Honestly, even I don't know what the hell I'm looking at right now It explains the skin prosthetics at least. I just feel like in it's comparative minimalism I've been out-Gaga-ed even greater than the more elaborate attempts. At this point I'm definitely giving BTW the most "video not relevant to song" points, though we'll see how my opinion changes. The old school sci-fi elements are fairly entertaining at least.
Well, we've got most of the basic objections/rumors out of the way now After a day I'm liking the video more. It indirectly comments on a lot of things that have been said about her in weird ways and is setting... something up. I don't think it lives up to the hype but the last two vids haven't either.
I don't think I've seen such an overly pretentious intro to a video since Michael Jackson's thriller - and we all know what a pedophile he turned out to be.
She's trying too hard to make statements instead of just making music (and letting that talk for her), which is what she's arguably good at.
Redbeard wrote:I don't think I've seen such an overly pretentious intro to a video since Michael Jackson's thriller - and we all know what a pedophile he turned out to be.
She's trying too hard to make statements instead of just making music (and letting that talk for her), which is what she's arguably good at.
In the case of this song in particular, it's meant to be a statement more than a song. The whole point was to create something like an anthem. Hopefully the rest of the new album is more like what you're saying, though at 20+ tracks there'd better be some good stuff in there We've already got a preview of the next vid here!
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I actually liked it, although I think MTV exec's will be pulling their hair out on where to cut it for general viewing.
I know that every time there's a "GaGa" thread I post how much she reminds me of Madonna...but...seriously..that song sounded a LOT like this IMO..
... It even has the same "Be who you are no matter what" mesage..not that that's a bad thing.
Basically...I've come to the conclusion that I am far to jaded to critique GaGa...her attempts at being shocking/relevant/OTT and poignant seem contrived and mundane to me...but then again..I've seen GG Allin live.
Redbeard wrote:I don't think I've seen such an overly pretentious intro to a video since Michael Jackson's thriller - and we all know what a pedophile he turned out to be.
I hear Kelly's Walk Away more than Express Yourself in the chorus, though the latter seems to be the popular comparison. The chord structures are similar but I still feel a different song, if only because they both strike me as two different kinds of campy.
Redbeard wrote:I don't think I've seen such an overly pretentious intro to a video since Michael Jackson's thriller - and we all know what a pedophile he turned out to be.
Hey! HEY!
Say what you will about the man, but you leave Thriller out of this.
Redbeard wrote:I don't think I've seen such an overly pretentious intro to a video since Michael Jackson's thriller - and we all know what a pedophile he turned out to be.
Hey! HEY!
Say what you will about the man, but you leave Thriller out of this.
is that what he called his gentlemens bits?
I'm still not sure if I like Gaga but this is being played over and over and over on our office radio so Its starting to get inside my head a little bit.
Another song (rather, a remix of a new song) has been made public!
Super special awesome! Love-love-love around 1:30
Edit: The ending of the track seems to adapt a very "New Order" by Blue Mondayish vibe. This track was taken from the bigger mix of a fashion show so it may actually be transitioning into the track as I think about it. We shall see though. If nothing else, maybe I called the new "copycat" claim
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Honestly, even I don't know what the hell I'm looking at right now It explains the skin prosthetics at least. I just feel like in it's comparative minimalism I've been out-Gaga-ed even greater than the more elaborate attempts. At this point I'm definitely giving BTW the most "video not relevant to song" points, though we'll see how my opinion changes. The old school sci-fi elements are fairly entertaining at least.
The ironic thing is if there was no lady gaga, and we saw that opening cinematic before the song actually begins as a movie trailer before some lame Transformers movie half the people slagging her would be saying how awesome it and intriguing it looks, etc., etc.
I offer as proof the waves of nerdgasms over Suker Punch...
mattyrm wrote:Absolute dog toffee. The song sounds more Madonna than Madonna as well!
Gaga copies Madonna and other 'artists' more than she is original.
Redbeard wrote:I don't think I've seen such an overly pretentious intro to a video since Michael Jackson's thriller - and we all know what a pedophile he turned out to be.
She's trying too hard to make statements instead of just making music (and letting that talk for her), which is what she's arguably good at.
Also, has anyone actually listened to the opening words befoe this song? When you distill everything in this video the conclusion is this: Gaga and this video TRY to be something that they obviously are not...
The pseudo sci-fi, even the vocabulary is slapped together.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Another song (rather, a remix of a new song) has been made public!
Super special awesome! Love-love-love around 1:30
Edit: The ending of the track seems to adapt a very "New Order" by Blue Mondayish vibe. This track was taken from the bigger mix of a fashion show so it may actually be transitioning into the track as I think about it. We shall see though. If nothing else, maybe I called the new "copycat" claim
Pfft!!! Sounds like Madonna meets Nine Inch Nails. By the way, Cannerus, your avatar makes me feel like a pedo.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Another song (rather, a remix of a new song) has been made public!
Super special awesome! Love-love-love around 1:30
Edit: The ending of the track seems to adapt a very "New Order" by Blue Mondayish vibe. This track was taken from the bigger mix of a fashion show so it may actually be transitioning into the track as I think about it. We shall see though. If nothing else, maybe I called the new "copycat" claim
Pfft!!! Sounds like Madonna meets Nine Inch Nails. By the way, Cannerus, your avatar makes me feel like a pedo.
Im still not certain about his avatar... however, saw an awesome YouTube mix with that same character in it... Lazy mixed with Lil John
The problem I have with Gaga is that she COULD be totally awesome. She has a platform to really shake things up, and a make a real statement - she is the new breed of modern popstar, in which authenticity and 'realness' are (rightly, in my opinion) considered passe and irrelevant. Her image, and to certain extent, her ethos, embody this.
But where she falls down is her music - it's not particularly terrible, it's just 'meh'. The REALLY frustrating thing is that it doesn't have to be! She could really start pushing some boudaries, like I said, she has a platform now, and she certainly has the musical talent. I was momentarily excited by the song in the first few seconds; I thought is was going to be a brutally minimalist neo-pop record, with a really harsh soundscape. What I got sounded a bit like Madonna (again), and there were snatches of melody that reminded me of 'Waterfalls' by TLC. Just average pop music. So frustrating.
The intro to the video was pretty similar - it could have been great, but they just half-arsed it. It was a good idea, but as someone else said, it seemed a bit 'generic sci-fi' slapped together.
It's a shame, because she has the potential to be a great artist. Personally, it seems that she's either taking terrible advice, or on the flip-side, taking no advice or surrounding herself with sycophants who won't tell her when something isn't quite up to scratch.
mattyrm wrote:Absolute dog toffee. The song sounds more Madonna than Madonna as well!
Gaga copies Madonna and other 'artists' more than she is original.
warpcrafter wrote:Pfft!!! Sounds like Madonna meets Nine Inch Nails. By the way, Cannerus, your avatar makes me feel like a pedo.
I have a new challenge here Name an original artist.
