Why It's Time to Stop Paying Attention to Lady Gaga

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

ShumaGorath wrote:Its not my kind of music. I listen to a variety, but very little empty pop beats. I hate counterculture whine threads. This threads just as bad as the 3d movie or new videogame threads that are up right now. If you don't like lady gaga, apple, and starbucks thats cool, but If your only reasons is because you don't like things that are popular then you're every bit as shallow as the things you profess to "hate". Don't try and dress up your opinions though. Thats mostly what this thread is. Hatred of the popular for the sake that it is popular.

**IG_urban**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
IG_urban wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:ITT IG Urban feels it's his job to hate something he has no interest in because it's popular and it's fun for him to feel like he's in the counterculture crowd.

that's just like, your opinion, man.

Emperors Faithful finds this post amusing. And EF also begins to wonder if Shuma is a closet Gaga/Ke$ha fan.

Its not my kind of music. I listen to a variety, but very little empty pop beats. I hate counterculture whine threads. This threads just as bad as the 3d movie or new videogame threads that are up right now. If you don't like lady gaga, apple, and starbucks thats cool, but If your only reasons is because you don't like things that are popular then you're every bit as shallow as the things you profess to "hate". Don't try and dress up your opinions though. Thats mostly what this thread is. Hatred of the popular for the sake that it is popular.

Not liking things because they are popular has nothing to do with it. I love Harry Potter, I can't wait for the second to last movie coming out. I love many things that are popular...like Food Network...mmm....Food Network....I can't speak for other people sharing my sentiments, though.

My opinion on Lady Gaga remains unchanged.

**Mr Mystery**

IG_urban wrote:
I tried avoiding writing about Lady Gaga for a really long time. Wasn't interested. She's just a disposable pop singer with no observable talent, like most disposable pop singers.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-its-time-to-stop-paying-attention-to-lady-gaga/

I weep for the future.

...that is all.

So stop paying attention to someone extremely successful and entertaining, and start paying attention to some jumped up little eogtist on the Interwebs who is trying to tell me what to listen to and appreciate. Oh, the irony is palpable.

**IG_urban**

Mr Mystery wrote:
IG_urban wrote:
I tried avoiding writing about Lady Gaga for a really long time. Wasn't interested. She's just a disposable pop singer with no observable talent, like most disposable pop singers.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-its-time-to-stop-paying-attention-to-lady-gaga/

I weep for the future.

...that is all.

So stop paying attention to someone extremely successful and entertaining, and start paying attention to some jumped up little eogtist on the Interwebs who is trying to tell me what to listen to and appreciate. Oh, the irony is palpable.

I think it's more a long the lines of the article author's opinion. If you don't like it, then don't. If you do, then do. There a hundreds of millions of places to go, things to read, and vids to watch on the internet.

**Mr Mystery**

No no no.

He was talking in absolutes, not opinion. So tell me, why should I pay attention to him, at all? Because he's on the Interwebs? Because he claims to speak for the majority?

**Shadowbrand**

I don't see much point to whine about Gaga or Bieber, in a few years some new pop-idol will be calling the shots anyways.

**Monster Rain**

Mr Mystery wrote:No no no.

He was talking in absolutes, not opinion. So tell me, why should I pay attention to him, at all? Because he's on the Interwebs?

That is exactly why.

**IG_urban**

Mr Mystery wrote:No no no.

He was talking in absolutes, not opinion. So tell me, why should I pay attention to him, at all? Because he's on the Interwebs? Because he claims to speak for the majority?

Absolutes in HIS opinion? Yes. I posted the article because I thought it had some funny parts, and I can resonate with it.

You don't really have to pay attention to him at all? Why do you feel that you need to?

**ShumaGorath**

IG_urban wrote:
Mr Mystery wrote:No no no.

He was talking in absolutes, not opinion. So tell me, why should I pay attention to him, at all? Because he's on the Interwebs? Because he claims to speak for the majority?

Absolutes in HIS opinion? Yes. I posted the article because I thought it had some funny parts, and I can resonate with it.

You don't really have to pay attention to him at all? Why do you feel that you need to?

Why shouldn't he? You posted it on the forum that he posts on and participates in.

**IG_urban**

ShumaGorath wrote:
IG_urban wrote:
Mr Mystery wrote:No no no.

He was talking in absolutes, not opinion. So tell me, why should I pay attention to him, at all? Because he's on the Interwebs? Because he claims to speak for the majority?

Absolutes in HIS opinion? Yes. I posted the article because I thought it had some funny parts, and I can resonate with it.

