Would you have been as offended if it were said about someone else?
Yes. Well, unless it were an actual man, obviously.
I mean, I certainly wasn't embarrassed about saying anything I said.
I can't say I'm shocked.
Since when has there been any regulations on what you can and cannot say about celebrities?
Technically since the site's inception since the "other forms of communication that lack the manners and decency needed when posting on this forum" clause has been a part of the flaming rules since the original iteration of the Forum Rules, if I'm not mistaken. If it wasn't in there in 2005, it certainly was by 2006.
But when did that pertain to celebrities in particular? It probably started with the Anna Nicole Death thread, but there have been instances since. My personal stance is that it's perfectly fine to be critical of a celeb or otherwise make a point about them and their behavior, but it's decidedly less okay to take potshots at them and insult them. I mean, clearly they aren't likely to see you insulting them, but there's still no need of it. Rude, crass behavior isn't any more acceptable just because the target is a celebrity.
I could only assume that you took offense to this because you're a personal fan. And that's totally fine, your welcome to your opinion (as I am welcome to mine ) I'm not calling you out for that or anything.
No, I'm not a personal fan of Gaga's. I think she's an impeccable artist with real musical talent (seeing her play piano really seals that deal) with a stage presence and style one can't help respecting. But I don't consider myself a fan.
I called out your behavior because I found it irritating and distinctly more pointed at disparaging the person rather than criticize for valid reasons.
Yes, I am making disparaging remarks towards Lady Gaga. I never said I wasn't. I said that I wasn't in any way trying to make disparaging remarks about the transgendered community in general. I have absolutely no problem with people living and expressing themselves in any way they choose, providing that way of life doesn't infringe on any other persons way of life. I think it's beautiful when people are courageous to be themselves no matter what.
But the fact that Lady Gaga is considered some sort of second coming just drives me nuts. I can't even tell the difference between any of his crap and any other random song by Katey Perry, or Rihanna or Black Eyed Peas or Kesha or whatever else. It's not as if it's something innovative or fresh. It's just more of the same generic, dime a dozen pop drivel. And don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those fat dorks with a slipknot t-shirt on going on about how all pop music sucks. I can dig some pop. I loved MJ since I first heard Thriller back in 85 or so. I like Tatu and Aqua. Some of it's kind of fun.
But the passed decade (especially the passed few years) has just brought some of the most generic and awful music to come out in forever.
And again, I totally understand it's all opinion, I never said it wasn't (feel free to check my previous posts). But I still stand by my statement, that a lot (again, not everyone) of people do base much of their opinion, solely on what they're told to feel by the mass media and this covers the printed news, radio, television, magazine, internet, etc....
And I do think that unlike artists of the past, that had to rely more on airplay and touring and actually putting together a solid album and just hope that their talent would be enough to get people to like them. A lot of today's music is basically just a product and is advertised as such. No different than pepsi or the new motarola phone.
And you can't really be telling me that Kesha and Lady Gaga aren't marketed to a young audience?! For christ's sakes they're on the cover of every single teen magazine, month after month. Katie Perry was on friggin Sesame Street. And again, I'm certainly not the uptight type, but I think it's pretty short sighted to really believe they're not being marketed to children.
And no, of course I don't get my info or opinion from the mainstream media. I get it from my environment and the people I talk to. If I were to bring up Miley Cyrus I'd be met with a chorus of "Oh, she's a ☺☺☺☺ now. TMZ showed me a video of her smoking salvia on TV, she's a bad influence, she's gross, she's awful". If I were to mention Kesha, i'd likely get something like "Oh, she's not so bad. Have you heard hew new song, it's totally catchy".
Of course it's all opinion, and my opinion is that people let too much of their opinion be shaped by the media.
I'd like to point out that Lady Gaga has never been on a 'teen magazine' cover. Not sure what your definition of 'teen' is, exactly.
Saying you're not transphobic and then making transphobic remarks by implying that there would be something wrong with Lady Gaga being a transgendered woman, which, yes, is what you did by referring to her as a 'he' is completely hypocritical. If you do have respect for transgendered people, you will refer to them how they want to be referred to, not by the sex that you'd like to hold over their heads to shame them. Lady Gaga obviously lives her life as a female, regardless of whether or not she is transgendered, so it's very offensive to make remarks like that.
I don't know who I dislike more. Music elitists who act like their opinion is so great or people who get all in arms when their favorite mediocre artist is insulted.
That, or you're a preposterously extreme subjectivist. If you're willing to reject all art to play devil's advocate, then there is nothing left to debate.
Thank god someone else said it.
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." - Justice Potter Stuart
I think the same can be applied here. Sure, there is no objective measuring stick which can draw a perfectly visible line between bad music and good music, but to say there is no such thing as bad music versus good music is utter bull☺☺☺☺.
Lady Gaga is crap. Thats not debateable. She is a carbon copy of all the alice cooper shock rockers that have come before her. Yes I look down on you for liking her. She is not original in the least.
Want good music? Listen to Pucchini. Listen to the blues of Otis Talor. Listen to some bluegrass (but god, whatever you do, don't listen to modern country).
I typically try to discourage childish, embarrassing and disparaging behavior on these forums since we do strive to uphold a certain standard of maturity and conduct here. It's just this thing I do.
Said perfectly by the man with a pic of a dude rockin out with the emphasis of the photo on his junk.
I think the same can be applied here. Sure, there is no objective measuring stick which can draw a perfectly visible line between bad music and good music, but to say there is no such thing as bad music versus good music is utter bull☺☺☺☺.
Lady Gaga is crap. Thats not debateable. She is a carbon copy of all the alice cooper shock rockers that have come before her. Yes I look down on you for liking her. She is not original in the least.
Want good music? Listen to Pucchini. Listen to the blues of Otis Talor. Listen to some bluegrass (but god, whatever you do, don't listen to modern country).
If you look DOWN on people for liking Gaga, then you look down on a pretty large percentage of people in the western world. Why would you take it that far?
And I assume you mean Puccini and Otis Taylor.
And listening to "some" bluegrass is good in your mind. I guess any bluegrass will do... Doesn't matter who is performing. Just "some" bluegrass... Jeez.
Just out of curiosity, Do you actually listen to opera, or do you just know a few cool arias by Puccini? When you figured out you liked Puccini, what operas did you listen to and who were the singers? Sure it just wasn't the exceptional singer who dazzled you?
What objective argument can you make that Gaga is crap? So far your critique consists of claiming she resembles Alice Cooper. How about a comment about her actual vocal abilities or her musicianship? Do you actually know anything about music? It's rather obvious that something about her persona rubs you the wrong way, and you are willing to let that bother you enough to (1) argue that you can look down on people for liking her AND (2) make a stance that her music is objectively "crap" without making an actual case.
What objective argument can you make that Gaga is crap?
Okay, this isn't against you personally, it's against everyone throwing around the word "objective" when it comes to musical quality:
There is no objective way to say whether or not a band sucks or is awesome or is mediocre. What you are doing while saying a band/artist/movie/whatever is:
a) amazing
b) meh
c) a steaming pile of horse manure
is an opinion. Opinions cannot be objective. They can be educated and/or well thought out and articulated opinions, but please don't misuse the term objective.
If you look DOWN on people for liking Gaga, then you look down on a pretty large percentage of people in the western world. Why would you take it that far?
How is this relevant to anything? I'd really like to know how having a lot of people supporting something makes it valid.
Okay, this isn't against you personally, it's against everyone throwing around the word "objective" when it comes to musical quality:
There is no objective way to say whether or not a band sucks or is awesome or is mediocre. What you are doing while saying a band/artist/movie/whatever is:
a) amazing
b) meh
c) a steaming pile of horse manure
is an opinion. Opinions cannot be objective. They can be educated and/or well thought out and articulated opinions, but please don't misuse the term objective.
He's using it correctly. His implication was that objectively doing so is impossible.
Why do people like crap? Well, the PG rated answer is because some people have a certain liking towards certain secretions of the body that other people tend to stay away from. If you need any further information on this, ask someone who actually, well, "likes" said crap...no, but seriously.
But I think most country music is crap. Hell, let me be frank and say that I think most music is crap. I like music to have a purpose that can be applied to life or its understanding, not mindless garbage about sex and drugs and being overwhelmingly narcissistic.
Most music is crap, huh? You know, music can be written for the sake of being music, or for the very base purpose of enjoyment. In fact, the Classical era of music (1750-1825) is when people capitalized on the fact that their music was meant to entertain, and not always have a deep, moral or intellectual structure to it. It just so happened that the writers and masters of it at the time that are most remembered conveyed such messages.
Certainly, though, Mozart's violin sonatas can't hardly be applied to ANYONE's life-long understandings.
I disagree. I think that the problem with popular music isn't that it's simple, it's that it's devoid of any real meaning. Pop artists don't work hard to make great music, they shovel out a formula that appeals to people who don't think very deep about their music.
This couldn't be farther from the truth! Just because it's much easier to write music nowadays doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of thought and hard work that goes into them. See, that's where the "producers" come in.
Quincy Jones, while on the Colbert Report some time ago promoting his new book, gave an interesting quote: "If anything goes wrong on the song when it's sent to the masses, it's the producer's fault." Effectively, this means that your blaming the producers for how bad some songs are on today's radio. Producers go to great lengths, and the recording processes sometimes take months to perfect before sending to the masses.
And another thing, about "shoveling out a formula": there may be a certain structure that many songs follow nowadays, but that doesn't make them generic. Throughout music history, there have been periods like the Classical era where Sonata Form was written all the time. Likewise, in the Baroque era, it was all about Binary Form. They weren't looked down upon for being generic, that's just what was popular to write, and people loved it like they like the forms nowadays. If you hear something that goes in a Chorus-verse 1-chorus-verse 2-chorus-sweet sounding bridge-chorus, it's just the typical form of pop songs.
Can a person legitimately claim that Bethoven or Bach are objectively better musicians than William Hung? On what grounds?
Personally, I think not.
