sometimes cakes with beautiful frosting can really be fascinating. however after awhile the sugar in the frostning can make one a bit sick to the stomach or they can go into insulin shock.

lady gaga was good to look at at first. however she was over shopped to the point of becoming "sickening."

good cake does not need a ton of frostning. great talent does not need an overabundance of usless coverings.

lazycrockett said:

scriptgirl said:

How did she get so rich? Can't just be off the music

Her devoted lil gay monsters spend their rent to go see her. Thats how she makes her coin.

That's another thing. She just decided she was going to be a gay icon and marketed herself that way. Don't gay people pick their own icons anymore? Well, whatever. I just thought that's the way it's supposed to work or something.

Marrk said:

lazycrockett said:

Her devoted lil gay monsters spend their rent to go see her. Thats how she makes her coin.

That's another thing. She just decided she was going to be a gay icon and marketed herself that way. Don't gay people pick their own icons anymore? Well, whatever. I just thought that's the way it's supposed to work or something.

That's how EVERYTHING with her happened. One day people were told she was good and popular, so she was, and all of a sudden her singles were huge! That happened before most people even had a clue who she was. Then we were TOLD she was a superstar, and an icon, and a diva, and an "artist", and it's all just so much forcefed chicanery.

Those pictures up above speak volumes to the point I'm trying to make, a point which somebody who likes her will never understand. It's not about image, it's about forcing one endless fake image after another on to people, trying to force them to believe that it's "good", then calling it "art", so the listener/viewer is made to be the simpleton if they don't "understand it".

As I said previously in this thread, the people who came before her who she is trying to emulate, people who earned their status in this business, they WERE those people. Who is Lady Gaga? She's none of images she's shown to the world because it's all artiface. It's fake.

[Edited 2/23/15 19:22pm]

Marrk said:

lazycrockett said:

Her devoted lil gay monsters spend their rent to go see her. Thats how she makes her coin.

That's another thing. She just decided she was going to be a gay icon and marketed herself that way. Don't gay people pick their own icons anymore? Well, whatever. I just thought that's the way it's supposed to work or something.

Gay men for the most part have horrible taste in music icons, we're attracted to glitter and overcompensation, we really shouldn't be trusted.

It's like, the fact that she studied the Abramovic Method WITH Marina Abramovic (the video in the second link I posted up above) speaks VOLUMES to the point I'm trying to make. If you don't know who Marian Abramovic is, seek out the documentary "The Artist Is Present". It's a great watch and it actually made me cry. But it made me cry because I was being manipulated by her PERFORMANCE ART. Basically, Gaga is doing performance art on a MASSIVELY large scale, and most performace art is crap. Most performance art doesn't work, doesn't really have any meaning, and doesn't last past the time it's being performed. Nothing about Gaga sticks for me. She just keeps presenting one fabricated performance piece after another, and I'm not buying into about 99% of it. Her songs leave me flat (like, I sit there slackjawed trying to figure out what some people find enjoyable about her barely passable pop pablum). Her costumes leave me flat (the meat dress, the egg bit... ugh). Her mannerisms are overblown to the point that they actually annoy me, as if shes acting the part of a superstar (I wanted to punch my TV during the Tony Bennet performance at the Grammys - stand still and sing with Tony, show some respect).

[Edited 2/23/15 19:24pm]

Cerebus said:

It's like, the fact that she studied the Abramovic Method WITH Marina Abramovic (the video in the second link I posted up above) speaks VOLUMES to the point I'm trying to make. If you don't know who Marian Abramovic is, seek out the documentary "The Artist Is Present". It's a great watch and it actually made me cry. But it made me cry because I was being manipulated by her PERFORMANCE ART. Basically, Gaga is doing performance art on a MASSIVELY large scale, and most performace art is crap. Most performance art doesn't work, doesn't really have any meaning, and doesn't last past the time it's being performed. Nothing about Gaga sticks for me. She just keeps presenting one fabricated performance piece after another, and I'm not buying into about 99% of it. Her songs leave me flat (like, I sit there slackjawed trying to figure out what some people find enjoyable about her barely passable pop pablum). Her costumes leave me flat (the meat dress, the egg bit... ugh). Her mannerisms are overblown to the point that they actually annoy me, as if shes acting the part of a superstar (I wanted to punch my TV during the Tony Bennet performance at the Grammys - stand still and sing with Tony, show some respect).

[Edited 2/23/15 19:24pm]

Didn't Cerebus use to talk about Cerebus' self in the third person, here on the org? IF we're to talk about theatrics and all...

honeyandmilk said:

Cerebus said:

It's like, the fact that she studied the Abramovic Method WITH Marina Abramovic (the video in the second link I posted up above) speaks VOLUMES to the point I'm trying to make. If you don't know who Marian Abramovic is, seek out the documentary "The Artist Is Present". It's a great watch and it actually made me cry. But it made me cry because I was being manipulated by her PERFORMANCE ART. Basically, Gaga is doing performance art on a MASSIVELY large scale, and most performace art is crap. Most performance art doesn't work, doesn't really have any meaning, and doesn't last past the time it's being performed. Nothing about Gaga sticks for me. She just keeps presenting one fabricated performance piece after another, and I'm not buying into about 99% of it. Her songs leave me flat (like, I sit there slackjawed trying to figure out what some people find enjoyable about her barely passable pop pablum). Her costumes leave me flat (the meat dress, the egg bit... ugh). Her mannerisms are overblown to the point that they actually annoy me, as if shes acting the part of a superstar (I wanted to punch my TV during the Tony Bennet performance at the Grammys - stand still and sing with Tony, show some respect).