You don't really have to pay attention to him at all? Why do you feel that you need to?

Why shouldn't he? You posted it on the forum that he posts on and participates in.

I suppose if we wants to, he can. But just because it's posted on a forum that he is a member of, does not mean he has to pay attention to it. That's silly.

**Mr Mystery**

And yet it was someone trying to tell me something. Should I simply have lived in ignorance or investigated?

And regard his failure. Here we are, discussing the divine Lady GaGa regardless of his pulpit style preaching.

Ironyman! Ironyman! Does what and Irony Can!

**ShumaGorath**

IG_urban wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
IG_urban wrote:
Mr Mystery wrote:No no no.

He was talking in absolutes, not opinion. So tell me, why should I pay attention to him, at all? Because he's on the Interwebs? Because he claims to speak for the majority?

Absolutes in HIS opinion? Yes. I posted the article because I thought it had some funny parts, and I can resonate with it.

You don't really have to pay attention to him at all? Why do you feel that you need to?

Why shouldn't he? You posted it on the forum that he posts on and participates in.

I suppose if we wants to, he can. But just because it's posted on a forum that he is a member of, does not mean he has to pay attention to it. That's silly.

You didn't have to post it. What a person does or doesn't have to do is irrelevant given that we do not have a duty to act a certain way so long as we dont violate the forum rules here. He is every bit as welcome to think this thread and its article is stupid as you are to post it in the first place.

**Samus_aran115**

Eh, she's okay. I'd never see a concert or anything, nor would I even listen to her music in private, but I'm not going to badmouth her. She seems like a talented girl...Just silly.

**IG_urban**

ShumaGorath wrote:
IG_urban wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
IG_urban wrote:
Mr Mystery wrote:No no no.

He was talking in absolutes, not opinion. So tell me, why should I pay attention to him, at all? Because he's on the Interwebs? Because he claims to speak for the majority?

Absolutes in HIS opinion? Yes. I posted the article because I thought it had some funny parts, and I can resonate with it.

You don't really have to pay attention to him at all? Why do you feel that you need to?

Why shouldn't he? You posted it on the forum that he posts on and participates in.

I suppose if we wants to, he can. But just because it's posted on a forum that he is a member of, does not mean he has to pay attention to it. That's silly.

You didn't have to post it. What a person does or doesn't have to do is irrelevant given that we do not have a duty to act a certain way so long as we dont violate the forum rules here. He is every bit as welcome to think this thread and its article is stupid as you are to post it in the first place.

I never insinuated that he had no right to make a comment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:And yet it was someone trying to tell me something. Should I simply have lived in ignorance or investigated?

And regard his failure. Here we are, discussing the divine Lady GaGa regardless of his pulpit style preaching.

Ironyman! Ironyman! Does what and Irony Can!

I think that without much searching, you can find hundreds of thousands of articles that follow a similar formula. If somebody feels strongly about something, they generally present they're opinion as fact, just look at Shuma.

I agree it's very ironic.

I also welcome your opinion.

**ShumaGorath**

I think that without much searching, you can find hundreds of thousands of articles that follow a similar formula. If somebody feels strongly about something, they generally present they're opinion as fact, just look at Shuma.

Your mistake here is in not realizing that i present facts as opinions, not the other way 'round!

**Mr Mystery**

And also, how is the author any different to his subject of vitriol?

He has posted up a 'controversial' opinion, in the hope of gaining attention. Just as Lady Gaga uses blatant publicity stunts to garner attention. Except of course, one of them is smart enough to do it to make lots and lots of money....

**IG_urban**

ShumaGorath wrote:
I think that without much searching, you can find hundreds of thousands of articles that follow a similar formula. If somebody feels strongly about something, they generally present they're opinion as fact, just look at Shuma.

Your mistake here is in not realizing that i present facts as opinions, not the other way 'round!

Sure.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:And also, how is the author any different to his subject of vitriol?

He's not really. Except for the fact that he's writing words and doesn't have flames coming out of chrome nipples....

...but when you get down to it, it's the same mentality, I still think the article was humorous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And there lies the bottom line. Lady Gaga is doing essentially what the author of my OP article is doing, just on a larger scale. So, inherently, she is expressing her opinion in a radical way. I just dislike her methods. As some dislike the author's.

**Gitzbitah**

Ironically, by posting in this thread you are paying attention to Lady Gaga- which is what she wants. Even more ironically, the original poster has only furthered her goals while attempting to disrupt her schemes.