...Wow............um, ok. I will go into great lengths right now to prove that this is ENTIRELY possible and legitimate. To save space, though, I'll put it in a spoiler tag. You may read it if you please:
J.S. Bach wrote over 1000 pieces in his lifetime, the likes of which are all on record, so as not to say a fake number. He was an avid performer, allegedly the greatest organ player who ever lived. He was hired in three different cities throughout his life time where the majority of his composing and playing occurred: Weimar, Kothen, and Leipzig respectively. He pioneered writing music for organ that had never been written before, and provided pieces that are considered the most challenging in the repertoire even to this day for the cello, violin, viola da gamba, solo voice, flute, bassoon, piano, harpsichord, et. al. His influence spreads as far as every single composer who lived after him, and even some metal bands take his writings as inspiration for their own music.
Ludwig van Beethoven was a great player from the age of nine, and would become an established composer from his first works at the age of eleven. His influences were the likes of Mozart and Haydn, and he imitated their styles and techniques in many of his early compositions. However, in his later years, his symphonies and operas reflected great musical maturity, in that they expanded themselves from smaller orchestras to those that were more grand scale. These encompassed a whirlwind of emotion in every single one of his works given the extreme crises he faced in his lifetime, including many dear family members dying, and even his own slip towards alcoholism and deafness. Much like Bach, his influence reached nearly every composer after his lifetime, and still continue to influence many people today. Ever heard of neo-classical? Yeah, his works still show great influence in aspiring writers to this day. He, much like Bach, was seen as a period marker. His writings completely changed the world of music forever, again much like Bach.
William Hung is talentless, and that is the basis of his career. He makes money off of being completely terrible even though he seems to be trying his hardest. He has no influence and no credible factors to back up anything he does. In his famous American Idol audition, he claimed himself that he'd never had any musical training. Honestly, to say any more about him would give him more musical credit than he deserves.
So what have we learned? The fact of the matter is that Bach and Beethoven are infinitely better "musicians" than William Hung, because William Hung isn't a musician; he's an "entertainer". I understand the idea of opinions and objectivism, but there has to be a line drawn; and that line is drawn when you're saying that a talentless entertainer - which, again, is the basis of his fame in the first place - is a better musician than two musicians who, with their influence, changed the course of music forever.
Besides, I'd be willing to bet that even someone who is a die-hard William Hung fan would not dare say that he's a better "musician" than Beethoven or Bach. Even if they're not fans of the Classical or Baroque genres, they're not stupid.
And by the way, if anyone claims this whole argument is a moot point because it's a comparison of apples to oranges, then this whole thread is a moot point, so the joke's on you too!! (basically, no it's not...)
I don't know who I dislike more. Music elitists who act like their opinion is so great or people who get all in arms when their favorite mediocre artist is insulted.
Can they not be one in the same sometimes? Again, this is all objective if that's the central argument/defense in this thread. So basically, as has been stated before, this is a "one man's trash is another man's treasure" case. People may love someone who you think is a mediocre artist, and vice versa. If you insult their artist, they'll get in arms, believing their opinion is so great. Why do they think that? Simple: IT'S THEIR OPINION!!! Everyone thinks their opinions are so great; and if they don't, they're probably not very solid in their opinions in the first place.
Lady Gaga is crap. Thats not debateable. She is a carbon copy of all the alice cooper shock rockers that have come before her. Yes I look down on you for liking her. She is not original in the least.
Want good music? Listen to Pucchini. Listen to the blues of Otis Talor. Listen to some bluegrass (but god, whatever you do, don't listen to modern country).
The level of ignorance in this statement alone has moved me to say something that I feel needs to be said:
ATTENTION EVERYONE READING THIS THREAD!!! There seem to be many misconceptions about Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta. For those of you who don't know, she is actually a classically trained pianist, having been enrolled at the age of 17 at the Tisch School of the Arts at NYU. She withdrew from school during her sophomore to further pursue a career in popular music. Since then, she has achieved critical and fanatic acclaim, having released one album (with a promotional rerelease later on) which has already received awards as the best album of 2008/2010. Her fan base numbers in the tens of millions, and her album sales number around 12 million. Her music and compositions push modern music in a more avante-garde direction, pioneering intriguing visuals mixed with surprisingly lyrical music, despite the music of her piers seemingly being greatly inferior musically. Her bizarre public image has raised quite the controversy, as well as many people who dislike her. Let it be known that if you are someone who would rather belittle her success by claiming that what she does is not really music, than there is a definition for someone like you: hater.
If she was classically trained in piano, she shouldn't need to reduce herself to droning beats, repetitive lines in songs, and shock-rock tactics.
That being said, I love droning beats (Techno, anyone?) and shock-rock tactics.
At least she can write her own music. Let's talk about Kesh@ or however she spells it. How can someone possibly claim that this is good music, or that she has any talent whatsoever?
Good lord, I think I'd actually get a less harsh reaction if I posted a video of myself burning a Koran on a Muslim message board. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. It's as if Lady Gaga is Christ to you people. I'd be hard pressed to believe that you guys would still be so adamant to defend her a year or two from now when the media has told you to discard her and move on to the next generic piece of crap.
There's nothing wrong with being a fan, I've said that time and time again on here. It's just the way you people clearly deify her that just seems a little over the top. So she can play piano, lots of people can play well. I can certainly respect her talent in that area, but aside from that her music still sounds to me like the same generic crap that's been squirted out for the passed few years. For christ's sakes guys, she's not the next John Lennon.
I mean, check out these lil nuggets of Lady Gaga Wisdom.
"Only value the opinion of those that you respect; and anyone that you don’t respect, pay no mind to their opinion about you or anything else." - Lady Gaga
Is that not basically the very definition of close minded ignorance? Although, with all due respect, it does seem like many people here are indeed abiding by this mentality.
If what she meant was something like "Gurl, don't let them hatas get 2 you!" She certainly could have done a better job of wording it.
"Self love is the most powerful thing that you can offer from your own life." - Lady Gaga
Not kindness, not generosity, not knowledge or insight. "Self Love". That's the single most important thing anyone can offer society? I mean, I certainly understand it's important not hate yourself and to half enough self respect to be able to carry on through the day, but that's still a pretty friggin selfish statement.
We're clearly not dealing with friggin Ghandi here. I assure you this is just another dime a dozen pop star and you people won't give a crap about her by 2012.
@SilveryCord: No offense, but I'm going to have to either assume you're from a country that doesn't have teen magazines, or you've never once set foot in the magazine section of any given store in the passed 2 years. Lady Gaga has been on the cover of: J14, Tiger Beat, M, Seventeen, and Cosmogirl. And those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. It might actually be harder to name a teen magazine she HASN'T been on.
"Airplay" has what to do with talent? In the old days, studios determined what got played and what didn't.
Now anybody can go on youtube and become popular (e.g. Jackie Evancho) without having to sign with a studio or invest $10,000 for studio time & prayers for airplay. As much as I think Justin Bieber is not so talented, he got popular because little teens and tweens picked him (unlike Sean Cassidy or Lief Garrett back in the day, who had studios backing them)
Other than the fact that you don't like the music now, what evidence do you have that the old days were more about "talent being enough to get people to like them", than today?
Justin Bieber wasn't picked by teens. He was force fed to them through magazines and television telling them he's the next hot thing, just like Lady Gaga and everyone else of that Ilk. "Picked" would imply that he was some lil indie pop star playing at local malls and slowly amassed a huge following through word of mouth.
People didn't buy albums like Dark Side Of The Moon or Blonde on Blonde, because David Gilmour and Bob Dylan were super cuties specifically picked by marketing agents to appeal to a certain demographic.
That sort of hardcore mass media marketing wasn't as big back then. People actually had to work on making a real album in those days. Sure there's always been teen sensations and the lil pop mags and what not, but it wasn't as HUGE as it is today.
As for having a tin ear. I don't think it takes a tin ear to notice that much of todays popular music sounds pretty friggin similar. I mean I like a handful of death metal bands, but even I'd concede that a lot of them can sound similar, especially if it's not something you listen to often. Yes, a lot of today's music has the same "repetitive bass line over a catchy and repetitive chorus". I don't think it's just me that notices that a lot of it sounds the same.
All that being said, let's realize this is the internet. When in the history of EVER has anyone had a debate on the internet and actually had it end in "Oh, good point, that certainly changes the way I feel about the subject". We could go back and forth on this forever. I said my part, and you're free to disagree with it.
If she was classically trained in piano, she shouldn't need to reduce herself to droning beats, repetitive lines in songs, and shock-rock tactics.
You can dance to droning beats. She sings "unplugged" versions of her songs on talk shows and even in concert quite regularly and still sounds good ( by that I mean in tune, catchy, with spot on piano playing and quite a bit of improvisation ).
Repetitive lines are used in the refrain which is generally found in the vast majority of any vocal songs that are ever sold in the millions. Without a "hook" i doesnt sell. Other than "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", Can you think of a lot of vocal songs without a hook that ever sold a million copies in the last 50 years?
And those aren't the only songs on her albums. There are deeply personal songs on her albums without droning beats, and you shouldn't judge a musician solely by the tracks that sell the most.
As for the shock rock tactics, at least part of this is obviously promotion, and my wife and I concluded early on that not being gifted with traditionally pretty or cute looks (which you usually need to be in this industry to be a really successful female vocalist) may have pushed her down the route of "shock", much as Roy Orbison or Buddy Holly went with the glasses. But having subsequently heard a few of her interviews, I wonder if there's a message of "let your freak flag fly" to the nerds and unpopular of the world. I've noticed she really expresses gratitude towards the LGBT community that supported her a lot early on, and she is very empathetic towards the pain of being different and hiding who you are. Either way, promotion just gets you exposure. Today, when people can figure out ways to download all your songs for free, people have to really like your music to pay for it. If "shock & awe", repetitive lines, and droning beats were the key, George Michael's last gasp phase probably would have sold better.
That being said, I love droning beats (Techno, anyone?) and shock-rock tactics.
which sells the single to millions like you (and me.
But people choose HER droning beats and shock tactics. You can find tens of thousands of Droning beats and shocking singers on YouTube and facebook which you can download for free, but they like hers. And again, strip away any of her songs to her unplugged versions and most people still like them.
