Printable View
Read the full articleQuote:
Interscope recording artist Lady Gaga is an entertaining answer to the reams of pseudo-indie forgettable hipsters who put so much effort into looking like they are not trying at all. When a ballet dancer makes a pirouette look effortless, that is impressive. When a band backed by a mega-corporation makes it look effortless to get beamed into millions of households while being a humble dork in a...
so rather then pretending like she is deep and artistic, it's respectable that she admits that she is shallow and sells out to designer trends?
I guess there's something to say for honesty, but that isn't what i'd call appealing.
The idea an artist can or should be anything other than the tip of a massive corporate iceberg is rather naive. If someone's selling top 10 singles across half the planet, and there's a pro-produced video for anyone to critique in the first place, then they are a packaged commercial product no matter how they appear. You don't get a 5 minute slot on MTV by sending in something from your cellphone.
"Lady Gaga" is as packaged as they come, but knowingly so. Why do you think she picked the name? Personally I have a lot of time for her - don't particularly like the music, but as a demonstration of marketing she's up there with the best. Does that mean "Lady Gaga" bends the truth when she's talking on screen? Sure it does. So do I. So do you whenever you tell someone you're "fine" when you're not. People are expecting the product, and they want to suspend their disbelief that the person and the product are one and the same. Is Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta actually Lady Gaga at 6am on a Monday morning? Course not. Work starts at 7.
As MG says, the critics may find it fun to scratch about for inconsistencies, but the millions of customers out there just want something nice and simple.
and to just dance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindgames
I find it refreshing that Lady Gaga is not pretending she is for reals a cyborg from like this really difficult place and could you help her in her hard life by like buying some ringtones. She has jewelry on her face in a wholly unabashed fashion and there is no pretense that somehow her cheeks sprout that naturally.
Exactly because it would be naive to believe that most artists are not backed by a large corp, particularly if played on MTV, I find it refreshing for someone not to be faking like they are mamma's basement-dwelling hipsters who need me to buy them a sandwich.
I feel like recent music fashions have been a discouragement to most people to make any effort with themselves at all. I always used to dress up to go out, but I have felt recently like there was the sense that only talent of a certain sort should do that. Which discourages folks whose role is clearly not that and puts too much pressure on someone who might have just wanted to wear a crazy outfit to the club because now there is the added sense that they must be able to perform.
I think it is good that Lady Gaga looks like she tried and, if that brings making an effort in all areas back into style, I'm into it. I think that sort of trend will be good for the economy too. Not that Lady Gaga is remotely the only artist moving in that direction, but I see her success as an excellent omen.
I quite second the sentiment, but honest or not, it is in part the commercialisation of glamour that creates the perception of these inhibiting roles among people. Specialisation and the focus on respecting 'intellectual property' and allowing an idea's application only by whomever is legally considered to have done it first create the illusion that something like creating music or dressing up is done by a special class of people that you either are or (by default) are not part off, and that there is a formidable threshold to meet before you can jump from one to the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia G