RKJCNE said:

Its not like she blatantly rips off Madonna the way Christina Aguilera did in NMT, Gaga even thanked her and Bowie in her debut album booklet. She doesn't try to hide her influences, but she brings a mixture of them and her own stuff.

Most of the things she's done, Madonna has already done.

Dreamer2 said:

johnart said:

Love the video and love LOVE her makeup.

Why do people feel the need to trash her looks to such lengths??

And it's no secret that Gaga pulls from her influences. I don't get what's being "uncovered" or called out here.

While I see the parallel in some of the side by side shots, some are really going on a limb to find similarity. Because Madonna put something in her mouth in a video doesn't mean anyone else who ever puts something in their mouth in a video is copying her. Do you know how many thousands of females have been lifted by a group of men during a dance routine? Lots and lots.

[Edited 6/10/10 23:00pm]

It's no big secret she a madonna fan, but she also a big fan of Prince, MJ and Bowie, all of them you can see in her work, it's not a crime as long as you add to it your own personal style....:

Which Ga Ga does, she alot more talented than Madonna , CA, Britney, Pink etc... at the same age and start of their career .... so the future looks good ...will have to wait and see if she keeps delivering the goods, so far so good.

Sorry, I don't see how it's okay for Lady Gaga to emulate any of her idols and still be called 'innovative' and 'creative', yet none of the other artists who do this get the same honors. That's really biased actually. If Christina Aguilera (who made out with Madonna and has praised Madonna on several occasions long before anyone knew what a Lady Gaga even was) is being criticized for 'copying' Madonna, than Lady Gaga should be criticized also just to be unbiased and fair about the whole issue. I don't care how much of their own 'personal styles' (whatever the fuck that means) they incorporate into the emulating process. If I look at a video and the first thing that pops into my head is: "This video looks almost exactly like so-n-so's video from 12 years ago", than I'm not going to praise that person. I may think the video is cool, but I'm not going to be all like, "Bravo! Brilliant! A Masterpiece!" because that would be pretty well retarded. It's been done already...oooh, whoopty do. It's like movies that are remakes, how often are they better than the original...hardly ever. I don't care if Lady Gaga set herself on fire and played a whole concert. She won't ever be on Madonna's level to me and I stopped really liking Madonna after 'Bedtime Stories". Gaga is her own person and I would love to see her do something that hasn't really been done before because the wacky costumes have been done by greater artists than her...Elton John being the first to pop into my mind. Plus, sorry, but from what I've seen of P!nk's recent concerts, she can wipe the floor with Lady Gaga...vocally and performance-wise. Gaga is good, but she's not that damn good but that's just my own opinion.

[Edited 6/12/10 16:46pm]

Timmy84 said:

Not to try to bring Ms. Aguilera into this but you know how funny Gaga fans were quick to say Christina was copying Gaga and yet the both of them did "homages" to Madonna videos.

That's VERY ironic.

No, that'sjust called 'biased'. It's okay for Gaga to copy her idols, but Christina can't do it, which doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me. Honestly, I think it's because Christina has a diva bitch attitude so people don't like her and want to trash her as much as possible, which is their perogative. Christina often brings the hate on herself anyway, so I don't really feel sorry for her most of the time; and, I actually like her, but I'm still going to call it as I see it. However, bias is still bias and that's just as bad as someone with a stank attitude to me.

What I find to be even crazier is that during the 'Stripped' album, Christina constantly told people that her sexed up image was based personally on her coming into her womanhood and trying to prove how strong double standards were from men to women. She repeatedly made points about how it was okay for men to do certain things but when women did the same thing they were called 'sluts' and 'whores'. Lady Gaga is preaching a similar message and people are eating it up with a spoon, but those same people probably trashed Christina 8 years ago and wanted to call her a 'tramp' for 'Dirrty'. When asked about that album to this day, Christina's story hasn't changed about who she was and how she felt at that time in her life. If she honestly felt that she was trying to eliminate double standards and encourage women to be stronger; than, who am I to call her derogatory names for being true to herself. She's still a strong feminist and remains proud of the imagery she has put forth no matter how lewd it was perceived to be by others. She's never apologized for who she was and is and that's something I commend anyone for.

