Is Gaga the most talented modern artist?

[Benji 20,113]

17 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

lol @ some of you naming random indie musicians as being better artists than Gaga. 

Sure some of them may produce better music, but they don't know how to make anyone listen. They're probably better musicians, but they are nowhere near Gaga in artistry.

Picasso wasn't the best painter, but he knew how to attract people and make them appreciate the art. He was an artist. 

Those random indie artists don't do that. They're the ones that draw pretty landscape drawings but don't actually know how to make people pay attention to what they have to say, except for the occasional pretentious "real music" seeker.

Gaga has the whole package. Music, presence, vocal ability, performance, gravitas, power, even message.

She utilizes them all effectively to create art that transcends into an experience, with influence Grimes and Co. can only dream of.

So McDonalds is better than anything you, your mumma and everyone else can cook right? I mean it's far more popular than any of that so it's better, right?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, Benji said:

So McDonalds is better than anything you, your mumma and everyone else can cook right? I mean it's far more popular than any of that so it's better, right?

Gaga is the McDonalds of the music industry now?

If you're going to try to make a clapback, try not to sound like an idiot.

[Benji 20,113]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Gaga is the McDonalds of the music industry now?

I didn't say that.

You basically acknowledged marketing, the job of the labels and the power behind it all... but this thread is about talent, not marketing.

I mean if we apply your theory to food, McDonalds is the best and to even suggest that anything else is better is for "real food" seekers.... which ironically makes sense.

[Benji 20,113]

6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

If you're going to try to make a clapback, try not to sound like an idiot.

Trust me, no one would hear my idiocy above the volume of yours in here.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

7 minutes ago, Benji said:

I didn't say that.

You basically acknowledged marketing, the job of the labels that make people starts and the power behind it all... but this thread is about talent, not marketing.

I mean if we apply your theory to food, McDonalds is the best and to even suggest that anything else is better is for "real food" seekers.... which ironically makes sense.

Where are you applying my "theory"?

I'm talking about the whole package here, not just ONE aspect.

Gaga has the whole package, from musicianship to everything else, and is interesting enough to be culturally influential.

It's amazing that you're attempting to equate Gaga to ****ing McDonalds, using "popularity" as the only criterion.

It's as if Gaga is nothing but a cheap pushed product in your eyes.

Oh and just as a side tip, no piece of artistic expression can stand on its own. To believe otherwise is naive. The name (and reputation) of the artist is just as important as their product, so don't diminish the importance of popularity in artistic worth.

[Benji 20,113]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Where are you applying my "theory"?

I'm talking about the whole package here, not just ONE aspect.

Gaga has the whole package, from musicianship to everything else, and is interesting enough to be culturally influential.

It's amazing that you're attempting to equate Gaga to ****ing McDonalds, using "popularity" as the only criterion.

It's as if Gaga is nothing but a cheap pushed product in your eyes

Well you're comparing indie work to popular work, so think. 

You're talking about the "whole package" yet you mainly chose popularity to outline because that's all you've got on your side.... funny that!

Reread the post you quoted for this for the answer to the rest of that! 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, Benji said:

Well you're comparing indie work to popular work, so think. 

You're talking about the "whole package" yet you mainly chose popularity to outline because that's all you've got on your side.... funny that!

Reread the post you quoted for this for the answer to the rest of that! 

Wait what? You're the one who's bringing up the McDonalds example using "popularity" as the criterion. That's what we're discussing here.

Are you honestly placing the burden of proof regarding Gaga's artistic merit on her ****ing fansite?

Ridiculous. It's as if you don't know how to shade.

[Benji 20,113]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Wait what? You're the one who's bringing up the McDonalds example using "popularity" as the criterion. That's what we're discussing here.

Are you honestly placing the burden of proof regarding Gaga's artistic merit on her ****ing fansite?

Ridiculous. It's as if you don't know how to shade.

What? Look at your first post

Literally, what are you on? I just questioned your theory that basically implied that "whatever is popular is better" ... You need to chill, my friend.

Also, what am I supposed to be trying to shade here?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

15 minutes ago, Benji said:

What? Look at your first post

Literally, what are you on? I literally questioned your theory that basically implied that "whatever is popular is better" ... You need to chill, my friend.

Also, what am I supposed to be trying to shade here?

...

I literally acknowledged that Gaga is not the best musician. That should immediately discount any notion on something being better due to popularity ALONE, a criterion you seem to be hanging on.

Your example of McDonalds is flawed because you're implying that Gaga provides music that is of low quality and value with the sole purpose of making money.

What makes Gaga stand out is that she is capable of creating works of musical, visual, and artistic merit in many different musical fields, while also managing to make people listen. That makes one a better artist overall than someone only capable of making good music in one specific field REALLY well.

Indie isn't a genre. It's simply music that is not popular. It doesn't make it inherently better, except for those who simply detest pop music and think anything that isn't popular is "real music". That's the point I was trying to get at.

It has some good musicians, just as there were many painters that made Picasso look bad. What makes him a better artist than his contemporaries? He was able to shift the perception of art and influence and inspire generations of painters. That ultimately makes him the better artist.