**IG_urban**

you are a little late to the party.

**Chrysaor686**

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Nice rule #1 evasion there I honestly didn't think it was funny or well-written regardless. Something Awful > Cracked if there is there usual standard.

I wasn't attempting to be particularly offensive, even if I might've come across that way. Setting standards for what subjects you can and can't laugh at is inherently hypocritical. Not being able to take a joke directed at your demographic displays a certain lack of fortitude.

As for Something Awful being better than Cracked, I'd have to disagree, though I'm not arguing that either one is better than the other. They might both be humor-based websites, but they are on completely different ends of the spectrum. I tend to enjoy Cracked more, as Something Awful doesn't have that same informative, self-aware, fearless, and referential brand of humor that I enjoy so much. If it did, then they might be worth comparing. Something Awful is much more random in nature, and it doesn't really serve to teach you anything as Cracked tends to.

**Monster Rain**

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/magazine/article389697.ece

While we're on the subject.

The Sunday Times wrote:Lady Gaga is the first major star of the digital age. Since her rise, she has remained almost continually on tour. Hence, she is a moving target who has escaped serious scrutiny. She is often pictured tottering down the street in some outlandish get-up and fright wig. Most of what she has said about herself has not been independently corroborated… “Music is a lie”, “Art is a lie”, “Gaga is a lie”, and “I profusely lie” have been among Gaga’s pronouncements, but her fans swallow her line whole…

She constantly touts her symbiotic bond with her fans, the “little monsters”, who she inspires to “love themselves” as if they are damaged goods in need of her therapeutic repair. “You’re a superstar, no matter who you are!” She earnestly tells them from the stage, while their cash ends up in her pockets. She told a magazine with messianic fervour: “I love my fans more than any artist who has ever lived.” She claims to have changed the lives of the disabled, thrilled by her jewelled parody crutches in the Paparazzi video.

Although she presents herself as the clarion voice of all the freaks and misfits of life, there is little evidence that she ever was one. Her upbringing was comfortable and eventually affluent, and she attended the same upscale Manhattan private school as Paris and Nicky Hilton. There is a monumental disconnect between Gaga’s melodramatic self-portrayal as a lonely, rebellious, marginalised artist and the powerful corporate apparatus that bankrolled her makeover and has steamrollered her songs into heavy rotation on radio stations everywhere.

For two years, I have spent an irritating amount of time trying to avoid Gaga’s catchy but depthless hits Lady Gaga is a manufactured personality, and a recent one at that. Photos of Stefani Germanotta just a few years ago show a bubbly brunette with a glowing complexion. The Gaga of world fame, however, with her heavy wigs and giant sunglasses (rudely worn during interviews) looks either simperingly doll-like or ghoulish, without a trace of spontaneity. Every public appearance, even absurdly at airports where most celebrities want to pass incognito, has been lavishly scripted in advance with a flamboyant outfit and bizarre hairdo assembled by an invisible company of elves.

Furthermore, despite showing acres of pallid flesh in the fetish-bondage garb of urban prostitution, Gaga isn’t sexy at all – she’s like a gangly marionette or plasticised android. How could a figure so calculated and artificial, so clinical and strangely antiseptic, so stripped of genuine eroticism have become the icon of her generation? Can it be that Gaga represents the exhausted end of the sexual revolution? In Gaga’s manic miming of persona after persona, over-conceptualised and claustrophobic, we may have reached the limit of an era…

Gaga has borrowed so heavily from Madonna (as in her latest video-Alejandro) that it must be asked, at what point does homage become theft? However, the main point is that the young Madonna was on fire. She was indeed the imperious Marlene Dietrich’s true heir. For Gaga, sex is mainly decor and surface; she’s like a laminated piece of ersatz rococo furniture. Alarmingly, Generation Gaga can’t tell the difference. Is it the death of sex? Perhaps the symbolic status that sex had for a century has gone kaput; that blazing trajectory is over…

Gaga seems comet-like, a stimulating burst of novelty, even though she is a ruthless recycler of other people’s work. She is the diva of déjà vu. Gaga has glibly appropriated from performers like Cher, Jane Fonda as Barbarella, Gwen Stefani and Pink, as well as from fashion muses like Isabella Blow and Daphne Guinness. Drag queens, whom Gaga professes to admire, are usually far sexier in many of her over-the-top outfits than she is.

