Your thoughts on the "Gaga is a gimmick" theory

[Emvee 8,392]

I thought Gaga met Starlight after getting dropped from Def Jam

I'm not entirely sure on the timeline, I think you're right, but the reason remains. She was already Lady Gaga when she was signed and subsequently dropped from Def Jam. She sang Beautiful, Dirty, Rich and Shake Your Kitty, not some Red and Blue song. And Lady Starlight remains bigger influence on Gaga's affinity for fashion and stage props, not an Interscope executive. And perhaps people want to say that if it weren't for Rob Fusari, Gaga wouldn'the be Gaga today, but what Rob and Gaga had was a partnership via her Father. Team Love Child. It was by no means a situation where a group of people "created" a character. 

http://ladygaga.wikia.com/wiki/Island_Def_Jam

These "theories" are made up my people who have no knowledge of Lady Gaga's history and lack the metaphorical and creative mindset of Gaga. They don't understand her theatrics, so the easy thing to believe is that it is all manufactured by a corporation. The irony is that the Gaga aesthetic only became a thing when Gaga grew in popularity and has disappeared from the likes of Katy Perry and Nicki Minaj now that "Gaga" is not a selling advantage. 

[Ronk 14,762]

Gaga is genuine, and she always has been.  And she is truly defined by her love, kindness, caring, and compassion.  She is determined to change the world for the better, any by just being herself and leading by her own good example her impact is spreading.

[gagzus 15,868]

​Kind of sad how uneducated you are about Gaga. Gaga has been dressing like the fame (minus the blonde hair) since she was 20 before she got signed to def jam. Def Jam just didn't like her style but Interscope did. This also shows that you weren't a fan back then because many people called Gaga "ugly" and "tranny robot". She was never conventionally beautiful and still isn't now which isn't a bad thing. 

I'm not uneducated I just have an opinion and theory on how she became famous bc she is not the same as she was back then neither in style nor personality or even mannerisms (which is a good thing) 

and also so what if I wasn't a fan then?  All I know is now everyone says she looked s-xier when she first started before she went "weird" in fall 2009 according to almost every person I ask from my friends to my lecturers at college 

[StrawberryBlond 14,846]

I hate it when anyone is referred to as a gimmick. It's so rude, it's one of the most de-humanising things you can say about a person. It's all very well to say that an artist's style, music or marketing is a gimmick but to say that they are, in and of themselves, a gimmick is going too far. I can be a harsh critic, don't get me wrong, but I couldn't bring myself to talk about a human being in such a de-humanising way.

Honestly, an artist should present themselves however they see fit at the time. If they want to be flamboyant, let them. If they want to strip it back and be natural, let them. An artist usually likes to change and make art according to their mood. Changing should not automatically result in them being called fake or selling out. I know what it's like to find an artist that makes just the right kind of music that does it for you and you want them to never change, but that's not realistic. If you think an artist should stay the same forever, you missed the whole point of art.