AvatarForm wrote:
Redbeard wrote:I don't think I've seen such an overly pretentious intro to a video since Michael Jackson's thriller - and we all know what a pedophile he turned out to be.
She's trying too hard to make statements instead of just making music (and letting that talk for her), which is what she's arguably good at.
Also, has anyone actually listened to the opening words befoe this song? When you distill everything in this video the conclusion is this: Gaga and this video TRY to be something that they obviously are not...
The pseudo sci-fi, even the vocabulary is slapped together.
Albatross wrote:The intro to the video was pretty similar - it could have been great, but they just half-arsed it. It was a good idea, but as someone else said, it seemed a bit 'generic sci-fi' slapped together.
It involves a fair number of Gaga-isms from the past. It was the evolution of the manifesto, which was interesting to see; it was also intentionally campy. This vid feels more honest to me and let's itself be itself if that registers at all. It feels a bit less pretentious to me in that regard. Also bear in mind this is a sci-fi forum critiquing the quality of sci-fi, which is a little bit different of a situation.
Albatross wrote:Ok, so I finally gave in and watched the video.
*sigh*
The problem I have with Gaga is that she COULD be totally awesome. She has a platform to really shake things up, and a make a real statement - she is the new breed of modern popstar, in which authenticity and 'realness' are (rightly, in my opinion) considered passe and irrelevant. Her image, and to certain extent, her ethos, embody this.
But where she falls down is her music - it's not particularly terrible, it's just 'meh'. The REALLY frustrating thing is that it doesn't have to be! She could really start pushing some boudaries, like I said, she has a platform now, and she certainly has the musical talent. I was momentarily excited by the song in the first few seconds; I thought is was going to be a brutally minimalist neo-pop record, with a really harsh soundscape. What I got sounded a bit like Madonna (again), and there were snatches of melody that reminded me of 'Waterfalls' by TLC. Just average pop music. So frustrating.
I don't necessarily see the same issue here. She does shake things up as far as pop goes. Compare Gaga now to what Britney had become. There are worlds improvement and innovation in between. If you played 3 distinct subgenres of metal for many people, they would only hear "metal" or "heavy rock" and in many cases wouldn't hear a big enough difference to tell you if they're in different subgenres or not. If you take your average clubbing gay dude who just loves his pop singers, Gaga is shaking up the entire universe. This is terribly progressive, just not your flavor. Make sense? Also, I want to hear what Madonna song Government Hooker sounds like because I get the feeling people are just defaulting to that one out of bias
Albatross wrote:It's a shame, because she has the potential to be a great artist. Personally, it seems that she's either taking terrible advice, or on the flip-side, taking no advice or surrounding herself with sycophants who won't tell her when something isn't quite up to scratch.
I believe it is largely her vision. I also love the fact. I'd rather see one person be able to splash their creative mind on a world-wide canvas and get an unadulterated vision than have someone else interjecting their essence when it's unwanted. I obviously don't believe she does 100% of everything she's involved with, but I think she still bears creative control.
I have a new challenge here Name an original artist.
Primus. I dare you to find any band who came before then who you could point to and say "They're ripping them off."
If you play any old funk album in fast forward you hear pretty much the same thing In all fairness though, I hear some Chili Peppers which were the same time frame and (obviously) a bit of Rush. Try naming one from the past 10 years how-about.
The thing is, finding "originality" in most modern music would be rather difficult as most bands for the past 40 years have been "influenced" by other artist/styles.
However,one can find examples of "creativity" in how the same old same old is delivered.
Alice Cooper,for example was clearly inspired by the "shocking" rock music that preceded him,but put a twist on it's delivery...latter Marilyn Manson would come along and for all intents and purposes,emulate Coopers schtick...almost to a fault.
This is basically what I see GaGa doing,she's not really putting any real "Creativity" into what she does..she comes off more like a "copy and paste" of previous entertainers.
FITZZ wrote: The thing is, finding "originality" in most modern music would be rather difficult as most bands for the past 40 years have been "influenced" by other artist/styles.
However,one can find examples of "creativity" in how the same old same old is delivered.
Alice Cooper,for example was clearly inspired by the "shocking" rock music that preceded him,but put a twist on it's delivery...latter Marilyn Manson would come along and for all intents and purposes,emulate Coopers schtick...almost to a fault.
This is basically what I see GaGa doing,she's not really putting any real "Creativity" into what she does..she comes off more like a "copy and paste" of previous entertainers.
Originality and creativity are completely unrelated IMO. Creativity doesn't care if something has been done or not to be effective. I'm going to have to pull the artistic equivalent of a Godwin and claim Warhol If I weren't so high I'd give examples.
FITZZ wrote: The thing is, finding "originality" in most modern music would be rather difficult as most bands for the past 40 years have been "influenced" by other artist/styles.
However,one can find examples of "creativity" in how the same old same old is delivered.
Alice Cooper,for example was clearly inspired by the "shocking" rock music that preceded him,but put a twist on it's delivery...latter Marilyn Manson would come along and for all intents and purposes,emulate Coopers schtick...almost to a fault.
This is basically what I see GaGa doing,she's not really putting any real "Creativity" into what she does..she comes off more like a "copy and paste" of previous entertainers.
Originality and creativity are completely unrelated IMO. Creativity doesn't care if something has been done or not to be effective. I'm going to have to pull the artistic equivalent of a Godwin and claim Warhol If I weren't so high I'd give examples.
That's essentially what I'm saying,Originality and creativity aren't the same thing,but...there are "Creative" ways of delivering " Unoriginal" material.
Alice Cooper found a "creative" way of delivering his material...Manson emulated him.
Madonna/Missing Persons found creative ways of delivering their material...GaGa emulates them.
If she were only emulating Madonna I might agree. She's accused of emulating a countless number of people. There are similarities, but is Gaga really the exact same thing as Madonna? I'd call her significantly more creative. I'm surprised that you'd say Marilyn Manson isn't creative.
"real"ness and originality don't particularly matter with artists IMO but what annoys me is when gaga-fanboy/girls insist that she is both 100% original and acts like this all of the time and hasn't engineered her image at all.
Cannerus The Unbearable wrote:If she were only emulating Madonna I might agree. She's accused of emulating a countless number of people. There are similarities, but is Gaga really the exact same thing as Madonna? I'd call her significantly more creative. I'm surprised that you'd say Marilyn Manson isn't creative.
It's not that I don't think that Manson or GaGa are "Uncreative",I just see them as "less creative" then their predecessors.
To perhaps put things into context,I see it in terms of the "House" had already been built by others before them...their simply hanging a few different pictures and putting up paneling.
Interesting stuff concerning Madonna though,the Monroe bit was obvious however as Madonna often cited Monroe as a huge influence and IIRC said that " Material Girl" was obviously about Monroe.
Long anwser, she´s one of the single most horrible pop stars to ever exist if you ask me, her music sounds completely generic, her biggest selling point is looking weird, which is useless for music IMHO and to top it all of, she´s bloody ugly too.
mattyrm wrote:Absolute dog toffee. The song sounds more Madonna than Madonna as well!
