The misunderstandings of the "ARTPOP" concept are hilarious

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

Really?

I thought ARTPOP was about possibilities, then again the message could be about putting art onto the soup can. Maybe it means ANYTHING? Or it could be about giving back the power to the artist. 

Or is it just an album made to sell? STREAM APPLAUSE ON A LOOP! 

Music not the bling maybe?

I'm going to go for a reverse Warholian Expedition...

lol thats why I put IMO. It can mean something else to you. Its just an opinion. Everyone has one and contrary to popular belief they are NOT facts.

[Kattys 4,319]

thanks for making whole thread basen on my quote and not even quoting... WITHOUT the part i was referencing to

[Kattys 4,319]

not giving fu.k about charts isn't part of "ARTPOP soul". so bye

[Creyk 16,836]

Gaga really needs to release LG5 already, we are going crazy crying over the AP era but it's not like there is anything else to talk about

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

You actually contradict your own statements in the OP. 

'Now they didn't actually succeed at that for the most part, because the songs would have been significantly better received by radio and the public if they were better produced and mixed (ala 1989) as opposed to being sonically jumbled and compressed-sounding, but that was due to rushed and unprofessional recording and mixing sessions, not artistic intention.'

The songs were intentionally produce and mixed to be an artist expression in pop music. The fact that you don't like the final outcome and perfer it to be more like 1989 which is produced to be a traditional pop album and not deviate in anyways artistically from the pop norm seems to contradict your statement. 

Gaga is playing with sounds and mixes that are not the traditional pop sounds in order to produce an ARTPOP concept that while being POP is also considered Art because it is outside the norm of what pop music is. She is trying to fuse two concepts that are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. No one is saying that she is the first to attempt to do this, but she did it convincingly through lyrical content and sound. 

You prefer your art to be either Bjork or Taylor and there is no room for a sound that tries to merge them both. Thats probably why you don't understand ARTPOP because to you music is only Art or pop and can't be both. People say if Gaga wanted ARTPOP to be experimental she should be more Bjork or Aka Twigs albums, but those albums are completely experimental and will never be pop music. Then here you say she should have produced and album to sound more like Taylor. Taylor sound( I like 1989) is pure pop and not really considered artistic. 

IMO ARTPOP was a message about both being Art and pop. She got it right. 

I didn't contradict myself at all. The mixes on ARTPOP didn't come out the way they were supposed to due to the rushed sessions and communication breakdowns between the engineering teams, this was confirmed by Gaga herself in one of her many interviews around the end of the era, along with PropaGaga. 

The singles came out right because they weren't as last-minute and they were actually being sent to radio. My point was simply that every song was meant to be a hit (her own words) but they would have succeeded at that to a greater degree if the production and mixing had been executed more professionally. This is a simple technical issue, not an artistic one. I'm certainly not implying that the album should have or was intended to sound like 1989, I merely used that as an example of how impeccable mixing and vocal engineering helps pop music to ascend to a higher level of commercial success, which was a primary goal with Gaga's album.

[VenusBlackStar 1,301]

There are moments where the "immersive 3d" sound that Gaga intended for the album shine through, mainly on the singles which were clearly given more care, and the title track to an extent (although this song still falls a bit flat). For the most part the album is poorly mixed to the point where stems are buried and jumbled and the vocals sound dissonant. And in regards to 1989 I'm not implying it's a brilliant album or anything, but from a standpoint of pop and commercial appeal (which is one of the main topics here) it's produced in a way where everything sounds pleasant and well-mixed, everyhing hits right and the vocals are exceptionally well-produced, all of which leads to a wider appeal. If 1989 was mixed by ARTPOP's engineers it would have fared much worse.

Sorry if I messed up the quote format and my posts are rambling, this is tough on mobile lol

You're fine. :)

I'll have to take a closer listen to some of the songs on the album. I've been listening to Venus, ARTPOP, MANiCURE, Dope, and G.U.Y. lately. Which tracks do you find to be poorly mixed? I'll listen to them and let you know what I think!

And I do agree with what you said about 1989. The arrangements of the songs help with the mixing too because they got less going on so the more prominent instruments have opportunity to fill more space and fill out the tracks' productions.

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

thanks for making whole thread basen on my quote and not even quoting... WITHOUT the part i was referencing to

sorry, I tried a few times to quote you in the OP but this site is hard to navigate on mobile. But I didn't leave out any relevant context.

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

You're fine. :)

I'll have to take a closer listen to some of the songs on the album. I've been listening to Venus, ARTPOP, MANiCURE, Dope, and G.U.Y. lately. Which tracks do you find to be poorly mixed? I'll listen to them and let you know what I think!