Well, apparently the double standard wasn't just a male/female issue because now it's an Christina/Gaga issue. The only difference between this video and NMT is this one centers around gay rights. I didn't love NMT and I'm not loving this video either because they both copy Madonna a little too much for my tastes. Sorry, but I don't do double standards. If it's not okay for one person to do it, than it's not okay for anyone else to do it either but that's just how I feel; fan or not. All just my

i like lady gaga's music, but i hate this new video!

TonyVanDam said:

midiscover said:

Wow. You're so stupid. There's no military look that Janet stole lmao Last time I checked the military has been around for centuries. DEAD at MJ fans thinking MJ created everything he did and everyone copied when he was notorious for copying other artists. Especially, Janet.

Oh don't be so naive. Just because you're a total hater of Michael Jackson, it's does NOT give your the audacity of rewritting music history. Michael rocked the military look long before Janet did. And that's the bottom line. Period. Point blank. End of!

Oh stfu MJ's military style was just a bedazzled rip-off of Jimi Hendrix's signature style. Janet's military LOOK was the concept for ONE song on ONE album. Both Janet and MJ's look were both different. FYI Janet didn't run around in studded military jackets in the Rhythm Nation era lmao she rocked her own style. You and a couple of MJ floons need to just get over the fact that he wasn't the first to start every damn thing lmao He ripped off Jimi. Janet rocked her own style and concept. The dancing derived from her choreo- Nasty.

That's all.

TonyVanDam said:

midiscover said:

Thank you! I've already posted the many times he copied off her on this forum don't feel like repeating myself

You still NEVER responsed to Purplesweat's evidence that Michael rocked the military look years BEFORE Janet did. How comes you didn't (falsely) accuse him for "being stupid" like you did me?

I know why. It because Purplesweat and I both proved you wrong and you refused to admit that you were wrong and apologize. But, whatever.

[Edited 6/12/10 15:41pm]

Once again, stupid that Thriller pic just proves he ripped off of Jimi Hendrix. Janet's ONLY military look was for ONE song and video. Get this through your head. The entire era she wore ALL black. Not military jackets.

You didn't prove shit. Purplesweat didn't prove shit either.

midiscover said:

TonyVanDam said:

You still NEVER responsed to Purplesweat's evidence that Michael rocked the military look years BEFORE Janet did. How comes you didn't (falsely) accuse him for "being stupid" like you did me?

I know why. It because Purplesweat and I both proved you wrong and you refused to admit that you were wrong and apologize. But, whatever.

[Edited 6/12/10 15:41pm]

Once again, stupid that Thriller pic just proves he ripped off of Jimi Hendrix. Janet's ONLY military look was for ONE song and video. Get this through your head. The entire era she wore ALL black. Not military jackets.

You didn't prove shit. Purplesweat didn't prove shit either.

Well you just keep telling yourself all of THAT^ while you're drinking the Velvet Rope cherry-flavored Kool-Aid.

[img:$uid]http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/kool-aid-man.png[/img:$uid]

midiscover said:

TonyVanDam said:

Oh don't be so naive. Just because you're a total hater of Michael Jackson, it's does NOT give your the audacity of rewritting music history. Michael rocked the military look long before Janet did. And that's the bottom line. Period. Point blank. End of!

Oh stfu MJ's military style was just a bedazzled rip-off of Jimi Hendrix's signature style. Janet's military LOOK was the concept for ONE song on ONE album. Both Janet and MJ's look were both different. FYI Janet didn't run around in studded military jackets in the Rhythm Nation era lmao she rocked her own style. You and a couple of MJ floons need to just get over the fact that he wasn't the first to start every damn thing lmao He ripped off Jimi. Janet rocked her own style and concept. The dancing derived from her choreo- Nasty.

That's all.

1. You can kiss my black ass of telling me to ! You're the only one looking sorry for lacking knowledge of music history.

2. And the real personal problem that you been having since your debut in prince.org is the fact that you hate Michael Jackson too much to the point of refusing to accept the FACT that if there was no Michael Jackson OR The Jackson 5, we would never have a celebrity like Janet Jackson at all.

REALITY CHECK: Long before she became an actress OR a recording artists, Janet was only known as Michael Jackson's baby sister.

End of.

[Edited 6/12/10 21:32pm]

estelle81 said:

Dreamer2 said:

It's no big secret she a madonna fan, but she also a big fan of Prince, MJ and Bowie, all of them you can see in her work, it's not a crime as long as you add to it your own personal style....:

Which Ga Ga does, she alot more talented than Madonna , CA, Britney, Pink etc... at the same age and start of their career .... so the future looks good ...will have to wait and see if she keeps delivering the goods, so far so good.

Sorry, I don't see how it's okay for Lady Gaga to emulate any of her idols and still be called 'innovative' and 'creative', yet none of the other artists who do this get the same honors. That's really biased actually. If Christina Aguilera (who made out with Madonna and has praised Madonna on several occasions long before anyone knew what a Lady Gaga even was) is being criticized for 'copying' Madonna, than Lady Gaga should be criticized also just to be unbiased and fair about the whole issue. I don't care how much of their own 'personal styles' (whatever the fuck that means) they incorporate into the emulating process. If I look at a video and the first thing that pops into my head is: "This video looks almost exactly like so-n-so's video from 12 years ago", than I'm not going to praise that person. I may think the video is cool, but I'm not going to be all like, "Bravo! Brilliant! A Masterpiece!" because that would be pretty well retarded. It's been done already...oooh, whoopty do. It's like movies that are remakes, how often are they better than the original...hardly ever. I don't care if Lady Gaga set herself on fire and played a whole concert. She won't ever be on Madonna's level to me and I stopped really liking Madonna after 'Bedtime Stories". Gaga is her own person and I would love to see her do something that hasn't really been done before because the wacky costumes have been done by greater artists than her...Elton John being the first to pop into my mind. Plus, sorry, but from what I've seen of P!nk's recent concerts, she can wipe the floor with Lady Gaga...vocally and performance-wise. Gaga is good, but she's not that damn good but that's just my own opinion.

[Edited 6/12/10 16:46pm]

I think most people can see gaga is more talented than the person she's copying i.e. madonna, CA is slowly coming around to the idea that gaga is a new force in music, hence the copycat album bionic which is tanking at the moment...

midiscover said:

TonyVanDam said:

You still NEVER responsed to Purplesweat's evidence that Michael rocked the military look years BEFORE Janet did. How comes you didn't (falsely) accuse him for "being stupid" like you did me?

I know why. It because Purplesweat and I both proved you wrong and you refused to admit that you were wrong and apologize. But, whatever.

[Edited 6/12/10 15:41pm]

Once again, stupid that Thriller pic just proves he ripped off of Jimi Hendrix. Janet's ONLY military look was for ONE song and video. Get this through your head. The entire era she wore ALL black. Not military jackets.

You didn't prove shit. Purplesweat didn't prove shit either.

Who gives a shit how long she rocked it for? Point is, she didn't come up with it, and neither did Michael. STILL, he felt like rocking it first and she was inspired by him years later. She probably felt that look went best with the sound of the album and that's that. Michael has no reason to lie or make up shit, he's ALWAYS been open about his influences and how he takes from other entertainers and puts his own spin on it. His Dangerous choreography is based on a Judy Garland routine from 1950.

TonyVanDam said:

midiscover said:

Oh stfu MJ's military style was just a bedazzled rip-off of Jimi Hendrix's signature style. Janet's military LOOK was the concept for ONE song on ONE album. Both Janet and MJ's look were both different. FYI Janet didn't run around in studded military jackets in the Rhythm Nation era lmao she rocked her own style. You and a couple of MJ floons need to just get over the fact that he wasn't the first to start every damn thing lmao He ripped off Jimi. Janet rocked her own style and concept. The dancing derived from her choreo- Nasty.

That's all.

1. You can kiss my black ass of telling me to ! You're the only one looking sorry for lacking knowledge of music history.

2. And the real personal problem that you been having since your debut in prince.org is the fact that you hate Michael Jackson too much to the point of refusing to accept the FACT that if there was no Michael Jackson OR The Jackson 5, we would never have a celebrity like Janet Jackson at all.

REALITY CHECK: Long before she became an actress OR a recording artists, Janet was only known as Michael Jackson's baby sister.

End of.

[Edited 6/12/10 21:32pm]

1. STFU. If anyone's lacking knowledge on music history its you. Especially, since you actually think Janet got inspiration for Rhythm Nation from MJ's studded military style Fuck out of here.

2. There's no real personal problem, child. Failed assumption. This has nothing to do with my dislike of MJ's music. lmao I'm just stating facts and don't give me that "IF there wasn't a MJ..." bullshit. I'm not here for if's and but's. Fact- Janet would still be worth if she didn't have a deal.

Reality check: MJ was a druggie that ripped off other artists including his baby sister, Janet Jackson.

That's all

purplesweat said:

midiscover said:

Once again, stupid that Thriller pic just proves he ripped off of Jimi Hendrix. Janet's ONLY military look was for ONE song and video. Get this through your head. The entire era she wore ALL black. Not military jackets.

You didn't prove shit. Purplesweat didn't prove shit either.

Who gives a shit how long she rocked it for? Point is, she didn't come up with it, and neither did Michael. STILL, he felt like rocking it first and she was inspired by him years later. She probably felt that look went best with the sound of the album and that's that. Michael has no reason to lie or make up shit, he's ALWAYS been open about his influences and how he takes from other entertainers and puts his own spin on it. His Dangerous choreography is based on a Judy Garland routine from 1950.

Exactly.

purplesweat said:

Who gives a shit how long she rocked it for? Tony was making it to seem as if she straight up rocked the military jacket look for a long ass time. It was the concept for Rhythm Nation.

If you have eyes with good vision you would know there's no similarty to this

[img:$uid]http://i42.tinypic.com/2heh8k3.jpg[/img:$uid]

and the pic you posted or whatever he claimed Janet took from him

Point is, she didn't come up with it - I never said she did

and neither did Michael. STILL, he felt like rocking it first - You're contradicting yourself.

and she was inspired by him years later - This is where your wrong. Janet wasn't inspired by Michael Jackson for her Rhythm Nation video. Has Janet stated this? Do have any sources of her saying "I was inspired by my brother MJ for RN1814"? No, you don't. Janet's military look in Rhythm Nation was completely different from whatever MJ was wearing. You people are so quick to give MJ a pat on the shoulder for some reason lmao You know he's not the only source for inspiration for every artist. Janet came up with something innovative and people want to give someone else credit. But when people point out the obvious influence of RN1814 on MJ's work in the 90's y'all want to throw a fit

She probably felt that look went best with the sound of the album and that's that. I'm not here for probably. Either she stated so or not. The fact is she didn't. Janet wanted a industrial military themed video Rhythm Nation and she got it. That's all.

Michael has no reason to lie or make up shit BAHAAA!! I'm not going to get messy

he's ALWAYS been open about his influences and how he takes from other entertainers and puts his own spin on it. He did the same spin for almost all his albums

midiscover said:

TonyVanDam said:

1. You can kiss my black ass of telling me to ! You're the only one looking sorry for lacking knowledge of music history.

2. And the real personal problem that you been having since your debut in prince.org is the fact that you hate Michael Jackson too much to the point of refusing to accept the FACT that if there was no Michael Jackson OR The Jackson 5, we would never have a celebrity like Janet Jackson at all.

REALITY CHECK: Long before she became an actress OR a recording artists, Janet was only known as Michael Jackson's baby sister.

End of.

[Edited 6/12/10 21:32pm]

1. STFU. If anyone's lacking knowledge on music history its you. Especially, since you actually think Janet got inspiration for Rhythm Nation from MJ's studded military style Fuck out of here.

Not only do I think, I KNOW for a fact that Michael rocked the military style 6 years BEFORE Janet did.

And do you know one other Jackson sibling that rocked the military look before Janet?

Tito!:

That's right! Even freaking Tito was rocking the military style (driving a military jeep with THAT! ) before Janet. And yet, you wanna tell me that I don't know my music history?!?

[img:$uid]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/4/niggaplease128650298245331764.jpg[/img:$uid]

TonyVanDam said:

midiscover said:

1. STFU. If anyone's lacking knowledge on music history its you. Especially, since you actually think Janet got inspiration for Rhythm Nation from MJ's studded military style Fuck out of here.

Not only do I think, I KNOW for a fact that Michael rocked the military style 6 years BEFORE Janet did.

And do you know one other Jackson sibling that rocked the military look before Janet?

Tito!:

That's right! Even freaking Tito was rocking the military style (driving a military jeep with THAT! ) before Janet. And yet, you wanna tell me that I don't know my music history?!?

[img:$uid]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/4/niggaplease128650298245331764.jpg[/img:$uid]

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that Janet's military look was totally different from MJ's ripped off style and at the Tito reference. No one's checking for him. and just because MJ wore a military jacket before Janet doesn't mean she copied from him He got a nose job before her too so I guess she copied that? LMAO!

Another thread turned into a discussion about Queen Janet.

The beautiful Janet was, Is and will always be infulenced By her brother MJ.....he is her true inspiration.