Gaga copies Madonna and other 'artists' more than she is original.
warpcrafter wrote:Pfft!!! Sounds like Madonna meets Nine Inch Nails. By the way, Cannerus, your avatar makes me feel like a pedo.
I have a new challenge here Name an original artist.
Neu!
Albatross wrote:The intro to the video was pretty similar - it could have been great, but they just half-arsed it. It was a good idea, but as someone else said, it seemed a bit 'generic sci-fi' slapped together.
It involves a fair number of Gaga-isms from the past. It was the evolution of the manifesto
Which is what? 'Be yourself', 'Wear interesting clothes'? Puh-lease. These are empty platitudes dressed up as philosophy, another major problem I have with her.
which was interesting to see; it was also intentionally campy. This vid feels more honest to me and let's itself be itself if that registers at all. It feels a bit less pretentious to me in that regard. Also bear in mind this is a sci-fi forum critiquing the quality of sci-fi, which is a little bit different of a situation.
The imagery was pretty cool, I thought. It was just that the story-line that she was narrating was fist-in-mouth cringe. Really clumsy.
Albatross wrote:Ok, so I finally gave in and watched the video.
*sigh*
The problem I have with Gaga is that she COULD be totally awesome. She has a platform to really shake things up, and a make a real statement - she is the new breed of modern popstar, in which authenticity and 'realness' are (rightly, in my opinion) considered passe and irrelevant. Her image, and to certain extent, her ethos, embody this.
But where she falls down is her music - it's not particularly terrible, it's just 'meh'. The REALLY frustrating thing is that it doesn't have to be! She could really start pushing some boudaries, like I said, she has a platform now, and she certainly has the musical talent. I was momentarily excited by the song in the first few seconds; I thought is was going to be a brutally minimalist neo-pop record, with a really harsh soundscape. What I got sounded a bit like Madonna (again), and there were snatches of melody that reminded me of 'Waterfalls' by TLC. Just average pop music. So frustrating.
I don't necessarily see the same issue here. She does shake things up as far as pop goes.
I mean in a musical-cultural sense, not in terms of making a big commercial splash - which is in itself no small achievement.
Compare Gaga now to what Britney had become. There are worlds improvement and innovation in between.
'Toxic' is better, and more creative than anything Gaga has done yet. Just as a point of discussion.
If you played 3 distinct subgenres of metal for many people, they would only hear "metal" or "heavy rock" and in many cases wouldn't hear a big enough difference to tell you if they're in different subgenres or not. If you take your average clubbing gay dude who just loves his pop singers, Gaga is shaking up the entire universe. This is terribly progressive, just not your flavor. Make sense?
Condescending...
I like pop music, I listen to pop music - I can tell if (in my opinion) something is good, bad, or average pop music, and why. It's not like anyone's frame of reference is that far removed - we're not talking about west African music here (I wish we were). I see nothing in this particular Lady Gaga song that tips it above average, either in the composition or the production - APART from the aforementioned intro to the first verse (iirc), which, as I said, is how I wanted the song to sound as a whole.
Also, I want to hear what Madonna song Government Hooker sounds like because I get the feeling people are just defaulting to that one out of bias
Yeah, I quite liked it, but I held back from saying anything because it's a remix - if THAT was just the track itself, I would be overjoyed. It would represent a massive leap forward for Germanotta. The outro isn't 'Blue Monday' fading in, nor is it a sample as far as I can tell (because it changes 'chord'). It's just remarkably similar if you know what to look for. Which you do.
So you noticed it.
Albatross wrote:It's a shame, because she has the potential to be a great artist. Personally, it seems that she's either taking terrible advice, or on the flip-side, taking no advice or surrounding herself with sycophants who won't tell her when something isn't quite up to scratch.
I believe it is largely her vision. I also love the fact. I'd rather see one person be able to splash their creative mind on a world-wide canvas and get an unadulterated vision than have someone else interjecting their essence when it's unwanted.
So...authenticity, in other words?
And there's no comparison between Bowie and Gaga. Come on.
mattyrm wrote:Absolute dog toffee. The song sounds more Madonna than Madonna as well!
Gaga copies Madonna and other 'artists' more than she is original.
warpcrafter wrote:Pfft!!! Sounds like Madonna meets Nine Inch Nails. By the way, Cannerus, your avatar makes me feel like a pedo.
I have a new challenge here Name an original artist.
Neu!
Albatross wrote:The intro to the video was pretty similar - it could have been great, but they just half-arsed it. It was a good idea, but as someone else said, it seemed a bit 'generic sci-fi' slapped together.
It involves a fair number of Gaga-isms from the past. It was the evolution of the manifesto
Which is what? 'Be yourself', 'Wear interesting clothes'? Puh-lease. These are empty platitudes dressed up as philosophy, another major problem I have with her.
which was interesting to see; it was also intentionally campy. This vid feels more honest to me and let's itself be itself if that registers at all. It feels a bit less pretentious to me in that regard. Also bear in mind this is a sci-fi forum critiquing the quality of sci-fi, which is a little bit different of a situation.
The imagery was pretty cool, I thought. It was just that the story-line that she was narrating was fist-in-mouth cringe. Really clumsy.
Albatross wrote:Ok, so I finally gave in and watched the video.
*sigh*
The problem I have with Gaga is that she COULD be totally awesome. She has a platform to really shake things up, and a make a real statement - she is the new breed of modern popstar, in which authenticity and 'realness' are (rightly, in my opinion) considered passe and irrelevant. Her image, and to certain extent, her ethos, embody this.
But where she falls down is her music - it's not particularly terrible, it's just 'meh'. The REALLY frustrating thing is that it doesn't have to be! She could really start pushing some boudaries, like I said, she has a platform now, and she certainly has the musical talent. I was momentarily excited by the song in the first few seconds; I thought is was going to be a brutally minimalist neo-pop record, with a really harsh soundscape. What I got sounded a bit like Madonna (again), and there were snatches of melody that reminded me of 'Waterfalls' by TLC. Just average pop music. So frustrating.
I don't necessarily see the same issue here. She does shake things up as far as pop goes.
I mean in a musical-cultural sense, not in terms of making a big commercial splash - which is in itself no small achievement.
Compare Gaga now to what Britney had become. There are worlds improvement and innovation in between.
'Toxic' is better, and more creative than anything Gaga has done yet. Just as a point of discussion.
If you played 3 distinct subgenres of metal for many people, they would only hear "metal" or "heavy rock" and in many cases wouldn't hear a big enough difference to tell you if they're in different subgenres or not. If you take your average clubbing gay dude who just loves his pop singers, Gaga is shaking up the entire universe. This is terribly progressive, just not your flavor. Make sense?
Condescending...
I like pop music, I listen to pop music - I can tell if (in my opinion) something is good, bad, or average pop music, and why. It's not like anyone's frame of reference is that far removed - we're not talking about west African music here (I wish we were). I see nothing in this particular Lady Gaga song that tips it above average, either in the composition or the production - APART from the aforementioned intro to the first verse (iirc), which, as I said, is how I wanted the song to sound as a whole.
