New topic
Printableerrant said: meow85 said: All true, but those acts all had something going for them Lady Gaga's hasn't come anywhere near musically: The sounds they were creating were interesting, exciting, and memorable. Lady Gaga sounds just like everyone else. That's a problem for an artist whose claim to fame is how weird and different she supposedly is. she is different and weird compared to everything out there. which is the same tack Bowie and Grace took when they made their splash. as for the sounds, well, there's nothing particularly revolutionary, or even interesting, about Holiday and Borderline and Lucky Star, etc. Gotta disagree with ya there. Lucky Star was unique for the time as they (WB) were trying to decide whether or not to market her as an R&B artist because the only place you heard songs like Holiday and Lucky Star was on the R&B stations. Her later work was definitely "inspired" but her earlier work was different in that there weren't any white women doing the contemporary R&B sound of the early 80s. And NOBODY sounds like Grace Jones. Come on. Be honest. Gaga has a unique look but really she's just a chick who is capitalizing on her image. The problem is that fans (like some on this board) are trying to pretend that its more than what it is. Being honest is not hating. Maybe her music will eventually evolve to be on par with her image but for now, she's just outrageous and ridiculous looking (bordering on clownish) and it comes of more attention whore than artsy. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
BlaqueKnight said: errant said: she is different and weird compared to everything out there. which is the same tack Bowie and Grace took when they made their splash. as for the sounds, well, there's nothing particularly revolutionary, or even interesting, about Holiday and Borderline and Lucky Star, etc. Gotta disagree with ya there. Lucky Star was unique for the time as they (WB) were trying to decide whether or not to market her as an R&B artist because the only place you heard songs like Holiday and Lucky Star was on the R&B stations. Her later work was definitely "inspired" but her earlier work was different in that there weren't any white women doing the contemporary R&B sound of the early 80s. And NOBODY sounds like Grace Jones. Come on. Be honest. Gaga has a unique look but really she's just a chick who is capitalizing on her image. The problem is that fans (like some on this board) are trying to pretend that its more than what it is. Being honest is not hating. Maybe her music will eventually evolve to be on par with her image but for now, she's just outrageous and ridiculous looking (bordering on clownish) and it comes of more attention whore than artsy. right. and I have no problem with that. I like her a lot. But I like Madonna and Bowie and Grace a lot. But I also see that a lot of what she is doing is very similar to wearing a fire-engine red mullet in a leotard and claiming to be an alien messiah come to save the teenage wildlife. or rolling around in a wedding dress on TV to a song about feeling like a virgin. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
They all just end up mimicking Blondie or Aretha Franklin anyways. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cinnie said: RKJCNE said: do you mean Akon is in him being her bitch? I've only heard love from him towards her. No but he was piping up to claim her as his discovery, he's on her dick. Pretty much  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
errant said: meow85 said: All true, but those acts all had something going for them Lady Gaga's hasn't come anywhere near musically: The sounds they were creating were interesting, exciting, and memorable. Lady Gaga sounds just like everyone else. That's a problem for an artist whose claim to fame is how weird and different she supposedly is. she is different and weird compared to everything out there. which is the same tack Bowie and Grace took when they made their splash. as for the sounds, well, there's nothing particularly revolutionary, or even interesting, about Holiday and Borderline and Lucky Star, etc. MUSICALLY, how does she differ from her peers? I'm not talking about image. I don't care about that. I want to know what, if anything, she has to offer sonically that differs from everything else out there. "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
errant said: BlaqueKnight said: Gotta disagree with ya there. Lucky Star was unique for the time as they (WB) were trying to decide whether or not to market her as an R&B artist because the only place you heard songs like Holiday and Lucky Star was on the R&B stations. Her later work was definitely "inspired" but her earlier work was different in that there weren't any white women doing the contemporary R&B sound of the early 80s. And NOBODY sounds like Grace Jones. Come on. Be honest. Gaga has a unique look but really she's just a chick who is capitalizing on her image. The problem is that fans (like some on this board) are trying to pretend that its more than what it is. Being honest is not hating. Maybe her music will eventually evolve to be on par with her image but for now, she's just outrageous and ridiculous looking (bordering on clownish) and it comes of more attention whore than artsy. right. and I have no problem with that. I like her a lot. But I like Madonna and Bowie and Grace a lot. But I also see that a lot of what she is doing is very similar to wearing a fire-engine red mullet in a leotard and claiming to be an alien messiah come to save the teenage wildlife. or rolling around in a wedding dress on TV to a song about feeling like a virgin. You're still talking about image, but that's not what the question is. No one's disputing that acts like Bowie or Madonna or Grace Jones manipulated a freakish image to get attention. Thing is, they definitely had strong sounds to back up their act. What does Lady Gaga SOUND like that makes her so special? I won't begrudge her her image. Lady Gaga is an impressive and talented visual artist and knows how to use the media to her advantage like a pro who's been at it for years. But what about her music? What does she have to offer that sets her apart from her peers, or that lives up to her image as an innovator? "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: Somebody sounds bitter.