At least she can write her own music. Let's talk about Kesh@ or however she spells it. How can someone possibly claim that this is good music, or that she has any talent whatsoever?
ke$ha, whether it's good or bad music I won't debate, other than to say it's at least hit music in it's genre.
My personal impression is that ke$ha herself is competent but not exceptionally talented vocally ( range, pitch, or interesting vocal qualities ) or as a musician, but I could be wrong.
The image she sells on tick tock her big breakout hit (she sells the image of a calculatingly trashy teenager whose ready to get wasted and have sex with a stranger and wake up somewhere random ) rubs me the wrong way. In the video its the same thing only worse. But obviously good looking girls willing to tramp it up are a dime a dozen so she probably has SOME talent that made her stand out, or got her in good with Flo Rida and other talented musicians/producers.
Good lord, I think I'd actually get a less harsh reaction if I posted a video of myself burning a Koran on a Muslim message board. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. It's as if Lady Gaga is Christ to you people.
Exaggerate much? Come on. Nobody has defended her as anything other than a good musician. Nobody said she was the second coming of the Beatles, let alone Mohammed or Jesus Christ.
I'd be hard pressed to believe that you guys would still be so adamant to defend her a year or two from now when the media has told you to discard her and move on to the next generic piece of crap.
There's nothing wrong with being a fan, I've said that time and time again on here. It's just the way you people clearly deify her that just seems a little over the top. So she can play piano, lots of people can play well. I can certainly respect her talent in that area, but aside from that her music still sounds to me like the same generic crap that's been squirted out for the passed few years. For christ's sakes guys, she's not the next John Lennon.
And you can't judge the genre that you're listening to. Clearly you can't judge quality in this genre pop music, anymore than I can judge quality in improvisational jazz (which I really, really just can't stand, but I respect that some people like it, and there's all sorts of talent required, different genres and subgenres, and levels of quality).
Same for death metal. I can't judge who's good or bad in death metal. I find it boring thematically and musically, but I don't look down on people for listening to it, and I recognize that there is talent involved in it. Or maybe you feel the same way about death metal that you do about bluegrass: we all just need to listen to "some bluegrass" and find out what good music is.
I mean, check out these lil nuggets of Lady Gaga Wisdom.
"Only value the opinion of those that you respect; and anyone that you don’t respect, pay no mind to their opinion about you or anything else." - Lady Gaga
Is that not basically the very definition of close minded ignorance? Although, with all due respect, it does seem like many people here are indeed abiding by this mentality.
If what she meant was something like "Gurl, don't let them hatas get 2 you!" She certainly could have done a better job of wording it.
"Self love is the most powerful thing that you can offer from your own life." - Lady Gaga
Not kindness, not generosity, not knowledge or insight. "Self Love". That's the single most important thing anyone can offer society? I mean, I certainly understand it's important not hate yourself and to half enough self respect to be able to carry on through the day, but that's still a pretty friggin selfish statement.
(1) Those quotes are not "Gaga's commandments". They are quotes taken out of 100s of thousands of words she's had publicly recorded.
(2) They have to be taken in context, which is words to specifically inspire people who are being prejudged negatively by society. I heard almost the exact same words as a quote from Lawrence Fishburn's character to his son in "Boyz N the Hood" - I think the message is telling him not to respect an authority's opinion unless that authority respects him as an equal, i.e. don't internalize that lack of respect society gives him. Just from Gaga's other comments about being an outsider, and her big support for the LGBT community, I think those comments are talking to outcasts of all flavors and telling them not internalize society's lack of respect for them.
We're clearly not dealing with friggin Ghandi here. I assure you this is just another dime a dozen pop star and you people won't give a crap about her by 2012.
Justin Bieber wasn't picked by teens. He was force fed to them through magazines and television telling them he's the next hot thing, just like Lady Gaga and everyone else of that Ilk. "Picked" would imply that he was some lil indie pop star playing at local malls and slowly amassed a huge following through word of mouth.
Once again you have no idea what you're talking about.
Justin Bieber's family posted a video of himself singing a Ne-yo song, and his fan base grew from there. He had millions of total hits before he ever got on a major magazine or national television.
As for having a tin ear. I don't think it takes a tin ear to notice that much of todays popular music sounds pretty friggin similar. I mean I like a handful of death metal bands, but even I'd concede that a lot of them can sound similar, especially if it's not something you listen to often.
Yes, a lot of today's music has the same "repetitive bass line over a catchy and repetitive chorus". I don't think it's just me that notices that a lot of it sounds the same.
You don't like or carefully listen to much pop, so it should all sound similar to you.
Death metal sounds all like so much noise to me. But I'm not a fan. The shocking names of the bands and their outrageous antics and makeup seem right along the same alley of Gaga's shock style...
Good lord, I think I'd actually get a less harsh reaction if I posted a video of myself burning a Koran on a Muslim message board. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. It's as if Lady Gaga is Christ to you people. I'd be hard pressed to believe that you guys would still be so adamant to defend her a year or two from now when the media has told you to discard her and move on to the next generic piece of crap.
There's nothing wrong with being a fan, I've said that time and time again on here. It's just the way you people clearly deify her that just seems a little over the top. So she can play piano, lots of people can play well. I can certainly respect her talent in that area, but aside from that her music still sounds to me like the same generic crap that's been squirted out for the passed few years. For christ's sakes guys, she's not the next John Lennon.
I mean, check out these lil nuggets of Lady Gaga Wisdom.
"Only value the opinion of those that you respect; and anyone that you don’t respect, pay no mind to their opinion about you or anything else." - Lady Gaga
Is that not basically the very definition of close minded ignorance? Although, with all due respect, it does seem like many people here are indeed abiding by this mentality.
Nah, that's the very definition of confidence and belief in yourself. Shall I start listing the people who didn't give two figs to the people they didn't respect? The list would start with MLK, and move on from there. ☺☺☺☺, I don't give a fig to the opinion of those I don't respect. If a thousand morons disagree with me, that doesn't make me wrong, and it doesn't make them smart. It just means morons are numerous. It's no virtue to disagree with the majority, but it's no vice either.
Honestly, the major forms of 'deifying' that I see here (LOL) are that people are:
- Annoyed that you suggested transexuality is an extremely negative trait (random bigotry is not a musical criticism)
- Annoyed that you suggested she has no musical talent (as an objective measure, she has talent. Whether or not you enjoy the sound she makes with it is entirely another thing)
- Annoyed that people on these boards have suggested she's objectively crap with no evidence.
Besides the bigotry, the last is most damning to me. If you are to suggest that she is objectively crap, we require reasons. Cite how her music offers no new musical inspiration. Show how her overall performances bring nothing new to the genre. Demonstrate that she lacks musical or vocal talent. Because frankly speaking, I do not think that those objective standards are met. Her albums are not cliche to the point of offering nothing new. Are there past influences in her work? Of course. There are no totally original works. But I do not think that she objectively crap.
Now Ke$ha? That's objectively not groundbreaking art, and she's not shooting to produce groundbreaking art. She wants to produce catchy dance tunes, and whether or not she's succeeded is left to the listener - but the goal isn't to do something new or innovative in any way, and she doesn't. People may enjoy it, but there is nothing in it that is not cliche.
If this forum had Greasers, Phoenix, Commons and Semantics would be the leaders of the gang and every time they commented on something they would do a synchronized finger snap then smoke a cigarette.
If she was classically trained in piano, she shouldn't need to reduce herself to droning beats, repetitive lines in songs, and shock-rock tactics.
That being said, I love droning beats (Techno, anyone?) and shock-rock tactics.
At least she can write her own music. Let's talk about Kesh@ or however she spells it. How can someone possibly claim that this is good music, or that she has any talent whatsoever?
It's simply a matter of how she chooses to convey her message/talents. First of all, she does do both, as there are numerous videos on the internet of her playing piano and singing normally; i.e., her acoustic version of Poker Face. This allows her to appeal to the pop crowd as well as the - and I use this term lightly - more 'musical' crowd.
As for Ke$ha...well, my opinions aside, she is purely an entertainer. She knows it, and her fans know it, and that's why they like her. Truly she is not doing ANYTHING musically unique in her songs, and she probably couldn't even if she tried.
Good lord, I think I'd actually get a less harsh reaction if I posted a video of myself burning a Koran on a Muslim message board. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. It's as if Lady Gaga is Christ to you people. I'd be hard pressed to believe that you guys would still be so adamant to defend her a year or two from now when the media has told you to discard her and move on to the next generic piece of crap.
There's nothing wrong with being a fan, I've said that time and time again on here. It's just the way you people clearly deify her that just seems a little over the top. So she can play piano, lots of people can play well. I can certainly respect her talent in that area, but aside from that her music still sounds to me like the same generic crap that's been squirted out for the passed few years. For christ's sakes guys, she's not the next John Lennon.
I mean, check out these lil nuggets of Lady Gaga Wisdom.
"Only value the opinion of those that you respect; and anyone that you don’t respect, pay no mind to their opinion about you or anything else." - Lady Gaga
Is that not basically the very definition of close minded ignorance? Although, with all due respect, it does seem like many people here are indeed abiding by this mentality.
If what she meant was something like "Gurl, don't let them hatas get 2 you!" She certainly could have done a better job of wording it.
"Self love is the most powerful thing that you can offer from your own life." - Lady Gaga
Not kindness, not generosity, not knowledge or insight. "Self Love". That's the single most important thing anyone can offer society? I mean, I certainly understand it's important not hate yourself and to half enough self respect to be able to carry on through the day, but that's still a pretty friggin selfish statement.
We're clearly not dealing with friggin Ghandi here. I assure you this is just another dime a dozen pop star and you people won't give a crap about her by 2012.
@SilveryCord: No offense, but I'm going to have to either assume you're from a country that doesn't have teen magazines, or you've never once set foot in the magazine section of any given store in the passed 2 years. Lady Gaga has been on the cover of: J14, Tiger Beat, M, Seventeen, and Cosmogirl. And those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. It might actually be harder to name a teen magazine she HASN'T been on.
[...]