If anyone is furious about this fact, then stay furious Forever!

Y'all disappoint me.

FUCK IT y'all motherfuckers wanna go OFF FUCKING TOPIC, I got your off topic:

Now this thread ain't about shit.

[Edited 6/13/10 9:37am]

had to check title to make sure it said Lady Gaga and not Janet.....

BklynBabe said:

had to check title to make sure it said Lady Gaga and not Janet.....

According to this board, Janet Jackson is more debatable (the back and forth banter between Janet "stans" and not so much "stan-like" folks) than Lady Gaga.

Hell Michael's also brought up in here. Might as well talk about Tito, Latoya and Greasemaine while we're at it.

[Edited 6/13/10 11:11am]

estelle81 said:

Dreamer2 said:

It's no big secret she a madonna fan, but she also a big fan of Prince, MJ and Bowie, all of them you can see in her work, it's not a crime as long as you add to it your own personal style....:

Which Ga Ga does, she alot more talented than Madonna , CA, Britney, Pink etc... at the same age and start of their career .... so the future looks good ...will have to wait and see if she keeps delivering the goods, so far so good.

Sorry, I don't see how it's okay for Lady Gaga to emulate any of her idols and still be called 'innovative' and 'creative', yet none of the other artists who do this get the same honors. That's really biased actually.

Did you know? Since she attributes all of her success to gays, she has been given a pass to steal, borrow and plagiarize whomever she chooses without question.

I really dug "Just Dance" when it dropped. I was one of the fist one's to discuss her on the org and I posted the video before it hit the mainstream. Her material is becoming less and less interesting now as she drifts more and more (sonically) into the dance pop realm. She is becoming a living example of the saying "image is everything" because her songs aren't getting better but her image is changing and she's garnering more attention because of it. If she were to continue on her original path (musically), she'd be a lot more interesting. I guess I'm old fashioned, but I like to HEAR music rather than SEE image.

Dreamer2 said:

estelle81 said:

Sorry, I don't see how it's okay for Lady Gaga to emulate any of her idols and still be called 'innovative' and 'creative', yet none of the other artists who do this get the same honors. That's really biased actually. If Christina Aguilera (who made out with Madonna and has praised Madonna on several occasions long before anyone knew what a Lady Gaga even was) is being criticized for 'copying' Madonna, than Lady Gaga should be criticized also just to be unbiased and fair about the whole issue. I don't care how much of their own 'personal styles' (whatever the fuck that means) they incorporate into the emulating process. If I look at a video and the first thing that pops into my head is: "This video looks almost exactly like so-n-so's video from 12 years ago", than I'm not going to praise that person. I may think the video is cool, but I'm not going to be all like, "Bravo! Brilliant! A Masterpiece!" because that would be pretty well retarded. It's been done already...oooh, whoopty do. It's like movies that are remakes, how often are they better than the original...hardly ever. I don't care if Lady Gaga set herself on fire and played a whole concert. She won't ever be on Madonna's level to me and I stopped really liking Madonna after 'Bedtime Stories". Gaga is her own person and I would love to see her do something that hasn't really been done before because the wacky costumes have been done by greater artists than her...Elton John being the first to pop into my mind. Plus, sorry, but from what I've seen of P!nk's recent concerts, she can wipe the floor with Lady Gaga...vocally and performance-wise. Gaga is good, but she's not that damn good but that's just my own opinion.

[Edited 6/12/10 16:46pm]

I think most people can see gaga is more talented than the person she's copying i.e. madonna, CA is slowly coming around to the idea that gaga is a new force in music, hence the copycat album bionic which is tanking at the moment...

Em Gaga is definitely more talented than Madonna vocally, that's no biggie there are tons of female singers who are... But is she more talented overall? She might be but I certainly doubt it. Madonna has been a force in music for almost 30 years and has nothing to prove. Gaga has been a music force for about 2 years and she has everything to prove. So far her act has been doing pop songs and visually immitating a number of older artists (Elton John & David Bowie are the ones mostly immitated). Now one can say that Madonna did the same early on (with Marylin etc) but the difference is that Madonna outlived the gimmick. I suspect that Gaga will too but whether she will still be here 30 years from now is to be seen and whether she will have the impact that Madonna had on pop culture is highly doubtful mainly because there are few barriers to break right now and because musically Madonna's material in her first 2 albums (especially the debut) were miles better than what Gaga is doing now (having said that 'Just Dance', 'Bad Romance' 'Alejandro' & 'Telephone' are all great songs and 'Speechless' is just amazing)

[Edited 6/13/10 15:45pm]

SEANMAN said:

johnart said:

Love the video and love LOVE her makeup.