If Billboard magazine doesn't say it, means who say it is bitter? M.I.A. speak her mind, and guess what? she's right, Lady Ga Ga is a product not an artist. BTW I love Lady Ga Ga but that doesn't mean I'm a blind fanatic. "I have so much love for Prince. But why don't they look at me that way"- MJ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
meow85 said: errant said: right. and I have no problem with that. I like her a lot. But I like Madonna and Bowie and Grace a lot. But I also see that a lot of what she is doing is very similar to wearing a fire-engine red mullet in a leotard and claiming to be an alien messiah come to save the teenage wildlife. or rolling around in a wedding dress on TV to a song about feeling like a virgin. You're still talking about image, but that's not what the question is. No one's disputing that acts like Bowie or Madonna or Grace Jones manipulated a freakish image to get attention. Thing is, they definitely had strong sounds to back up their act. What does Lady Gaga SOUND like that makes her so special? I won't begrudge her her image. Lady Gaga is an impressive and talented visual artist and knows how to use the media to her advantage like a pro who's been at it for years. But what about her music? What does she have to offer that sets her apart from her peers, or that lives up to her image as an innovator? that's my point. at the time they were at their peak, those people didn't have a SOUND that was particularly strong or different compared to what else was out there. a lot of it was pretty run-off-the-mill for its time. or at least there were several similarly or less successful acts doing the same thing at the time. it was personality and the thought behind the image and the presentation that made it "different"... [Edited 4/13/10 12:06pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
errant said: meow85 said: You're still talking about image, but that's not what the question is. No one's disputing that acts like Bowie or Madonna or Grace Jones manipulated a freakish image to get attention. Thing is, they definitely had strong sounds to back up their act. What does Lady Gaga SOUND like that makes her so special? I won't begrudge her her image. Lady Gaga is an impressive and talented visual artist and knows how to use the media to her advantage like a pro who's been at it for years. But what about her music? What does she have to offer that sets her apart from her peers, or that lives up to her image as an innovator? that's my point. at the time they were at their peak, those people didn't have a SOUND that was particularly strong or different compared to what else was out there. a lot of it was pretty run-off-the-mill for its time. or at least there were several similarly or less successful acts doing the same thing at the time. it was personality and the thought behind the image and the presentation that made it "different"... [Edited 4/13/10 12:06pm] Out of curiosity, have you listened to much Bowie or are you only familiar with the Let's Dance period? Because what you said there doesn't apply to him, at least.  "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
meow85 said: errant said: that's my point. at the time they were at their peak, those people didn't have a SOUND that was particularly strong or different compared to what else was out there. a lot of it was pretty run-off-the-mill for its time. or at least there were several similarly or less successful acts doing the same thing at the time. it was personality and the thought behind the image and the presentation that made it "different"... [Edited 4/13/10 12:06pm] Out of curiosity, have you listened to much Bowie or are you only familiar with the Let's Dance period? Because what you said there doesn't apply to him, at least. I'm a huge Bowie fan, and with a few exceptions here and there, it absolutely does apply, up until about 1976/1977. The Ziggy-era stuff, when he took off, wasn't all that different than the other people doing the glam thing at the time. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
errant said: meow85 said: Out of curiosity, have you listened to much Bowie or are you only familiar with the Let's Dance period? Because what you said there doesn't apply to him, at least. I'm a huge Bowie fan, and with a few exceptions here and there, it absolutely does apply, up until about 1976/1977. The Ziggy-era stuff, when he took off, wasn't all that different than the other people doing the glam thing at the time. I'd dispute that. A Bowie song, even during the glam period, was discernably a Bowie song. A Lady Gaga song could be by anybody. It's only her videos and persona that make her stand out. Inversely IMO, Bowie blended in to the glam crowd visually while his music stood out. "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |