the dark snorkels and dinosaur bones.
In a year? Sure. The hype right now is big enough to last at least three.
I think that Nadir Khayat, the guy that writes most of her songs, knows the business well enough to keep on writing hit songs regularly for as long as electropop is still in vogue, which will be most of this decade, but I don’t think that the act would survive his departure or anything.
So I’m giving Lady Gaga a five to eight year lifespan with some comeback album here and there.
You’re right, I’ve not seen much of her stuff. I’ve seen her video with beyonce, where she wanders round in her smalls a bit. I’ve also seen several photoshoots where she’s in her underwear. That she sometimes appears in public clothed doesn’t really negate my point.
So, anyone want to tell me what I’m missing, in style or in substance? I know it’s easier to laugh and say that Zep once wrote a bad song, but come on, fight my ignorance.
Everyone keeps comparing her to Madonna. I get that, given the outrageous outfits, but musically, I might compare her to the Bee Gees. Repetitive pop music that you cannot get out of your head and, I predict, will be among the better known (not better, but more recognizable) music of the decade to teens three decades down the road.