How Famous Will Lady Gaga Get?

[d_phaneuf]

all that really matters in music is whether someone likes it

I don't like Lady Gaga but its obvious that millions of people do, I don't think my taste in music is any better or more superior to theirs.

thats why I hate sites like Pitchfork who act like indie music is the be all end all and once you get popular among the masses you immediately begin to suck

Music is one of the most subjective things in the world. Just because I don't like Lady Gaga doesn't mean she is cookie cutter or bad. It just means I don't like her music.

Saying a certain band or artist is better than another is one of the most idiotic comments, its all opinion not fact.

[Nage Waza]

I think they should give an IQ test between a random sampling of different musical genres fans to see who are the most intelligent. I think metal fans are the smartest, and gaga fans the least smartest.

Just kidding with that last statement, but it would be cool to know if there is a correlation between brains and musical taste.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I think they should give an IQ test between a random sampling of different musical genres fans to see who are the most intelligent. I think metal fans are the smartest, and gaga fans the least smartest.

It might be true unless grammar is part of the test.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I think they should give an IQ test between a random sampling of different musical genres fans to see who are the most intelligent. I think metal fans are the smartest, and gaga fans the least smartest.

Just kidding with that last statement, but it would be cool to know if there is a correlation between brains and musical taste.

http://musicthatmakesyoudumb.virgil....GenreLarge.png

SAT scores

[V]

Originally Posted by JFK

http://musicthatmakesyoudumb.virgil....GenreLarge.png

SAT scores

Well that chart makes sense. I've always been a big Beethoven fan. And I'm brilliant.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

all that really matters in music is whether someone likes it

I don't like Lady Gaga but its obvious that millions of people do, I don't think my taste in music is any better or more superior to theirs.

thats why I hate sites like Pitchfork who act like indie music is the be all end all and once you get popular among the masses you immediately begin to suck

Music is one of the most subjective things in the world. Just because I don't like Lady Gaga doesn't mean she is cookie cutter or bad. It just means I don't like her music.

Saying a certain band or artist is better than another is one of the most idiotic comments, its all opinion not fact.

No, its not all opinion. Quality in music exists (or in Lady Gaga's case, doesn't) and while taste is certainly subjective, quality is not.

As for the comments regarding how popularity = junk, that's simply not true. There are acts out there that have had huge commercial success all the while producing art. I guess that's what's wrong with today's popular music. The bottom line to the major labels is more important than what music was intended for in the first place.

There is nothing about music that is created for the club scene that equals art. At all.

Step 1: Create simplistic beat that drunk people will be prone to dance to.
Step 2: Add meaningless, provocative lyrics.
Step 3: ?
Step 4: Profit.

It's a very standard formula that has been used over and over again. Hell, even Nicklebacks new junk is very basic 2-4 rock. Moreso than the old junk. It sucks. Why? It's easy to dance to. Add them to the group with Lady Gaga of "this has been done before". How is Lady Gaga doing anything that is progressing music forward?

And for all the people that say "if its so easy why don't you go make a number one hit?" Well I guess its cuz I don't have millions of dollars to sink into a marketing campaign. Too much of today's radio friendly music is given a fancy spit shine strait from the factory, placed in movies, car commercials, and marketed as "the new black" to young people. And then of course, everyone has to keep up with the joneses, the album moves a wack of units and if little Stacy down the street doesn't have a copy shes instantly a nerd. Does anyone here think its a coincidence that pop music is a big hit to the 16-25 year old demographic? Youth with disposable income, the average movie going crowd, ect?

I guess I look at it this way.

The book Twilight has sold over 17 million copies to date. Surely it must be great literature?

[Devils'Advocate]

I have to stop reading this thread. All the snobbery puts me in a bad mood.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by dj_patm

She can be both. Case and point Madonna. I think she makes pop dance. A genre like you said, serves a purpose and caters to a specific audience. Madonna and Lady Gaga are VERY similar. Would you call Madonna a mindless popstar?

Yes, I would call them both mindless pop. Modanna took the phrase "sex sells" and ran with it. Music was never the main reason she sold albums.
Agree that someone can be both an artist, and make fun dance music, both don't think either Gaga or Modanna do that.

Just because she decided that she likes making pop music instead of Classical or rock, in my opinion, doesn't make her any worse then a highly successful artist in those genres.

Agreed, it's not her choice of genre, it's the music she makes in it that sucks.

I think she belongs in the group of artists that if they applied themselves in the same way to another genre, would dominate that genre as well. Like if MJ decided he wanted to be a rockstar or John Lennon wanted to be a classical composer or Robert Plant wanted to be a popstar or a Jazz aritst.

None of that makes sense. It takes a lot of master 1 genre of music as those 3 did, and it's unlikely any of those transitions would be possible.

I get sick of people dismissing credible artists just because they produce music in a different genre then what they listen to. On top of that, Pop music has so many negative connotations associated with it, that 99% of artists who are involved with are dismissed immediately as just a face even though there are a few that are really talented. Including the behind the scenes writers (which lady gaga used to be).

I dismiss this so called "credible artist" because I don't think she is very talented. I have no problem with her genre, even within the genre their are more talented hit making pop machines (eg. Justin Timberlake).

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

It might be true unless grammar is part of the test.

What might be true? Next time quote the entire post so that you aren't misleading anyone.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

What might be true?

The only claim implied in the part of your post I quoted. That metal fans are the smartest and that Lady Gaga fans are the least smart.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Next time quote the entire post so that you aren't misleading anyone.

Fair enough. At any rate, I was just giving you a hard time.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I think they should give an IQ test between a random sampling of different musical genres fans to see who are the most intelligent. I think metal fans are the smartest, and gaga fans the least smartest.

Just kidding with that last statement, but it would be cool to know if there is a correlation between brains and musical taste.

But what if I like metal AND Lady Gaga? I'm smart yet also not smart?

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

No, its not all opinion. Quality in music exists (or in Lady Gaga's case, doesn't) and while taste is certainly subjective, quality is not.

As for the comments regarding how popularity = junk, that's simply not true. There are acts out there that have had huge commercial success all the while producing art. I guess that's what's wrong with today's popular music. The bottom line to the major labels is more important than what music was intended for in the first place.

There is nothing about music that is created for the club scene that equals art. At all.

Step 1: Create simplistic beat that drunk people will be prone to dance to.
Step 2: Add meaningless, provocative lyrics.
Step 3: ?
Step 4: Profit.

It's a very standard formula that has been used over and over again. Hell, even Nicklebacks new junk is very basic 2-4 rock. Moreso than the old junk. It sucks. Why? It's easy to dance to. Add them to the group with Lady Gaga of "this has been done before". How is Lady Gaga doing anything that is progressing music forward?

And for all the people that say "if its so easy why don't you go make a number one hit?" Well I guess its cuz I don't have millions of dollars to sink into a marketing campaign. Too much of today's radio friendly music is given a fancy spit shine strait from the factory, placed in movies, car commercials, and marketed as "the new black" to young people. And then of course, everyone has to keep up with the joneses, the album moves a wack of units and if little Stacy down the street doesn't have a copy shes instantly a nerd. Does anyone here think its a coincidence that pop music is a big hit to the 16-25 year old demographic? Youth with disposable income, the average movie going crowd, ect?

I guess I look at it this way.

The book Twilight has sold over 17 million copies to date. Surely it must be great literature?

Twilight may be great literature to the 17 million people who bought it, who says it is not. Who decides on what is great? and how do they get to decide that?

Any type of art is completely subjective, there is no way to measure art. That can be actual paintings, music or literature.

It can be agreed upon many that certain stuff is good, and people can have opinions on what is good.

But to define certain songs/artists/books as factually better than others is ridiculous.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

Twilight may be great literature to the 17 million people who bought it, who says it is not. Who decides on what is great? and how do they get to decide that?

Any type of art is completely subjective, there is no way to measure art. That can be actual paintings, music or literature.

It can be agreed upon many that certain stuff is good, and people can have opinions on what is good.

But to define certain songs/artists/books as factually better than others is ridiculous.

