For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
treaclefingers
I like "the Cave"
Quote
crholmstrom
& they really need to get off of my lawn!
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
RollingFreak
You're not missing anything. Honestly, and I don't mean to just crap on new music, but they are no different than the long line of people from the last 15 years that get praised. Whether it be for hip hop or country or rock or pop, a certain artist will get a surge for like a 3 year period and then they're gone. Or not gone but certainly much less famous and not playing with people like Bob Dylan anymore.
Or you get people like Gaga, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Kanye West. You're not missing anything there either, but for some reason they continue to stay huge. There's really no rhyme or reason to the music industry these days and I don't think thats being cynical. If someone would like to explain to me how I'm wrong I'd welcome it, cause I truly can't explain why what is "big" today is big.
Thing is I like Gaga, Katy Perry, Rihanna etc.. for what they are. But they aren't being ushered onto stages with Emmylou Harris or Dylan or Springsteen. These older artist get all excited because someone plays acoustic instruments, but it has to mean something, doesn't it?
Quote
24FPS
Don't include Lady Gaga with the talentless others. She's multi-faceted, can cross genres (successfully), and I'll bet she's around for many years.
There's the same thing there that was there with Madonna. I actually don't hate Gaga, but I see no reason she's different than Katy Perry or Taylor Swift. Gaga relies on shock value, despite actually being a credible songwriter. Her songs are ruined by her production, which she clearly wants cause she releases them that way, even though they are good songs when she just performs them straight. She does the same PR BS that all the others do. Just because she's a little bit more outrageous doesn't make her different. On the complete other spectrum, Taylor Swift is an innocent kitten. But many would say she's everything you described Gaga as. So either you have to discount all of them, or they are all fair game. I see no difference in any of them. But as always, if I'm wrong (which I usually am) I would love to know why.Quote
stupidguy2Quote
24FPS
Don't include Lady Gaga with the talentless others. She's multi-faceted, can cross genres (successfully), and I'll bet she's around for many years.
Agree. As you said before about Zep and others...there is something there..
Quote
RollingFreakThere's the same thing there that was there with Madonna. I actually don't hate Gaga, but I see no reason she's different than Katy Perry or Taylor Swift. Gaga relies on shock value, despite actually being a credible songwriter. Her songs are ruined by her production, which she clearly wants cause she releases them that way, even though they are good songs when she just performs them straight. She does the same PR BS that all the others do. Just because she's a little bit more outrageous doesn't make her different. On the complete other spectrum, Taylor Swift is an innocent kitten. But many would say she's everything you described Gaga as. So either you have to discount all of them, or they are all fair game. I see no difference in any of them. But as always, if I'm wrong (which I usually am) I would love to know why.Quote
stupidguy2Quote
24FPS
Don't include Lady Gaga with the talentless others. She's multi-faceted, can cross genres (successfully), and I'll bet she's around for many years.
Agree. As you said before about Zep and others...there is something there..
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
stupidguy2Quote
RollingFreak
You're not missing anything. Honestly, and I don't mean to just crap on new music, but they are no different than the long line of people from the last 15 years that get praised. Whether it be for hip hop or country or rock or pop, a certain artist will get a surge for like a 3 year period and then they're gone. Or not gone but certainly much less famous and not playing with people like Bob Dylan anymore.
Or you get people like Gaga, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Kanye West. You're not missing anything there either, but for some reason they continue to stay huge. There's really no rhyme or reason to the music industry these days and I don't think thats being cynical. If someone would like to explain to me how I'm wrong I'd welcome it, cause I truly can't explain why what is "big" today is big.
Thing is I like Gaga, Katy Perry, Rihanna etc.. for what they are. But they aren't being ushered onto stages with Emmylou Harris or Dylan or Springsteen. These older artist get all excited because someone plays acoustic instruments, but it has to mean something, doesn't it?
