Lady Gaga Silences Her Critics

It's not about that Moonie, don't take it so personal.

I don't like Gaga's pop any better than Madonnas, as a musician I just recognize the substantive parts for what they are. I don't have to "like" the music for that.

There's nothing wrong with liking any kind of music. If it sounds good to you, then it is good. (-;

 

Madonna? I don't get the idea.

 

I really can't imagine her venturing outside of pop. I'd have to hear it to believe it.

I kind of wish Pat Benatar would have done just one thing to show off her opera training. I think it would have been interesting to see that side of her. As far as I know, no such recordings exist.

The music world has changed so much in my lifetime. Most people used to have one favorite type of music, and felt the need to criticize all others. Not so anymore. Classical snobs used to be the worst.

Even though I don't personally like country music, I'm willing to say that some of them are talented.

 

With me it is not the talent in an artist that makes me a fan of them, but how they execute that talent, in other words: if I like the music.

Agreed. That's why I love quality black metal, certain gangsta rap and the grooviest roots reggae dub (all genres as a whole were criticized by a certain someone)

 

http://youtu.be/Gj8czj4hkfc

 

Talent and entertainment value are two completely different things that need to be considered separately.

I love to hear Elton John and Billy Joel play, but if you went to a piano audition at the NC School of the Arts and couldn't play anything more difficult than that, they would throw you out of there pretty fast. You can prove a lot more about your ability with Liszt or Rachmaninoff.

What I think ended this weekend was people who are regularly taken seriously about music saying that Gaga has very limited talent. They are still free to say they hate all of her music, and some of them will. She had something to prove to the world, and she did it.

At the moment, I like her jazz material best, but I'm a huge jazz fan.

 

Unfortunately she doesn't seem to make music that I like. But I readily admit I haven't heard her whole repetoire (don't post it please )

 

Just wait. Your musical interests are likely to expand greatly in your lifetime. You have a lot of years to go.

 

They already have. I used to shit on all gansta rap and those boring reggae dub rubbish as well (I really came around on that one). Now, I'm still very selective in hip hop (maybe even less than 1%) but my musical interests have expanded to it.

 

She's talented, I guess. I just don't like the big "act." Why can't we just relax and listen to somebody's beautiful voice? They have to be this all-engrossing fascinating "character." That's cheap to me. I can't even tell what she's supposed to represent. She likes bling and sex? What a revolutionary concept. Is she from outer space or what?

I can't say she's not genuine because that totally depends on what she does over the course of her life. My criticism is that this Lady Gaga fiasco is crap. It's nothing new musically, culturally, or aesthetically. It's just void.

No point in getting bogged down in a discussion about what music has substance these days. That's like debating which hate crime is the worst.

 

Intellectually, we can talk about who has talent or not until the cows come home.....it does not matter.....
I think, as with anything in life, it is how something, someone or anything makes one feel.

I was not a fan of Lady gaga either until two nights ago....no sex or bling in that performance....and she made me feel the songs.....that is all that matters to me...so few reach those parts of me, anyway.....

 

LOL, show me something new, musically, culturally, or aesthetically.

It's just entertainment, a diversion.

Doesn't have to be groundbreaking or original, it just has to have some appeal to someone, and obviously it does have mass appeal or it wouldn't sell like it does. Your criticism is not only invalid, it's pointless.

The market speaks, like it or not.

 

I personally prefer bands that just stand there and sing, but her big dance numbers are fun to watch. She never does the same thing twice.

She's done a ton of interviews. What do you want to know about her?

Her favorite cause is opposition to bullying. That was the cornerstone of her "Monster's Ball" concept. She used to point to the exit doors of the venue and yell something like, "All the haters are out there now, and we're gonna lock the fuckin' doors!"

I think the old stuff is better, but young people won't pay money for it. They think bigger is better, so that's what they get from the music industry.

After artists get rich, they can do whatever they want. Mostly, they cover old material.

 

I don't know if I can do that, and I wouldn't criticize Ms. Gaga as being nothing new if people didn't act like she was something new.

Entertainment is so much more than "just entertainment." It affects how we live our lives.

Asbestos had mass appeal. Does that make asbestos good?

The market speaks, no doubt. It's what it has to say that disturbs me.

I only saw one of her big dance numbers and it was preposterous. That was on SNL, though. It's probably a little better with a bigger crowd to distract you.

By "I don't know what she's supposed to represent" I mean the Lady Gaga persona. She's supposed to have created a persona, right?

That's nice and all, but not liking what Lady Gaga or whoever created Lady Gaga has created doesn't make one a hater.

They'll pay money for it and they'll like it.

 

When I was a kid I had these records of program music from movies. I liked to listen to them and make up my own movies in my head. I didn't want to hear singing or lyrics because they would impose unwanted images or thoughts.

Later when I became a musician, I thought it would be better to play behind a curtain or something, so the audience could just enjoy the music without being distracted with what I looked like, or who I am, If my hair was the right length, if I looked cool or not holding the instrument, if I wore cool clothes or could dance or boogie around on stage, etc....

None of that shit mattered to me and I always felt it was embarrassing and distracting to have to watch performers manipulate odd looking do-dads on stage.

Like the Bassoon. A guy (or gal) playing bassoon is one of the stupidest looking things in the orchestra, blowing on a skinny little pipe coming out of two big black sticks strapped together.. but the sound of a well played bassoon can take you out of this world.

Even a guy playing guitar struck me as fairly idiotic looking. But few instruments can bring the blues like a guitar and thats what made me want to play one. I never wanted to look or act cool, I just wanted to play like that and turn someone on the way I'd been turned on listening to a blues record.

So my point is, as far as I'm concerned it's all a fiasco when it comes to the personal or visual aspect. But thats just me. People want to know, and see performers, so they can judge them for reasons other than musical, apparently.

 

Then don't listen to Gaga, pretty simple.
If you had said "art" effects how we live our lives I might have agreed.
Entertainment is simply a diversion and is not necessarily art, nor does it have to be to entertain.
Beavis and Butt-head may not be art and some consider them stupid and boring but they sure are entertaining to me!

Now you're just being an impudent ass. Shut the fuck up.

 

I have the poorest taste in music and even I can say Lady Gaga sux.

 

I can (T) criticize something I dont listen to. But I do like seeing her naked..

 

Impudent? What are you, the King of England?

God you're backwards.

 

You don't know the meaning of impudent do you...I expected as much.