Also, I want to hear what Madonna song Government Hooker sounds like because I get the feeling people are just defaulting to that one out of bias
Yeah, I quite liked it, but I held back from saying anything because it's a remix - if THAT was just the track itself, I would be overjoyed. It would represent a massive leap forward for Germanotta. The outro isn't 'Blue Monday' fading in, nor is it a sample as far as I can tell (because it changes 'chord'). It's just remarkably similar if you know what to look for. Which you do.
So you noticed it.
Albatross wrote:It's a shame, because she has the potential to be a great artist. Personally, it seems that she's either taking terrible advice, or on the flip-side, taking no advice or surrounding herself with sycophants who won't tell her when something isn't quite up to scratch.
I believe it is largely her vision. I also love the fact. I'd rather see one person be able to splash their creative mind on a world-wide canvas and get an unadulterated vision than have someone else interjecting their essence when it's unwanted.
So...authenticity, in other words?
And there's no comparison between Bowie and Gaga. Come on.
Point. Set. Match: Albatross.
Also, Cannerus_The_Unbearable, the thread you linked had you showing how much of a Gaga fanboi you are, and then being shut down in subsequent posts.
I'm not even going to try this game with you The track I heard from them sounded like the noise they would play in hell. I'm a little frightened, you jackoff
Albatross wrote: Which is what? 'Be yourself', 'Wear interesting clothes'? Puh-lease. These are empty platitudes dressed up as philosophy, another major problem I have with her.
It's there for entertainment as far as I'm concerned. Her "message" might make some feel better, and if it makes even one political barrier get broken it's a good thing, but it's more a big experiment for me than anything else.
'Toxic' is better, and more creative than anything Gaga has done yet. Just as a point of discussion.
Britney didn't write Toxic as a side note, but Poker Face or Bad Romance I'd classify as both "more creative" and "better" without a second thought. not sure what you're seeing there that I'm not.
Condescending...
I like pop music, I listen to pop music - I can tell if (in my opinion) something is good, bad, or average pop music, and why. It's not like anyone's frame of reference is that far removed - we're not talking about west African music here (I wish we were). I see nothing in this particular Lady Gaga song that tips it above average, either in the composition or the production - APART from the aforementioned intro to the first verse (iirc), which, as I said, is how I wanted the song to sound as a whole.
I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to the first verse. Starting to border on subjectivity here, but very often music makes me terribly bored. Hers has enough interesting elements to draw me in and has "more going on" than other artists in the same genre. I'm sure if I could get the separate tracks for the electronics I could pin point what it is exactly, but I'm thankfully refraining because I'm glad just being able to enjoy something on it's own merits.
I believe it is largely her vision. I also love the fact. I'd rather see one person be able to splash their creative mind on a world-wide canvas and get an unadulterated vision than have someone else interjecting their essence when it's unwanted.
So...authenticity, in other words?
Actually I was going for egoism I get off on over confidence.
And there's no comparison between Bowie and Gaga. Come on.
They're equally original. That's all I ever said
Point. Set. Match: Jesus.
Let's not lose focus.
Also, Cannerus_The_Unbearable, the thread you linked had you showing how much of a Gaga fanboi you are, and then being shut down in subsequent posts.
Bowie IS original. Gaga is not.
Oh, ok. That clears it up. I was pointing to that thread to show evidence that Bowie wasn't "original," which was never proven. As for Kate Bush, I audited the first three tacks that popped up on Google and heard a singer who threw in a few accidentals. It wasn't anything I've never heard before.
I'm hoping, similar to what Ahtman said, we can get past the originality notion. Everyone is the sum of our experiences, some are just more honest about it and some get noticed more than others.
Come on now! Let's not be giving Cannerus an unduly hard time - he and I are pals, after all. We just happen to violently disagree about the life and work of Lady Gaga.
Kate Bush fething rules, however.
Ahtman wrote:Nothing is original. We need to find a better way to rationalize why something is liked or determine whether it is notable.
Yeah, it's a tricky one, and a problem which has plagued musicologists for quite some time. I think 'interest' is a good determinant of quality in pop music - and by that I mean the creation of textual interest, not popularity. A good piece of pop music has to differ from those that preceded it, because popular music is necessarily simple and formulaic, to some extent. That's largely down to its emergence from european dance styles - a piece is an ineffective dance piece if it veers wildly in rhythm and tempo, plus awkard tonality doesn't tend to lend itself well to memorability, which is a key factor in the success of a piece.
And there it is: the building blocks of a pop song.
So if people actually WANT this relative simplicity and formula, why don't we just listen to the same universal 'perfect' piece of music over and over again? Again, that's tricky. Why don't we eat the same food for every meal, every day? I guess our brains need 'just enough' variety in cultural texts, for us to remain satisfied. And 'satisfied' is the key word perhaps... Cultural theorists like Adorno suggest that popular cultural texts undergo a creative process of 'pseudo-individualisation', certain peripheral elements are changed to provide 'interest', but essentially the new text is overwhelmingly similar to the ones that precede it because that's what we want. We don't want to be challenged, we want to be satisfied.
My personal feeling is that this is a little bit of an oversimplification - it's worth remembering that the Frankfurt School's forays into popular music would have been mostly pre-war American jazz, and that was formulaic to the extreme. Saying that, I think some of Adorno's analyses are borne out by the phenomenon of generic delination - genres are carefully set out, with certain aesthetic and compositional rules that one must follow in order to be considered... 'metal', for example. Just look at the arguments THOSE guys have! By being a fan of a given genre, what one is really saying is that 'I enjoy music that follows these rules'. Of course not every song sounds the same, far from it - but they DO sound similar enough that they can still be considered part of that genre, and if you are a fan of that genre you will be satisfied.
I think the best way to determine a 'good' piece of music in this context is to examine the genre - the text must sound as divergent from other texts within that genre as possible whilst still roughly adhering to its generic rules. This is achieved by means of harmonic, melodic and rhythmic interest.
The Beatles blew peoples minds because they were totally different but still the same.
A few of the books I have bring up the balance of predictability in songwriting vs. shaking things up (the less educated version of what you just said). One needs the listener to be able to identify and feel at home with what's going on, yet have it hook them to begin with. From a technical standpoint, Gaga's songs are super-mega-hyperbolically-overloaded with hooks. That's the main difference between her and most of what else I hear on the radio. If we look at music like a steak, and hooks as a topping, many songs have one topping (maybe some sliced mushrooms). A Gaga song is less about the steak, and more about the toppings. The steak is still there, but it plays an equal role to everything else on top of it and on the plate. Some people just want their damn steak though
Albatross wrote: Kate Bush fething rules, however.
I meant no disrespect, just arguing the originality point. I'd kinda like to drop her voice an octave on first hearing though as the squeaking was a bit much
I'm bang into this album - it's major influence on my band Dresden. Have I mentioned them?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, this:
Goddammit! Forgot how good this record is - it's genuinely a record no serious collection should be without.