All that being said, let's realize this is the internet. When in the history of EVER has anyone had a debate on the internet and actually had it end in "Oh, good point, that certainly changes the way I feel about the subject". We could go back and forth on this forever. I said my part, and you're free to disagree with it.
I apologize if I came off as harsh or overly-defensive in my post. I'm simply clarifying a few things about her to everyone, not just you. I'd just like to clarify the fact that you seem to think we idolize her. While that may be what many people do, I don't; I'm just defending my opinion of her music. There are plenty of songs/artists on the radio that I listen to solely for entertainment - i.e. Taio Cruz, Black Eyed Peas, Akon, and any overly-popular rapper to a certain degree - and those that I listen to for personally musical purposes - i.e. Usher because he can sing very well, Bruno Mars for the same reason as Usher, and Lady Gaga because she's one of the very, very, very few artists on pop radio that has any musical credibility to back her up.
As well, I'd like to personally distinguish myself - so as not to be marginalized any further - as a true fan of Lady Gaga. I don't listen to her because she's trendy (as stated above) but because I legitimately enjoy her music. As well, I'd be willing to bet I'll still be defending this position two years from now, and even ten years from now, because she's worth defending for me. (As well, I'm even trying to see her in concert when she comes to Atlanta in April. Whether or not I can afford the tickets by then is another story...)
Although, I'd love to just be done with this. I just wanted to clarify a few things.
Firstly, and it sucks that I have to say this for like the 4th time now. I'm not attacking the transgendered community, I'm not sure how specifically referring to Lady Gaga as a man somehow translate to putting down the entire transgendered community to you people. I'm gonna guess it has something to do with trying to come up with any excuse to discredit my point, but again at no time have I said ANYTHING remotely disparaging to the transgendered community and you people are clearly just pulling that out of your ass.
When I refer to Lady Gaga as a man, it isn't because I think there's something wrong with dressing up as or living as the opposite sex(as I said in previous posts that I'm sure people didn't pay attention to) I think it's beautiful and courageous to be who ever it is you truly feel you are inside and I'm even including furries here, I know a lot of people here have not yet been trained to accept furries and I'd like you all to think about that for a bit.
I say these things to specifically put down Lady Gaga, yes. And because I do still personally believe she might very well be a man. However if Lady Gaga had Christina Aquilera's looks and girl parts, I assure you I still would feel the same way I do.
As for the statement about "deifying", I certainly admit it's a little over the top. As is people's vehement and blind defense of this pop artist here.
Take these things into consideration. The topic clearly changed from "Why do people like crap" to "Why do people like Lady Gaga". Which admittedly is funny within itself.
However, on any other occasion, we all know MikeyG would have been on everyone's ass to "Stay on topic or infractions will be dealt out". Yet, this time somehow, the topic is allowed to run it's course. I'm gonna guess this statement has something to do with it.
Quote from {mikeyG} »
I think she's an impeccable artist with real musical talent (seeing her play piano really seals that deal) with a stage presence and style one can't help respecting.
I'm sure if I said something like:
"Paris Hilton is a needle nosed, talentless, daddy's little girl, druggie ☺☺☺☺ who the world would be better off without"
I wouldn't have the mods and the rest of the community coming at me in droves to her defense. And don't get me wrong, I don't actually feel that way myself. I think Paris is actually sorta pretty and thought she was great in Repo. But I'm just pointing out that people don't tend to defend the ones they're not told to let's just say "like at the time".
@Dcartist and Phoenix:
Oh come on, you can't right that crap off by saying "those aren't her commandments"! What the hell does that even mean? Clearly in her lil corporate product brain, those are divine words of wisdom she's passing on to her peers.
How is only listening to the side you like, the "Definition of self-respect". If anything, that's the definition of self-denial. I mean, certainly one shouldn't focus on every word that comes out of their detractors mouths, but to entirely ignore your critics just makes you weak and short-sighted.
And with that, let me ask you guys this question again. Can you truly say that you will feel this strongly about Lady Gaga by summer of 2012?
Yes Jolly, you have hit the nail on the head. The fact that you think it's a "put down" to say that someone is transgendered is exactly what we're all objecting to.
As for your Paris Hilton statements, I think they're totally over the top too. Is the point that you can be objectionable in all sorts of ways really what you're looking for?
Summary: Your statements are bigoted, your characterizations of the opposition you've encountered are wrong, and you are clearly attacking things no one is saying.
And, by the way, I do consider it completely right to ignore people whose opinions are worthless. When my opinion is something that the Christian Right disagrees with, this does not even pass my radar as something I should possibly be concerned about. I give their emissions the same consideration I give flatulence from a 6th grader, and I am as entirely unconcerned. Their opposition or approval could have no possible bearing on my opinion, except as they can express logical and well reasoned arguments (and if they could in any way consistently do that, I'd probably respect them).
If this forum had Greasers, Phoenix, Commons and Semantics would be the leaders of the gang and every time they commented on something they would do a synchronized finger snap then smoke a cigarette.
Yes Jolly, you have hit the nail on the head. The fact that you think it's a "put down" to say that someone is transgendered is exactly what we're all objecting to.
As for your Paris Hilton statements, I think they're totally over the top too. Is the point that you can be objectionable in all sorts of ways really what you're looking for?
Summary: Your statements are bigoted, your characterizations of the opposition you've encountered are wrong, and you are clearly attacking things no one is saying.
And, by the way, I do consider it completely right to ignore people whose opinions are worthless. When my opinion is something that the Christian Right disagrees with, this does not even pass my radar as something I should possibly be concerned about. I give their emissions the same consideration I give flatulence from a 6th grader, and I am as entirely unconcerned. Their opposition or approval could have no possible bearing on my opinion, except as they can express logical and well reasoned arguments (and if they could in any way consistently do that, I'd probably respect them).
Did you actually read anything I said, any of it at all?
Did you read what I said after the part about Paris Hilton? You know the part where I said I didn't feel that way and was just pointing out that many people only tend to be offended by what they're told to be offended by.
Did you have any response to what I said about furries? Do you have any response to what I said about you people not feeling this way a year from now?
I'm gonna go ahead and give up on trying to explain the whole "I'm not attacking the transgendered community" thing, as the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th times didn't work. I doubt the 5th time would.
I know that's not where I'm coming from and really, that's all that matters. Also, what points am I attacking that on one was saying? And why is this coming from the person who's baselessly calling me a bigot while ignoring EVERY OTHER STATEMENT I MADE TO THE CONTRARY?!
I've clearly offended you guys by attacking your god. I'm sure you'll all forgive me a year from now when you've moved on to the next.
Did you actually read anything I said, any of it at all?
Did you read what I said after the part about Paris Hilton? You know the part where I said I didn't feel that way and was just pointing out that many people only tend to be offended by what they're told to me offended by.
I'm gonna go ahead and give up on trying to explain the whole "I'm not attacking the transgendered community" thing, as the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th times didn't work. I doubt the 5th time would.
I know that's not where I'm coming from and really, that's all that matters.
I've clearly offended you guys by attacking your god. I'm sure you'll all forgive me a year from now when you've moved on to the next.
I worship nothing. I also have an open mind about art. I'm sorry these two characteristics offend you, oh wait, no I'm not. I'm honestly happy you're offended, you seem like the sort of person where when one has successfully offended them, one is far more likely to be doing something right than not.
I read what you wrote. I responded. You think it's a put down to call Lady Gaga transgendered. What that even has to do with her music, ignoring anything else, is questionable. I said that I would respond to your hypothetical treatment of Paris the same way I would to Lady Gaga. I said that the undue care and consideration you give to the opinion of idiots is totally unwarranted.
You apparently have taken this to mean that I worship her. I'm going to go out on a limb here and laugh at this opinion. Because its nonsense.
If this forum had Greasers, Phoenix, Commons and Semantics would be the leaders of the gang and every time they commented on something they would do a synchronized finger snap then smoke a cigarette.
I worship nothing. I also have an open mind about art. I'm sorry these two characteristics offend you, oh wait, no I'm not. I'm honestly happy you're offended, you seem like the sort of person where when one has successfully offended them, one is far more likely to be doing something right than not.
I read what you wrote. I responded. You think it's a put down to call Lady Gaga transgendered. What that even has to do with her music, ignoring anything else, is questionable. I said that I would respond to your hypothetical treatment of Paris the same way I would to Lady Gaga. I said that the undue care and consideration you give to the opinion of idiots is totally unwarranted.
You apparently have taken this to mean that I worship her. I'm going to go out on a limb here and laugh at this opinion. Because its nonsense.
With all due respect, I feel like I'm talking another language to you here. By attacking Lady Gaga, I've somehow come across as some kind of Westboro Baptist Church radical in your eyes. And you've based this on nothing more than me bad mouthing Lady Gaga.
You've ignored the parts where I said I didn't have any problem with being transgendered literally over half a dozen times now. And continue to just batter away at the issue, completely disregarding anything I say to the contrary. Am I not the only one who's seeing this here?
Regardless of that, let me try this again.
Did you read what I said about Paris Hilton after that statement, or did you just glaze over and jump straight to replying? What are your opinions on the furry community? And do you truly feel you will have this strong an opinion over this person a year from now?
With all due respect, I feel like I'm talking another language to you here. By attacking Lady Gaga, I've somehow come across as some kind of Westboro Baptist Church radical in your eyes. And you've based this on nothing more than me bad mouthing Lady Gaga.
You've ignored the parts where I said I didn't have any problem with being transgendered literally over half a dozen times now. And continue to just batter away at the issue, completely disregarding anything I say to the contrary. Am I not the only one who's seeing this here?
Regardless of that, let me try this again.
Did you read what I said about Paris Hilton after that statement, or did you just glaze over and jump straight to replying? What are your opinions on the furry community? And do you truly feel you will have this strong an opinion over this person a year from now?
I don't have a strong opinion on Lady Gaga right now. What I do have a strong opinion on is that your presented statements are narrow minded attacks.