[Edited 2/23/15 19:24pm]

Didn't Cerebus use to talk about Cerebus' self in the third person, here on the org? IF we're to talk about theatrics and all...

Really? That's the best response you've got? .... Cerebus is disappointed.


And for the record, I tended to slip into speaking in the third person when I was actually reading Cerebus a lot, which I haven't done in a few years (at least, it ended, sadly, in 2004). As written, Cerebus (the anthropomorphic aardvark), speaks in the third person almost exclusively (other than answering in the affirmative "aye", or negative "nay"). When you're reading 6000 pages of a character that is constantly speaking in the third person and is written as well as that character was written, it's easy, not to mention fun, to speak that way yourself. But Cerebus finds it's not nearly as easy if he's not practicing it on a regular basis. Thank you, though, because you reminded Cerebus that it might be time to read Cerebus again.

honeyandmilk said:

Said some stuff about the past on the org...

Also, what are your other names here at the org so Cerebus can know who he's actually talking to?

MotownSubdivision said:

TheGoldStandard said:

People always want to call her Madonna 2.0 but she's more like Marilyn Manson than Madonna. And her career trajectory seems to be mirroring Mr. Warner more than Ms. Ciccone.

The difference between Gaga and Manson is that Gaga is talented.

I've used that line.

Manson's a good visualist and a conceptualist though. Or was, before he started repeating himself. Some of Gaga's visuals have been good too, but they're mostly meaningless.

Gaga was definitely lifting stuff from Manson's videos during the Born This Way era. The reference in particular seemed to be Manson's Holy Wood project. He even got pissed off by it.

I DVR'd The Oscars and I was able to watch it yesterday....I was sitting there watching Gaga and I said to myself "Who & what is she?"..LOL..She was up there singing amazingly and not breaking a sweat...Gaga is a Dangerous Artist becuz she's unpredictable..We can't "box" her (even though most have tried)..In the Grand sceme of it all we're witnessing Greatness...I feel guilty calling her a "Diva-in-training" when she's singing like that....If anybody asks me what a TRUE Entertainer is and looks like I will ask them if they ever heard of a Chick named Lady Gaga.....I'm scared of that Woman...

I like what she is doing with Tony, I hope she does more music with him. I've seen them perform and they are putting on a good show. I think from hearing some interviews that Tony has helped her re-think her image/direction etc

She went crappy r&b with her last album. The true test will be her next pop album, if it's a bust-it's vegas show baby.

Easy...

She seems to be doing fine now...killed it at the oscars.

She's going to act in American Horror Story next season.

I'm happy that she's pretty much able to tell all of her haters and naysayers to suck it with all this new success happening to her.

TonyVanDam said:

ANSWER: You can be a clone of David Bowie AND Madonna for only so long.

More like Grace Jones because her outfits are all Grace, her music is all Madonna. I guess the art "concept" would be Bowie....but she is a Grace rip first even if she never says so.

mrgone777 said:

TonyVanDam said:

ANSWER: You can be a clone of David Bowie AND Madonna for only so long.

More like Grace Jones because her outfits are all Grace, her music is all Madonna. I guess the art "concept" would be Bowie....but she is a Grace rip first even if she never says so.

Agreed.

SEANMAN said:

I'm happy that she's pretty much able to tell all of her haters and naysayers to suck it with all this new success happening to her.

She is! and I like the fact that she is doing with her talent instead of gimmicks.

mjscarousal said:

SEANMAN said:

I'm happy that she's pretty much able to tell all of her haters and naysayers to suck it with all this new success happening to her.

She is! and I like the fact that she is doing with her talent instead of gimmicks.

mjscarousal said:

SEANMAN said:

I'm happy that she's pretty much able to tell all of her haters and naysayers to suck it with all this new success happening to her.

She is! and I like the fact that she is doing with her talent instead of gimmicks.

What are y'all going on about? She's singing standards, in vintage styled clothing, with vintage styled hair, with a man in his 80s. How is that NOT gimmickry? Same with all the nonsense about the Sound of Music tribute. That's not her, that's her paying tribute to Julie Andrews by ATTEMPTING to sing as well as her (Julie Andrews could sing Gaga under a table with very little effort for most of her life, btw). The success she's supposedly having is a SMALL fraction of what it was when the industry that was working behind her decided she was going to be the superstar of the moment, and it comes from scrambling after the failure of ArtPop. She can sing, I agree, and she can play, but lets be real about everything else. Please.

kewlschool said:

mrgone777 said:

More like Grace Jones because her outfits are all Grace, her music is all Madonna. I guess the art "concept" would be Bowie....but she is a Grace rip first even if she never says so.

Agreed.

And don't forget Dale Bozzio from Missing Persons too!

Cerebus said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Cerebus said:

What are y'all going on about? She's singing standards, in vintage styled clothing, with vintage styled hair, with a man in his 80s. How is that NOT gimmickry? Same with all the nonsense about the Sound of Music tribute. That's not her, that's her paying tribute to Julie Andrews by ATTEMPTING to sing as well as her (Julie Andrews could sing Gaga under a table with very little effort for most of her life, btw). The success she's supposedly having is a SMALL fraction of what it was when the industry that was working behind her decided she was going to be the superstar of the moment, and it comes from scrambling after the failure of ArtPop. She can sing, I agree, and she can play, but lets be real about everything else. Please.

What is "everything else"? That she's talented? You seem to agree with that.

I've explained it VERY clearly in this thread already, no need to go over it again. And what I said is she can sing, and she can play. My words were clear in that regard. There are plenty of people who can sing and play who never amount to anything in that business.

Her fans think she's so bold and innovative,but that's only because most of them are too young to know about all the artists that she copies