And I do agree with what you said about 1989. The arrangements of the songs help with the mixing too because they got less going on so the more prominent instruments have opportunity to fill more space and fill out the tracks' productions.

Yea, your last point in particular is relevant here. The two main issues with ARTPOP's mixing is that, one; there are numerous stems and layers in many of the songs that are jumbled and compressed sounding, meaning the individual instruments, synth lines etc. either don't pop enough, or they're almost impossible to hear in the first place through the wall of sound, and two; the vocals themselves are not that well engineered and on many songs they lack depth, while sounding as though they're either sitting on top of the track, or buried beneath it.

This is all just technical stuff though, I don't mind discussing it but I also could have left the mixing line out of the OP and the main point would have remained intact.

[djBuffoon 11,641]

 

lol Swine was safe... so was MJH...LOL and Aura was safe...LOL Jewels N' Drugs was safe. Dope was safe..... G.U.Y. was safe

not to mention "Venus" which adopts and fully embraces a bizarre and declaratory 1960s sci-fi sound. Or "Sexxx Dreams" which is seductively paced, densely worded, and doesn't seem to be in any rush getting to the chorus. These are not your average top 40 songs. 

Thats one of the many things I love about ARTPOP, it captures the balance of being ear-catching, fun, energetic, but still chock full of details and idiosyncrasies that definitely set it apart from the rest.

Calling it "safe" and "commercial" is not being fair at all, especially when you realize that Gaga's entire discography was meant to be enjoyed in the moment and also open to various interpretations. ARTPOP is no exception.

And as for the production, it's thick, it's busy, it's frenetic, and it sounds incredible on even the largest speakers. Case closed. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

I didn't contradict myself at all. The mixes on ARTPOP didn't come out the way they were supposed to due to the rushed sessions and communication breakdowns between the engineering teams, this was confirmed by Gaga herself in one of her many interviews around the end of the era, along with PropaGaga. 

The singles came out right because they weren't as last-minute and they were actually being sent to radio. My point was simply that every song was meant to be a hit (her own words) but they would have succeeded at that to a greater degree if the production and mixing had been executed more professionally. This is a simple technical issue, not an artistic one. I'm certainly not implying that the album should have or was intended to sound like 1989, I merely used that as an example of how impeccable mixing and vocal engineering helps pop music to ascend to a higher level of commercial success, which was a primary goal with Gaga's album.

But you are contradicting yourself in this very paragraph too.

"The singles came out right because they weren't as last-minute and they were actually being sent to radio."

"but they would have succeeded at that to a greater degree if the production and mixing had been executed more professionally."

So did she get it right or not?

Also you are mixing your ideas about what ARTPOP should be with her actual words on her tweet..

"The whole original idea behind ARTPOP (reinforced by her recent instagram post) was putting visual and performance art at the forefront through the delivery vehicle of commercial pop music," 

That was not reinforced by her recent twitter statements. What she actually tweeted was this...

ARTPOP = artistic revolution through the potential of pop. 

IMO opinion meaning Art through Pop. Thats why she delivered an "experimental pop" album. That phrase is an oxymoron within itself because they are so different. Otherwise she would have delivered an album full of just experimental music and not experimental pop music. She is doing "experimental pop" as a personal artistic expression and not as a way of charting. She is not claiming to be the first to do it and others are doing it too. But too say, like you did in the OP, 'Every song on the album, even the couple that deviated from Gaga's established formula (Aura and Swine) were produced with the intention of radio play and being hits,'  is not in right. They were produce as experimental pop not as generic pop hits for the charts. 

IMO Did she want the album to be successful...yes

IMO Was her entire intention only to make chart hits...no

Does the music sound like the production was not mixed properly? Well, that can be argued both ways. 

Also PropaGaga sounds like it belongs on a paws down site. JS 

 

 

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

But you are contradicting yourself in this very paragraph too.

"The singles came out right because they weren't as last-minute and they were actually being sent to radio."

"but they would have succeeded at that to a greater degree if the production and mixing had been executed more professionally."

So did she get it right or not?

Also you are mixing your ideas about what ARTPOP should be with her actual words on her tweet..

"The whole original idea behind ARTPOP (reinforced by her recent instagram post) was putting visual and performance art at the forefront through the delivery vehicle of commercial pop music," 

That was not reinforced by her recent twitter statements. What she actually tweeted was this...

ARTPOP = artistic revolution through the potential of pop. 

IMO opinion meaning Art through Pop. Thats why she delivered an "experimental pop" album. That phrase is an oxymoron within itself because they are so different. Otherwise she would have delivered an album full of just experimental music and not experimental pop music. She is doing "experimental pop" as a personal artistic expression and not as a way of charting. She is not claiming to be the first to do it and others are doing it too. But too say, like you did in the OP, 'Every song on the album, even the couple that deviated from Gaga's established formula (Aura and Swine) were produced with the intention of radio play and being hits,'  is not in right. They were produce as experimental pop not as generic pop hits for the charts. 

IMO Did she want the album to be successful...yes

IMO Was her entire intention only to make chart hits...no

Does the music sound like the production was not mixed properly? Well, that can be argued both ways. 

Also PropaGaga sounds like it belongs on a paws down site. JS 

 

 

Art pop (or Art Rock as it was first concieved in the 70's) is commercial pop music that has higher artistic aspirations than the average top-40 pop record. The songs were not convieved from the ground-up to be radio hits, but they were produced in a way that could potentially maximize their commercial viability while still retaining their artistic merit. This is literally how all of Gaga's music has been done since day-one, there's no reason for a distinction to be made with this album other than the fact that she sold the idea of Art Pop (which is a sub-genre and way of making music) as her entire album concept and title.

I understand perfectly well what the artistic intentions behind her music is, artistic intention and technical execution of said intention are two separate things, and I'm clearly discussing the latter not the former in reference to the mixing and engineering, which I only mentioned as an aside in the OP because it was relevant to my previous sentence. The technical execution and failings of the album aren't the driving point behind the thread in the slightest, which was about the fundamental misunderstanding of what Art Pop is as a subgenre and musical philosophy.

PropaGaga is a reliable insider. More people on the site should check them out cause it would save them from having 30-page speculation threads on whether Gaga is appearing at the vma's or not lol

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

 

not to mention "Venus" which adopts and fully embraces a bizarre and declaratory 1960s sci-fi sound. Or "Sexxx Dreams" which is seductively paced, densely worded, and doesn't seem to be in any rush getting to the chorus. These are not your average top 40 songs. 

That's funny you should say that since Sexxx Dreams was sped up on the album, so that it could reach the chorus faster and be more radio-friendly  

And yes of course they're not completely generic top 40 songs, but they're not very atypical of top 40 nor are they atypical for Lady Gaga. Having a 70's groove in your dance-pop song isn't remotely out of the ordinary and Gaga herself has done it tons of times. The only idea present on this album that was out of the ordinary for Gaga and for pop music was shouting over a European House beat (Aura), albeit even that was watered down for the final release.

Clearly there's a big distinction between what Gaga does and what Miley did with her new album, which is the comparison that spawned this thread.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

Ok so I am going to play a game. I am going to negate what you wrote in the OP with you own quote...

Art pop (or Art Rock as it was first concieved in the 70's) is commercial pop music that has higher artistic aspirations than the average top-40 pop record. The songs were not convieved from the ground-up to be radio hits, but they were produced in a way that could potentially maximize their commercial viability while still retaining their artistic merit. This is literally how all of Gaga's music has been done since day-one, there's no reason for a distinction to be made with this album other than the fact that she sold the idea of Art Pop (which is a sub-genre and way of making music) as her entire album concept and title.

I understand perfectly well what the artistic intentions behind her music is, artistic intention and technical execution of said intention are two separate things, and I'm clearly discussing the latter not the former in reference to the mixing and engineering, which I only mentioned as an aside in the OP because it was relevant to my previous sentence. The technical execution and failings of the album aren't the driving point behind the thread in the slightest, which was about the fundamental misunderstanding of what Art Pop is as a subgenre and musical philosophy.

PropaGaga is a reliable insider. More people on the site should check them out cause it would save them from having 30-page speculation threads on whether Gaga is appearing at the vma's or not lol

Ok...so now I see the where the problem. You are the one who is lacking in reading comprehension.

Your OP below:

This idea that some fans have about ARTPOP somehow not being for the charts, or being music purely from the soul/heart, is incredibly flawed and off-base. Again, ARTPOP was the opposite of not giving a **** about the charts.

The definition you gave of ARTPOP above:

Art pop (or Art Rock as it was first conceived in the 70's) is commercial pop music that has higher artistic aspirations than the average top-40 pop record. The songs were not convieved from the ground-up to be radio hits, but they were produced in a way that could potentially maximize their commercial viability while still retaining their artistic merit.

Now here I will define pop:

Popular music or music having wide appeal. In other words, it is music that maximizes commercial viability because it has wide appeal.

Now here I will replace the words "in a way that could potentially maximize their commercial viability" with is pop.

Art pop (or Art Rock as it was first concieved in the 70's) is commercial pop music that has higher artistic aspirations than the average top-40 pop record. The songs were not conceived from the ground-up to be radio hits, but they were produced in a way that is pop while still retaining their artistic merit.