You haven't come across as a Wesboro Baptist Church member. Honestly, all you've come across as is a particularly cocky 16 year old. It's nothing unusual, but I'm a decade past that and I'm not feeling particularly nostalgic. The fact that you have an opinion does not make you right. The fact that you've attacked others for not having the same opinion as you does grate. The fact that you've presented nothing resembling an objective set of criteria to back your opinion, just ranting and raving, makes it irritating in the extreme. The fact that you equate those who disagree with you with religious zealots moves from irritating into straight up angering.
Yes, being compared to a religious zealot and told I worship someone because I think that their work might have some artistic merit is a pretty ☺☺☺☺ing good way to anger me. Congrats. People have worked on that for entire threads in the Limited forum, and you did it in about two pages.
Your statement that the transgender remarks weren't a put down rings kinda false:
I say these things to specifically put down Lady Gaga, yes.
If you can present something objective as to your disagreements, knock yourself out. I doubt I will receive any. Just the same platitudes and the same half baked statements.
Will anyone remember her a year from now? Who knows? Who cares? Kafka died an unknown pauper. Artistic merit is not based on popular acknowledgment, nor is lack thereof.
If this forum had Greasers, Phoenix, Commons and Semantics would be the leaders of the gang and every time they commented on something they would do a synchronized finger snap then smoke a cigarette.
Although, I'd love to just be done with this. I just wanted to clarify a few things.
Firstly, and it sucks that I have to say this for like the 4th time now. I'm not attacking the transgendered community, I'm not sure how specifically referring to Lady Gaga as a man somehow translate to putting down the entire transgendered community to you people...
Deny it any way you like. I called you on it a while back, and its pointless to argue with you on it, so I haven't.
I say these things to specifically put down Lady Gaga, yes. And because I do still personally believe she might very well be a man.
She "might be" or you actually believe she "is"? Nobody takes your denials seriously, because nobody here believes you're being sincere about the reasons behind your "man" claims.
However if Lady Gaga had Christina Aquilera's looks and girl parts, I assure you I still would feel the same way I do.
And that says more about you than it does about Christina or Gaga.
As for the statement about "deifying", I certainly admit it's a little over the top. As is people's vehement and blind defense of this pop artist here.
Where does "blind" come into play here? Everybody who has argued with you has been quite specific in the scope of their comments about Gaga. You're the only one insisting on comparisons to Christ and whatnot.
Take these things into consideration. The topic clearly changed from "Why do people like crap" to "Why do people like Lady Gaga". Which admittedly is funny within itself.
Actually it's turned into JollytheOctopus digging in his heels and refusing to address the actual arguments put against him, and as a result, getting refuted by multiple posters who rarely agree with each other on topics.
However, on any other occasion, we all know MikeyG would have been on everyone's ass to "Stay on topic or infractions will be dealt out". Yet, this time somehow, the topic is allowed to run it's course. I'm gonna guess this statement has something to do with it.
I'm sure if I said something like:
"Paris Hilton is a needle nosed, talentless, daddy's little girl, druggie ☺☺☺☺ who the world would be better off without"
I wouldn't have the mods and the rest of the community coming at me in droves to her defense. And don't get me wrong, I don't actually feel that way myself. I think Paris is actually sorta pretty and thought she was great in Repo. But I'm just pointing out that people don't tend to defend the ones they're not told to let's just say "like at the time".
Now the victim card gets played. A mod disagrees with you and it's mods ganging up on you? Nice...
I'm glad that you feel "Paris is actually sorta pretty..." I'm glad that you feel such an opinion is incompatible with the label of "needle nosed, talentless, daddy's little girl, druggie ☺☺☺☺ who the world would be better off without".
Says a lot about you.
@Dcartist and Phoenix:
Oh come on, you can't right that crap off by saying "those aren't her commandments"! What the hell does that even mean?
It means that all comments have context, particularly when you're pulling quotes from a person who has thousands of words of quotation out there on the internet at this point.
Clearly in her lil corporate product brain, those are divine words of wisdom she's passing on to her peers.
How is only listening to the side you like, the "Definition of self-respect". If anything, that's the definition of self-denial. I mean, certainly one shouldn't focus on every word that comes out of their detractors mouths, but to entirely ignore your critics just makes you weak and short-sighted.
You're the one who's off topic. We've responded to your points, but they're really not relevant to whether Gaga's music is crap or not.
Even if we accepted your ludicrous contention about the meaning of those quotes, it would still be irrelevant to the topic.
And with that, let me ask you guys this question again. Can you truly say that you will feel this strongly about Lady Gaga by summer of 2012?
Yes, I can truly say that. Because while I like Gaga's music, and I think she's an intelligent person based on her interviews, I am not a huge fan or anything. I've downloaded a few of her tunes, I skipped her concert when it came by, and do not look at her as a source of life advice.
At this point, she seems like an intelligent, talented woman, with very catchy tunes, and a level of recent success that establishes the breadth of her appeal, but it's hard to say what the longevity or depth of her appeal is.
I doubt my perception will change by 2012.
How's your opinion of death metal and "any bluegrass music" changed in the last 2 years?
- This is why everybody here has a problem with you in this thread:
(1) You offend people by claiming that they "worship" Gaga or deify her, when all they do is make reasonable arguments about her. You lie and exaggerate. (2) You offend people when you claim that they only like Gaga because we are "told to" by the media. This is an insult to us. Not an insult to Gaga. (3) You offend people when you say you look down on people who like Gaga. How can people take that any other way?
You are unapologetically insulting, and now, you're playing the "victim" card and claiming that the mods are not treating you fairly?
@Dcartist: You're a racist. By calling Michael Jackson a pedophile, you're a racist. There's nothing you can say at this point to change my mind of this, I've called you out on it and as far as I'm concerned you're a member of the Klu-Klux-Klan.
And what arguments am I refusing to address? Please, tell me. It just seems like all I've been getting is "SHUT UP, YOU'RE A BIGGOT!!!".
Anytime I address anything I'm just told I'm off topic. People here were addressing many different aspects of Lady Gaga's all over personality. The fact that she supports this and that, the fact that she plays piano, and what not. However when I bring up quotes of hers, I'm told I'm going off topic and using them out of context.
Feel free to disregard the "christ" statements, as it seems you guys are gonna lock on to that one for dear life and not really see anything but that. I was fully aware that they're a bit over the top. As I said before, I personally felt everyone's reaction to this was over the top.
And how exactly am I playing the victim card? I said the mods usually handle these threads differently but it seems like in this case there is a bias towards the person being discussed here? How the hell does that have anything at all to do with playing the victim card? What did I say that implied I felt the mods were ganging up on me? Again, this just seems like another baseless statement made to just dismiss everything else that's been said.
What sucks is that as I said time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. We all know there's nothing I could say to change your minds at this point. As far as your concerned I'm this close minded, queer-hatin, bigot who don't much care for that sissy musack. It's unfortunate you feel this way, but I understand there's nothing I can do about it.
And alas, there's really not much more I can say that I haven't already said before, over and over and over again. Feel free to review my previous posts. Feel free to pay attention to the parts where I explained how I fully support the transgendered community. Aside from that, I don't really know what else to say. By all means though, if there's something you feel I haven't addressed that has nothing to do with me somehow being a bigot for not liking Lady Gaga, feel free to bring it to my attention.
And lastly, what do you both feel about the furry community? And please answer in some detail not just "Oh, they're cool".
Mark Rosewater always talks about magic design theory and how if you don't like a certain magic card, that's because it wasn't made for you. Spikes everywhere laugh at how terrible Krosan Cloudscraper is, yet Timmy down the street looks on in awe whenever the gigantic, seemingly unbeatable 13/13 is cast. Why such a huge difference in reaction? Krosan Cloudscraper was made specifically for Timmy.
It's the EXACT same thing with music.
Who's to say some music is crap and some isn't? Is Krosan Cloudscraper crap? Not to Timmy who has won every casual game that he has played it.
For example, who typically likes music by Lady Gaga?
- Girls (as a generalization)
- People in the mood for music they can dance to
- People in the mood for party music
If you don't fit into any of those catagories, you probably don't like Lady Gaga. And guess what, she's not making music for you! Those of you who want music with technical guitar riffs/deep lyrics/whatever, the people who just want party music don't like your music either!
I hate every song I have ever heard from Justin Beiber, but I respect the fact that I'm not supposed to like his music, the million of 13 year girls across the world are his target.
Everyone needs to chill out and understand that if you don't like a certain kind of music, that's fine, it wasn't made for you. There are tons of people out there that don't like your music either.
@SilveryCord: No offense, but I'm going to have to either assume you're from a country that doesn't have teen magazines, or you've never once set foot in the magazine section of any given store in the passed 2 years. Lady Gaga has been on the cover of: J14, Tiger Beat, M, Seventeen, and Cosmogirl. And those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. It might actually be harder to name a teen magazine she HASN'T been on.
.
Lady Gaga has not been on the covers of Seventeen or Cosmo Girl; at least the main versions. The installations of many magazines in other countries reuse photos that they purchase the rights to for their covers; so its possible that they purchased the rights to existing pictures in some foreign markets, but she has not posed for those magazines specifically, so its more of a case of them being interested in using her image because of her popularity. Likewise, J14 is a gossip magazine that uses paparazzi photos, Tiger Beat also, and I haven't been able to find an M magazine cover. Since your claim was that she was 'marketed' to a teen audience, I kind of find it suspect if you were trying to say that magazines simply using her image is her 'being marketed'. That's more like said magazines cashing in on her popularity.
Yes. Well, unless it were an actual man, obviously.
I can't say I'm shocked.
Technically since the site's inception since the "other forms of communication that lack the manners and decency needed when posting on this forum" clause has been a part of the flaming rules since the original iteration of the Forum Rules, if I'm not mistaken. If it wasn't in there in 2005, it certainly was by 2006.
But when did that pertain to celebrities in particular? It probably started with the Anna Nicole Death thread, but there have been instances since. My personal stance is that it's perfectly fine to be critical of a celeb or otherwise make a point about them and their behavior, but it's decidedly less okay to take potshots at them and insult them. I mean, clearly they aren't likely to see you insulting them, but there's still no need of it. Rude, crass behavior isn't any more acceptable just because the target is a celebrity.