Peeping dourly through all that tat is Gaga’s limited range of facial expressions. Her videos repeatedly thrust that blank, lugubrious face at the camera and us; it’s creepy and coercive. Marlene and Madonna gave the impression, true or false, of being pansexual. Gaga, for all her writhing and posturing, is asexual. Going off to the gym in broad daylight, as Gaga recently did, dressed in a black bustier, fishnet stockings and stiletto heels isn’t sexy – it’s sexually dysfunctional.

Compare Gaga’s insipid songs, with their nursery-rhyme nonsense syllables, to the title and hypnotic refrain of the first Madonna song and video to bring her attention on MTV, Burning Up, with its elemental fire imagery and its then-shocking offer of fellatio. In place of Madonna’s valiant life force, what we find in Gaga is a disturbing trend towards mutilation and death…

Gaga is in way over her head with her avant-garde pretensions… She wants to have it both ways – to be hip and avant-garde and yet popular and universal, a practitioner of gung-ho “show biz”. Most of her worshippers seem to have had little or no contact with such powerful performers as Tina Turner or Janis Joplin, with their huge personalities and deep wells of passion.

Generation Gaga doesn’t identify with powerful vocal styles because their own voices have atrophied: they communicate mutely via a constant stream of atomised, telegraphic text messages. Gaga’s flat affect doesn’t bother them because they’re not attuned to facial expressions.

Gaga's fans are marooned in a global technocracy of fancy gadgets but emotional poverty. Borderlines have been blurred between public and private: reality TV shows multiply, cell phone conversations blare everywhere; secrets are heedlessly blabbed on Facebook and Twitter. Hence, Gaga gratuitously natters on about her vagina…

Just to point out that not all criticism of her comes from dudes on the internet trying to rail against the "establishment, man!"

I disagree with a few of the premises in the article, but for the most part I thought it was an interesting read.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

That's a terrible article :/ I could go point by point and give context or opposing quotes to what the apparently very bitter guy is droning on about. Literally everything he sites as reference is taken completely the wrong way, and I can say that objectively. If we're going for that sort of thing, let's not forget the grandfather of them all...

Lady Gaga, Illuminati Puppet!

**Albatross**

It's by Camille Paglia, a woman. I thought it was thought-provoking. Certainly more eloquently argued than the usual jabs. I would be interested to find out which parts you would rebut, and how.

**Monster Rain**

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:That's a terrible article :/ I could go point by point and give context or opposing quotes to what the apparently very bitter guy is droning on about. Literally everything he sites as reference is taken completely the wrong way, and I can say that objectively. If we're going for that sort of thing, let's not forget the grandfather of them all...

Lady Gaga, Illuminati Puppet!

The link you provided is to an extremist, underground crazy-talk site and the story I referenced is from a pretty well-known source if it's based in the UK and I heard about it in the States.

We all get that you like Lady Gaga, I'm just pointing out that there is more intelligent criticism of her out there than simply hipsters hating on her because she's popular.

Albatross wrote:It's by Camille Paglia, a woman. I thought it was thought-provoking. Certainly more eloquently argued than the usual jabs. I would be interested to find out which parts you would rebut, and how.

Seconded.

What did she get so wrong in the article?

**IG_urban**

Monster Rain wrote:We all get that you like Lady Gaga, I'm just pointing out that there is more intelligent criticism of her out there than simply hipsters hating on her because she's popular.

glad it's not just me.

**Monster Rain**

IG_urban wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:We all get that you like Lady Gaga, I'm just pointing out that there is more intelligent criticism of her out there than simply hipsters hating on her because she's popular.

glad it's not just me.

I don't even dislike her that much. There's a few reasons why that's so.

1: She reminds me of Marilyn Manson, who I happen to still love after all these years. Antichrist Superstar is, in my opinion, a perfect rock album.

2: God help me, some of those Gaga songs are catchy.

3: Sort of a offshoot of 1, maybe, but she pisses people off and I enjoy controversy.

All that being said, I do happen to think that article I posted makes some good points and it's worth thinking about what makes someone like Gaga a celebrity and why.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

If I must

The Sunday Times wrote:Lady Gaga is the first major star of the digital age. Since her rise, she has remained almost continually on tour. Hence, she is a moving target who has escaped serious scrutiny. She is often pictured tottering down the street in some outlandish get-up and fright wig. Most of what she has said about herself has not been independently corroborated… “Music is a lie”, “Art is a lie”, “Gaga is a lie”, and “I profusely lie” have been among Gaga’s pronouncements, but her fans swallow her line whole…

I have no clue how being on tour raises you above scrutiny for starters. How about the full quotes?