Music produced in a way that could potentially maximize their commercial viability while still retaining its artistic merit. = ARTPOP

Music produced in a way that is pop while still retaining its artistic merit. = ARTPOP

Fundamentals of reading.  

Now here I am going to restate the parts of my prior comments.

The songs were intentionally produce and mixed to be an artist expression in pop music.

ARTPOP concept that while being POP is also considered Art because it is outside the norm of what pop music is. She is trying to fuse two concepts that are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. No one is saying that she is the first to attempt to do this, but she did it convincingly through lyrical content and sound. 

IMO Did she want the album to be successful...yes

IMO Was her entire intention only to make chart hits...no

IMO ARTPOP was a message about both being Art and pop. She got it right.

Has she done ARTPOP from the beginning of her career? Yes thats why her VMA's performance goes through the different looks in her career and in the cover art has the hair that made her a staple in ARTPOP culture. 

My opinions have not changed they were actually reinforced by your definition of ARTPOP / Artrock.

OK on to propaganda.

Propaganda is defined as:

1. Derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

My first assumption based on the actual definition of propaganda was that PropaGaga was a negative expression. I will check the site out. 

 

 

 

 

 

[TimisaMonster 31,073]

I don't agree that people are comparing Mikey to Gaga's vision of ARTPOP and how she would've executed the era...that's a lie

 

I also don't agree with you saying Gaga makes safe pop music...she had Judas AND Born This Way as singles...her most controversial singles to date off the same album AFTER Bad Romance. She takes risks musically as well...dance music wasn't popular when she came on the scene, talking about gay rights wasn't a thing until she came out with BTW, and trying to be deep and artsy wasn't a thing until ARTPOP came out...

Gaga is always doing the opposite of what's already being done and that's what makes her stand out and she's a trend setter 

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

Ok so I am going to play a game. I am going to negate what you wrote in the OP with you own quote...

Ok...so now I see the where the problem. You are the one who is lacking in reading comprehension.

Your OP below:

This idea that some fans have about ARTPOP somehow not being for the charts, or being music purely from the soul/heart, is incredibly flawed and off-base. Again, ARTPOP was the opposite of not giving a **** about the charts.

The definition you gave of ARTPOP above:

Art pop (or Art Rock as it was first conceived in the 70's) is commercial pop music that has higher artistic aspirations than the average top-40 pop record. The songs were not convieved from the ground-up to be radio hits, but they were produced in a way that could potentially maximize their commercial viability while still retaining their artistic merit.

Now here I will define pop:

Popular music or music having wide appeal. In other words, it is music that maximizes commercial viability because it has wide appeal.

Now here I will replace the words "in a way that could potentially maximize their commercial viability" with is pop.

Art pop (or Art Rock as it was first concieved in the 70's) is commercial pop music that has higher artistic aspirations than the average top-40 pop record. The songs were not conceived from the ground-up to be radio hits, but they were produced in a way that is pop while still retaining their artistic merit.

Music produced in a way that could potentially maximize their commercial viability while still retaining its artistic merit. = ARTPOP

Music produced in a way that is pop while still retaining its artistic merit. = ARTPOP

Fundamentals of reading.  

Now here I am going to restate the parts of my prior comments.

The songs were intentionally produce and mixed to be an artist expression in pop music.

ARTPOP concept that while being POP is also considered Art because it is outside the norm of what pop music is. She is trying to fuse two concepts that are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. No one is saying that she is the first to attempt to do this, but she did it convincingly through lyrical content and sound. 

IMO Did she want the album to be successful...yes

IMO Was her entire intention only to make chart hits...no

IMO ARTPOP was a message about both being Art and pop. She got it right.

Has she done ARTPOP from the beginning of her career? Yes thats why her VMA's performance goes through the different looks in her career and in the cover art has the hair that made her a staple in ARTPOP culture. 

My opinions have not changed they were actually reinforced by your definition of ARTPOP / Artrock.

OK on to propaganda.

Propaganda is defined as:

1. Derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

My first assumption based on the actual definition of propaganda was that PropaGaga was a negative expression. I will check the site out. 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol you're reaching way to hard to find a flaw in my comprehesion where there isn't one, there are no contradictions between my OP and the above post. Music that's intended for commercial success =/= music purely from the heart with no thought given towards commercial viability, it's that simple. That was my entire point. It doesn't matter if it's completely generic and uninspired pop music with zero inspiration, or if it's somewhat creative and inspired pop music that's geared towards commercial success while still retaining a degree of artistic credibility. If it's geared towards the charts it's geared towards the charts.