No, I'm not a personal fan of Gaga's. I think she's an impeccable artist with real musical talent (seeing her play piano really seals that deal) with a stage presence and style one can't help respecting. But I don't consider myself a fan.
I called out your behavior because I found it irritating and distinctly more pointed at disparaging the person rather than criticize for valid reasons.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I'd like to point out that Lady Gaga has never been on a 'teen magazine' cover. Not sure what your definition of 'teen' is, exactly.
Saying you're not transphobic and then making transphobic remarks by implying that there would be something wrong with Lady Gaga being a transgendered woman, which, yes, is what you did by referring to her as a 'he' is completely hypocritical. If you do have respect for transgendered people, you will refer to them how they want to be referred to, not by the sex that you'd like to hold over their heads to shame them. Lady Gaga obviously lives her life as a female, regardless of whether or not she is transgendered, so it's very offensive to make remarks like that.
And, really, you had better çome up with a better insult if you want it to stick; Gaga has posed on magazines with a false ***** inside her pants and dressed as a man.
For all of your Magic art needs, check out my tumblr The Art of Magic.
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." - Justice Potter Stuart
I think the same can be applied here. Sure, there is no objective measuring stick which can draw a perfectly visible line between bad music and good music, but to say there is no such thing as bad music versus good music is utter bull☺☺☺☺.
Lady Gaga is crap. Thats not debateable. She is a carbon copy of all the alice cooper shock rockers that have come before her. Yes I look down on you for liking her. She is not original in the least.
Want good music? Listen to Pucchini. Listen to the blues of Otis Talor. Listen to some bluegrass (but god, whatever you do, don't listen to modern country).
Said perfectly by the man with a pic of a dude rockin out with the emphasis of the photo on his junk.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
And I assume you mean Puccini and Otis Taylor.
And listening to "some" bluegrass is good in your mind. I guess any bluegrass will do... Doesn't matter who is performing. Just "some" bluegrass... Jeez.
Just out of curiosity, Do you actually listen to opera, or do you just know a few cool arias by Puccini? When you figured out you liked Puccini, what operas did you listen to and who were the singers? Sure it just wasn't the exceptional singer who dazzled you?
What objective argument can you make that Gaga is crap? So far your critique consists of claiming she resembles Alice Cooper. How about a comment about her actual vocal abilities or her musicianship? Do you actually know anything about music? It's rather obvious that something about her persona rubs you the wrong way, and you are willing to let that bother you enough to (1) argue that you can look down on people for liking her AND (2) make a stance that her music is objectively "crap" without making an actual case.
Okay, this isn't against you personally, it's against everyone throwing around the word "objective" when it comes to musical quality:
There is no objective way to say whether or not a band sucks or is awesome or is mediocre. What you are doing while saying a band/artist/movie/whatever is:
a) amazing
b) meh
c) a steaming pile of horse manure
is an opinion. Opinions cannot be objective. They can be educated and/or well thought out and articulated opinions, but please don't misuse the term objective.
How is this relevant to anything? I'd really like to know how having a lot of people supporting something makes it valid.
For all of your Magic art needs, check out my tumblr The Art of Magic.
He's using it correctly. His implication was that objectively doing so is impossible.
Most music is crap, huh? You know, music can be written for the sake of being music, or for the very base purpose of enjoyment. In fact, the Classical era of music (1750-1825) is when people capitalized on the fact that their music was meant to entertain, and not always have a deep, moral or intellectual structure to it. It just so happened that the writers and masters of it at the time that are most remembered conveyed such messages.
Certainly, though, Mozart's violin sonatas can't hardly be applied to ANYONE's life-long understandings.
I lol'ed.
This couldn't be farther from the truth! Just because it's much easier to write music nowadays doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of thought and hard work that goes into them. See, that's where the "producers" come in.
Quincy Jones, while on the Colbert Report some time ago promoting his new book, gave an interesting quote: "If anything goes wrong on the song when it's sent to the masses, it's the producer's fault." Effectively, this means that your blaming the producers for how bad some songs are on today's radio. Producers go to great lengths, and the recording processes sometimes take months to perfect before sending to the masses.
And another thing, about "shoveling out a formula": there may be a certain structure that many songs follow nowadays, but that doesn't make them generic. Throughout music history, there have been periods like the Classical era where Sonata Form was written all the time. Likewise, in the Baroque era, it was all about Binary Form. They weren't looked down upon for being generic, that's just what was popular to write, and people loved it like they like the forms nowadays. If you hear something that goes in a Chorus-verse 1-chorus-verse 2-chorus-sweet sounding bridge-chorus, it's just the typical form of pop songs.
...Wow............um, ok. I will go into great lengths right now to prove that this is ENTIRELY possible and legitimate. To save space, though, I'll put it in a spoiler tag. You may read it if you please:
J.S. Bach wrote over 1000 pieces in his lifetime, the likes of which are all on record, so as not to say a fake number. He was an avid performer, allegedly the greatest organ player who ever lived. He was hired in three different cities throughout his life time where the majority of his composing and playing occurred: Weimar, Kothen, and Leipzig respectively. He pioneered writing music for organ that had never been written before, and provided pieces that are considered the most challenging in the repertoire even to this day for the cello, violin, viola da gamba, solo voice, flute, bassoon, piano, harpsichord, et. al. His influence spreads as far as every single composer who lived after him, and even some metal bands take his writings as inspiration for their own music.
Ludwig van Beethoven was a great player from the age of nine, and would become an established composer from his first works at the age of eleven. His influences were the likes of Mozart and Haydn, and he imitated their styles and techniques in many of his early compositions. However, in his later years, his symphonies and operas reflected great musical maturity, in that they expanded themselves from smaller orchestras to those that were more grand scale. These encompassed a whirlwind of emotion in every single one of his works given the extreme crises he faced in his lifetime, including many dear family members dying, and even his own slip towards alcoholism and deafness. Much like Bach, his influence reached nearly every composer after his lifetime, and still continue to influence many people today. Ever heard of neo-classical? Yeah, his works still show great influence in aspiring writers to this day. He, much like Bach, was seen as a period marker. His writings completely changed the world of music forever, again much like Bach.
William Hung is talentless, and that is the basis of his career. He makes money off of being completely terrible even though he seems to be trying his hardest. He has no influence and no credible factors to back up anything he does. In his famous American Idol audition, he claimed himself that he'd never had any musical training. Honestly, to say any more about him would give him more musical credit than he deserves.
So what have we learned? The fact of the matter is that Bach and Beethoven are infinitely better "musicians" than William Hung, because William Hung isn't a musician; he's an "entertainer". I understand the idea of opinions and objectivism, but there has to be a line drawn; and that line is drawn when you're saying that a talentless entertainer - which, again, is the basis of his fame in the first place - is a better musician than two musicians who, with their influence, changed the course of music forever.
Besides, I'd be willing to bet that even someone who is a die-hard William Hung fan would not dare say that he's a better "musician" than Beethoven or Bach. Even if they're not fans of the Classical or Baroque genres, they're not stupid.
And by the way, if anyone claims this whole argument is a moot point because it's a comparison of apples to oranges, then this whole thread is a moot point, so the joke's on you too!! (basically, no it's not...)
Can they not be one in the same sometimes? Again, this is all objective if that's the central argument/defense in this thread. So basically, as has been stated before, this is a "one man's trash is another man's treasure" case. People may love someone who you think is a mediocre artist, and vice versa. If you insult their artist, they'll get in arms, believing their opinion is so great. Why do they think that? Simple: IT'S THEIR OPINION!!! Everyone thinks their opinions are so great; and if they don't, they're probably not very solid in their opinions in the first place.
The level of ignorance in this statement alone has moved me to say something that I feel needs to be said:
ATTENTION EVERYONE READING THIS THREAD!!! There seem to be many misconceptions about Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta. For those of you who don't know, she is actually a classically trained pianist, having been enrolled at the age of 17 at the Tisch School of the Arts at NYU. She withdrew from school during her sophomore to further pursue a career in popular music. Since then, she has achieved critical and fanatic acclaim, having released one album (with a promotional rerelease later on) which has already received awards as the best album of 2008/2010. Her fan base numbers in the tens of millions, and her album sales number around 12 million. Her music and compositions push modern music in a more avante-garde direction, pioneering intriguing visuals mixed with surprisingly lyrical music, despite the music of her piers seemingly being greatly inferior musically. Her bizarre public image has raised quite the controversy, as well as many people who dislike her. Let it be known that if you are someone who would rather belittle her success by claiming that what she does is not really music, than there is a definition for someone like you: hater.
If she was classically trained in piano, she shouldn't need to reduce herself to droning beats, repetitive lines in songs, and shock-rock tactics.
That being said, I love droning beats (Techno, anyone?) and shock-rock tactics.
At least she can write her own music. Let's talk about Kesh@ or however she spells it. How can someone possibly claim that this is good music, or that she has any talent whatsoever?
I am petitioning to get players to stop complaining about mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause.
There's nothing wrong with being a fan, I've said that time and time again on here. It's just the way you people clearly deify her that just seems a little over the top. So she can play piano, lots of people can play well. I can certainly respect her talent in that area, but aside from that her music still sounds to me like the same generic crap that's been squirted out for the passed few years. For christ's sakes guys, she's not the next John Lennon.
I mean, check out these lil nuggets of Lady Gaga Wisdom.
"Only value the opinion of those that you respect; and anyone that you don’t respect, pay no mind to their opinion about you or anything else." - Lady Gaga
Is that not basically the very definition of close minded ignorance? Although, with all due respect, it does seem like many people here are indeed abiding by this mentality.
If what she meant was something like "Gurl, don't let them hatas get 2 you!" She certainly could have done a better job of wording it.
"Self love is the most powerful thing that you can offer from your own life." - Lady Gaga
Not kindness, not generosity, not knowledge or insight. "Self Love". That's the single most important thing anyone can offer society? I mean, I certainly understand it's important not hate yourself and to half enough self respect to be able to carry on through the day, but that's still a pretty friggin selfish statement.
We're clearly not dealing with friggin Ghandi here. I assure you this is just another dime a dozen pop star and you people won't give a crap about her by 2012.