That track is very, very difficult to take seriously, and that's coming from the dude who likes the slightly-mannish chick in a meat dress The melody just sort of skips to random places not for any purpose I can find, but to be different, in addition to the overall feel being very generically 80s. It never really builds into anything, just kind of stands there like the awkward teenager at the dance. The song does not drastically change form beginning to end barring the intro. I suppose if you like the speed it's going that's fine, but I grew bored rather quickly.
I have a theory that goes as follows: If someone holds down a note on a synth and other noise happens to be occurring nearby, Alby will say it's a good song Bonus points if someone drones in a voice that grates on me
Having a booty like Ru Paul doesn't make one less manly. In her case more specifically having a really manly face isn't hidden by having implants. She distracts most horny guys by being (superficially) hyper-sexual to cover up her homeliness. Who cares if she looks meh, she'll put her hand over her vagina, show bcheek, or put pasties on her boobies!
Seen to many women to fall for it. Also, cherry picking photo's, ect ect It's amazing what plastic surgery and photoshop can do.
That's a really, really old photo with horrible make up. I think she's gorgeous. Most of the Dakka user's wives would look different with or without (or even moreso with with really bad) make up I'd venture
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:That's a really, really old photo with horrible make up. I think she's gorgeous. Most of the Dakka user's wives would look different with or without (or even moreso with with really bad) make up I'd venture
If you look at photo's before she made it big she looks very, very different.
Even in the interview she had on a fairly big chatshow (Johnathon ross's) when she first came to the uk she looked totally different and dressed like anyone hollywood.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:That's a really, really old photo with horrible make up. I think she's gorgeous. Most of the Dakka user's wives would look different with or without (or even moreso with with really bad) make up I'd venture
If you look at photo's before she made it big she looks very, very different.
Even in the interview she had on a fairly big chatshow (Johnathon ross's) when she first came to the uk she looked totally different and dressed like anyone hollywood.
Why does it matter if she looked different? She's gone from brown hair, tanned, different nose shape, to very pale, gaunt and skinny to inbetween now.
Just like anyone
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:That's a really, really old photo with horrible make up. I think she's gorgeous. Most of the Dakka user's wives would look different with or without (or even moreso with with really bad) make up I'd venture
If you look at photo's before she made it big she looks very, very different.
Even in the interview she had on a fairly big chatshow (Johnathon ross's) when she first came to the uk she looked totally different and dressed like anyone hollywood.
Why does it matter if she looked different? She's gone from brown hair, tanned, different nose shape, to very pale, gaunt and skinny to inbetween now.
Just like anyone
It matters because the annoying gagafans (gaga fans that are annoying that is, not all gagafans are annoying) insist that she was in fact born that way is 100% genuine in her philosophy and dress sense.
This threads interesting, Im not mega into music see, so I enjoy these because it gets me on youtube listening to things ive never heard of..
Cannerus, I really dont understand why you love the woman so much.. Pokerface!? It was awful! Toxic by Britney sounded alright, pokerface was absolute garbage, when she starts rapping and says "bluffin with my muffin" i want to smash the speakers on my PC up!
And for alby, Mate, I genuinelly like your own music so i took your advice and listened to "hounds of love" there, God it was awful!
What do I like at the moment? Im kinda hard to please with music.. I always like certain singles but when i get an album I think 50% of the songs suck.
er...
Oh yeah ive been listening to Muse, they are ok I suppose, but the songs get worse when the bloke starts singing. Here are two that jump to mind.
Dont you think? The first two minutes of KOC are mint, then he starts singing and i just think... "meh" and the lyrics are kinda dumb... Same with Newborn, its ace till he starts singing that it just kinda sucks.. they should just do instrumentals like that Robert Miles fella!
I think the last album I really liked was American Idiot by greenday, and I liked all killer no filler by Sum41. I think I have the musical taste of a 15 year old boy, but generally I like music i can go on the punchbag to.
Anyway, thats enough about my poor taste, lets get back to Cannerus trying to convince us that the bird with a nose like a builders elbow is good.
Tell me her best three songs mate and ill look them up and tell you what I think!
@caf: To be fair, annoying X fans are annoying. Annoying warhammer fans are annoying, annoying Bieber fans are annoying, annoying Obama/Bush/Palin fans are annoying. The public is on average a little more sensible than the loudest person out there.
@matty: Matthew Bellamy reminds me of John Kerry in that everything he sings tries to be epic, even when it's not
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:@caf: To be fair, annoying X fans are annoying. Annoying warhammer fans are annoying, annoying Bieber fans are annoying, annoying Obama/Bush/Palin fans are annoying. The public is on average a little more sensible than the loudest person out there.
@matty: Matthew Bellamy reminds me of John Kerry in that everything he sings tries to be epic, even when it's not
Albatross wrote:Come on now! Let's not be giving Cannerus an unduly hard time - he and I are pals, after all. We just happen to violently disagree about the life and work of Lady Gaga.
He's just called Kate Bush 'squeaky' and says he's unable to take her seriously when he touts constant threads in the OT about how great a bacon clad autotune reliant poptart is to an almost entirely and consistently hostile audience.
I'm all for giving him a hard time or indeed for making him serve hard time for the crime of monumentally epic lack of taste.
Also,
Is possibly my favourite Kate Bush track, note the presence of a young Hugh Laurie in the video...
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
I have a new challenge here Name an original artist.
Kate Bush.
That is all, we now return you to the usual GaGa ranting by CtU.
Whoa, now that's a hot woman I wouldn't mind shaking up her bush if you know what I mean. (seriously does anyone actually appreciate her for her musical ability over looks? )
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: I'll avoid the autotune accusation.
Facts are not insults nor accusations.
She has a nose like Gonzo the Great and her 'music' would be even worse if not for the assistance that modern technology provides.
She sings just fine on her own. A couple of songs feature auto tune, one of which uses it as parody and the others use it to create extra parts in addition to the main melody. Is her voice adjusted through standard recording techniques? Yes, but no more so than any rock singer is.
OP, Song: Mostly Express Yourself with hints of Vogue and I think I caught references to two other 80s-era Madonna songs. It's just an open love letter to Madonna, saying "I owe you all I am, mother."
OP, video: I like the concept, but the writing's just terrible. She's not an idiot. She could have expressed her ideas better, but she has no need to since 90% of the people who will see it are sci-fi illiterate fans who won't criticize, or people who dislike her already.
Gaga, general:
Openly derivative, not particularly creative, would have made a perfectly respectable DJ and songwriter for more talented singers. Appearance-wise, is one among many similar NYC butterfaces I've encountered.
AvatarForm wrote:She has a nose like Gonzo the Great and her 'music' would be even worse if not for the assistance that modern technology provides.
Lady Gaga can certainly sing. There's a whole argument to be had about whether her approach to music actually drowns out her talent (and the contrast of her last couple of tracks being so bland musically and so weird in the videos certainly lend support to the argument) but I don't think it's very accurate to say she can't sing.