That's just how it is. If you wish to redefine what makes a great artist then go ahead. I suspect you'll find that history is not on your side. It doesn't remember the Katys and Rihannas either. Only the Michael Jacksons, Madonnas, and one day Gaga herself.

I suspect we're done here.

Good night.

 

[Benji 20,113]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Your example of McDonalds is flawed because you're implying that Gaga provides music that is of low quality and value with the sole purpose of making money.

Except Gaga wasn't your only example, you also mentioned Picasso.... I wasn't strictly referring to Gaga because you weren't either.

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

What makes Gaga stand out is that she is capable of creating works of musical, visual, and artistic merit in many different musical fields, while also managing to make people listen. That makes one a better artist overall than someone only capable of making good music in one specific field REALLY well.

Yeah, Gaga is great etc but you can't attribute her current popularity to just her. I mean would she be here without a label putting her out there and getting her working with pop music producers? You're comparing her to artists where some don't want to be even making pop music because of the restrictions... which Gaga herself has confessed are restricting her.

6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Indie isn't a genre. It's simply music that is not popular. It doesn't make it inherently better, except for those who simply detest pop music and think anything that isn't popular is "real music". That's the point I was trying to get at.

Yes, I know but it doesn't inherently make it bad or that the artist is less talented either, that is my point.

7 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

It has some good musicians, just as there were many paints that made Picasso look bad.

What makes him a better artist than his contemporaries? He was able to shift the perception of art and influence generations of painters. That ultimately makes him the better artist.

But is Gaga Picasso? Is she more like Picasso than her contemporaries?

I mean to break it down, she's an american girl that took Eurodance and put it on American radio after taking off her pants? Not to discredit her, I love her to bits but her impact is sketchy, especially now.

12 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

That's just how it is. If you wish to redefine what makes a great artist then go ahead. I suspect you'll find that history is not on your side.

Except we're not talking about remembered artists... we're talking about talent.

Ability to be remembered is not really linked to talent at all. I mean the Kardashians are going to be remembered for a while and the only talent there is marketing.

[Mast 980]

9 hours ago, vocalqueef said:

first of all i love you.

and what spoken word in GUY do you mean? That confused me

"Greetings Himeros..... and Mars' warm spirit rams into the atmosphere". 

The reason I like G.U.Y. so much is because there is literally a poem inserted into a bubblegum pop song, and it fits naturally. 

[Mast 980]

9 hours ago, vocalqueef said:

 

What? Lmfao.

You do realize that all the artists I've mentioned, that users here are calling "indie", are all signed to labels, right?

Their talent has been picked up by big labels, they just don't break into mainstream simply because we tend to push their genres aside. You mean to tell me that these songs are uninspired music?:

 

[Mast 980]

On 12/20/2015 at 7:28 PM, Enigma said:

She has co produced most of her songs. And fully produced Venus which I consider to be very good. Her direction in Marry The Night and Guy is also far more complex than any of her directors have ever done on her music videos.

She did NOT produce Venus by herself, she just didn't metion Madeon's involvement (plus Madeon and Monson both have producing credits on Venus). Madeon gave her pre-made stems and all Gaga had to do was piece them together. Also, directing is a lot easier than it sounds. What the final product looks like the job of the producer and editors, not the director. The director simply has a vision, and the camera crew, producers, and editors are the ones that make it come to life. It's THEIR job to make things look good. Although visually G.U.Y. was a good video, thank the producers, it had faulty direction. To name the biggest flaw, there were too many ideas and concepts for one video, even one as long as the short film. Everything in it was super rushed because of this, and we would get scene cuts every 3 seconds, which is a horrible technique if you want to retain audience. The video would have been miles better if Gaga had just dropped a few concepts, like the ****ing real housewives. They had no business being there and they single-handedly made the music video look like a joke.

[Mast 980]

2 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

lol @ some of you naming random indie musicians as being better artists than Gaga. 

Sure some of them may produce better music, but they don't know how to make anyone listen. They're probably better musicians, but they are nowhere near Gaga in artistry.

Picasso wasn't the best painter, but he knew how to attract people and make them appreciate the art. He was a truly great artist who managed to influence culture and inspire generations of painters.

Those random indie artists don't do that. They're the ones that draw pretty landscape drawings but don't actually know how to make people pay attention to what they have to say, except for the occasional pretentious "real music" seeker.

Gaga has the whole package... versatility, music, presence, vocal ability, performance, gravitas, power, message.

She utilizes them all effectively to create art that transcends into an experience, with influence Grimes and Co. can only dream of.

Some of those "indie" artists have had more grammy nominations than Gaga in the past 3 years and have opened with "main pop girl" sales, so 

 

[Mast 980]

2 hours ago, Ferrer Zorola said:

Excuse me but that's your opinion 
 

Did you not watch the video of Lalah Hathaway slaying every single vocalist out there? She made a room full of 30+ of the best musicians in the world cream their pants simply by singing. She just harmonized with herself LIVE. No effects or anything, she is so adept with her voice that she is able to split her notes into a triad and harmonize with herself. I'm so sorry, but that's more mind blowing than just about any performance Gaga can put on, and she did it just by standing there.