@SilveryCord: No offense, but I'm going to have to either assume you're from a country that doesn't have teen magazines, or you've never once set foot in the magazine section of any given store in the passed 2 years. Lady Gaga has been on the cover of: J14, Tiger Beat, M, Seventeen, and Cosmogirl. And those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. It might actually be harder to name a teen magazine she HASN'T been on.
Justin Bieber wasn't picked by teens. He was force fed to them through magazines and television telling them he's the next hot thing, just like Lady Gaga and everyone else of that Ilk. "Picked" would imply that he was some lil indie pop star playing at local malls and slowly amassed a huge following through word of mouth.
People didn't buy albums like Dark Side Of The Moon or Blonde on Blonde, because David Gilmour and Bob Dylan were super cuties specifically picked by marketing agents to appeal to a certain demographic.
That sort of hardcore mass media marketing wasn't as big back then. People actually had to work on making a real album in those days. Sure there's always been teen sensations and the lil pop mags and what not, but it wasn't as HUGE as it is today.
As for having a tin ear. I don't think it takes a tin ear to notice that much of todays popular music sounds pretty friggin similar. I mean I like a handful of death metal bands, but even I'd concede that a lot of them can sound similar, especially if it's not something you listen to often. Yes, a lot of today's music has the same "repetitive bass line over a catchy and repetitive chorus". I don't think it's just me that notices that a lot of it sounds the same.
All that being said, let's realize this is the internet. When in the history of EVER has anyone had a debate on the internet and actually had it end in "Oh, good point, that certainly changes the way I feel about the subject". We could go back and forth on this forever. I said my part, and you're free to disagree with it.
Repetitive lines are used in the refrain which is generally found in the vast majority of any vocal songs that are ever sold in the millions. Without a "hook" i doesnt sell. Other than "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", Can you think of a lot of vocal songs without a hook that ever sold a million copies in the last 50 years?
And those aren't the only songs on her albums. There are deeply personal songs on her albums without droning beats, and you shouldn't judge a musician solely by the tracks that sell the most.
As for the shock rock tactics, at least part of this is obviously promotion, and my wife and I concluded early on that not being gifted with traditionally pretty or cute looks (which you usually need to be in this industry to be a really successful female vocalist) may have pushed her down the route of "shock", much as Roy Orbison or Buddy Holly went with the glasses. But having subsequently heard a few of her interviews, I wonder if there's a message of "let your freak flag fly" to the nerds and unpopular of the world. I've noticed she really expresses gratitude towards the LGBT community that supported her a lot early on, and she is very empathetic towards the pain of being different and hiding who you are. Either way, promotion just gets you exposure. Today, when people can figure out ways to download all your songs for free, people have to really like your music to pay for it. If "shock & awe", repetitive lines, and droning beats were the key, George Michael's last gasp phase probably would have sold better.
which sells the single to millions like you (and me.
But people choose HER droning beats and shock tactics. You can find tens of thousands of Droning beats and shocking singers on YouTube and facebook which you can download for free, but they like hers. And again, strip away any of her songs to her unplugged versions and most people still like them.
ke$ha, whether it's good or bad music I won't debate, other than to say it's at least hit music in it's genre.
My personal impression is that ke$ha herself is competent but not exceptionally talented vocally ( range, pitch, or interesting vocal qualities ) or as a musician, but I could be wrong.
The image she sells on tick tock her big breakout hit (she sells the image of a calculatingly trashy teenager whose ready to get wasted and have sex with a stranger and wake up somewhere random ) rubs me the wrong way. In the video its the same thing only worse. But obviously good looking girls willing to tramp it up are a dime a dozen so she probably has SOME talent that made her stand out, or got her in good with Flo Rida and other talented musicians/producers.
Exaggerate much? Come on. Nobody has defended her as anything other than a good musician. Nobody said she was the second coming of the Beatles, let alone Mohammed or Jesus Christ.
And you can't judge the genre that you're listening to. Clearly you can't judge quality in this genre pop music, anymore than I can judge quality in improvisational jazz (which I really, really just can't stand, but I respect that some people like it, and there's all sorts of talent required, different genres and subgenres, and levels of quality).
Same for death metal. I can't judge who's good or bad in death metal. I find it boring thematically and musically, but I don't look down on people for listening to it, and I recognize that there is talent involved in it. Or maybe you feel the same way about death metal that you do about bluegrass: we all just need to listen to "some bluegrass" and find out what good music is.
(1) Those quotes are not "Gaga's commandments". They are quotes taken out of 100s of thousands of words she's had publicly recorded.
(2) They have to be taken in context, which is words to specifically inspire people who are being prejudged negatively by society. I heard almost the exact same words as a quote from Lawrence Fishburn's character to his son in "Boyz N the Hood" - I think the message is telling him not to respect an authority's opinion unless that authority respects him as an equal, i.e. don't internalize that lack of respect society gives him. Just from Gaga's other comments about being an outsider, and her big support for the LGBT community, I think those comments are talking to outcasts of all flavors and telling them not internalize society's lack of respect for them.
Once again you have no idea what you're talking about.
Justin Bieber's family posted a video of himself singing a Ne-yo song, and his fan base grew from there. He had millions of total hits before he ever got on a major magazine or national television.
You don't like or carefully listen to much pop, so it should all sound similar to you.
Death metal sounds all like so much noise to me. But I'm not a fan. The shocking names of the bands and their outrageous antics and makeup seem right along the same alley of Gaga's shock style...
Nah, that's the very definition of confidence and belief in yourself. Shall I start listing the people who didn't give two figs to the people they didn't respect? The list would start with MLK, and move on from there. ☺☺☺☺, I don't give a fig to the opinion of those I don't respect. If a thousand morons disagree with me, that doesn't make me wrong, and it doesn't make them smart. It just means morons are numerous. It's no virtue to disagree with the majority, but it's no vice either.
Honestly, the major forms of 'deifying' that I see here (LOL) are that people are:
- Annoyed that you suggested transexuality is an extremely negative trait (random bigotry is not a musical criticism)
- Annoyed that you suggested she has no musical talent (as an objective measure, she has talent. Whether or not you enjoy the sound she makes with it is entirely another thing)
- Annoyed that people on these boards have suggested she's objectively crap with no evidence.
Besides the bigotry, the last is most damning to me. If you are to suggest that she is objectively crap, we require reasons. Cite how her music offers no new musical inspiration. Show how her overall performances bring nothing new to the genre. Demonstrate that she lacks musical or vocal talent. Because frankly speaking, I do not think that those objective standards are met. Her albums are not cliche to the point of offering nothing new. Are there past influences in her work? Of course. There are no totally original works. But I do not think that she objectively crap.
Now Ke$ha? That's objectively not groundbreaking art, and she's not shooting to produce groundbreaking art. She wants to produce catchy dance tunes, and whether or not she's succeeded is left to the listener - but the goal isn't to do something new or innovative in any way, and she doesn't. People may enjoy it, but there is nothing in it that is not cliche.
It's simply a matter of how she chooses to convey her message/talents. First of all, she does do both, as there are numerous videos on the internet of her playing piano and singing normally; i.e., her acoustic version of Poker Face. This allows her to appeal to the pop crowd as well as the - and I use this term lightly - more 'musical' crowd.
As for Ke$ha...well, my opinions aside, she is purely an entertainer. She knows it, and her fans know it, and that's why they like her. Truly she is not doing ANYTHING musically unique in her songs, and she probably couldn't even if she tried.
I apologize if I came off as harsh or overly-defensive in my post. I'm simply clarifying a few things about her to everyone, not just you. I'd just like to clarify the fact that you seem to think we idolize her. While that may be what many people do, I don't; I'm just defending my opinion of her music. There are plenty of songs/artists on the radio that I listen to solely for entertainment - i.e. Taio Cruz, Black Eyed Peas, Akon, and any overly-popular rapper to a certain degree - and those that I listen to for personally musical purposes - i.e. Usher because he can sing very well, Bruno Mars for the same reason as Usher, and Lady Gaga because she's one of the very, very, very few artists on pop radio that has any musical credibility to back her up.
As well, I'd like to personally distinguish myself - so as not to be marginalized any further - as a true fan of Lady Gaga. I don't listen to her because she's trendy (as stated above) but because I legitimately enjoy her music. As well, I'd be willing to bet I'll still be defending this position two years from now, and even ten years from now, because she's worth defending for me. (As well, I'm even trying to see her in concert when she comes to Atlanta in April. Whether or not I can afford the tickets by then is another story...)
Firstly, and it sucks that I have to say this for like the 4th time now. I'm not attacking the transgendered community, I'm not sure how specifically referring to Lady Gaga as a man somehow translate to putting down the entire transgendered community to you people. I'm gonna guess it has something to do with trying to come up with any excuse to discredit my point, but again at no time have I said ANYTHING remotely disparaging to the transgendered community and you people are clearly just pulling that out of your ass.
When I refer to Lady Gaga as a man, it isn't because I think there's something wrong with dressing up as or living as the opposite sex(as I said in previous posts that I'm sure people didn't pay attention to) I think it's beautiful and courageous to be who ever it is you truly feel you are inside and I'm even including furries here, I know a lot of people here have not yet been trained to accept furries and I'd like you all to think about that for a bit.
I say these things to specifically put down Lady Gaga, yes. And because I do still personally believe she might very well be a man. However if Lady Gaga had Christina Aquilera's looks and girl parts, I assure you I still would feel the same way I do.
As for the statement about "deifying", I certainly admit it's a little over the top. As is people's vehement and blind defense of this pop artist here.
Take these things into consideration. The topic clearly changed from "Why do people like crap" to "Why do people like Lady Gaga". Which admittedly is funny within itself.
However, on any other occasion, we all know MikeyG would have been on everyone's ass to "Stay on topic or infractions will be dealt out". Yet, this time somehow, the topic is allowed to run it's course. I'm gonna guess this statement has something to do with it.