AvatarForm wrote:She has a nose like Gonzo the Great and her 'music' would be even worse if not for the assistance that modern technology provides.
Lady Gaga can certainly sing. There's a whole argument to be had about whether her approach to music actually drowns out her talent (and the contrast of her last couple of tracks being so bland musically and so weird in the videos certainly lend support to the argument) but I don't think it's very accurate to say she can't sing.
Please provide evidence. Everything so far indicates the contrary to your belief.
Yeah, so the musical discussion on offer here is pretty much in a terminal nosedive. I'm out.
I will leave with one parting shot, though:
Cannerus wrote:I have a theory that goes as follows: If someone holds down a note on a synth and other noise happens to be occurring nearby, Alby will say it's a good song Bonus points if someone drones in a voice that grates on me
One: anyone can sing.. just look at the "Idol" (american, canadian, european varients etc...) prelims......
Two: Autotuning isn't just making Cher sound warbly.... Its making an average singer sound better by leveling some vocals and highlighting others.
Three: The claim that the song in the OP is "derivative" isn't going to cut it if Madonna decides to take it to court.... Just ask Robert Matthew Van Winkle about his little foray into being "derivative".
For the record I meant no offense to Albatross, he's a good friend and probably one the most musically knowledegable people I know and I meant what I said as a joke. There are a few groups he's liked that use synths or have voices that bother me (Radiohead and Coldplay come to mind) and I was no way inferring anything about him and happen to have the Dresden album in my car. Just clearing the air.
The copycat claims I can deal with, calling someone out on something with no proof is a little irritating. She sang for all of 15 seconds on the last VMAs and stole the show, critics agreeing oddly enough. If you care for more proof, there are a few videos where her tracks drop out from behind her when the system messes up and she keeps singing, not counting acoustic performances. I'm up for arguing about the merits of originality or creativity in the name of fun, but not for having to defend the obvious as it's a little silly.
I've never seen that one It was one of the unreleased tracks we waited forever to have leak. She rarely acknowledges that these tracks exist except by quoting them in interviews then giving a brief pause for the fans to freak out Awesome find!
Go back to the only thing you can do; DANCE MUSIC. When you try to be an actual person,no one likes you. No one cares how unique and special you are. We just want to see you dress funny and play catchy music.
It's like trying to take daffy duck seriously when he wants to talk about duck hunting laws. No one cares.
Don't get me wrong, she does have talent, and she is quite captivating. I like her. Just not this song. Or the video.
The problem I have with GaGa's 'creativity' is that it is completely unbridled. She forces her brain to vomit onto her 'canvas', and the masses are showered with the end result. She has absolutely no artistic restraint, no motive (other than to catch as many people's attention as possible), and no real end result in mind. Thus, I lose all respect for her as an artist.
Anyone is capable of creating the first thing that comes to mind. That is not the purpose of art. There is no defining premise behind any of her 'work', no desired result, and no attempt to shape any of it into something worthwhile or cohesive. Her very existance is like a slap in the face to those of us who are actually attempting to create something meaningful.
This is not creativity, it is chaos. There is a marked difference between the two.
Chrysaor686 wrote:The problem I have with GaGa's 'creativity' is that it is completely unbridled. She forces her brain to vomit onto her 'canvas', and the masses are showered with the end result. She has absolutely no artistic restraint, no motive (other than to catch as many people's attention as possible), and no real end result in mind. Thus, I lose all respect for her as an artist.
Anyone is capable of creating the first thing that comes to mind. That is not the purpose of art. There is no defining premise behind any of her 'work', no desired result, and no attempt to shape any of it into something worthwhile or cohesive. Her very existance is like a slap in the face to those of us who are actually attempting to create something meaningful.
This is not creativity, it is chaos. There is a marked difference between the two.
GaGa in 20 years when her brain cannot vomit anything fresh or 'original':
I swear Cannerus whenever you make a thread like this you are basically spraying troll pheromone over the body of a sixteen year old Japanese school girl and instead of putting a apple in her mouth you put a wad of greasy orgasmic bacon.
Chrysaor686 wrote:The problem I have with GaGa's 'creativity' is that it is completely unbridled. She forces her brain to vomit onto her 'canvas', and the masses are showered with the end result. She has absolutely no artistic restraint, no motive (other than to catch as many people's attention as possible), and no real end result in mind. Thus, I lose all respect for her as an artist.
Anyone is capable of creating the first thing that comes to mind. That is not the purpose of art. There is no defining premise behind any of her 'work', no desired result, and no attempt to shape any of it into something worthwhile or cohesive. Her very existance is like a slap in the face to those of us who are actually attempting to create something meaningful.
This is not creativity, it is chaos. There is a marked difference between the two.
Interesting that there's no point behind it all. Glad to see you've done your research and aren't just making a gut reaction to something that makes you uncomfortable
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Interesting that there's no point behind it all. Glad to see you've done your research and aren't just making a gut reaction to something that makes you uncomfortable
Similar to the gut reaction that makes you attracted to her?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Interesting that there's no point behind it all. Glad to see you've done your research and aren't just making a gut reaction to something that makes you uncomfortable
Similar to the gut reaction that makes you attracted to her?
I figured it was worth responding with the same caliber of argument as has been used so far in this thread. I have more, but you haven't earned hearing it yet. Pose a real question and I might answer it.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Interesting that there's no point behind it all. Glad to see you've done your research and aren't just making a gut reaction to something that makes you uncomfortable
Similar to the gut reaction that makes you attracted to her?
I figured it was worth responding with the same caliber of argument as has been used so far in this thread. I have more, but you haven't earned hearing it yet. Pose a real question and I might answer it.
I disagree.
The real question has been posed to yourself much earlier in the thread, asking you to explain why you enjoy GaGa and believe her to be an 'original' artist, etc. So far, your answers and arguement have not satified, nor convinced the opposition.
I would now argue that you have not earned the right to continue without adding merit or substance to your side of the debate.
Wow. With that photopshop and makeup job, she looks remarkably similar to the 64 year old Cher.
No, but honestly: she has a perfectly nice body, and plastic surgery and makeup have made it so that her face isn't actually ugly. She's a typical butterface. Everything's nice but her face. The reality is that most Dakkanauts have been with or settled for worse. But she's not super-hot, by any means.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: I'll avoid the autotune accusation.
Facts are not insults nor accusations.
She has a nose like Gonzo the Great and her 'music' would be even worse if not for the assistance that modern technology provides.
AvatarForm wrote:
sebster wrote:
AvatarForm wrote:She has a nose like Gonzo the Great and her 'music' would be even worse if not for the assistance that modern technology provides.
Lady Gaga can certainly sing. There's a whole argument to be had about whether her approach to music actually drowns out her talent (and the contrast of her last couple of tracks being so bland musically and so weird in the videos certainly lend support to the argument) but I don't think it's very accurate to say she can't sing.
