|
Yes, welcome to Annexia. 
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2009 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
eXpired posted:More people talk about the stupid poo poo she's wearing or the "outrageous" thing she did last week than they do her music. I detest everything about her for it and am surprised that most people on this board don't agree. Why would you detest anyone for this 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2009 03:08
|
|
|
cat doter posted:This making fun of things I never said shtick is already old. You certainly claimed that it was her PR people that are responsible for her image and generally implied that her existence and popularity is some sort of corporate music industry conspiracy, which is basically a bunch of dumb reactionary bullshit
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2009 22:52
|
|
|
cat doter posted:Wait, what? I said she'd mostly likely be popular without all the bullshit, but the PR guys feel the need to do it anyway. Yeah exactly, what makes you think her image is the result of these anonymous "PR guys"? Her image is her own work and as the poster above mentioned, a very important part of her art. You seem to be missing that. Her image isn't what it is because of some mysterious corporate "need to do it anyway" - her image is what it is because she wants it to be, because its key to what she's doing. quote:Can you guys who like lady gaga seriously tell me with a straight face that sometimes the popular music industry doesn't take this poo poo too far? That's a bit challenging when you haven't really defined what either "this poo poo" or "too far" mean
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2009 23:05
|
|
|
cat doter posted:I guess the whole gist of what I was saying is that the idea that style and image are so important to a musician makes me uncomfortable. Why? Lady Gaga's act is not purely about music, image and fashion are a huge part of it, and a ton of creativity goes into that. What exactly makes you uncomfortable about it? Furthermore why do you seem to think that fashion is not substance? In a lot of art, style is substance, and the music world is certainly no exception to that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2009 00:55
|
|
|
Malaleb posted:I agree with this. Her songs are fine for 80s inspired synth-pop, and I feel like there is certainly some creativity in her image, fashion, music, videos, etc, but it doesn't really seem like it is breaking any new ground. I don't think her music breaks a whole lot of new ground, I think her image is somewhat original compared to her peers in the same general genre, but it's not the most original thing in the world either. I just think it's a bit silly for anyone to get ENRAGED over it. quote:The closest we had was Bjork, but she didn't captivate a Western audience as thoroughly as Lady Gaga is doing. Wait, what? Bjork is just as Western as Lady Gaga and while I don't know the exact numbers, she was pretty drat huge for quite a while in the late 90's, early 00's. Slightly different audience, but still.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2009 15:24
|
|
|
Also Sufjan Stevens didn't exactly dissappear, he released two albums this year
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2009 23:16
|
|
|
Yeah it sounds like maybe a reference to Something though it's certainly not a sample. I really don't like Speechless though, I think it's my least favorite of her songs that I've heard actually. Teeth, on the other hand, loving rules.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2009 21:35
|
|
|
Morphix posted:Were people intellectualizing the Beatles this much in their hayday? I suspect not, so what's the change? Yes actually they were, people have always spent large amounts of time thinking/writing deeply about popular art, whether that art is music or some other medium, and there are even theses about the Beatles. I don't know why you are so angry about it? Earwicker fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
flatluigi posted:People have also always spent time mocking and hating popular artists, oddly enough. Of course they have but what's that got to do with Morphix's question?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 18:04
|
|