“Everyone wonders who Lady Gaga is. Who is the person behind the make-up and the glasses?” The Sydney Morning Herald quoted her as saying during a sit-down chat with Fairfax in New York.

“I’m a performance artist and this is what I do. Art is a lie and every day I kill to make it true,” she added.

Next ones a summary but Google it to find the whole interview if you really want to:

Lady GaGa lies "profusely" about herself in interviews - in a bid to protect her personal relationships.

Sounds a bit different in context, eh? She also has never said Music was a lie or that Gaga was.

She constantly touts her symbiotic bond with her fans, the “little monsters”, who she inspires to “love themselves” as if they are damaged goods in need of her therapeutic repair. “You’re a superstar, no matter who you are!” She earnestly tells them from the stage, while their cash ends up in her pockets. She told a magazine with messianic fervour: “I love my fans more than any artist who has ever lived.” She claims to have changed the lives of the disabled, thrilled by her jewelled parody crutches in the Paparazzi video.

So she's some arrogant person touting her ability to help the disabled? Whatev: http://popdash.com/news/281/lady-gaga-%27i-want-to-change-lives%27?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+popdash+%28PopDash.com%29 Very different story there and everywhere else you'll look.

Here's a quote she gives at every concert: "Don't you ever let a soul in the world tell you that you can't be exactly who you are." Following that quote she says "if someone asks you if you love Lady Gaga, tell them you love yourself." That's at every show. She encourages the fans to talk to the people around them and leave with new friends. The theme is ultimately not about her, it's about everyone and unity, though she sprinkles the fame whore elements in there and even makes jokes about them on stage. A good example is that she stops everything at some point and asks "do you think I'm sexy?" and the crowd goes nuts. She then goes on to say "I think you're sexy" and the crowd goes nuts again. She then goes back to "but the important thing is, do you think I'm sexy?" and everyone goes nuts again. She usually cracks a joke after about how she likes to abuse that part of the show.

The crutches in the paparazzi video are paired with an outfit from an old George Michael video. She was in a wheelchair moments before from being thrown off a balcony. It's a montage scene of her recovering, but in typical Gaga flair. This woman is a slow, I'm sorry.

Although she presents herself as the clarion voice of all the freaks and misfits of life, there is little evidence that she ever was one. Her upbringing was comfortable and eventually affluent, and she attended the same upscale Manhattan private school as Paris and Nicky Hilton. There is a monumental disconnect between Gaga’s melodramatic self-portrayal as a lonely, rebellious, marginalised artist and the powerful corporate apparatus that bankrolled her makeover and has steamrollered her songs into heavy rotation on radio stations everywhere.

Just because your parents are rich doesn't mean you're fulfilled. She was teased in school (for many of the same things people do now) and got in trouble for various things since it was a Catholic school. Her makeover was out of her pocket, working with friends and a small producer at times. That happened before she ever got signed.

For two years, I have spent an irritating amount of time trying to avoid Gaga’s catchy but depthless hits Lady Gaga is a manufactured personality, and a recent one at that. Photos of Stefani Germanotta just a few years ago show a bubbly brunette with a glowing complexion. The Gaga of world fame, however, with her heavy wigs and giant sunglasses (rudely worn during interviews) looks either simperingly doll-like or ghoulish, without a trace of spontaneity. Every public appearance, even absurdly at airports where most celebrities want to pass incognito, has been lavishly scripted in advance with a flamboyant outfit and bizarre hairdo assembled by an invisible company of elves.

Hateful drivel. Rudely worn during interviews indeed, whatwhat!

Furthermore, despite showing acres of pallid flesh in the fetish-bondage garb of urban prostitution, Gaga isn’t sexy at all – she’s like a gangly marionette or plasticised android. How could a figure so calculated and artificial, so clinical and strangely antiseptic, so stripped of genuine eroticism have become the icon of her generation? Can it be that Gaga represents the exhausted end of the sexual revolution? In Gaga’s manic miming of persona after persona, over-conceptualised and claustrophobic, we may have reached the limit of an era…

Somebody's jealous. I know a large number of guys and otherwise straight women who'd jump at the chance.

Edit: There's a certain element of her not trying to be traditionally sexy as well. She dressed up as a dude for a recent photo shoot as well as having stuffed a dildo in her pants in another. When you do different things with your appearance besides the norm, you're either trying to stay hidden or trying to get noticed and reinvent what's sexy. Guess which applies.