Please provide evidence. Everything so far indicates the contrary to your belief.
Autotune and other gimicks are not singing...
AvatarForm wrote:
Amaya wrote:
Shadowbrand wrote:Lady Gaga doesn't have a nice ass.
The Viking of Dakkadakka hath spoken!
Are you blind?
Are you confused?
Or do you have low standards?
Chrysaor686 wrote:The problem I have with GaGa's 'creativity' is that it is completely unbridled. She forces her brain to vomit onto her 'canvas', and the masses are showered with the end result. She has absolutely no artistic restraint, no motive (other than to catch as many people's attention as possible), and no real end result in mind. Thus, I lose all respect for her as an artist.
Anyone is capable of creating the first thing that comes to mind. That is not the purpose of art. There is no defining premise behind any of her 'work', no desired result, and no attempt to shape any of it into something worthwhile or cohesive. Her very existance is like a slap in the face to those of us who are actually attempting to create something meaningful.
This is not creativity, it is chaos. There is a marked difference between the two.
AvatarForm wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Absolute dog toffee. The song sounds more Madonna than Madonna as well!
Gaga copies Madonna and other 'artists' more than she is original.
cheesecat wrote:I also love how all the pictures are of her behind because not even Amaya wants to see her ape-like face.
warpcrafter wrote:
Pfft!!! Sounds like Madonna meets Nine Inch Nails. By the way, Cannerus, your avatar makes me feel like a pedo.
DickBandit wrote:I heard she is in fact a man.
Is this true?
Such wonderful arguments. The vast majority of this thread has been either accusations with a small pool of evidence (this sounds like this being the most common) or over the top hate. Mixed in with that are "This is my opinion posts" which I much, much prefer, entertaining accusations and a few good arguments.
The real question has been posed to yourself much earlier in the thread, asking you to explain why you enjoy GaGa and believe her to be an 'original' artist, etc. So far, your answers and arguement have not satified, nor convinced the opposition.
Has a single person actually asked me this? And since when do I need to justify liking an artist to you again? That's kinda screwed up. I just wanted to post the news that a new video was about and see some reactions, then added another song later. I've posted my story several times and if you're interested I'd tell you, though at this point I could say "because Jesus Christ, Mohammed and Zeus provably appeared to me and said to become a fanatic fanboy and that it would turn the world in to a paradise" and you would still poo-poo it so you get nothin' homeslice If you'd like to know, ask nicely and I'll assume you're not just going to needlessly tear my words to shreds with one-off accusations. It's actually fairly apparent that you've done no research whatsoever.
Hey, you don't need to justify your personal taste to anyone. Everyone likes what they like. Especially if it happens to connect with them while you're in your passionate, emotional adolescence. You feel everything more intensely in those years, and most of us really bond with and love the music that touches us in that period.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: Pose a real question and I might answer it.
Hey, as a more fun alternative to arguing with him, any interest in checking out those Peter Gabriel videos I linked to and letting me know what you think? I think the guy made some really amazing, creative music.
Wow. With that photopshop and makeup job, she looks remarkably similar to the 64 year old Cher.
No, but honestly: she has a perfectly nice body, and plastic surgery and makeup have made it so that her face isn't actually ugly. She's a typical butterface. Everything's nice but her face. The reality is that most Dakkanauts have been with or settled for worse. But she's not super-hot, by any means.
I've found with celebs it's very easy to find pictures that look like one another simply because they get so many pictures taken and do different photoshoots. I don't expect anyone to think she's super hot, but I also don't see why she's getting held to a standard where she has to be absolutely perfect. Just as an example, the somewhat recent thread about women we find attractive but aren't technically attractive had it's fair share of critique on women some considered... not so hot, but it managed not to be over the top. Gaga elicits big reactions one way or the other, much like Twilight and not so long ago Harry Potter
And I've been meaning too, just hadn't had time where I could sit down and really soak it in, which I like to do with music I'm not familiar with. My roommate is rather loud constantly and will play music, watch tv and leave the bathroom fan on all at once while blabbing non stop, which makes for a bad environment to enjoy music I might get around to it tonight, but should be able to tomorrow for sure.
I was listening to his double live concert CD Plays Live in the car yesterday and today, and it's just stupidly good. His voice was phenomenal, too. It's still great (witness the more recent live performance in those links I posted), but thirty years ago it was amazing.
Kate is both weird and awesome. Which makes her an excellent reference point for Gaga, who is also weird, and not untalented, but not as creative or talented as Bush, though much more commercially successful than I think Bush has ever been.
Kate and PG's duet "Don't Give Up" is an all-time great song of perseverence through hard times and sorrow. Though the official video for it is comically terrible.
This track would be better if those guys would stop playing ping pong in the background But srsly, while it doesn't suffer completely from the static-ness I've complained about in other tracks, it failed to hook me at any point in particular. Just kinda did the same thing, then did the same thing louder with back-up singers til the outro when the orchestra clearly snorted a few lines of coke. While I wasn't exactly following the lyrics as much as the melody, I don't know what that burst at the end was for and it could have been any musical device and been just as ineffective for me. It probably doesn't help that I consider classical the most boring genre ever.
Prolly hate me for this, but I get a Police-ish vibe initially (not playing the "copy" game here, just giving a parallel), but at least a Police song would have picked up at some point. Musically, what's the point of this song? The only answer I can come up with is "to wallow." I'm not questioning his ability, but I'm just not hearing much of anything happening. I understand the absence of something happening can be it's own strong point, but not when... nothing happens.
I'd strongly suggest Dream Theater's Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence to give you a much, much more dynamic version of what the first track was doing (granted at 42 minutes it's a bit time consuming). I'd strongly suggest the Score version (it's live with full orchestra, but that album is worth it on many levels) but I can't find it, so 6doit it is:
The Rhythm of the Heat:
It's not classical. PG has an orchestra backing him in this performance, but it's not classical music in any sense.
This is a song about Carl Jung's experiences in Africa; the rhythms of tribal drums, and the ways the observer connects with and is moved by the tribal people and their rituals. The climax at the end is when the observer drops his detachment and participates: "Self-conscious, uncertain / showered by the dust / the spirit enters into me / and I submit to trust." He then releases the trappings of modernity ("smash the radio / no outside voices here / smash the watch / can't tear the day to shreds / smash the camera / cannot steal away the spirits"), and the drums then build into the crescendo of a ritual dance.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/petergabriel/therhythmoftheheat.html
Mercy Street:
I love The Police, but I'm not seeing any similarities there. Maybe I've listened to too much of each.
Nothing happens? Does the song not describe the life and mood and thoughts of Anne Sexton? Does it not give insight into her mind, even if you have no idea who she is? Her mental illness, her observing the world, and "the dreams made real" by others, while she is unable to make her own real? Her reliance on her poetry (words) to support herself, even as she pulled them out of darkness (her depression)? Are the melodies not beautiful? Is PG's voice not lovely, and expressive? Are the lyrics not poetic and well-crafted? IMO the lyrics themselves would make an outstanding poem, even without the melody of the music and the mood it creates.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/petergabriel/mercystreet.html
I'll check out the Dream Theatre thing. If you want to talk scores, PG did the score for The Last Temptation of Christ, and it's one of the most amazing, spiritual and sexiest things I've ever heard.
