♫ Opinions on Old Music? ♫

[Richie]

I like old music, but it depends if I'm in the mood to listen to it.

[RedStratocas]

so you're telling me these kind of appearances aren't far fetched, and just a 'logical extension' of whats been done before?
musically however, i agree, nothing brand new. but on that i think her new album will surprise a lot of people.

image wise, let me take rihanna for example, another female pop singer who has been around for a few years more than gaga. this is her circa 2006:

shes stepped up her image since the time gaga came out. completely changed everything, more elaborate image and performance, which is why i firmly believe that lady gaga is raising the bar for female pop singers today to be more expressive and creative with their performances and outfits, whereas before it would be the norm to just step out in a t shirt and jeans or some boring dress. what im trying to say is that yes now they are all trying to be groundbreaking 'concept driven' artists. but why? because of her. you may disagree but i think were in a new era of pop star now. not saying it was solely down to her but she definitely has had a major part in it. and it annoys me when people say that shes nothing new and not original etc, but any four piece band with dudes with guitars that bring nothing new at all to music but have a good album are fine. its just this common misconception that pop is low brow and everything has to be new and exciting. ftr, i think lady gaga is new and exciting anyway. hence the impact shes made.

and of course you would say people like david bowie and kate bush would be influential and ground breaking in pop music, but thats because theres been decades for people to break through in the industry that have been influenced by those artists. the people that grow up listening to lady gaga etc now are going to be the ones that are the musicians in the next 10 20 years, and then the pop stars of today will join the ranks of those legendary kind of artists... pretty sure it must have been the same in the "old days" as well. what im trying to say is that modern day singers will one day become OLD MUSIC, like youre talking about here.

[/essay]

for the first question, yes. by logical extension, i mean people are so used to artists trying to be shocking or overly/absurdly original that seeing lady gaga in a meat costume (then defending herself before anyone even criticizes her, which by extension gives herself the power to proclaim herself controversial which is just silly, but thats another topic) just comes off as gimmicky as opposed to groundbreaking. a major factor in what makes it not groundbreaking is the simple fact that her image is not a reflection of her music at all. i cant really prove it but it just seems like lady gaga is trying to fool people into thinking there's actual intelligence behind her music by wearing so called "outlandish" costumes. anyway, if you want weird costumes, ever heard of grace jones? (these are from the 70's by the way.)




imo all those costumes beat out anything lady gaga has wore on the weirdness scale. there's more you can google it.

anyway i didnt say since lady gaga pop singers have been trying to be concept driven and groundbreaking, i said theyve been doing that since the beginning of the pop star. the idea of a pop star is always changing, yes it's changed since she came around but no more than it has changed on average over the past 20 years. honestly no one's ever explained to me how lady gaga is different, they kinda just say it cause everyone's saying it. and no one argues about some "four piece band with dudes with guitars" being unoriginal because no one argues they are original in the first place. the only reason this whole "lady gaga original vs. unoriginal" argument exists is because there are vastly differing opinions. no one is arguing that the all american rejects are unoriginal cause ive never heard anyone try to claim they're groundbreaking and going to change guitar-based music as we know it. if there were people making that claim you could bet a lot of people would argue about how unoriginal they are.

i see your point about david bowie and kate bush being old, but even in their peek days in the 70's and 80's they were widely recognized as completely revolutionary pop icons. no one had the vastly changing persona of david bowie before, or his (at the time) outlandish costumes. i guess its true that lady gaga's career is young and could prove to be more than it is now, but with any musician, revolution comes down to the music itself anyway, and even if her costumes were highly original and outlandish, it wouldnt make up for the fact that her music could have come out of anyone.

[Judas]

yes i have heard of grace jones im not stupid, shes a legend. i think you underestimate my musical knowledge.

but this isnt about being weird. i think grace wore that stuff for the sake of being 'weird' but most of what gaga wears actually has some kind of concept behind it.

and on the meat dress, she didnt defend herself before she was critcized like you said. PETA were right on her case the minute she stepped onto the stage in it, and she only explaned it when asked by ellen degeneres.