Why do people feel the need to trash her looks to such lengths??

And it's no secret that Gaga pulls from her influences. I don't get what's being "uncovered" or called out here.

While I see the parallel in some of the side by side shots, some are really going on a limb to find similarity. Because Madonna put something in her mouth in a video doesn't mean anyone else who ever puts something in their mouth in a video is copying her. Do you know how many thousands of females have been lifted by a group of men during a dance routine? Lots and lots.

[Edited 6/10/10 23:00pm]

Agreed. People go out of their way to compare her to Madonna, when she is not only clearly inspired by others, but has her own flavor as well. It's annoying as hell. If anything, she's not only like Madonna, but she's a bit of Tori Amos in the way she plays the piano and straddles the bench. She's a bit of Dale Bozzio, Bowie, Elton John and Grace Jones in the way she dresses. She's a bit of Cyndi Lauper with her wacky hairstyles. She's a bit of Janet with her precise choreographed dances. And she's all Gaga, in that not one of the new set of pop stars have been able to capture media hype the way she has.

Sadly all that media hype you are talking about in your post refers to her costumes, wacky hairstyles, etc. not really about her music, which to me is the most important thing.

Yelsiap said:

SEANMAN said:

Agreed. People go out of their way to compare her to Madonna, when she is not only clearly inspired by others, but has her own flavor as well. It's annoying as hell. If anything, she's not only like Madonna, but she's a bit of Tori Amos in the way she plays the piano and straddles the bench. She's a bit of Dale Bozzio, Bowie, Elton John and Grace Jones in the way she dresses. She's a bit of Cyndi Lauper with her wacky hairstyles. She's a bit of Janet with her precise choreographed dances. And she's all Gaga, in that not one of the new set of pop stars have been able to capture media hype the way she has.

Sadly all that media hype you are talking about in your post refers to her costumes, wacky hairstyles, etc. not really about her music, which to me is the most important thing.

Yes, she's definately talented, and no one is disputing that. I was simply mentioning how she, like every other white girl who sings pop and makes a big splash on the music scene, gets compared to Madonna even if they have zilch in common with her. When Britney first dropped, the Madonna comparisons never ended, when Britney is clearly Janet 2.0, the white version..

BlaqueKnight said:

Her material is becoming less and less interesting now as she drifts more and more (sonically) into the dance pop realm. She is becoming a living example of the saying "image is everything" because her songs aren't getting better but her image is changing and she's garnering more attention because of it. If she were to continue on her original path (musically), she'd be a lot more interesting. I guess I'm old fashioned, but I like to HEAR music rather than SEE image.[/b]

you know, i honestly don't care for her supposed creative image nor do i get curious to check out her perfomances coz from what i've seen so far, she's always trying to do way too many things that she ends up with a perfect mess on stage.

as far as her music goes though, i think she has shown progress with The Fame Monster than what she did on The Fame, which to me was stacked with fillers, aside from it's singles, as apposed to Monster which i thought had a grander/richer sound to it and way catchier melodies. i think it'll take a 3rd release from her for me to decide where i stand from her music.

carlcranshaw said:

For those of you in bands.

Play Alejandro and then go into this.

Exactly what I thought...

Is there ANYONE who is original now? I mean, original as in, "OMG, did you SEE THAT???? I've never seen THAT before!!" Like when Lil' Kim first appeared, or when Vanity 6 wore lingerie, and Madonna wore her underwear outside of her clothes, or Eminem proved white boys could rap and not be a joke.

Everything mainstream now is a copy of what came before, and bad copies at that. I swear I want to see something REAL that I haven't seen EVER! Sadly I believe those days are long gone.

noimageatall said:

carlcranshaw said:

For those of you in bands.

Play Alejandro and then go into this.

Exactly what I thought...

Is there ANYONE who is original now? I mean, original as in, "OMG, did you SEE THAT???? I've never seen THAT before!!" Like when Lil' Kim first appeared, or when Vanity 6 wore lingerie, and Madonna wore her underwear outside of her clothes, or Eminem proved white boys could rap and not be a joke.

Everything mainstream now is a copy of what came before, and bad copies at that. I swear I want to see something REAL that I haven't seen EVER! Sadly I believe those days are long gone.