Using "epic sounding" music to communicate feelings and a story; I honestly don't see the big difference aside from some genre elements. The big point I was trying to make was how what's going on musically changes every minute or so, whereas PG seems to pick one main sound for a song and it just sort of goes on til the song ends. That's perfectly fine if that sound is ideal to you, but not so much if you appreciate a bit of complexity. The latter stuff you posted I enjoyed a bit more as I'd call it less boring, though I honestly think a more energetic person covering the songs could make them sound more appealing to me.
I think you're making some inaccurate generalizations, and I would guess that maybe lyrics aren't as important to you as they are to me.
I found the DT stuff kind of juvenile and shallow, though I could see where one could make a comparison that both records have a distinct theatricality/are going for a staged effect. I guess I could see where one could view the DT track as more complex, but again; they're not really aiming for similar goals in those two tracks. Complexity would be inappropriate to TRotH's tribal tale. PG's certainly got other, much more complex tracks.
I can guess where you're coming from on the energy level/cover sound, too. I've often (especially when I was younger) appreciated an more recent cover version of an old song; in part because that often means it's been given an updated, newer sound, and in part because doing that often means making it faster and harder.
Although Jack actually slows it down while making it rawer and harder.
I dug around on youtube a bit trying to find the version of TRotH from PG's "Plays Live" concert album, which is my favorite version and I think would probably blow your hair back. Lots of energy in that performance, as well as very clean vocals and sound. But couldn't find it. :( If you get a chance to dig up that CD or DL some tracks from it, I think it might be worth your time.
Mannahnin wrote:I think you're making some inaccurate generalizations, and I would guess that maybe lyrics aren't as important to you as they are to me.
I figured that out when he said he liked Lady Gaga on the first page.
Mannahnin wrote:I think you're making some inaccurate generalizations, and I would guess that maybe lyrics aren't as important to you as they are to me.
A strong lyric is only as good as it's delivery.
I found the DT stuff kind of juvenile and shallow, though I could see where one could make a comparison that both records have a distinct theatricality/are going for a staged effect. I guess I could see where one could view the DT track as more complex, but again; they're not really aiming for similar goals in those two tracks. Complexity would be inappropriate to TRotH's tribal tale. PG's certainly got other, much more complex tracks.
I'm not talking about outright complexity so much as something different happening. Simplicity as a theme is very different from simplicity in execution. I've also never heard someone call DT shallow or juvenile... An extreme example of a track that is dynamic would be this (offensive on several levels so just the link): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_Gyh1r-ut0 Every several measures you're hearing something different going on as it constantly ping pongs you to a different place while also retaining a strong message. I'm not saying all songs have to have that sort of dynamic element, but I enjoy it much more than songs that stay flat musically the entire time and rely on lyrical strength to be their only effective method of delivery. Contrary to the general bias, I know what I'm describing here
As far as covers go, I've seen it go both ways. The Alien Ant Farm version of Smooth Criminal is amazing, but I did some research on that song Fraz posted in the other thread (I'm gonna be a wheel someday) and listened to several covers and none of them captured that same element of infectious boogy the first had, only replaced it with some other genre that didn't seem to work out so well and mellowed it out overall. A cover needs to especially establish it's own authenticity for it to be worth it to me. Covers really are their own separate conversation for me, and I think it would make for an interesting thread all on it's own.
More or less. Bad lyrics, for me, are rarely going to be made up for even with excellent delivery. But ideally you want both. Which PG usually brings in spades. Not every vocalist needs to sing Christina Aguilera-style. Though PG (especially when he was younger, in the 70s and 80s) certainly could deliver some sonically-amazing vocals.
Covers: I hear what you're saying. Sure. Many covers suck. Compare the Billy Idol version of L.A. Woman to the Doors' original. I'm just saying that you appear to want a more updated/faster/up-tempo sound, which would make updated covers in some cases logically more appealing to you than some originals.
As for DT... I'd rather not get into a deep discussion of them. I know that they're technically-talented musicians, but it felt like a waste of my time. Showy but meaningless.
Mannahnin wrote:Sure. Many covers suck. Compare the Billy Idol version of L.A. Woman to the Doors' original. I'm just saying that you appear to want a more updated/faster/up-tempo sound, which would make updated covers in some cases logically more appealing to you than some originals.
As for DT... I'd rather not get into a deep discussion of them. I know that they're technically-talented musicians, but it felt like a waste of my time. Showy but meaningless.
I don't mind down-tempo if it changes from time to time. A good example: http://new.music.yahoo.com/tracy-bonham/tracks/give-us-something-to-feel--1813532 The verse and pre-chorus each change melodies once halfway through and the chorus carries a different mood and instrumentation even though it has the same back end. There's also a bridge that consists of a single note held out for a few measures that transitions in a nicely composed outro with only strings. It manages to create a significant difference between each part while staying cohesive.The static element is the only real complaint I have.
Chrysaor686 wrote:This is not creativity, it is chaos. There is a marked difference between the two.
CHAOS IS OUR MASTER!
But semi seriously:
I don't really care for her music, mostly because I don't like the style of it. She has a fair bit of Talent (if she is the one writing her songs) and you do honestly have to respect her for that.
Alas, she killed Kermit. Over and over and over. And then wore his heads all over her body. And for that....
AV Club just did an article on how to get into Kate Bush, and I can't help that this thread isn't somehow at fault. So if you'd like to get into Kate Bush, give it a look.
Thanks for posting that. Good article. I don't think I had ever seen the video for This Woman's Work, either, which is the second great song of hers hooked into this thread with an awesome video prominently featuring a cast member from Black Adder.
Mannahnin wrote:Thanks for posting that. Good article. I don't think I had ever seen the video for This Woman's Work, either, which is the second great song of hers hooked into this thread with an awesome video prominently featuring a cast member from Black Adder.
So you are saying you'd like to get into Kate Bush?
Mannahnin wrote:Tracy Bonham, huh? Well, I'll give you some cred for that. I still have my copy of The Burdens of Being Upright around here somewhere...
Blink the Brightest is an amazing album. Winners all around IMO. The newest one was a bit of a let down imo, much more "normal" sounding instrumentally.
Was going to make another Monster Ball thread like last year but it seemed horribly unnecessary. None of my pics from the show turned out so I'm left with a bunch of pictures of me.
It explains the skin prosthetics at least. I just feel like in it's comparative minimalism I've been out-Gaga-ed even greater than the more elaborate attempts. At this point I'm definitely giving 
Is alien birthing considered offensive?
Condescending...
)
It was one of the unreleased tracks we waited forever to have leak. She rarely acknowledges that these tracks exist except by quoting them in interviews then giving a brief pause for the fans to freak out 