It's certainly no disrespect to anyone that's vegan or vegetarian. As you know, I'm the most judgment-free human being on the Earth. It has many interpretations, but for me this evening it's [saying], 'If we don't stand up for what we believe in, if we don't fight for our rights, pretty soon we're going to have as much rights as the meat on our bones.'

it was mostly inspired by her attempt to repeal the dont ask dont tell law concerning gays in the military, which also leads me to how she is different than other pop stars of today.

im not claiming she is something completely new or original, because like you said her kind of thing has been done before, but 20 odd years ago. she is different in terms of the modern day pop star. why? because firstly her costumes - you said they arent representative of her music, isnt that her bringing something new to pop music? whether you like her image or not it is different. also, her involvement in political issues, such as the DADT law. you dont see female pop singers in her 'category' if you like, becoming active in that kind of thing.

"I write and I also create this amazing theatrical show with the visuals, art films, dance routines and the backing tracks. I love artists who have more to say than just the songs they are singing. I love Grace Jones, David Bowie, Elvis, The Beatles, and my big hero Andy Warhol. I model my methods on the way he used to work."

she isnt trying to be something brand new, shes trying to bring the theatrics and the showbiz back because somewhere down the line it got lost. gaga i think is just a modern representation of that kind of artist. if her music was similair to those kind of people it probably wouldnt be succesful in the charts anymore. theres a better quote from her that says what im trying to say better but i cant find it right now but i hope you get what i mean.

and onto the most important thing of course, the music. you said she is "fooling people into thinking there's actual intelligence behind her music", which is rubbish because there is. i totally get where youre coming from and i agree, but i definitely think there is more to her than the just dance, pokerface and bad romance that everyone knows. if you actually listen to all her music and specifically songs like brown eyes and speechless and even go on youtube and look up videos of her performing before she became 'lady gaga' there is a talented musician in there that hasnt had the opportunity to properly show the world that side of her yet. i dont actually think that her material thus far has been 100% the direction shes wanted to go in. it might sound crazy but heres my theory. i think she made that kind of music, that is radio friendly, chart hits, so that she can create the massive fan base she now has just to get everyones attention. now i think with her next album, born this way, from what ive heard anyway it sounds like its going to be far deeper lyrically, and more techincal musically if you get what i mean. she hasnt yet got the respect as a musician that i think she deserves and i cant wait for it to come out and i really hope she proves people wrong.

and to be fair i cant count the amount of times ive heard her branded a pop icon. could be too early to tell but i think she is going to be around for a long time yet and in ten years you might be eating your words. but shes popping up on all these most powerful musicians/celebrty and most influential lists etc, voted by people that know what they are talking about. she is a modern day pop icon. whether she will be remembered as one or not, who knows? i think she will.

[Faboosh]

i seriously love old music, can't beat a bit of the beatles, bowie or the clash..

[samsaBEAR]

I have missed this sort of thread on the music forum, it's so nice to see actual opinions and contructed arguments rather than WHATS YR FAVOURITE BAND LOLOLOL

[Judas]

I have missed this sort of thread on the music forum, it's so nice to see actual opinions and contructed arguments rather than WHATS YR FAVOURITE BAND LOLOLOL

yess im enjoying it as well

[immense]

this is like asking 'what do you think about history' - you can't generalise all 'old' music.

[Gina]

OMG Queen 3333
Adore em

[mr.tom]

well, it depends on the old music

old music isn't exactly a genre. I like a bit of queen but I'm not so keen on Wham! for example...

agree with whoever said they had more talent, too much technology is used to engineer songs recently instead of talent

[Judas]

agree with whoever said they had more talent, too much technology is used to engineer songs recently instead of talent

ridiculous statement. if that kind of technology existed in that time it would have been used like it is today.