Why do you think I always say that music started to go downhill nice and slow since 1994?!?

Musically, the best years (IMO) is everything within 1970-1993. Yes, I like certain tracks from the 1950's & 1960's. But music technology within the 1970's & 1980's are better for my ears, personal preference of course.

If were talking about artists being "original", then mostly likely we're better off studying the 50's to 70's. The 80's are interesting for the history of the then-advancement of keyboard synthesizers & drum machines and how some artists (especially Prince) were able to make them co-exist with guitars. But that is as far as it goes.

Most of the 1990's were a letdown.

All of the 2000's were the decade of the music industry's version of Attack Of The Clones! If noticing a bunch of Michael, Madonna, Prince, & Janet-wannabes & sound-alikes weren't bad enough, now we're noticing Lil'Kim clones (Nicki Minaj)?!?

Sorry to say this, but the 2010's are good as ruined. And it's only June 2010.

[Edited 6/14/10 6:37am]

PricelessHo said:

BlaqueKnight said:

Her material is becoming less and less interesting now as she drifts more and more (sonically) into the dance pop realm. She is becoming a living example of the saying "image is everything" because her songs aren't getting better but her image is changing and she's garnering more attention because of it. If she were to continue on her original path (musically), she'd be a lot more interesting. I guess I'm old fashioned, but I like to HEAR music rather than SEE image.[/b]

you know, i honestly don't care for her supposed creative image nor do i get curious to check out her perfomances coz from what i've seen so far, she's always trying to do way too many things that she ends up with a perfect mess on stage.

as far as her music goes though, i think she has shown progress with The Fame Monster than what she did on The Fame, which to me was stacked with fillers, aside from it's singles, as apposed to Monster which i thought had a grander/richer sound to it and way catchier melodies. i think it'll take a 3rd release from her for me to decide where i stand from her music.

Technically "The Fame Monster" were songs left out from "The Fame"... but it's being passed as a second album I guess.

TonyVanDam said:

noimageatall said:

Exactly what I thought...

Is there ANYONE who is original now? I mean, original as in, "OMG, did you SEE THAT???? I've never seen THAT before!!" Like when Lil' Kim first appeared, or when Vanity 6 wore lingerie, and Madonna wore her underwear outside of her clothes, or Eminem proved white boys could rap and not be a joke.

Everything mainstream now is a copy of what came before, and bad copies at that. I swear I want to see something REAL that I haven't seen EVER! Sadly I believe those days are long gone.

Why do you think I always say that music started to go downhill nice and slow since 1994?!?

Musically, the best years (IMO) is everything within 1970-1993. Yes, I like certain tracks from the 1950's & 1960's. But music technology within the 1970's & 1980's are better for my ears, personal preference of course.

If were talking about artists being "original", then mostly likely we're better off studying the 50's to 70's. The 80's are interesting for the history of the then-advancement of keyboard synthesizers & drum machines and how some artists (especially Prince) were able to make them co-exist with guitars. But that is as far as it goes.

Most of the 1990's were a letdown.

All of the 2000's were the decade of the music industry's version of Attack Of The Clones! If noticing a bunch of Michael, Madonna, Prince, & Janet-wannabes & sound-alikes weren't bad enough, now we're noticing Lil'Kim clones (Nicki Minaj)?!?

Sorry to say this, but the 2010's are good as ruined. And it's only June 2010.

[Edited 6/14/10 6:37am]

Agree ,Im pretty frustrated with music in the last 10 years. It's like these days people are relying too much on the computer, less actually playing instruments. Not as "organic" like the 70s. yes up until the mid 90s music been screwed.

Timmy84 said:

PricelessHo said:

you know, i honestly don't care for her supposed creative image nor do i get curious to check out her perfomances coz from what i've seen so far, she's always trying to do way too many things that she ends up with a perfect mess on stage.

as far as her music goes though, i think she has shown progress with The Fame Monster than what she did on The Fame, which to me was stacked with fillers, aside from it's singles, as apposed to Monster which i thought had a grander/richer sound to it and way catchier melodies. i think it'll take a 3rd release from her for me to decide where i stand from her music.

Technically "The Fame Monster" were songs left out from "The Fame"... but it's being passed as a second album I guess.

The Fame Monster is actually the re-release of The Fame + a EP release of new tracks that are the prequel for the real upcoming new 2nd album (if Gaga ever finish recording of course).