I'm sure if I said something like:
"Paris Hilton is a needle nosed, talentless, daddy's little girl, druggie ☺☺☺☺ who the world would be better off without"
I wouldn't have the mods and the rest of the community coming at me in droves to her defense. And don't get me wrong, I don't actually feel that way myself. I think Paris is actually sorta pretty and thought she was great in Repo. But I'm just pointing out that people don't tend to defend the ones they're not told to let's just say "like at the time".
@Dcartist and Phoenix:
Oh come on, you can't right that crap off by saying "those aren't her commandments"! What the hell does that even mean? Clearly in her lil corporate product brain, those are divine words of wisdom she's passing on to her peers.
How is only listening to the side you like, the "Definition of self-respect". If anything, that's the definition of self-denial. I mean, certainly one shouldn't focus on every word that comes out of their detractors mouths, but to entirely ignore your critics just makes you weak and short-sighted.
And with that, let me ask you guys this question again. Can you truly say that you will feel this strongly about Lady Gaga by summer of 2012?
As for your Paris Hilton statements, I think they're totally over the top too. Is the point that you can be objectionable in all sorts of ways really what you're looking for?
Summary: Your statements are bigoted, your characterizations of the opposition you've encountered are wrong, and you are clearly attacking things no one is saying.
And, by the way, I do consider it completely right to ignore people whose opinions are worthless. When my opinion is something that the Christian Right disagrees with, this does not even pass my radar as something I should possibly be concerned about. I give their emissions the same consideration I give flatulence from a 6th grader, and I am as entirely unconcerned. Their opposition or approval could have no possible bearing on my opinion, except as they can express logical and well reasoned arguments (and if they could in any way consistently do that, I'd probably respect them).
Did you actually read anything I said, any of it at all?
Did you read what I said after the part about Paris Hilton? You know the part where I said I didn't feel that way and was just pointing out that many people only tend to be offended by what they're told to be offended by.
Did you have any response to what I said about furries? Do you have any response to what I said about you people not feeling this way a year from now?
I'm gonna go ahead and give up on trying to explain the whole "I'm not attacking the transgendered community" thing, as the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th times didn't work. I doubt the 5th time would.
I know that's not where I'm coming from and really, that's all that matters. Also, what points am I attacking that on one was saying? And why is this coming from the person who's baselessly calling me a bigot while ignoring EVERY OTHER STATEMENT I MADE TO THE CONTRARY?!
I've clearly offended you guys by attacking your god. I'm sure you'll all forgive me a year from now when you've moved on to the next.
I worship nothing. I also have an open mind about art. I'm sorry these two characteristics offend you, oh wait, no I'm not. I'm honestly happy you're offended, you seem like the sort of person where when one has successfully offended them, one is far more likely to be doing something right than not.
I read what you wrote. I responded. You think it's a put down to call Lady Gaga transgendered. What that even has to do with her music, ignoring anything else, is questionable. I said that I would respond to your hypothetical treatment of Paris the same way I would to Lady Gaga. I said that the undue care and consideration you give to the opinion of idiots is totally unwarranted.
You apparently have taken this to mean that I worship her. I'm going to go out on a limb here and laugh at this opinion. Because its nonsense.
With all due respect, I feel like I'm talking another language to you here. By attacking Lady Gaga, I've somehow come across as some kind of Westboro Baptist Church radical in your eyes. And you've based this on nothing more than me bad mouthing Lady Gaga.
You've ignored the parts where I said I didn't have any problem with being transgendered literally over half a dozen times now. And continue to just batter away at the issue, completely disregarding anything I say to the contrary. Am I not the only one who's seeing this here?
Regardless of that, let me try this again.
Did you read what I said about Paris Hilton after that statement, or did you just glaze over and jump straight to replying? What are your opinions on the furry community? And do you truly feel you will have this strong an opinion over this person a year from now?
I don't have a strong opinion on Lady Gaga right now. What I do have a strong opinion on is that your presented statements are narrow minded attacks.
You haven't come across as a Wesboro Baptist Church member. Honestly, all you've come across as is a particularly cocky 16 year old. It's nothing unusual, but I'm a decade past that and I'm not feeling particularly nostalgic. The fact that you have an opinion does not make you right. The fact that you've attacked others for not having the same opinion as you does grate. The fact that you've presented nothing resembling an objective set of criteria to back your opinion, just ranting and raving, makes it irritating in the extreme. The fact that you equate those who disagree with you with religious zealots moves from irritating into straight up angering.
Yes, being compared to a religious zealot and told I worship someone because I think that their work might have some artistic merit is a pretty ☺☺☺☺ing good way to anger me. Congrats. People have worked on that for entire threads in the Limited forum, and you did it in about two pages.
Your statement that the transgender remarks weren't a put down rings kinda false:
If you can present something objective as to your disagreements, knock yourself out. I doubt I will receive any. Just the same platitudes and the same half baked statements.
Will anyone remember her a year from now? Who knows? Who cares? Kafka died an unknown pauper. Artistic merit is not based on popular acknowledgment, nor is lack thereof.
She "might be" or you actually believe she "is"? Nobody takes your denials seriously, because nobody here believes you're being sincere about the reasons behind your "man" claims.
And that says more about you than it does about Christina or Gaga.
Where does "blind" come into play here? Everybody who has argued with you has been quite specific in the scope of their comments about Gaga. You're the only one insisting on comparisons to Christ and whatnot.
Actually it's turned into JollytheOctopus digging in his heels and refusing to address the actual arguments put against him, and as a result, getting refuted by multiple posters who rarely agree with each other on topics.
Now the victim card gets played. A mod disagrees with you and it's mods ganging up on you? Nice...
I'm glad that you feel "Paris is actually sorta pretty..." I'm glad that you feel such an opinion is incompatible with the label of "needle nosed, talentless, daddy's little girl, druggie ☺☺☺☺ who the world would be better off without".
Says a lot about you.
It means that all comments have context, particularly when you're pulling quotes from a person who has thousands of words of quotation out there on the internet at this point.
You're the one who's off topic. We've responded to your points, but they're really not relevant to whether Gaga's music is crap or not.
Even if we accepted your ludicrous contention about the meaning of those quotes, it would still be irrelevant to the topic.
Yes, I can truly say that. Because while I like Gaga's music, and I think she's an intelligent person based on her interviews, I am not a huge fan or anything. I've downloaded a few of her tunes, I skipped her concert when it came by, and do not look at her as a source of life advice.
At this point, she seems like an intelligent, talented woman, with very catchy tunes, and a level of recent success that establishes the breadth of her appeal, but it's hard to say what the longevity or depth of her appeal is.
I doubt my perception will change by 2012.
How's your opinion of death metal and "any bluegrass music" changed in the last 2 years?
-
This is why everybody here has a problem with you in this thread:
(1) You offend people by claiming that they "worship" Gaga or deify her, when all they do is make reasonable arguments about her. You lie and exaggerate.
(2) You offend people when you claim that they only like Gaga because we are "told to" by the media. This is an insult to us. Not an insult to Gaga.
(3) You offend people when you say you look down on people who like Gaga. How can people take that any other way?
You are unapologetically insulting, and now, you're playing the "victim" card and claiming that the mods are not treating you fairly?
And what arguments am I refusing to address? Please, tell me. It just seems like all I've been getting is "SHUT UP, YOU'RE A BIGGOT!!!".
Anytime I address anything I'm just told I'm off topic. People here were addressing many different aspects of Lady Gaga's all over personality. The fact that she supports this and that, the fact that she plays piano, and what not. However when I bring up quotes of hers, I'm told I'm going off topic and using them out of context.
Feel free to disregard the "christ" statements, as it seems you guys are gonna lock on to that one for dear life and not really see anything but that. I was fully aware that they're a bit over the top. As I said before, I personally felt everyone's reaction to this was over the top.
And how exactly am I playing the victim card? I said the mods usually handle these threads differently but it seems like in this case there is a bias towards the person being discussed here? How the hell does that have anything at all to do with playing the victim card? What did I say that implied I felt the mods were ganging up on me? Again, this just seems like another baseless statement made to just dismiss everything else that's been said.
What sucks is that as I said time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. We all know there's nothing I could say to change your minds at this point. As far as your concerned I'm this close minded, queer-hatin, bigot who don't much care for that sissy musack. It's unfortunate you feel this way, but I understand there's nothing I can do about it.
And alas, there's really not much more I can say that I haven't already said before, over and over and over again. Feel free to review my previous posts. Feel free to pay attention to the parts where I explained how I fully support the transgendered community. Aside from that, I don't really know what else to say. By all means though, if there's something you feel I haven't addressed that has nothing to do with me somehow being a bigot for not liking Lady Gaga, feel free to bring it to my attention.
And lastly, what do you both feel about the furry community? And please answer in some detail not just "Oh, they're cool".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's the EXACT same thing with music.
Who's to say some music is crap and some isn't? Is Krosan Cloudscraper crap? Not to Timmy who has won every casual game that he has played it.
For example, who typically likes music by Lady Gaga?
- Girls (as a generalization)
- People in the mood for music they can dance to
- People in the mood for party music
If you don't fit into any of those catagories, you probably don't like Lady Gaga. And guess what, she's not making music for you! Those of you who want music with technical guitar riffs/deep lyrics/whatever, the people who just want party music don't like your music either!
I hate every song I have ever heard from Justin Beiber, but I respect the fact that I'm not supposed to like his music, the million of 13 year girls across the world are his target.
Everyone needs to chill out and understand that if you don't like a certain kind of music, that's fine, it wasn't made for you. There are tons of people out there that don't like your music either.
Lady Gaga has not been on the covers of Seventeen or Cosmo Girl; at least the main versions. The installations of many magazines in other countries reuse photos that they purchase the rights to for their covers; so its possible that they purchased the rights to existing pictures in some foreign markets, but she has not posed for those magazines specifically, so its more of a case of them being interested in using her image because of her popularity. Likewise, J14 is a gossip magazine that uses paparazzi photos, Tiger Beat also, and I haven't been able to find an M magazine cover. Since your claim was that she was 'marketed' to a teen audience, I kind of find it suspect if you were trying to say that magazines simply using her image is her 'being marketed'. That's more like said magazines cashing in on her popularity.