Gaga has borrowed so heavily from Madonna (as in her latest video-Alejandro) that it must be asked, at what point does homage become theft? However, the main point is that the young Madonna was on fire. She was indeed the imperious Marlene Dietrich’s true heir. For Gaga, sex is mainly decor and surface; she’s like a laminated piece of ersatz rococo furniture. Alarmingly, Generation Gaga can’t tell the difference. Is it the death of sex? Perhaps the symbolic status that sex had for a century has gone kaput; that blazing trajectory is over…

Care to supply any proof with the accusation? They made spanish-sounding songs? If anything her song is closer to Ace of Base, but I guess the Madonna comparison requires even less research to come up with (consistent theme here).

Gaga seems comet-like, a stimulating burst of novelty, even though she is a ruthless recycler of other people’s work. She is the diva of déjà vu. Gaga has glibly appropriated from performers like Cher, Jane Fonda as Barbarella, Gwen Stefani and Pink, as well as from fashion muses like Isabella Blow and Daphne Guinness. Drag queens, whom Gaga professes to admire, are usually far sexier in many of her over-the-top outfits than she is.

And they've "copied" her to. Again, lots of times other people design her outfits (namely fashion designers). More hateful, unfounded drivel at the end.

Peeping dourly through all that tat is Gaga’s limited range of facial expressions. Her videos repeatedly thrust that blank, lugubrious face at the camera and us; it’s creepy and coercive. Marlene and Madonna gave the impression, true or false, of being pansexual. Gaga, for all her writhing and posturing, is asexual. Going off to the gym in broad daylight, as Gaga recently did, dressed in a black bustier, fishnet stockings and stiletto heels isn’t sexy – it’s sexually dysfunctional.

Eh? The Fame era gave us a tan Gaga that smiled all the time, was loud and wore hairbows. The Fame Monster era has given us a darker gaga, one that's pale and always with a monotonous expression at events. Again, what's the deal with this woman attacking Gaga being sexy or not? Seriously, people say she's ugly on one end then they go on about how much of a slut she's trying to be. Which one is it? I promise if a girl wants to slut out there are much easier ways to do so than creating elaborate outfits.

Edit: For anyone interested the next era has been dubbed the Kingdom era and she seems to be dressing more old-school rock than anything else for her day to day outfits.

Compare Gaga’s insipid songs, with their nursery-rhyme nonsense syllables, to the title and hypnotic refrain of the first Madonna song and video to bring her attention on MTV, Burning Up, with its elemental fire imagery and its then-shocking offer of fellatio. In place of Madonna’s valiant life force, what we find in Gaga is a disturbing trend towards mutilation and death…

No idea what this video has to do with Gaga. To be fair, Madonna's video and lyrics are a lot more straight forward and can be taken purely at face value.

Gaga is in way over her head with her avant-garde pretensions… She wants to have it both ways – to be hip and avant-garde and yet popular and universal, a practitioner of gung-ho “show biz”. Most of her worshippers seem to have had little or no contact with such powerful performers as Tina Turner or Janis Joplin, with their huge personalities and deep wells of passion.

She calls herself an artist in general. There's fashion, performance, songs, etc. It's a whole package and that's not a bad thing. I'm quite familiar with Tina Turner and to a lesser extent Janis Joplin. Interesting how Tina's big hit is actually a CCR song...

Generation Gaga doesn’t identify with powerful vocal styles because their own voices have atrophied: they communicate mutely via a constant stream of atomised, telegraphic text messages. Gaga’s flat affect doesn’t bother them because they’re not attuned to facial expressions.

Gaga's fans are marooned in a global technocracy of fancy gadgets but emotional poverty. Borderlines have been blurred between public and private: reality TV shows multiply, cell phone conversations blare everywhere; secrets are heedlessly blabbed on Facebook and Twitter. Hence, Gaga gratuitously natters on about her vagina…

Translation: I hate progress. Things aren't how they used to be. Waaaaaaaah.

Is there even one sentence of value in this entire article? I know I'm biased, but how could anyone not see how much unfounded bs this whole thing really is?

**WarOne**

She does seem to be slowly descending down into an obscene but colorful nightmare of insanity and unusual wardrobes.

But I have to agree that a few of her songs are good and the music videos very well done I may say.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

I'm not trying to argue that she's god or something. I'm just saying that that particular article wasn't remotely convincing or good. There is intelligent criticism out there, but none of it has been near this thread.

**WarOne**

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I'm not trying to argue that she's god or something. I'm just saying that that particular article wasn't remotely convincing or good. There is intelligent criticism out there, but none of it has been near this thread.

Alright. Would you like to introduce some criticisms to her style that are intelligent?