Her early stuff was terrible imo Her latest is actually pretty catchy, but not my type of music Her wardrobe is unique and different, but a little too extreme at times Her voice is good and she is a talented musician Nevertheless, I won't have her on my iPod anytime soon.
She and her music will be remembered long after dubstep is mercifully dead and buried.
the thing is, dilbert... the top charting billboard acts rarely ever remain in the musical history books. when we think of the 1970's, for example, we think of led zep and all those affiliated rock bands, that barely ever charted. when we think of the 20th century and its most influential/oft-quoted bands, we have bands like the beatles, who have been statistically outsold on every single by ke$ha (a depressing fact, but an incontrovertibly true one nonetheless). every era seems to be remembered in music history (i.e. cultural discourse) more for its exceptions and its new mutations/evolutions, rather than for whatever the mass-culture industry is peddling. 90's? i'd talk about nirvana before i'd talk about east-17. the most namedropped acts are never the ones that sold the most. people can rarely remember what sold the most, in fact... because by its very design its meant to be disposed of, recycled, refreshed, bought into again. the mainstream music industry in its own very capitalist logic operates on the ideology of fashion, that most transient of forces... constantly in flux.
Ty wrote:
Gaga's stuff is well produced and she's a talented performer. Doesn't appeal to me personally though I can understand why it does to others. Also it seems a little less plastic and forced than other pop music phenomena so I can support that.
As to dubstep... look it seems to me to be a lot of people with audio mixing software who are allowed to go nuts playing with effects and experimenting. That's cool but personally I don't think it reflects a musical breakthrough. To be honest I don't know much about dubstep, I like some dub and DnB but can't say I've ever heard a dubstep track that I actually enjoyed. Can anyone who knows more about the genre give me an example of a "must hear" dubstep track?
She and her music will be remembered long after dubstep is mercifully dead and buried.
the thing is, dilbert... the top charting billboard acts rarely ever remain in the musical history books. when we think of the 1970's, for example, we think of led zep and all those affiliated rock bands, that barely ever charted. when we think of the 20th century and its most influential/oft-quoted bands, we have bands like the beatles, who have been statistically outsold on every single by ke$ha (a depressing fact, but an incontrovertibly true one nonetheless). every era seems to be remembered in music history (i.e. cultural discourse) more for its exceptions and its new mutations/evolutions, rather than for whatever the mass-culture industry is peddling. 90's? i'd talk about nirvana before i'd talk about east-17. the most namedropped acts are never the ones that sold the most. people can rarely remember what sold the most, in fact... because by its very design its meant to be disposed of, recycled, refreshed, bought into again. the mainstream music industry in its own very capitalist logic operates on the ideology of fashion, that most transient of forces... constantly in flux.
so whilst you say that dubstep is a fad (and by all accounts the popular form of american dubstep today is just that... a fad), i think you'll find that when people discuss important musical progressions and evolutions, they'll still mention dubstep. it has permeated every single genre (including the mainstream ones-- think of britney spears's latest stuff, or the most recent american hip-hop beats) and has actually quite profoundly influenced the music we hear today on the radio, in the club, and on our ipods. this is an undeniable shift in style across all genres in both the underground and mainstream circles.
i think it is also telling that the mainstream pop/hipster publications are already championing lana del ray or w/e her name is as the successor to gaga, after a not-so-hot last album (that album art was just so passé, apparently). you're equating gaga with michael jackson when really, she isn't. the spice girls created more of a global buzz than gaga, and who the fuck still talks about them? girl power? ok. just hyperbolic crap to sell records.
I think the Gaga phenomenon will last a little longer than the Spice Girls.
Ask the average person about dubstep and they won't have a clue, be able to name a band or song. In a decade that situation won't improve. 'Industry insiders' will hail how influential its been, as have all the previous electronic sub-genres.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rELtJG2qP5o Sorry, I'm just not hearing anything in this that wasn't in average electronica of the seventies or later ambient junk. Its not even enjoyable to listen to.
She and her music will be remembered long after dubstep is mercifully dead and buried.
the thing is, dilbert... the top charting billboard acts rarely ever remain in the musical history books. when we think of the 1970's, for example, we think of led zep and all those affiliated rock bands, that barely ever charted. when we think of the 20th century and its most influential/oft-quoted bands, we have bands like the beatles, who have been statistically outsold on every single by ke$ha (a depressing fact, but an incontrovertibly true one nonetheless). every era seems to be remembered in music history (i.e. cultural discourse) more for its exceptions and its new mutations/evolutions, rather than for whatever the mass-culture industry is peddling. 90's? i'd talk about nirvana before i'd talk about east-17. the most namedropped acts are never the ones that sold the most. people can rarely remember what sold the most, in fact... because by its very design its meant to be disposed of, recycled, refreshed, bought into again. the mainstream music industry in its own very capitalist logic operates on the ideology of fashion, that most transient of forces... constantly in flux.