I don't think so, no. Because you know what, People like Gaga and Katy Perry DO get ushered onto stage by bigger older artists. Case in point, our Stones brought BOTH of them up on stage. I think the reason the acoustic guys get called up is because they are young and relevant, and they get called to play with legends and older artists to make those legends or older artists seem "relevant". The same reason the Stones invite people like Gaga and Katy Perry up. They don't like their music, but they are likely doing it for publicity, and in the case of the acoustic people, its most likely because someone (CBS for the Grammys, the CMA awards) insisted or set it up, not because the actual legend or older artist asked for it. Bob Dylan had no control whatsoever about who was getting brought up with him at the Grammys. The Grammys just thought Mumford was somewhat in Dylan's wheelhouse and they thought it would be good cross promotion and a way to get all demographics.
I don't think it has anything to do with "meaning something" but thats just me.
Quote
24FPSQuote
RollingFreakThere's the same thing there that was there with Madonna. I actually don't hate Gaga, but I see no reason she's different than Katy Perry or Taylor Swift. Gaga relies on shock value, despite actually being a credible songwriter. Her songs are ruined by her production, which she clearly wants cause she releases them that way, even though they are good songs when she just performs them straight. She does the same PR BS that all the others do. Just because she's a little bit more outrageous doesn't make her different. On the complete other spectrum, Taylor Swift is an innocent kitten. But many would say she's everything you described Gaga as. So either you have to discount all of them, or they are all fair game. I see no difference in any of them. But as always, if I'm wrong (which I usually am) I would love to know why.Quote
stupidguy2Quote
24FPS
Don't include Lady Gaga with the talentless others. She's multi-faceted, can cross genres (successfully), and I'll bet she's around for many years.
Agree. As you said before about Zep and others...there is something there..
She's different because her songs have depth. And what's wrong with her productions? Poker Face was a fantastic, world wide smash. PR BS? Please. That's rock and roll. Little Richard, Mick Jagger when he was androgynous, David Bowie, they all used PR BS. Just because a woman uses it doesn't mean the same rules don't apply. Lady Gaga just did an album of duets with Tony Bennet. You think Katy Perry, or Taylor Swift could pull that off? I'm not saying I like all of Gaga's stuff, but she's more of an artist than those others mentioned, or even Madonna herself. Cheers.
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
24FPSQuote
RollingFreakThere's the same thing there that was there with Madonna. I actually don't hate Gaga, but I see no reason she's different than Katy Perry or Taylor Swift. Gaga relies on shock value, despite actually being a credible songwriter. Her songs are ruined by her production, which she clearly wants cause she releases them that way, even though they are good songs when she just performs them straight. She does the same PR BS that all the others do. Just because she's a little bit more outrageous doesn't make her different. On the complete other spectrum, Taylor Swift is an innocent kitten. But many would say she's everything you described Gaga as. So either you have to discount all of them, or they are all fair game. I see no difference in any of them. But as always, if I'm wrong (which I usually am) I would love to know why.Quote
stupidguy2Quote
24FPS
Don't include Lady Gaga with the talentless others. She's multi-faceted, can cross genres (successfully), and I'll bet she's around for many years.
Agree. As you said before about Zep and others...there is something there..
She's different because her songs have depth. And what's wrong with her productions? Poker Face was a fantastic, world wide smash. PR BS? Please. That's rock and roll. Little Richard, Mick Jagger when he was androgynous, David Bowie, they all used PR BS. Just because a woman uses it doesn't mean the same rules don't apply. Lady Gaga just did an album of duets with Tony Bennet. You think Katy Perry, or Taylor Swift could pull that off? I'm not saying I like all of Gaga's stuff, but she's more of an artist than those others mentioned, or even Madonna herself. Cheers.
I completely disagree. Just because they haven't doesn't mean they couldn't. There's nothing that suggests something like Perry or Swift couldn't do everything Gaga is doing. They just aren't. I actually follow them more closely than you might think. Katy Perry's latest album had a lot of "spiritual" type of songs, which is something I'm not hearing many other places. And Swift is total country that also proved she can do pop with the best of them with her new album. Again, none of these artists I particularly like, but they've all proved they aren't one note, the same way Gaga isn't. To say that Gaga's songs have depth and someone like Taylor Swift's doesn't is to me, frankly, completely one sided. Many say Swift is the most honest songwriter out there nowadays.
What I'm basically getting at is I think people like Katy Perry and Taylor Swift have let the music do more of the talking. With Gaga, there's always some sort of spectacle. The same way Madonna had that. Gaga never truly lets the songs just speak for themselves, except in very few cases. She's always either singing it naked or she's having people throw up on her (you know, for art), while there are multiple examples of others just doing stark performances, and on award shows no less where its all about spectacle. I'm not saying Gaga doesn't have any talent. Obviously she does and she obviously has very wide tastes, to be into people like Springsteen and the Stones and KISS and still doing an album with Tony Bennett. But I don't see any reason the others couldn't do that (they just haven't) and I've seen a lot more of Gaga making a spectacle of herself for publicity sake than for musical/artistic decisions.
I get PR and I get Bowie and Jagger always played that up when they were younger. But the bottom line is the music also did the talking, and taking out the fact that I like their music and not hers, I've rarely seen Gaga just let that happen. Whereas I would argue Bowie and Jagger let that happen a number of times. I do personally think you're making her out to be more important than she actually is, when aside from the outrageous stunts, she's truly no different than any of the other pop stars out there today. And I don't know why Gaga people have so much trouble just admitting that.
Quote
RollingFreak
I get that its silly, but I personally don't feel there's an honest reason why Lady Gaga has so much more artistic integrity than someone like Katy Perry. What, just cause she's extreme and takes risks means she's the premiere "artist" of the decade? Thats as much blind praise as the general public anoint her with just because they're shocked. When you look at the facts, she's truly not that different than her peers. And I see you point out Perry but completely ignore Swift. I suppose because she does have integrity but that hurts your argument so let's not bring it up?
Again, show me how she has more artistic integrity and I'll gladly be fair and see your point. But I've listened to this woman's interviews, I've watched her performances, I've listened to hear music. I don't for one second see how she's any different than the other pop stars of today. She's edgier and more outrageous (which to me doesn't equal integrity), and has on one occasion acted on one of her more atypical influences with Bennett. Otherwise, she does the same overblown stage show as everyone else, she has as many "co-writers" on her songs as everyone else, and she makes herself a spectacle just like every other female pop star these days. She hasn't advanced music or set trends in the way Madonna did, the same way none of today's pop stars have made great strides. I just struggle to see how she's any different, besides all the critics saying she is.
Quote
24FPS
I thought this was about some crappy hipster 'Americana' posers, but okay, here's Lady Gaga doing something beyond what her contemporaries are capable of. (IMHO)
[youtu.be]
Quote
treaclefingers
don't take my lack of effort in typing in an 'extra' name as anything more than I was too lazy. It was 'swifter' this way.
Quote
latebloomer
I was just talking to my Nashville friend about this trend. She's heavily involved in the music scene there and says that Americana is the new bandwagon that a lot of musicians want to jump onto. She doesn't see it lasting long. It's like when the movie O Brother Where Art Thou came out. The soundtrack was heeped with praise, won all kinds of awards, and was bought by everyone. I wonder how many people listened to it more than once. The trend is not a bad one, there could be and have been worse, but I don't see it lasting very long either. It also goes along with the bearman trend, a backlash to the metrosexual look. Hence the appeal to young girls who often want to chase the latest thing.
Quote
flacnvinyl
Mumford & Sons' first album hit a chord. Folksy, good lyrics, and songs that sound like they would fit well in a hole-in-the-wall pub in Scotland.
Quote
mrpaulincanada
I must admit I don't get the M&S bandwagon....
We in Canada have had to tolerate the Bare Naked Ladies sort of a 90s and 00s Canadian version of M&S....faux hispters writing unbelievably lame pop songs...
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
mrpaulincanada
I must admit I don't get the M&S bandwagon....
We in Canada have had to tolerate the Bare Naked Ladies sort of a 90s and 00s Canadian version of M&S....faux hispters writing unbelievably lame pop songs...
if I had a million dollars i'd buy up all their albums and store them in a secure facility so that no one would ever have to listen to them again.