It would be nice if that were true, and anyone who ever painted a picture could say that they are factually no worse than Gustav Klimt, or that any aspiring novelist could say that their unpublished manuscript is on par with Catcher in the Rye, or that anyone who's ever noodled around on the piano could claim to be a peer of Bill Evans. But the reality is that there are towering achievements out there in all disciplines of art, some good work, and some mediocre work that is still well beyond what most of us can ever hope to achieve.

Comparing two works or artists and saying which one is better is in some cases very difficult, and in some cases very easy. But just because it isn't necessarily possible to say whether Lady Gaga or Cannibal Corpse are better doesn't mean that all art is completely subjective.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

Who decides on what is great? and how do they get to decide that?

Me, because I generally know what I'm talking about or I shut up. I also have an infallible method for detecting if you have no idea what you're talking about - just make a claim that "well that's my opinion and it's just as good as anyone else's". That kind of claim pretty well confirms the claimant is clueless about whatever he or she is opining upon.

The problem with saying everyone's opinion is equally valid is that "valid" means something other than "unprovable"; error lies in assuming that because you can't PROVE something to be true, you also can't say anything about the likelihood of it being true or false. I can't "prove" that Jack White is a better guitarist than I am, but since I can't play the guitar at all, any listener who was presented with both his and my interpretation of a song on the guitar, and who proceeded to like my version better would in all likelihood be a very poor judge of guitar prowess and would be in all likelihood wrong to claim I was the "better" player.

[dj_patm]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Yes, I would call them both mindless pop. Modanna took the phrase "sex sells" and ran with it. Music was never the main reason she sold albums.
Agree that someone can be both an artist, and make fun dance music, both don't think either Gaga or Modanna do that.

Agreed, it's not her choice of genre, it's the music she makes in it that sucks.

So you think Madonna made her money on publicity? Then how did all her albums after SEX have any success? Madonna has been able to adapt to every musical fad, thats what made her successful. Her little sex sells was just one tiny part of her career. Her Ray of light era had nothing to do with sex or pushing the envelope yet she still had massive success

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

None of that makes sense. It takes a lot of master 1 genre of music as those 3 did, and it's unlikely any of those transitions would be possible.

How so? You don't think John Lennon could write a disco song? MJ wrote a couple of Rock songs that were successful (Dirty Diana)

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I dismiss this so called "credible artist" because I don't think she is very talented. I have no problem with her genre, even within the genre their are more talented hit making pop machines (eg. Justin Timberlake).

Justin doesn't write his own music. Most of his last CD was written by Timbaland so you're off base. She is a credible artist. When is the last time that a 5 minute song hit #2? F'n November Rain??

She has talent. Loads of it. If you deny that, you're delusional.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by jammies

Me, because I generally know what I'm talking about or I shut up. I also have an infallible method for detecting if you have no idea what you're talking about - just make a claim that "well that's my opinion and it's just as good as anyone else's". That kind of claim pretty well confirms the claimant is clueless about whatever he or she is opining upon.

The problem with saying everyone's opinion is equally valid is that "valid" means something other than "unprovable"; error lies in assuming that because you can't PROVE something to be true, you also can't say anything about the likelihood of it being true or false. I can't "prove" that Jack White is a better guitarist than I am, but since I can't play the guitar at all, any listener who was presented with both his and my interpretation of a song on the guitar, and who proceeded to like my version better would in all likelihood be a very poor judge of guitar prowess and would be in all likelihood wrong to claim I was the "better" player.

not saying everyone's is valid

but how do you decide who has a valid opinion?

and the guitar example doesn't work because that is a skill, if he can play certain chords, or riffs and you cant than he is technically a better guitarist

its different than saying one song is better than another

[InstantDeath]

Best tranny evar.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I think metal fans are the smartest

Not at my high school.

[InstantDeath]

Originally Posted by dj_patm

I think she belongs in the group of artists that if they applied themselves in the same way to another genre, would dominate that genre as well. Like if MJ decided he wanted to be a rockstar or John Lennon wanted to be a classical composer or Robert Plant wanted to be a popstar or a Jazz aritst.