so whilst you say that dubstep is a fad (and by all accounts the popular form of american dubstep today is just that... a fad), i think you'll find that when people discuss important musical progressions and evolutions, they'll still mention dubstep. it has permeated every single genre (including the mainstream ones-- think of britney spears's latest stuff, or the most recent american hip-hop beats) and has actually quite profoundly influenced the music we hear today on the radio, in the club, and on our ipods. this is an undeniable shift in style across all genres in both the underground and mainstream circles.
i think it is also telling that the mainstream pop/hipster publications are already championing lana del ray or w/e her name is as the successor to gaga, after a not-so-hot last album (that album art was just so passé, apparently). you're equating gaga with michael jackson when really, she isn't. the spice girls created more of a global buzz than gaga, and who the fuck still talks about them? girl power? ok. just hyperbolic crap to sell records.
I think the Gaga phenomenon will last a little longer than the Spice Girls.
Ask the average person about dubstep and they won't have a clue, be able to name a band or song. In a decade that situation won't improve. 'Industry insiders' will hail how influential its been, as have all the previous electronic sub-genres.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rELtJG2qP5o Sorry, I'm just not hearing anything in this that wasn't in average electronica of the seventies or later ambient junk. Its not even enjoyable to listen to.
1. spice girls pretty much characterised an entire decade in pop music - 'icons' in the truest sense in pop music. i don't think gaga will reach that level, even. pop music is ephemeral. how many people are still talking about the chart topping pop acts of the 1980's? forget it. pop doesn't have a cultural memory.
2. nope, you're being slanted again. "industry insiders"? you make it sound like it's a bunch of hardcore enthusiasts congratulating one another. dubstep has truly gone mainstream. it's not just "industry insiders" talking about it... everyone is. from 14 year old kids on the backs of buses with their mobile phones blaring it out to britney spears's production staff-- and no doubt it's on everyone's lips as the buzzword of the year in corporate record label boardrooms and across all music-journalism media. if that isn't a complete phenomenon - taking both the mainstream and the underground - then what is? i can't think of a more complete influence.
3. you keep comparing everything to tangerine dream. you sound like an old fart when you say things like this. for 101 reasons that i can't be bothered to go into with someone like yourself who is completely non music-literature, it has nothing to do with 'average electronica of the seventies' or 'later ambient junk'. wtf is ambient about that track? i can't even be bothered to try and educate you because it's clear you're one of the old fogeys that thinks anything made on a machine/computer == sounds exactly the same. the fact you're comparing some sparse breakbeat track made in 2004 to 70's prog-rock analogue synthesizer kosmiche krautrock tangerine ass fucking dream stuff shows that your musical knowledge is pretty much non-existent.
for the record, this is probably the most popular, mainstream-conscious electronic dance song of the 1970's. it sounds like the above dubstep track how, exactly? yet you say you're "not hearing anything in it that wasn't in the 70's". do you not have ears? jesus h. christ.
Spice Girls characterised an entire decade? Wow. I'd say hardly.
I guess the Kraftwerk track has a bit of tune to it which marks it out from dubstep, otherwise dubstep really just isn't that special or original.
TBH You sound like the typical angsty teen who screams about his generations variant of electronic doof-doof music being the most original the world has seen or ever will see as he slams the door on his black-ceilinged bedroom.
Music is subjective just like art. Yes she's talented and catchy but I don't like her music or any other kind of pop music for that matter but that's just my opnion and millions of people would disagree with me. Despite her success and bat shit crazy videos she's not original or inventive though, every ten years or so someone comes along to "shock" their generation. Cher did it, Madonna did it and now Lady Gaga is doing it.
i dunno, steelie... she's a great performer and a good musician, but all very strictly in the mode of pop music. she can play piano, dance, dress-up and act a character... she has graduated from all the top performing schools of pop music, and is adept at all the 'pop arts', roughly speaking. do you really think she could go alone as a pianist or a soul singer or whatever, though, without the ridiculous appearance and 'image' and dancing and shock-music videos? she's a product of the pop industry. if i wanted to listen to good piano/singer-songwriting, i wouldn't go to gaga.
interesting point... could she do it without the over the top image and crazy videos? unfortunately, we'll never know. i'm not exactly drawing any comparisons to elton john or stevie wonder, as she is a pop industry product through and through. but i will say there is definitely talent there, i bet she's around for longer than the usual pop trash. the madonna comparison is a good one, guess you could say she's the best right now of the limited offerings of the pop genre.
the madonna comparison is a good one, guess you could say she's the best right now of the limited offerings of the pop genre.
Agreed. Her voice does stand out amongst the talentless hordes with Autotune but without the clothes, make-up and stage antics her voice is mediocre at best. In pop however things other than vocals can be just as important.
i wouldn't say her voice is mediocre. the reason i posted the live performance from howard stern is to show that she actually does have a good, non-autotuned voice. its a shame she is a product of the pop industry, i would have liked to have seen what she could do on her own.
